<%BANNER%>

Science Intervention Programs for Southern Black Students: A Cluster Evaluation and Two Proposed Models


PAGE 1

SCIENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS FOR SOUTHERN BLACK STUDENTS: A CLUSTER EVALUATION AND TWO PROPOSED MODELS By COURTNEY ANNE JOHNSON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003

PAGE 2

This dissertation is dedicated to all the children I have known and will know. This study reflects my commitment to you.

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my Creator, my merciful Father, the Lord Jesus Christ. I am grateful for the many blessings He has bestowed upon me. I thank God for my supportive doctoral committee. Their influence has allowed me to develop into the educator I am, and will become. Dr. Linda Jones, my committee chair, has motivated and encouraged me throughout my years at UF. Dr Rose Pringle, my mentor and listening ear, has guided me through the emotional roller coasters of my doctoral work. Dr. Sevan Terzian, a great thinker, provided the foundation I needed to be critical. Dr. Mary Jo Koroly cheered me on with her great excitement and kindness. I am forever grateful to these scholars. I truly appreciate Rebecca Penwell fo r her academic collaboration and her friendship. I also want to acknowledge th e many classmates and colleagues who, through the years, have supported me in various ways My fellowship with members of the Black Graduate Student Organization has been instru mental to me throughout the years, as they helped bring balance to my life. I am indebted to Bill and Melinda Ga tes, who funded me through the Gates Millennium Scholarship. I thank Thomas Alexander and Michael Bowie, whose Minority Education Scholarship supported my master’s years and doctoral summers. Without their financial suppor t, this would not have b een possible. I am very appreciative for the drive and assistance of the coordinators who represent the programs included in this study.

PAGE 4

iv Even before my undergraduate years, Dr Lynette Padmore urged me to find and pursue my passions. Her dedication to academ ia, commitment to me, and sophisticated intelligence inspired me years ago. I especially want to thank God for the l ove of Mom, Dad, Rosemary, Bert, all of my siblings, Damond, and Carmen. They we re there for me like nobody else has been. They endured my long conversations, extended silences, periods of joy, and moments of stress. They have allowed me to be myse lf, while bettering my self. I thank them immensely.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................2 Females and Minorities in Science...............................................................................4 Intervention Efforts.......................................................................................................6 Project 2061..................................................................................................................8 Purpose of the Study...................................................................................................10 Research Questions.....................................................................................................10 Delimitations...............................................................................................................11 Limitations..................................................................................................................12 Significance of the Study............................................................................................13 Assumptions...............................................................................................................14 Definition of Terms....................................................................................................14 Method........................................................................................................................1 4 Summary of the Chapters...........................................................................................15 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................17 Statistics on Women a nd Minorities in Science and Engineering..............................17 Gaps in Science Achievement and Attitudes toward Science....................................18 Gaps on Achievement Tests................................................................................19 Differences in Science Experiences....................................................................20 Differences in Science Teaching.........................................................................22 Cultural Contrasts in the Classroom...........................................................................23 The Need for Science Intervention Programs.............................................................27 National Industriousness and Economic Strength...............................................27 Group Goals and Democracy..............................................................................28 Science and Education.........................................................................................29 Research on Science Intervention Programs..............................................................30 Developmental Level of the Students..................................................................31 Inquiry Learning..................................................................................................32 Attitudes and Behaviors......................................................................................32

PAGE 6

vi Examples of Intervention Programs....................................................................33 Postsecondary Institutions and Intervention Programs...............................................35 Types of Intervention Programs..........................................................................36 The K-16 Model..................................................................................................38 3 METHODOLOGY & METHOD...............................................................................40 Research Questions.....................................................................................................40 Methodology...............................................................................................................41 Historical Development of Cluster Evaluation....................................................41 Description of Cluster Evaluation.......................................................................42 Cluster Evaluation and Other Forms of Evaluation............................................43 Status of Cluster Evaluation................................................................................45 Unique Application of Cluster Evaluation.................................................................46 Study Design...............................................................................................................48 Research Question #1.................................................................................................49 Identifying the Sample........................................................................................50 Collecting Data....................................................................................................51 Examining Data...................................................................................................58 Research Question #2.................................................................................................58 Program Objectives.............................................................................................60 Program Format...................................................................................................62 Program Location................................................................................................64 Participants..........................................................................................................66 Intervention Activities.........................................................................................68 Program Staff.......................................................................................................70 Research Question #3.................................................................................................72 4 RESULTS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION #1..........................................................73 Program 1—MidCom.................................................................................................74 Program Objectives.............................................................................................75 Program Format...................................................................................................75 Program Location................................................................................................76 Target Population................................................................................................76 Recruitment and Selection...................................................................................76 Intervention Activities.........................................................................................77 Staff Information.................................................................................................79 Financial Information..........................................................................................80 Program 2–Elchurch...................................................................................................80 Program Objectives.............................................................................................81 Program Format...................................................................................................81 Program Location................................................................................................81 Target Population................................................................................................82 Recruitment and Selection...................................................................................82 Intervention Activities.........................................................................................82 Staff Information.................................................................................................82

PAGE 7

vii Financial Information..........................................................................................83 Program 3—Enviroyear..............................................................................................83 Program Objectives.............................................................................................84 Program Format...................................................................................................84 Program Location................................................................................................85 Target Population................................................................................................85 Recruitment and Selection...................................................................................86 Intervention Activities.........................................................................................86 Staff Information.................................................................................................88 Financial Information..........................................................................................89 Program 4— SumSpace..............................................................................................89 Program Objectives.............................................................................................90 Program Format...................................................................................................90 Program Location................................................................................................91 Target Population................................................................................................92 Recruitment and Selection...................................................................................92 Intervention Activities.........................................................................................92 Staff Information.................................................................................................92 Financial Information..........................................................................................93 Program 5— SpringSat...............................................................................................93 Program Objectives.............................................................................................94 Program Format...................................................................................................94 Program Location................................................................................................94 Target Population................................................................................................94 Recruitment and Selection...................................................................................95 Intervention Activities.........................................................................................95 Staff Information.................................................................................................95 Financial Information..........................................................................................95 5 RESULTS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION #2..........................................................97 Program Objectives....................................................................................................98 Analysis...............................................................................................................98 Evaluation............................................................................................................99 Program Format........................................................................................................100 Analysis.............................................................................................................101 Evaluation..........................................................................................................101 Program Location.....................................................................................................102 Analysis.............................................................................................................102 Evaluation..........................................................................................................103 Target Population and Recruitment/Selection..........................................................104 Analysis.............................................................................................................105 Evaluation..........................................................................................................105 Intervention Activities..............................................................................................106 Analysis.............................................................................................................107 Evaluation..........................................................................................................107 Program Staff............................................................................................................108

PAGE 8

viii Analysis.............................................................................................................109 Evaluation..........................................................................................................109 Overall Evaluation of the Cluster.............................................................................110 Gaps in Program Emphasis...............................................................................111 Insufficient Use of Community Sites................................................................112 Meager Intervention Strate gies for Younger Students......................................113 6 RESULTS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION #3........................................................114 Model #1...................................................................................................................114 Program Objectives...........................................................................................115 Program Format.................................................................................................116 Program Location..............................................................................................116 Target Population and Recruitment/Selection...................................................117 Intervention Activities.......................................................................................117 Program Staff.....................................................................................................118 Discussion..........................................................................................................119 Model #2...................................................................................................................120 Program Objectives...........................................................................................121 Program Format.................................................................................................122 Program Location..............................................................................................122 Target Population and Recruitment/Selection...................................................123 Intervention Activities.......................................................................................124 Program Staff.....................................................................................................127 Discussion..........................................................................................................127 Conclusion.........................................................................................................129 7 CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................131 Discussion.................................................................................................................132 Limitations of the Study...........................................................................................136 Implications..............................................................................................................138 Identification and Description...........................................................................139 Cluster Evaluation.............................................................................................140 Standards for Science Intervention....................................................................141 Two Models.......................................................................................................142 Recommendations.....................................................................................................143 APPENDIX A STUDY DESIGN MATRIX.....................................................................................145 B 42 PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN GEORGIA, MARYLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND WASHINGTON, D.C..............................................................146 C PROGRAM COORDINATOR QUESTIONNAIRE (PCQ)....................................149

PAGE 9

ix D DATA ANALYSIS TOOL.......................................................................................150 E SCIENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN SOUTH CAROLI NA, GEORGIA, MARYLAND, AND WASHINGTON, D.C...............................................................................................153 F COMPLETED DATA ANALYSIS TOOL..............................................................156 G INFLUENCE OF THE CLUSTER ON MODEL #1...............................................159 H INFLUENCE OF THE CLUSTER ON MODEL #2...............................................160 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................161 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................167

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy SCIENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS FOR SOUTHERN BLACK STUDENTS: A CLUSTER EVALUATION AND TWO PROPOSED MODELS By Courtney Anne Johnson May 2003 Chair: Linda Cronin-Jones Major Department: Teaching and Learning This study investigated science interventi on programs for Black students in South Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland. The sample consisted of five programs that aim to increase the participation of Blacks in science via afte r-school, Saturday, and summer experiences. These long-term programs of fered a variety of experiences, including hands-on science activities, contact with me ntors and role models, exposure to sciencerelated careers, and opportunities to incr ease science content knowledge and improve science process skills. Artif act data, a Program Coordinato r Questionnaire, site visits, and interviews were used to identify and describe five existing science intervention programs for Black students. The study proposed a set of standards for science intervention programs for Black students. These standards addressed eight components of programs, including objectives, format, location, target popul ation, recruitment and selec tion, intervention activities, staff, and financial information. Using a modi fied approach to cluster evaluation, the five

PAGE 11

xi programs were compared to the standards. This evaluation revealed the strengths and underlying weaknesses of the cluster that info rmed the development of two models for future science intervention programs. Though implemented in numerous ways, th e cluster’s strengt hs included sound, measurable objectives; articulation of program objectives to staff, participants, and parents; frequent contact dur ing sessions; the potential fo r continuous involvement of staff and participants; the inclusion of a ra nge of student achievement levels; programs that served their target group; the repres entation of various co mmunities, neighborhoods, and schools; effective recruitment strategies; financially inclusive programs; a variety of intervention activities; intensiv e training for staff; and subs tantial staff compensation. Three major shortcomings of the cluste r were identified as inadequate focus on science-related careers and science process skills; poor use of communities as sites for doing and seeing science; and meager interven tion strategies for younger students. These shortcomings perpetuated underlying ine quities of knowledge and power, despite the well-intended science intervention efforts. This study identified and described se veral science inte rvention programs, developed standards for implementing and ev aluating science intervention programs, and proposed two models for future programs. In light of current efforts to make science for all students by the year 2061, the valu e of these contributions is high.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Traditionally, it has been believed that knowledge is power (Sleeter & Grant, 1991). Science is knowledge, thus science is power. For years, science has been the domain of White men, and has been deemed hard, complex, and only for the most intelligent. Under this premise, if the holders of science knowledge (i.e., White males) have power, then those wit hout the knowledge (i.e., women and minorities) are powerless and subject to oppressi on (Baptiste, 1989). In recent years, American society ha s noticed the underrepresentation of women and minorities in the quantita tive sciences. The systemic vices (i.e., tracking, apathetic teachers, unprepared teachers, ill-equipped classrooms, poor funding) leading to this underrepresentation have also been acknow ledged (Atwater, 2000; Chenoweth, 1999; Clark, 1999; Oakes, 1985; Slate & Jones, 1998). Those in power have realized the damage this unequal participation can do to the United States—r educing the nation’s competitive edge—and consequently have ple dged to make science accessible to all students (Miller, 1995; Rutherford & Ahlg ren, 1990). A number of intervention programs has been established to increase female and minority participation in the sciences. These programs attempt to reach the untapped potential along the educational pipeline with the hopes that these groups will eventually choose science-related careers. A study of intervention programs for girls and minorities found that most programs do not exist in the regi on of the country (i.e ., the South) that houses the majority of the U.S. Black population (Clewell, Anderson, & Th orpe, 1992b). If the fewest intervention

PAGE 13

2 efforts occur where most Black students live, cl early a great deal of science potential is being overlooked and left untapped. Accord ing to the 2000 U.S. Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001), the South remains the region of th e country with the highest percentage of the Black population. The South Atlantic sub-region (Delaware, Maryland, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolin a, South Carolina, Ge orgia, and Florida) contains a larger portion of Black people than any other sub-region in the South. Within the South Atlantic, Washington, D.C. (60%), South Carolina (29.5%), Georgia (28.7%), and Maryland (27.9%) have the largest proportio ns of Blacks relative to their individual populations. These three states and the Dist rict of Columbia c ontain 42 publicly funded universities, nine of which ar e historically Black. State un iversities have a fundamental interest in the state’s populace to produce as many thinkers, creators, educators, and researchers who ideally will remain in the st ate, and a mission to make education more accessible to the public. Recently, this has involved more community interaction and outreach, some of which has been in the fo rm of science intervention programs for minority students. An investigation of sc ience intervention progr ams for Black students that are administered by state universities in the South can provide insight into the meanings of current efforts to make science for all students. Statement of the Problem Knowledge is central to pow er. Knowledge helps us envision the contours and limits of our existence, what is desirable and possible, and what actions might bring about the possibilities. Know ledge helps us examine relationships between what is ethical and what is desirabl e; it widens our experiences; it provides analytic tools for thinking through questions situations, and problems. Empowering knowledge centers on the interest and aims of the prospective knower. Apart from the knower, knowledge has no intrinsic power. (Sleeter & Grant, 1991, p. 50)

PAGE 14

3 The above quote illustrates the treme ndous effect of knowledge. If knowledge yields power, then those who understand and generate new knowledge are endowed with much power. This scenario applies to all forms of knowledge, including science knowledge. Baptiste (1989) argues that scien ce knowledge is socially distributed in U.S. classrooms, thus providing one group of stude nts (i.e., White males) access to power and its benefits, while other groups (i.e., minor ities and females) remain powerless and subject to oppression. Historically, science in the United States has been described as a White male endeavor. The sciences, particularly math ematical sciences, have been deemed as selective and elitist in nature. This excl usivity has resulted in monolithic answers to common questions about science— What is science? Who does science? What counts as science knowledge? Ever sinc e the Russians launched Sputnik in the 1950s, the United States has realized its scie ntific/technological vulnerabi lity (Carin & Bass, 2001). Subsequent international tests in math a nd science continue to expose the country’s inability to be a top academic competitor with other developed nations (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.a; n.d.b). This prompted the scientif ic and educational communities to recognize the untapped scientific potential found in women and minorities, as well as the systemic vices (i .e., tracking, apathetic teachers, ill-equipped classrooms, poor funding) leading to the underr epresentation of these groups (Atwater, 2000; Chenoweth, 1999; Clark, 1999; Oakes, 19 85; Slate & Jones, 1998). A pledge to make science literacy for all, introduced in Science for All Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990) and subsequently described in Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993), has resulted in a

PAGE 15

4 number of intervention programs designed to increase female and minority participation in the sciences. Females and Minorities in Science Despite the emphasis on science for all stude nts, minorities and females continue to be underrepresented in science (Catsamb is, 1995; Clark, 1999; Kahle & Lakes, 1983; Oakes, 1990). The reason can be described in terms of a game. To play any game, it is necessary to understand its rules. Those players who lack an understanding also lack an equal opportunity to win the game. Female s and minorities have an unfair disadvantage because they neither helped establish nor unde rstand the rules associ ated with the game of science. To win (or at least have a ch ance to win) females and minorities must learn and understand the rules (Monhardt, 2000). Teachers have the task of teaching the rules to their students, but the task becomes comp licated by a number of factors. Clewell, Anderson, and Thorpe (1992a) view these fact ors as barriers to female and minority participation in the sciences that include ne gative attitudes and pe rceptions of science, poor academic performance, insufficient cour se and extracurricular participation, and limited knowledge of related professions. Gender differences in attitudes toward science begin to appear during middle school and become fixed by the end of high sc hool (Oakes, 1990). Boys are more likely than girls to consider science useful and a pplicable to everyday life (Kahle & Lakes, 1983). Furthermore, sixth grade girls tend to have fewer experiences with, and less interest in, science than boys, particularly the physical sc iences (Jones, Howe, & Rua, 2000). These circumstances may be a cause of the performance anxiety found in female science students. Interestingl y, although eighth grade girls scor e significantly higher than boys on science achievement tests, they hold mo re negative attitudes toward science than

PAGE 16

5 their male counterparts (Catsambis, 1995). St udents’ participation in science-related extracurricular activities strongl y indicates their interest in science. Among all students, African American student s report the highest levels of participation in extracurricular science activities (Catsambis, 1995), despite lo w scores on science achievement tests. Other studies (reported in Kahle & Lakes, 1983) note the low partic ipation of African American and female students in extracurric ular science activities. These achievementattitude contradictions of females and minorit ies indicate that the development of gender and race/ethnicity differences in attitude s toward science occu r independently of achievement levels. These studies suggest that a phenomenon may be occurring in schools to discourage positive attitudes toward science among females and minority students. Mondhart (2000) describes the common pr actice of grouping minority students together and negatively labeling them. In 1996, 29% of high school classes with few minority students were labeled low ability, wh ile 42% of high school classes with at least 40% minority students were labeled low abili ty. Though most teachers are female, 92% of science teachers in grades 7-12 are White, 5% are African American, and 3% represent other ethnicities (Bradley, 1997). These stat istics may seem meaningless without a consideration of the cultural baggage t eachers bring to science classrooms. Differential treatment in the way science content is presented in daily instructional activities exists in U.S. schools (Atwater, 2000; Contreras & Lee, 1990; Kahle, Parker, Rennie, & Riley, 1993). Teachers of high pe rforming students allow their students better access to science content by spending a critic al amount of time on in structional activities, presenting relatively more content knowle dge, and offering support and attempting to

PAGE 17

6 motivate students. On the other hand, t eachers of low performing students reportedly spend more time dealing with classroom mana gement issues (Contreras & Lee, 1990). African American boys make up a dispr oportionate number in academically lesschallenging classes, while White students largely populate more-challenging classes (Catsambis, 1995). Furthermore, minority students face unqualified science teachers more than their White counterparts. Teach ers with low expectations of their Black students consciously and unconsci ously impart these perceptions, which in turn lead to students’ low expectations of themselves. This self-fulfilling proph ecy results in a group of students who believe they ar e unable to learn the rules of the science game (Monhardt, 2000). The dearth of female and minority science role models (e.g., teachers, older students, and scientists) furt her compounds the problem by in adequately illustrating the achievements of females and minorities in science. Consequently, student-centered intervention programs aim to relieve the bur dens that minimize female and minority participation in the sciences. Intervention Efforts Student-centered intervention efforts incl ude in-school, after school, weekend, and summer programs. These programs target a number of grade and achievement levels, and focus on any combination of science skills, knowledge, careers, and attitudes: “Since intervention programs [arise] out of the r ecognition that formal education [fails] to address the problem of low minority and female representation in [science] careers, it is logical that the programs [utilize] approaches somewhat different from those of the traditional educational system” (Clewell, A nderson, & Thorpe, 1992a, p. 13). Clewell et al., (1992a) have conducted the on ly comprehensive review to date of science, math, and technology intervention programs for female and minority students in grades four

PAGE 18

7 through eight. Of the 163 programs throughout th e U.S. that satisfied their criteria, 54% targeted both females and minorities, wher eas 13% and 33% target only females and minorities, respectively. Sixty-seven percent of the programs actually served female students, while 88% served minority students. Of all ethnic groups, Blacks (83%) were served more than any other group. The vast majority of the programs (64%) focused on science, math, and technology, while 17% of the programs focused on science only. The study found a positive relationship between increasing grade level and number of programs. As grade level increased from four to eight, more programs existed. The geographic distribution of the intervention programs within th e U.S. was interesting. The West [had] the greatest number of progr ams (30%) followed by the Northeast (28%), then by the Central states (24%), and the S outheast (18%). The top five states for programs were [California, New York, Geor gia, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.]” (Clewell et al., 1992b, p. 211). While the pr eponderance of science intervention programs in some states/regions and the de arth of programs in others cannot be explained, it is clear that Black and Native American students remain underserved by current efforts (Clewell et al., 1992b). The variety of current efforts to increa se female and minority participation in science classes and science-re lated careers can be viewed as bandage approaches that merely aim to quiet concerned voices wit hout actually changing the sociocultural structure that nurtures the c onditions to allow for underrepres entation. On the other hand, intervention efforts can be perceived as good faith efforts to reverse the ills of marginalized females and minorities in science.

PAGE 19

8 Project 2061 In an effort to reform U.S. science, mathematics, and technology education, the American Association for th e Advancement of Science ( AAAS) initiated Project 2061. This project was designed to help the nati on achieve science literacy for all Americans (AAAS, n.d.). The long-range effort began in 1985, the last time Comet Halley visited the earth’s vicinity. The goals of the initiative are to be accomplished by the year of Comet Halley’s next visit, year 2061. Realizing that all Americans are not sc ience-literate and that U.S. students consistently rank poorly on inte rnational science a nd mathematics exams, Project 2061 is based on the following convictions (AAAS, n.d.): (a) all children need and deserve a basic education in science, mathematics, and technology that prepares them to live interesting and productive lives ; (b) world norms for what represents a basic education have changed in response to the growth of scientific knowledge a nd technological power; (c) U.S. schools have not taken enough steps to prep are young people—especially minority children—for a world shaped by scie nce and technology; (d) systemic changes in the kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) educational system will have to be made to achieve science literacy for all American s; and (e) reaching a clear understanding of what constitutes science literacy is the first step to achieving that goal. As a long-term initiative, Project 2061 ha s three phases (AAAS, n.d.). The already completed Phase I established a conceptual base for reform. Science for All Americans the product of Phase I, defines the scien ce knowledge, skills, and attitudes that all students should gain as a result of thei r K-12 matriculation. Panels of renowned scientists, mathematicians, and engineers worked together to develop this book. Phase II, scheduled to end in 1992, devised a variety of science literacy curri culum models to be

PAGE 20

9 used by school districts and states. Phase II also described the char acteristics of other areas that supplement the new curricula, such as teacher education, testing policies and practices, technology and new ma terials, the organization of schooling, state and local policies, and research. This phase involved collaborative work between scientists and educators, and resulted in so-called bluepr ints for reform. The final phase involves various affiliations (i.e., scie ntific societies, educational organizations and institutions, and other groups) working to transform the bl ueprints into educational practice. Equity issues remain major challenges in the quest for science literacy for all Americans (AAAS, 1997). Reformers seek to make science understandable, accessible, and even enjoyable for all K-12 students. Traditionally, while all students had been expected to learn reading and math, scie nce had been accessible only to privileged students. Groups of students who are curren tly underrepresented in science classes and science-related careers include females, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, American Indians/Alaskan Natives, students with disabilities, and English language learners. Additionally, socioeconomic status largely affects students’ achievement in school. As a result, Project 2061 believes: “Y oung people of all abilit ies, ethnicities, and backgrounds will be less likely to participate in math and science if they express low confidence in their abilities to master mathematics and scienc e and to succeed in careers requiring these skills; if they value success and participation in these fields less than they value success and participation in other fi elds; if they do not enjoy mathematics and science; and if they experience a nons upportive environment for learning mathematics and science, either in school or at home. Ther efore, it is particular ly important to remedy these conditions for groups that are alr eady underrepresented in mathematics and

PAGE 21

10 science” (AAAS, 1997). As funding agencies and government entities dole out monies to create programs and services to make science for all, they require formative and summative evaluations of those endeavors. To date, no individual or organization has attempted to evaluate the progress of the overall initiative as it relates to science intervention for Black students. Purpose of the Study This study was designed to investigate existing, publicly administered science intervention programs for elementary through high school Southern Black students. Using data from print materials, site vi sits, questionnaires, an d interviews, the study identified implicit patterns that represent the nature of efforts to achieve the goal of Project 2061—science literacy for all. The e xploratory nature of th is study precluded any attempts to generalize the results to pr ograms other than the ones represented. Additionally, the study utilized the strengths and w eaknesses of existing science intervention programs to inform the developmen t of two models for new and/or modified programs. This study investig ated science intervention prog rams for Southern Blacks as represented by the five programs in the clus ter. Additional res earch is required to corroborate the findings of this study, particularly as they pertain to other science intervention programs and the larger initiative, science for all. Research Questions The research answered the following questions: 1. What science intervention programs do Southern state universities offer Black elementary through high school students in an effort to make science for all? a. What are the objectives of the programs? b. What are the formats of the programs? c. Where do the programs occur? d. What populations do the programs target?

PAGE 22

11 e. How are participants recruited and selected? f. What types of interven tion do the programs provide? g. How do the programs train and compensate staff? 2. What does a cluster evaluation of existi ng science intervention programs reveal about their intent and efforts? 3. How can existing programs inform th e development of models for science intervention programs for Black students? Delimitations The research focused on science intervention programs targeting elementary, middle, and/or high school minority students, and serving primaril y Black students. Programs that incorporate math, technology, or ot her subjects in addition to science were included in the sample. The target popul ation included science intervention programs administered by the 42 public universities in Washington, D.C., South Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland. These states are part of the South Atlantic sub-region, which contains the largest proportion of Black pe ople in the South. The sample consisted of five programs in South Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland. Th ese five programs comp rised a cluster that was evaluated to determine the underlying mean ings of science inte rvention in the South and to inform the development of two mode ls. The exploratory nature of this study precluded any attempts to generalize th e results to programs other than the ones represented. Because they suggest a sustai ned effort to effect change, continuous programs, not isolated efforts, were cons idered. Continuous programs included yearround intervention, school year efforts, a nd long-term (more than one week) summer programs. Examples of efforts that were excluded include those whose prominent activity consisted of competitions, fairs, guest speakers, or field trips and endured for a one-time or short-term (one week) basis. Inclusion in this st udy did not hinge on the funding for intervention being pr ovided by the university. Fe deral, state, and private

PAGE 23

12 funding agencies offer grants to researcher s and educators nationwide. Hence, the opportunity to establish intervention pr ograms for minorities remains an option independent of the university’s fi nancial status. This gave th e study external validity. The American Association for the A dvancement of Science (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990) described the impetus to ma ke science for all before the year 2061. Efforts to replicate this study before 2061 should result in comparable findings. If, after the deadline, the focus of science education shifts, the attention of science intervention programs similarly will shift. Therefore, the reliability of the study remains intact as long as the goals of science education fa il to undergo dramatic changes. Limitations The research was limited by the parameters of the investigation. Due to the types of programs studied, intervention efforts of ot her types may have been overlooked. Only programs that claim to target minorities were considered. Consequently, programs that claim to target other groups or no group in particular, but actually served minorities were not acknowledged. Due to the nature of this study, only programs administered by public universities were included. Intensive Internet searches f acilitated the in vestigation. Intervention programs without web sites and those not ac knowledged on a university web site were not identified, and were thus excl uded. Variation in the program coordinators’ participation affected the quality and quant ity of information collected. While some coordinators shared information freely and made themselves available for additional queries, others provided minimal assistance. These limitations may have resulted in various levels of program de scription and a negative portra yal of current attempts to make science for all. The particulars of each intervention program varied with the needs, wants, and interests of the local communities th ey served. A lack of control of some of

PAGE 24

13 these program characteristics, as well as the personality of each program, threatened the internal validity of the research. Significance of the Study A cluster evaluation of existing programs presents new contributions to a dialogue among researchers, theorists, and practitioners Two research-based models for science intervention programs for minorities and an evaluation of existing programs offer new knowledge to the relevant field of study. Rather than assuming the effectiveness of science intervention programs for Black students, this study provides evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of these programs. A cluster evaluation reveals stre ngths and weaknesses, as well as their underlying premises. As these ideas co me under scrutiny, an argument emerges regarding the nature of the efforts to make science for all. The network of science intervention programs can be deemed as good fa ith efforts, bandage attempts, or some intermediate approach based on the analysis. The ensuing judgment contributes to the ongoing conversation about academic equity an d equality and systemic reform among educational theorists, research ers, and practitioners. Research indicates that most interventi on programs are the result of educated intuition rather than research on how student s learn and methods that work for minority students (Clewell, 1987). The proposed m odels arise from accepted research and empirical evidence. The development of m odels based on existing programs allows for the strengths of the programs to be matched and balanced. Applications of cluster evaluation, a s till-evolving approach, remain limited because of its current status. This study’s us e of cluster evaluation will contribute to its

PAGE 25

14 use and to subsequent analyses of the appro ach. This study’s signifi cance to the field of science education is undersco red by its contribution to th e field of evaluation. Assumptions The research takes for granted the following assumptions: The intervention programs aim to increase student achievement in science and/or improve student attitudes toward sc ience and science-related careers. The program participants (st udents and staff) are willi ng participants and without intentions to hinder th e success of the program. The science for all initia tive, highlighted by Projec t 2061, is a large developing project that subsumes existing sc ience intervention programs. Definition of Terms The study utilizes the following terms as described below: Program administrator – public university that implements the science intervention program, regardless of the funding source Program coordinator – individual who manages a nd/or operates the science intervention program; usually a ffiliated with the university Science for all – the goal of current efforts to transform American science education from an elitist system into an inclusive system that seeks to reverse the current underrepresentation of certain groups of students (i.e., females, African Americans and other racial/e thnic minorities, and students with disabilities) in science classes and sc ience-related careers Science intervention program – a continuous effort (i.e., in-school, after school, weekend, or summer) that targets elementa ry, middle, and/or high school minority students, serves primarily Black students, and attempts to increase any combination of science skills, knowledge, attitu des, or career awareness Method The study targeted science interven tion programs administered by the 42 universities in Washington, D.C., Georgia, Maryland, and South Carolina. The sample included five programs in Georgia, Maryla nd, and South Carolina th at were identified through extensive Internet sear ches, a review of the relate d literature, and communication

PAGE 26

15 with various personnel at the target universi ties. These personne l included faculty and staff in science, engineering, and education colleges/departments and offices of outreach, public service, continuing education, and minor ity recruitment. Preliminary information was collected through Internet and literature explorations until personal communication with the program coordinators was initiat ed. Some program coordinators provided additional information via a Program Coordina tor Questionnaire. Site visits to two programs and interviews with program partic ipants and staff supp lied qualitative data, such as observations of program implementati on and student and staff perceptions of the programs. The collected data were used to descri be the phenomenon of science intervention programs in the South. A modified cluster evaluation facilitated the examination and interpretation of the data. The strengths a nd weaknesses of the investigated programs and a review of related literature contributed to the developmen t of two models for science intervention programs for Southern Blacks. Further details of the methodology of the study are provided in Chapter 3. Summary of the Chapters While this chapter contains a description of the problem and its significance to the field of science education, Chapter 2 provides a review of the releva nt literature. Subheadings within the literature review include gaps in science achievement and attitudes toward science, cultural cont rasts in the classroom, the need for science intervention programs, research on science intervention pr ograms, and postseconda ry institutions and intervention programs. Chapter 3 details th e research design and methodology. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 report the results of Research Qu estions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. A summary

PAGE 27

16 of the results, implications, and recomme ndations for future studies on science intervention programs are presented in Chapter 7.

PAGE 28

17 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW A study of science intervention programs fo r Black students would not be complete without an adequate review of pertinent litera ture. The following discussion highlights research in the areas of statistical data regarding women and minorities in science and engineering, gaps in science achievement and attitudes toward science, cultural contrasts in the classroom, the need for science intervention, research on science intervention programs, and postsecondary institutions a nd intervention programs. The “gaps in science achievement and attitudes toward sc ience” section contains three sub-sections— gaps on achievement tests, differences in sc ience experiences, and differences in science teaching. The “need for science intervention programs” section focuses on national industriousness and economic strength, gr oup goals and democracy, and science and education. “Research on science interven tion programs” considers the developmental level of students, inquiry lear ning, and attitudes and behavior s. In addition to sharing examples of science intervention programs the section details various types of intervention programs, including private initiatives, school-col lege collaborations, federal and state-supported intervention, and academic outreach. The section concludes with an explanation of the K-16 Model. Statistics on Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering Participation of women and minorities in science can be correlated to their precollege and college enrollment, as well as th eir involvement in the science workforce. The report Women, Minorities, and Persons with Dis abilities in Science and Engineering

PAGE 29

18 (National Science Foundation [NSF], 1998; NSF, 2000) presen ted relevant statistical data. Although women comprise 51% of the U.S. population and 46% of the workforce, they are only 22% of scientists and engineer s (NSF, 1998). While Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans represent 23% of the U.S. population, they comprise approximately 6% of scientists and engi neers (3% Blacks, 3% Hispanics, less than 1% Native Americans). Asians, though only 3% of the U.S. population, comprise 10% of the scientists and engineers in the U.S. (NSF, 1998). Between 1985 and 1995, minorities showed increases in the percentage of bachelor’s degrees earned in science and engineering. Blacks represen ted 7% of all science and e ngineering bachelor’s degrees awarded to U.S. citizens (up from 5%). Hispanics improved from 4% to 6%, while Native Americans earned 0.6% (up from 0.4%). During the same time period, women remained constant (near 38%) until the per centage of U.S. science and engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded to women r eached 46% (NSF, 1998; 2000). Examining the representation of women and minorities in science (and engineering) throughout the educational pipeline as well as in the work force can provide insight on how gaps in participation can be alleviated. Gaps in Science Achievement and Attitudes toward Science In the United States, females and minorities traditionally have been underrepresented in the sciences particularly the quantitat ive sciences. In April 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Educ ation released its groundbreaking report, A Nation At Risk which described the inadequacies of the American educational system as a whole. Though this report did not focu s on any one discipline, it spurred a number of reform efforts in many disciplines. Al so in 1983, the Task Force on Education for Economic Growth issued a report, Action for Excellence which focused America’s

PAGE 30

19 attention on the issues of ur ban high schools and the minority students they serve. This report motivated urban school reform effort s. The National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Scie nce, and Technology released a report in 1983 that called for a number of programs to supplement formal education in mathematics, science, and technology. The midto late 1980s ushered in a wave of reform efforts and reports in science edu cation. By 1988, a report by the Task Force on Minorities, Females and the Handicapped in Science acknowledged the presence of science intervention efforts but described th em as being too sparse and underfunded to realize their full potential. Since thes e reports, and others, the problem of underparticipation of females a nd minorities continues to pl ague science education. Gaps on Achievement Tests Kahle and Lakes (1983) analyzed the re sults of the 1976-77 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The NAEP, a standardized test administered to 75,000 to 100,000 students aged 9, 13, 17, and 26-35, te sts knowledge in a number of academic disciplines. The researchers searched for da ta relevant to females and science, and excluded results from the 26-35 age category. Kahle and Lakes (1983) discovered what they termed the “myth of equality in scienc e classrooms.” Essentially, girls have fewer experiences in science, which leads to a lack of understanding about the uses of science. This results in negative attitudes towa rd science and scie nce understanding, and ultimately to a lack of participation in scie nce as a career. Kahle and Lakes (1983) found that at age nine, girls have very positive att itudes toward science. As girls continue to age, their attitudes toward science become increasingly negative. The researchers purported that the girls’ lack of science experiences (or obs ervations) directly affected their attitudes toward science.

PAGE 31

20 Anderson (1989) also analy zed the results of the 1976-77 NAEP. She, however, focused on the data as they pertain to scie nce and African American high school students (age 17). She noted an attitude-achieveme nt paradox among Black students. Despite their positive attitudes toward science, they did not fare well on standardized science achievement tests. The results of current nati onal and international science tests, such as the NAEP and the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) and Third International Math and Science Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R), indicate that achievement gaps between Black and White and male and female students still exist (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], n.d.a; NCES, n.d.b ). On the 1996 NAEP, male and female students in grades 4 and 8 received simila r scores; however in grade 12, males scored higher than females. White students earne d higher average scores than Black and Hispanic students in all three grades (O ’Sullivan, Reese, & Mazzeo, 1997). Middle and high school girls continually sc ore lower on science achieveme nt tests than their male counterparts though minimal science achievement gaps exist between elementary girls and boys. Differences in Science Experiences Catsambis (1995), Oakes (1985), Kahle and Lakes (1983), and Steinkamp and Maehr (1984) reported that male/female di fferences in science achievement do not emerge until the middle school years. Howeve r, once they emerge they remain fixed. Researchers attribute this to a lack of rela ted science experiences from which girls can draw and then form connections to classroom science. Despite Steinkamp and Maehr’s (1984) findings that girls are more positively oriented toward chemistry (a physical science) than boys, females typically fare worse in the physical sciences. Clewell, Anderson, and Thorpe (1992a) indicated that mi nority students perform at lower levels in

PAGE 32

21 science than White students as early as age ni ne. Scores on interna tional tests, such as the TIMSS and TIMSS-R, and national exam s, including the NAEP, offer confirmation (NCES, n.d.a; NCES, n.d.b; O’Sullivan et al., 1997). Additionally, the greatest difference in minority/White ac hievement occurs in the physic al sciences. Minorities and females enroll in fewer advanced science cour ses, especially in physical sciences. Compared to males and Whites, females and minorities show less understanding of science content, inquiry, a nd science-technology-society issues (Anderson, 1989; Kahle & Lakes, 1983; O’Sullivan et al., 1997). Thes e data illustrate the need for efforts to increase the performance of females and mi norities in U.S. science classrooms. Steinkamp and Maehr (1984) conducted a me ta-analysis of the empirically based literature regarding gender and motivational orientations toward science. Coincidentally, much of the literature was published betw een 1981 and 1983, during the time of the science education reform rush (Weinbur gh, 1995). Steinkamp and Maehr (1984) found that girls are more motivated in school-bas ed science. They explained school-based science as those subjects (e.g., chemistry, bi ology, and botany) that students learn more readily at school. In other words, students ar e more likely to have educative experiences with chemistry in a formal setti ng such as school, than in an informal setting such as play. On the other hand, boys are more motivated in science subjects (e.g., physics) with which they are likely to have had experiences outside of school. Additionally, Steinkamp and Maehr (1984) reported that girls from disa dvantaged communities have more positive attitudes toward, and hi gher achievement in, science than th eir male peers, and that boys from advantaged communities have more pos itive attitudes toward science than their female peers. The researchers concluded that because science is associated with school,

PAGE 33

22 and school success is deemed a feminine quality in disadvantaged communities, girls fare better than boys. For privileged youth, scie nce bears a masculine image; therefore boys benefit, while girls maintain low interest and in most cases, low achievement. Oakes (1985) described the masculine imag e of science and the perception that girls find science boring, hard, and difficult to understand. This view of science can best be exemplified by the popular Draw-A-Scientist test (Chambers, 1983) in which students, when asked to draw a picture of a scientist, draw an old White male with a baldhead or messy hair, eyeglasses, and a lab coat. The la ck of diversity in the illustrations reflects the homogenous image of scientists in the minds of American children. Differences in Science Teaching Contreras and Lee (1990) c onducted an average of 30 cl assroom observations of two science teachers in different contexts. They observed one Black female and one White male middle school science teacher. Each teacher was responsible for one enriched class (primarily White students) a nd one mainstream class (mostly minorities). The researchers noted that the White male teacher clearly differentiated his pedagogy by race. To his enriched class he presented science as a useful, thoughtful endeavor to solve relevant problems. His student s were involved in hands-on e xperiences and discussions. His attention was on the content and its applic ations. He afforded each student in the enriched class an opportunity to participate in a science field trip. To his mainstream class, on the other hand, the White male teacher presented science as seatwork and just another school subject. His students did not participate in hands-on experiences and he reserved the field trip for the most we ll-behaved students. His attention was on classroom management. The Black female instructor, however, presented a different perspective of teaching science. She nur tured her students both academically and

PAGE 34

23 personally, and provided to both classes hands -on experiences and fu ll access to the field trip. She found that she made more efforts to motivate her mainstream students simply because they perceived themselves as ordinary, not highly capable students. Just as classroom teachers differentiate their behavior based on race, they also differentiate based on gender. Tobin and Gallagher (1986), among other researchers, found that boys receive more teacher-attention than girls in science classrooms. Teachers are more likely to respond to boys’ call-outs more frequently; call on boys more often; offer assistance to boys more than to girls; a nd more closely monitor boys. This lack of attention in the science classr oom leads girls to substantiate Oakes’ (1985) findings of the masculine image of science. Additionally, while doing group activities, boys are more likely to take the lead—handling the mate rials, manipulating equipment/instruments, observing, and talking about the science phenom ena—while girls are often relegated to the tasks of taking notes, answering worksheet questions, and cleaning. Cultural Contrasts in the Classroom Historically, the specifics of educatio nal reform have been devised with mainstream students (i.e., White, male, averag e to above-average performance) in mind, with the conjecture that they can be trickl ed down to non-mainstream contexts. Because these efforts fail to consider the perspectives of diverse learners, including alternative notions of knowledge and culture, they rarely succeed in providing an equitable education for all students (Rosebery & Warren, 1999). Instruction generates or maintains a cultural context that influences the extent to which a student learns. The basis of this influence lies in the congruity or incongruity between the culture of instruction and the student’s culture (Aikenh ead, 2001; Parsons, 2000). Norman, Ault, Bentz, and Meskimen (2001) describe urban science classr ooms as cultural interf ace zones, in which

PAGE 35

24 teachers and students from diverse backgrounds and viewpoints must interact to achieve a common goal. The authors’ perception of urban science classrooms, however, may be extrapolated to include any classroom that houses teachers and students from different circumstances. According to Cobern, “In modern America, a primary goal of science education is the development of a scientific worldview, espe cially with regard to scientific ways of thinking” (as cited in Lynch, 2000, p. 73). Wo rldview, the underlying organization of the mind that directs one’s thoughts and feeli ngs, supports rationality and influences conceptions of norms and values. A typical st udent gains exposure to a variety of science worldviews as depicted in the school curri culum, science textbooks, science education reform efforts, peers, parents, and teachers A student’s conflict with the worldviews of science presented in school may predispose him to difficulty in science classes. On the other hand, a student may be favorably inclined to the notions of science presented in school (Lynch, 2000). The ability of a student to excel in science depends, considerably, on the negotiation between the ha bits of mind associated with the worldview of Western science and the habits of mind associated with th e student’s worldview. Differences of perspective result in t eachers deeming poor and minority students as “off-topic, confused, concrete rather than ab stract in their thinki ng, magical rather than logical, lacking essential voca bulary, and not scientific in how they [approach] problems, how they [use] language, or in their unde rstanding” (Rosebery & Warren, 1999, p. 8). These misunderstandings can be attributed to discrepancies between the cultural philosophies of White Americans and those of Black Americans, particularly several focal values as descri bed by Parsons (2000).

PAGE 36

25 As described by Parsons (2000), White Amer icans tend to subscribe to the notions of mind-body dualism, a materialistic concepti on of reality, individualism, and a workrelated use of time. Black Americans embrace concepts of spirituality, harmony, affect, communalism, expressive individualism, and a social perspective of time. Mind-body dualism, the idea that the mind and body can be and should be separate d, gives rise to a set of dichotomies including subject-object and affective-cognitive. This rationalist perspective views affect, or the expression of emotion, as disruptive to the process of making effective decisions. Mind-body dualism, a facet of White cultural philosophy, opposes the value placed on emotions and feelings by Black cultural philosophy (affect). The materialistic conception of reality accepte d by White Americans suggests that all elements within the universe possess a natural, mechanistic order that accounts for an objective, static reality regardless of the pers pective from which it is viewed. The Black cultural viewpoint, however, values spirit uality and harmony (Parsons, 2000). These facets acknowledge how a supreme being, in addition to other elements of life, influences reality and fate. While White cultural philosophy recognizes i ndividualism as the basic human unit, Black Americans place a premium on co mmunalism and expressive individualism (Parsons, 2000). Simply stated, individua lism favors a person who is separate, independent, and distinct from others. Communalism prefer s social interdependence and responsibilities rather than individual benefits. Expr essive individualism acknowledges one’s unique character and genuine personal expression. According to Parsons (2000), White Americans consider time a commodity, thus recognizing its value only when it can be translated into personal gain or use. Black Americans, on the other hand, view time as

PAGE 37

26 a “social phenomenon marked by human intera ction and by the even t shared by others” (Parsons, 2000, p. 212). Other facets of Bl ack cultural philosophy include movement (intermingling ideas of rhythm and percus sion), verve (preferring intense, lively stimulation), and orality (favor ing oral/aural communication). These cultural contrasts, when present in science classrooms, yield differences in Black and White teacher and student interactions and expectations. Manifestations of the previously discu ssed cultural differences between Black students and their White teachers and peer s can account for gaps in behavioral interpretations and achievement. Morg an (1990) found that Black middle school students appeared more pee r-oriented and socially interactive than their White counterparts. Consequently, Black students were more lik ely than White students to initiate peer-contact. These communalis tic experiences may be misconstrued as disruptive to a teacher who does not provide social and interdependent instructional activities. Heath (1982) descri bed the sociolinguistic characte ristics of Southern Blacks. She found that Black working-class adults embraced a storytelling environment. Children who took initiative became welcome in to the conversation, and earned approval through imaginative talk with dramatic expr ession. Additionally, working-class Black adults tended to ask their children “what is it like?” (analogy) questions. Middle-class White adults, though, expected more direct, specific responses from their children. Traditionally, classrooms operate on teacher-c ontrolled oral discourse. The teacher chooses the topic, and decides who talk s and when. Students speak only with permission—one person at a time (Miller, 1995 ). A discrepancy exists between the socio-linguistic traditions of Blacks and the nature of traditional classroom discourse.

PAGE 38

27 Students who have difficulty negotiating be tween the cultures of home and school struggle against teachers who do not even realiz e that such negotiati ons transpire. A science classroom under these conditions can provide the recipe for misfortune. The Need for Science Intervention Programs The need for intervention programs in science is a direct consequence of socioeconomic issues in U.S. education and fa ilures in science classr ooms. Concerns for the nation’s industriousness and competitivene ss, economic strength, realization of group goals, the maintenance of American democrac y, and educational equi ty support the need for science intervention programs. National Industriousness and Economic Strength Miller (1995) and Johnson (1992) descri bed similar motivations for science intervention programs. They discussed th e implications of the 1950’s launch of the Russian satellite Sputnik. After that major ev ent, and in the wake of international math and science achievement tests, the United St ates’ vulnerability became apparent. The nation realized its lack of academic competitiven ess ultimately led to decreased scientific and technological capabilities, which placed it in grave danger of not being a leader among the “industrialized nations club” (Mille r, 1995, p. 6). Finding sources of untapped science potential meant encouraging the par ticipation of underrepr esented groups, hence the birth of science intervention programs. Miller (1995) further described the need for two major groups of people in any industrialized nation—the educat ed elite and the well-educat ed general population. The educated elite consists of those individua ls who possess the expe rtise and knowledge to create, modify, or discover scientific and technological advancements. The educated elite, also known as the advancers, re mains a relatively small proportion of the

PAGE 39

28 population. The general populati on, on the other hand, comprises the vast majority of the nation’s people. The well-educated general pop ulation, or appliers, serves to apply the advancements of the elite to daily life. Th e challenge lies in ba lancing the knowledge of the elite with that of the ge neral population. Contributions of the advancers that far exceed the knowledge base of th e appliers lead to inefficien cy, ineffectiveness, and lack of success on the part of the nation. The need exists for science in tervention programs to heighten the education of the general populat ion and increase the pool of the educated elite. Group Goals and Democracy Johnson (1992) and Miller (1995) both offe red benefits for increased participation of females and minorities in science. Thes e groups remain most underrepresented in areas of study that most affect them. Exampl es include health care, biomedical research, and environmental issues. Encouraging minor ities and females to enter science-related careers provides a variety of ne w perspectives to research que stions. Issues of well-being that had previously been a ddressed from a White male pers pective gain attention from minorities and females. This affects the overa ll welfare of those gr oups. Additionally, as females and minorities become more visible in historically underrepresented fields, they may feel a greater sense of re sponsibility to maintain and in crease their visibility. As their contributions increase and their partic ipation becomes noticeable, more females and minorities may consider careers in science. This group self-edificati on also allows each group to realize the fulln ess of its recently won civil rights. Johnson (1992) argued that science inte rvention programs increase female and minority participation in the sciences. Gain s in knowledge and representation eventually lead to gains in power, and ultimately to entry into the decision-making process. Females

PAGE 40

29 and minorities who continue to struggle to ta ke advantage of their civil rights find easier access as their science knowledge/power increases. John Dewey’s (1944) image of the Great So ciety—one that fosters participatory democracy—can be realized through the e ffects of science intervention programs, according to Miller (1995) and Johnson (1992) Dewey (1944) envi sioned a society in which every individual participat es in the social, political, and cultural life, and strives to maintain the ideals of democracy. Inequities in the current situation prevent the full participation of each individual. Disparitie s in the science achievement and experiences of minorities and females when compared to th e cultural majority and to males remain an obstacle to the Great Societ y. Miller (1995) and Johnson (1992) recognized science intervention programs as efforts to attain equity and parity. Science and Education Atwater (2000) distinguished equality and equity. She defined equality as “the state of being the same,” and equity as “the state of being fair or just” (Atwater, 2000, p. 155). The U.S. educational system fails to provide equitable oppor tunities for minorities and females to achieve success in science. Equal opportunities do not address the inability of minorities and females to begin at the same level. Atwater (2000) highlighted unfair funding/resources, unprepared teachers, and apathetic teach ers as sources of inequity. Schools in disadvantaged neighbor hoods tend to serve minority students more than schools in wealthier neighborhoods. Interestingl y, poorer schools receive less funding for science supplies; tend to have more inexperienced or improperly trained teachers; and subscribe to Haberman’s (1991) pedagogy of poverty—one that views the core functions of urban teaching as giving information, asking questions, giving directions, making assignments, monitoring seatwork, reviewing assignments, giving

PAGE 41

30 tests, reviewing tests, assigning homewor k, reviewing homework, settling disputes, punishing noncompliance, making papers, and giving grades. This type of pedagogy is “sufficiently powerful enough to undermine the implementation of any reform effort because it determines the way pupils spend thei r time, the nature of the behaviors they practice, and the bases of their self-concepts as learners. Essentia lly it is a pedagogy in which learners can ‘succeed’ without becoming either involved or thoughtful” (Haberman, 1991, p. 292). As teachers gain experience, they tend to prefer suburban schools (with fewer minority students than urba n schools). This relegates inexperienced teachers to the schools that need the most skil led instructors. The attitudes and behaviors of students who have been conditioned to the pedagogy of poverty by previous teachers disenchants excited, new inst ructors who quickly revert from their constructivist pedagogy to one more familiar to their students. Because most standardized tests previously focused only on math and reading skills, science instruction rare ly occurred throughout the el ementary school years. As states begin to mandate science asse ssments, and as President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2002), which will eventually include science, comes to fruition, the need for scie nce interventions will increase. Research on Science Intervention Programs Clewell, Anderson, and Thorpe’s (1992b) comprehensive study of 163 science, mathematics, and computer science interv ention programs that targeted minorities and females in grades four through eight revealed an interesting fact—the developers of most intervention programs do not consider major phi losophies or theories when creating their programs. Instead, they rely on what Clewe ll (1987, p. 99) termed “educated intuition,” empirical data on what works in similar program s, and years of trial-and-error in search

PAGE 42

31 of the right fit. This process creates a wi de array of interventi on program models that bear common characteristics. Clewell ( 1987) described intervention as those programs that aim to achieve a goal or goals the school has been unable to reach. Universal traits of academic intervention programs include (Clewell, 1987): Operating separately from the school sy stem (although they may include in-school components). Targeting a particular group or groups of students. Focusing on a specific educational issue ra ther than the entire realm of problems specific to the target group(s). Considering the needs and intere sts of the target audience. Maintaining student-centeredness, rather than teacher-centeredness. Offering a range of activities and experiences that aim to addre ss various aspects of the targeted educational issue. Arranging the activities so that all participants experience some level of success. Through their investigation of numerous sc ience intervention pr ograms, Clewell et al (1992a) identified underlying educational and developmental theories. Despite the lack of acknowledgement of these theories by the program devel opers, the researchers note three complementary relationships—developm ental level of the students, benefits of inquiry learning, and the relationship between attitudes and behaviors. Developmental Level of the Students Science intervention programs span the educational pipeline. While the first intervention programs primarily focused on high school and undergraduate students, today’s programs include elementary and middle school as well (Clewell, 1987). Each segment of the educational pipeline demands certain needs. Consequently, program coordinators must consider th e developmental needs of the st udents they wish to serve.

PAGE 43

32 The cognitive theory proposed by Inhelder and Piaget (as cited in Clewell, 1987) describes the mode of thinking most pr evalent in schoolchildren—concrete. By presenting science concepts as concrete, through examples, hands-on experiences, and observations, then gradually moving towa rds the abstract, intervention program participants can gain an unders tanding of concepts. Additi onal researchers, including Bandura and Dorman (as cited in Clewell, 1987) acknowledged adolescents’ need for social interaction, role models, and cooperative learning situations. Inquiry Learning Taba and Suchman (in Clewell, 1987) pres ented models of i nductive thinking and inquiry learning that benefit st udent learning. Both types of models “are concerned with the ways people handle stimuli from the envi ronment, organize data, identify problems, generate concepts and soluti ons to problems, and employ verbal and nonverbal symbols” (as cited in Clewell, 1987, p. 11) The inquiry approach serves as an effective approach to intervention in that it requires disciplined independence. Examples of models of inquiry include rational (involves student/teach er discussions), free discovery (student has limitless access to the materials with which to manipulate), guided discovery (teacher uses questioning to direct the materials’ mani pulation to a certain e nd), and experimental (student follows specific steps in problem solving) (Clewell, 1987). Most intervention programs encourage active participation in the learning process through hands-on, inquiry experiences (Clewell, 1987). Attitudes and Behaviors Bem’s Theory of Self-Perception underlies many science intervention programs (as cited in Clewell, 1987). According to Bem, a student with positive personal experiences with a phenomenon (in this case, science) wi ll gradually begin to view that phenomenon

PAGE 44

33 through a rose-colored lens. In other words, as students participate in science, their attitudes toward science grow more positive. Intervention programs offer varied experiences—such as hands-on activities, field trips, and guest speakers—that aim to nurture positive student attitudes, and even tually lead to increased participation in science. Mentors and role models provide additional positive reinforcement for the above-named science experiences. Program developers seem to heed Be rryman’s (1983) suggestion that science intervention programs that target females fo cus on fostering more positive attitudes toward science first, then deal with achi evement and that intervention programs for minorities focus on achievement while nurturing the students’ already positive attitudes toward science. Examples of Intervention Programs Programs such as Project SPLASH! (Murphy & Sullivan, 1997) that target minority females in grades 7-9 incorporate cooperative learning and non-competitive situations. Project SPLASH! involves a cooperative venture between Washington University and Heritage College (located on a Native American reservation). Participants spend three weeks at one of the campuses experiencing hands-on science activities related to water and wave activity. During the fourth week, students from both campuses work together on educative, theme-related act ivities. The minority female participants, most of who are African American and Hispanic work in social situations and avoid the competitiveness and stereotypes perpetuated by their male peers. Interestingly, few opinions have been offered regarding the focus of programs designed with minority females in mind. Should attitudes toward sc ience or science achievement be addressed first? Project SPLASH! appears to consider both by offering scie nce stimulation in a

PAGE 45

34 comfortable environment. The use of hands-on activities related to common yet commonly unstudied phenomena (i.e., water a nd wave activity) supports student-centered inquiry learning. Project Interface (Clewell, 1989), an Oa kland, California science intervention program, fosters tutoring/mentoring relations hips between local community college and high school students. Based at Allen Te mple Baptist Churc h, Project Interface incorporates heavy parental pa rticipation as well. Each co mmunity college student works with small groups of high school students to in crease their achievement in school science. Additional activities include so cial functions, field trips, and guest speakers. Though Project Interface does not utilize an inquiry model, it aims to increase achievement via academic tutoring. The personal relationships developed serve as positive reinforcement, in accordance with Bem’s theory (as cited in Clewell, 1987). The location of Project Interface serves as a key fact or in the effectiveness of th e program. Housing Project Interface within the students’ community demy stifies science as an endeavor only for the elite. This, to a certain degree, removes sc ience from the metaphorical pedestal that has long kept minorities and females from full participation. Although Project Interface does not provide any hands-on science activities, its presence in the local community, rather than at a nearby college or uni versity, remains a huge step. Broward County, Florida’s Saturday/Summer Science Academy targets highpotential urban high school stude nts who are not currently enro lled in college-preparatory courses (Crawley, 1998). The program offers a comforting situation for students who may feel out of place while at school because of their motivation for academic success. The five-week summer component incorporates hands-on science experiences to increase

PAGE 46

35 students’ proficiency and knowledge of expe rimenting skills, science content, and science-related careers. The Saturday component provides additional support and relevant activities during the school year. Students who particip ate in the Academy throughout their four years of high school ear n dual enrollment cr edits at the local community college, as well as Advanced Pl acement credits. The Academy, therefore, hones in on students’ concerns for their fu ture while extending a supportive social network. Despite the varied formats of science in tervention programs, key characteristics that are common to intervention can be id entified. Though the particular needs of minorities and females have been recognized in current research, little discussion of intervention strategies for minority female s has been offered. Nonetheless, through educated intuition, reliance on empirical ev idence, and trial-an d-error, science intervention programs have made great strides. Postsecondary Institutions and Intervention Programs In a 1966 study of nearly 600,000 students, James S. Coleman reported two major findings related to the educational attainment of minority students: (1) these minority children have a serious educational deficiency at the start of school, which is obviously not a result of school; and (2) they have an even more serious deficiency at the end of school, whic h is obviously in part a result of school. Altogether, the sources of inequality of e ducational opportunity appear to lie first in the home itself and then cultural influe nces immediately surrounding the home; then they lie in the schools’ ineffectiveness to free achievement from the impact of the home, and in the schools’ homogeneity, which perpetuates the social influences of the home and its environs. (pp. 72-74) This report is said to have shaped the Great Society legislation of the mid-1960s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the El ementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and the Higher Education Act of 1965, in that it aimed to improve the condition of

PAGE 47

36 education for minority students both in school and out of school. The legislation attempted to balance the resources of schools and the opportunity to access these resources, as well as to improve the academic achievement of minority students through a variety of support services and programs. A historical dichotomy exists between el ementary and secondary institutions and postsecondary institutions. Si nce the mid-19th century, prim ary and secondary education have been compulsory and viewed as fundame ntal to the civic and economic survival of the United States. Postsecondary schooling, on the other hand, has been considered elective, selective, and e litist (Fenske, Geranios, Keller, & Moore, 1997). Types of Intervention Programs The past 20 years have ushered in a “vast, uncoordinated proliferation of programs” designed to ease the elementary/secondarypostsecondary gap for disadvantaged and underrepresented students (Fenske et al., 1997, p. 1). These intervention programs offer financial assistance and encouragement to needy youth, their families, and their communities. With funds from federal, state, local, and benevolent sources, intervention programs attempt to develop seamless transi tions from elementary to secondary to postsecondary education. Four categorie s (private initiatives, school-college collaboration, federal and stat e-supported intervention, and academic outreach) span the six types of intervention progr ams currently in existence. These six types include: (a) programs established by charitable organiza tions, (b) federally supported programs, (c) state-sponsored programs with matching fe deral support, (d) en tirely state-supported programs, (e) systemic changes involving sc hool-college collaborat ions, and (f) college or university-sponsored progr ams (Fenske et al., 1997).

PAGE 48

37 Private initiatives. Private foundations, in cluding the Ford Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, and DeWitt Wallace-Readers’ Di gest Fund, continue to support intervention programs (Fenske et al., 1997). Grants awar ded to public and private colleges, school districts, and educational or ganizations and associations fund projects that include mentoring, counseling, financial assistance, and academic training for students. Recently, the number of privately funded initia tives has decreased perhaps due to adverse changes in tax laws and an increase in fede rally funded intervention programs (Fenske et al., 1997). School-college collaborations. School-college collabo rations began as a major component of the educational reform movement of the 1980 s. These collaborations range from short-term, K-16 programs with sp ecific aims to systemic changes that involve seamless transitions through the educ ational pipeline. Pa rtnerships between postsecondary and elementary/secondary instit utions “recognize demographics of the student population and the need to target e fforts toward minority and at-risk students traditionally underserved by either institution” (cited in Fenske et al., 1997, p. 36). Systemic changes include broad issues such as teacher and administrator preparation and the allocation of funds and resources. Federal and state-suppo rted intervention. The involvement of the federal government in intervention programs most not ably includes the TRIO programs (Upward Bound, Student Support Service, Talent Sear ch, and the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program). With the exception of the McNair program, which targets minority students, these programs se rve students from low-income households. Each involves some combination of summer enrichment programs, Saturday activities,

PAGE 49

38 college/career counseling, and financial assi stance. TRIO programs operate under the auspices of the Department of Educati on on over 1,200 college and university campuses (Fenske et al., 1997). Statesupported intervention program s generally aim to increase high school graduation rates, incr ease enrollment of at-risk students in math and science courses, prepare high school graduates for caree rs and/or college, and encourage in-state college attendance (Fenske et al., 1997). Georgia’s HOPE program serves as an example of a state-supported intervention. Academic outreach. Academic outreach programs, usually administered by colleges or universities, represent an expans ive mix of intervention programs. Academic outreach can pursue nearly any goal and be initiated by any institutional unit including a college, department, center, program, or i ndividual. Funding for outreach programs can be obtained from a variety of sources. Some academic outreach programs focus on recruiting and preparing students to pursue a specific discipline, such as science or math, and others offer a broader view of co llege preparation and readiness. The K-16 Model School-college collaborati ons, a burgeoning theme since the early 1980s, demand systemic change as schools and universitie s work together to address issues of educational accountability. The disappointing results of the A Nation At Risk report (National Commission on Excellence in Educ ation, 1983) catalyzed the K-16 model as a means to improve the academic achievement of American students when compared on an international level. College and university -sponsored intervention programs benefit both the students they serve and the host institu tions. While the students gain enhanced educational opportunities, the inst itutions create a system to recruit and prepare potential matriculants. Colleges and uni versities that examine the intervention efforts that directly

PAGE 50

39 affect their institution can then develop programs to close service gaps and avoid unnecessary duplication. An in teresting paradox exists between the institutions’ need to serve their local areas and the compet ition between an institution’s academic departments. The drive for each department to recruit a diverse sample of students from a limited local population lessens cross-campus coordination of intervention efforts (Fenske et al., 1997). Consequently, the se lf-interest of any one academic unit far outweighs the collective interests of all th e units (i.e., the college or university). Additionally, finding a single source of inform ation about all the academic intervention programs offered by one university proves to be a difficult task.

PAGE 51

40 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY & METHOD The study was designed to investigate the underlying meanings of existing science intervention programs for elementary through high school Southern Black students. Using data from print materials, site vi sits, questionnaires, an d interviews, the study identified implicit patterns that represent the nature of efforts to achieve the goal of Project 2061—science for all. Additiona lly, the study utilized the strengths and weaknesses of existing science intervention programs to develop two models for new and/or modified programs. The study was organized into three ph ases—description and interpretation, evaluation, and model formation. The study desi gn is further explained in a section of this chapter entitled “stu dy design.” The study identif ied 46 potential science intervention programs administered by the 42 public universities in South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, and the Dist rict of Columbia. Of those 46 programs, 15 targeted and recruited minorities, and met the other criteria to be included in the sample. Five of the 15 eligible programs participated in the study. Research Questions The research answered the following questions: 1. What intervention programs do Southern stat e universities offer in an effort to make science for all? a. What are the objectives of the programs? b. What are the formats of the programs? c. Where do the programs occur? d. What populations do the programs target?

PAGE 52

41 e. How are participants recruited and selected? f. What types of interven tion do the programs provide? g. How do the programs train and compensate staff? 2. What does a cluster evaluation of existing intervention programs reveal about their intent and efforts? 3. How can existing programs inform th e development of models for science intervention programs for Black students? The research was conducted using a modified approach to cluster evaluation. The core qualities of science intervention programs for minorities were ascertained and analyzed for their meanings and associations This led to the development of a stance regarding the overall implic ations of existing scien ce intervention programs. Methodology The study applied cluster evaluation to sc ience intervention programs in a unique way. A cluster can be defined as several i ndividual, local programs that share a common mission, strategy, or population, and that usually fall under a broad inte rvention initiative (Worthen & Matsumoto, 1994). This cluster of programs can be appraised collectively to assess the broad initiative, rather than each program. This discussion undergirds the justification for using clus ter evaluation to critically analyze science intervention programs for Southern Black students. Th is discussion emphasizes: the historical development of cluster evaluation, a descripti on of the approach, its relationship to other forms of evaluation, and the current status of cluster evaluation. Historical Development of Cluster Evaluation Despite the lack of solid documentation of the origin of cluster evaluation, scholarly lore suggests it was first us ed in 1988 by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) to appraise a group of individual, lo cal projects that sh ared a common mission, strategy, or population (Barley & Jenness, 1993; Straw & Herrell, 2002; Worthen &

PAGE 53

42 Matsumoto, 1994). In accordance with the valu es of the foundation, cluster evaluation sought “to improve, not prove” (cited in Worthen & Matsumoto, 1994, p. 7). WKKF was not interested in identifying the causal e ffects of their funded programs, but rather adopted cluster evaluation “to answer fundamental que stions about policy and programming, including the centr al question of whether the st rategy which led to funding the cluster of projects was a wise invest ment of Foundation resources” (Worthen & Matsumoto, 1994, p. 7). In addition to its use as an appraisal tool, cluster evaluation has been used as a tool for program develo pment (Burnham, 1999). Patton (as cited in Burnham, 1999) termed the use of cluster ev aluation during the early stages of program development as “active-reactive adaptive [e valuation]” (Burnham, 1999, p. 10). Since its inception, cluster evaluation has been tailored to satisfy various sizes of clusters, geographical locations of proj ects, compositions of target populations, and degrees of similarity of program implementation. These differences have confounded an effort to define and prescribe methods fo r conducting cluster evaluation. Description of Cluster Evaluation According to WKKF, the fundamental purpos e of cluster evaluation is “to answer the questions, “what happened and why?” for th e cluster of projects as a whole” (as cited in Worthen & Matsumoto, 1994, p. 5). A key function of cluster evaluations is to “examine initiatives or interventions base d in local communities to identify common themes or components that [were] associated with positive impacts, as well as the reasons for these associations” (Straw & Herrell, 2002, p. 7). Worthen and Matsumoto (1994) furthered Straw and Herrell’s explanation by outlining four key traits of cluster evaluation: (a) identifying the common threads and themes of related programs that bear great significance when viewed as an aggr egate; (b) explaining what happened with

PAGE 54

43 respect to the cluster, as well as why those events occurred; (c) encouraging collaboration between the programs, funding source, and ev aluator, and (d) reporting the data as a collective, rather than empha sizing individual programs. Burnham (1999) discussed the four characteristics used to define cluste r evaluations: (a) the involvement of multiple sites; (b) a focus on long-term projects; (c) the application of different approaches, within the cluster, to similar problems, and (d) a goal to improve, on a large-scale, the social condition. Cluster evaluations report only comprehensive data, and do not disclose information about specific programs included in th e cluster. This allows the evaluator to determine the overall impact of the cluster without evaluating the effectiveness of individual programs. Cluster evaluati ons typically take place during program development, or in the early stages of a pr ogram, and are thus classified as formative evaluations. Through collaboration, cluster eval uations can provide credible information about programs from the perspectives of vari ous stakeholders, incl uding funding sources, program staff, and the public (Barley & Jenness, 1993). Cluster Evaluation and Other Forms of Evaluation The cluster evaluation approach is often associated with multisite evaluations. Sinacore and Turpin (1991) were among the first researchers to use the term multisite evaluation (MSE). Although the authors recogn ized a lack of esta blished criteria for defining a MSE, they did emphasize two factor s that distinguish MSEs from other forms of evaluation—the use of multiple sites and an evaluation based on cross-site analysis. Among MSEs, these factors can contain variatio ns regarding the number of sites included in a study, the operational definition of a site, and specific characteristics of a site, such as geographical location and program implem entation. Multisite evaluations can be classified as retrospective or prospective, based on the data collection process utilized.

PAGE 55

44 Retrospective MSEs rely on data already collected by each site, whereas prospective MSEs rely on data collected by the evaluator. Sinacore and Turpin (1991) identified two subtypes of multisite evaluations: (a) a program that is implemented in the same way at different geographical locations and (b) a prog ram that is implemente d in different ways at different geographical lo cations. MSEs, concerned with standardization, seek generalizable and replicable findings. Straw and Herrell (2002) described three types of multisite evaluations, one of which is cluster evaluation. Worthen and Matsumoto (1994), however, find only superficial similarities between cluster evaluation and multisite evaluations. They suggest the two approaches are “actually rather distant conceptual relatives, not the close conceptual cousins they may appear to be upon casual inspection” (Worthen & Matsumoto, 1994, p. 10). Worthen and Matsumoto (1994) discussed how cluster evaluation fits in with more widely held concepts and ideas in evaluation. They identified 11 ke y concepts including: evaluation, informal versus formal, formative ve rsus summative, internal versus external, evaluation as a scientific activ ity, evaluation as a political ac tivity, alternative evaluation approaches, meta-evaluation, generalizability and replication, standa rdization and control versus treatment variability, and cross-site communication. Each of these is discussed below. Evaluation purists may consider cluster eval uation to be policy analysis or a form of social intervention that supports and facilitates evaluati on. While cluster evaluation should be considered a form of evaluation, cluster ev aluators often find themselves serving roles beyond evaluation. Evaluators who subscribe to other forms of evaluation face this situation as well.

PAGE 56

45 Despite its still-emerging status, cluster evaluation involves syst ematic efforts to identify and apply criteria and strategies. Thus, cluster evaluation is a form of formal evaluation. Cluster evaluation can be formative and summative with respect to the larger initiative being investigated and formativ e with respect to th e individual programs. Typically, cluster evaluato rs are external evaluato rs, though individual program evaluators may be internal. The use of empirical and philo sophical inquiry grants clus ter evaluation its status as a scientific activity. The e volving nature of cluster eval uation deems this scientific activity as less discip lined than other forms of evaluation. The concept and practice of cluster eval uation can be described as a political activity or a rational activity occurri ng within a political context. The classification of evaluation approach es based on their orientations (e.g., objectives, management, consumer, expertis e, adversary, and participant) poses a problem for cluster evaluation, which does not fit neatly into any widely used categorical scheme. Meta-evaluation of programs is avoided by cluster evaluation. Cluster evaluators do not seek to critique the evaluations of individual programs. Meta-evaluation does not bode well for the cross-si te aggregation of data. Generalizability and replicability are of little concern in cluster evaluation. Cluster evaluation does not require standa rdization of program implementation, and views implementation as a product of the personality of each program site. Sharing information across sites is at th e core of cluster evaluation. This is considered one of the strengths of the evaluation approach. Status of Cluster Evaluation Internal documents for WKKF and annual contributions from American Evaluation Association presenters have yielded severa l manuscripts and publications about cluster evaluation (Worthen & Matsumoto, 1994). Re lative to other eval uation approaches, however, little research has been con ducted on cluster evaluation. Though cluster evaluation has been applied most frequen tly within WKKF, the method continues to evolve and distinguish itself as a worthwhile contribution to the field of evaluation.

PAGE 57

46 “Perhaps it is being in the throes of adolescence’s awkwardness that raises so many issues [about cluster eval uation] that need to be resolved. But if these issues are resolved, there is great potential for cluster evaluati on to make a broader contribution, for many state and federal agencies fund programs with multiple projects that could use such a strategy, if cluster evaluation can be captured conceptually in ways that allow its use to be clearly understood by potential users in various contexts where a non-causal [multisite evaluation] were deemed appropriate]” (Worthen & Matsumoto, 1994, p. 22). Hence, additional research and exampl es of appropriate use are necessary for the continued development of cluster evaluation. Furthering the use of cluster eval uation could result in a standardized language and set of core con cepts. This will better position it as an established approach to evaluation. The cluster evaluation approach benefits sc ience education in that it allows a broad perspective of pertinent issu es. In the case of science intervention programs, cluster evaluation moves beyond the limits of investig ating a single program, and into the realm of identifying and describing shared them es, patterns, strengths, and weaknesses. Though single-program studies remain valuable sources of information, they do little to portray the relationship among related progr ams or between programs and the overall initiative. This study’s significance to the fi eld of science education is underscored by its contribution to the field of evaluation. Unique Application of Cluster Evaluation The study assumed the science for all initia tive, highlighted by the coming of year 2061, to be a large developing program. This larger program, though subsuming smaller science intervention efforts, remains in its formative stages. While the individual programs discussed in this study have surpas sed the need for formative evaluation, the

PAGE 58

47 larger initiative has not. Thus, the current cluster evaluation of programs compliant with science for all represents a formative evalua tion of the initiative. Using a modified approach, this study applied cluster evaluati on to the analysis of science intervention programs for Black students. The modificat ions satisfied the aforementioned major characteristics described by Burnham ( 1999) and Worthen and Matsumoto (1994). Burnham’s (1999) characteristics of cluster evaluation included: (a) the involvement of multiple sites; (b) a focus on long-term projects; (c) the use of different approaches, within the cluster, to similar or the same problems, and (d) a goal to improve, on a large-scale, the social condition. The current study emphasized science intervention programs for Black students across South Caro lina, Georgia, Maryla nd, and the District of Columbia. Public universi ties administered each program Five programs formed the cluster, and thus represented multiple sites. None of the cluster programs was a shortterm effort. Each had been in operation for the past several years, and the duration of each program was yearlong and/or summer inte nsive. Hence, the cluster represented long-term programs. The cluster aimed to address the problem of underparticipation of minorities, particularly Blacks, in the sciences Using various formats and activities, each program attended to the issue. Because the underparticipation of any group of people in a field of study precludes that group’s perspective, encourag ing full participation yields positive results for that group and others. The cluster used science intervention to promote science involvement among Black stude nts, thus affecting the disciplines of science, the Black population, and pote ntially, society, as a whole. Worthen and Matsumoto (1994) identified th e following characteri stics of cluster evaluation: (a) identifying the common threads and themes of related programs that bear

PAGE 59

48 great significance when viewed as an aggr egate; (b) explaining what happened with respect to the cluster, as well as why those events occurred; (c) encouraging collaboration between the programs, funding source, and ev aluator, and (d) reporting the data as a collective, rather than empha sizing individual programs. The current study investigated the cluster of science intervention program s for common patterns and themes. Further analysis of these commonalities revealed th e underlying intents and premises of science intervention programs targeting Bl ack students. When viewed as a whole, this delineated an interpretation of the mean ing of science intervention for Black students. For the purpose of explicating how data collection and analysis occurred, information about individual programs was included. These de scriptions identified each program by a pseudonym. The essence of the study, however, ca lled attention to the cluster, rather than individual programs. The models for scie nce intervention developed by the researcher represented key elements of each of the cluste r programs, as well as related literature. The models denoted a modified collaborat ion among the cluster. Although program coordinators and funding sources did not phys ically participate in the model-building process, their ideas and insights regarding th eir particular programs comprised significant contributions. The model took into account the context and characteristics of each program. As described above, the overall anal ysis of science intervention in the South was reported as an aggregate. Study Design The study design was organized into thr ee phases—description and interpretation, evaluation, and model formation. Description and interpretation cons isted of collecting data about each science interv ention program and analyzing the data for patterns. This phase answered Research Question #1. Ev aluation involved maki ng a judgment about

PAGE 60

49 the meanings and intents of the cluster of science intervention programs. Research Question #2 was answered by the evaluation phase. This process informed the development of two models for science in tervention for Black students, which was a response to Research Question #3. See A ppendix A for a visual representation of the study design. Research Question #1 The first research question (what in tervention programs do Southern state universities offer in an effort to make science for all?) was answered by a thorough examination of artifacts related to the sp ecific intervention programs included in the sample. The sample consisted of five scien ce intervention programs administered by four public universities in South Carolina, Georgia and Maryland (see Appendix B). Continuous programs, rather than isolated e fforts, were considered. Continuous programs include year-round intervention, sc hool year efforts, long-ter m (more than one week), and summer programs. Examples of efforts that were excluded are those whose prominent activity consists of competitions, fairs, gue st speakers, and field trips on a one-time or short-term (one week) basis. Examination of relics such as web pages, brochures, articles, reports, and other print sources was guided by the aforementioned sub-questions (see the Research Questions section of this chapter). In the event of unavailable or outdated print sources, personal contact with program coordinators was attempted via mail, electronic mail, or telephone. The info rmation sought by personal contact was also guided by the sub-questions. Additionally, a questionnaire (see Appendix C) was mailed to a program coordinator re presenting each intervention program. The questionnaire supplemented the artifact data.

PAGE 61

50 Identifying the Sample The extensive Internet search began with thorough investigations of each university’s web site. Key pages accessed (whe re available) for each university included departments and/or colleges of science, e ngineering, education, a nd offices of outreach, public service, continuing education, and mi nority recruitment. Electronic messages were sent to central pers onnel for each unit. These messages served to clarify information presented on the web sites and to direct the researcher to other sources, if necessary. Additionally, Internet and site-specific keywor d searches were initiated using combinations of the following words: Afri can American, after school, Black, children, education, elementary, enhancement, enri chment, high school, intervention, middle, minority, outreach, pre-college, program, public, Saturday, science, summer, and youth. Initially, twenty-one programs were iden tified, but further examination of the available information and communication with key personnel revealed missing criteria, such as lack of a target group, non-minority ta rget group, short-term duration (one week or less), and emphasis on teachers not stude nts. Consequently, six programs were removed from the sample. As these progr am coordinators were contacted, they contributed information that deemed them unsuitable for the study. One program served teachers rather students. Two program repr esentatives identified their programs as defunct. One program offered only a one-w eek intervention, while another program’s funding was so recent that an actual interven tion had not been established. One program did not target a specific group of students, while another program targeted students not relevant to this study. Two program coor dinators provided minimal assistance via telephone and electronic communication, but did not return the signed consent form that made them eligible to complete the Progr am Coordinator Questionnaire (see Appendix

PAGE 62

51 C) or to host a site visit. Ei ght program coordinators chose no t to participate in the study. In those cases, the funding sources were contacted to provide proposals and annual reports that contained much-needed data including program objectives, target group, types of intervention activities, and staff information. Only one funding source responded with the appropriate information a nd within the deadline. A private agency with no obligation to provide information fr eely, offered a report that contained no specific information regarding the interventi on program of interest. A third agency, despite its federal responsibil ity to make information avai lable to the public, did not respond to numerous requests. After reviewi ng all data related to each of the identified programs, and eliminating programs that di d not meet the conditions specified by the study, fifteen science intervention programs remain ed. Of the fifteen programs, five were represented by coordinators w ho were willing research participants, and one coordinator represented two programs. Collecting Data Clewell, Anderson, and Thorpe (1992a) id entified five key components of science intervention programs—goals, design, content, context, and outcomes. Goals refer to program objectives, while design focuses on fo rmat, location, and recruitment/selection. Content emphasizes program staff and activities. Program design and content interact to produce the desired participant -related outcomes. These outcomes can include students’ attitudes, performance and achievement, cour se-taking, and career choice. The context considers the elements that exist outside of the program, yet still affect the program, such as funding opportunities, the need for the progr am, and collaborative relationships with the local community and institutions. The in terrelationship and inte rdependence of these elements determine the effectiveness of each program (outcomes). Additionally,

PAGE 63

52 investigating each component of a sc ience intervention program provides a comprehensive view of the processes that a ffect the program’s success or failure. This study concentrated on the components of progr am goals, design, content, and context. Context was modified to include student fees and stipends as factor s that should not be overlooked when examining science interventi on programs. Due to the variation in intervention programs and the focus of this study on descriptive pa tterns and evaluative meanings, program outcomes and the specific ch aracteristics of each local area were not investigated. Despite the signi ficance of these two component s, both represent aspects of science intervention programs that were not crucial to this study. These aspects delve into the particulars of specif ic programs, and therefore pose conceptual challenges when conducting a cluster evaluation that focuses on broader features of programs. While these aspects should be investig ated in future studies, they were beyond the scope of this study. A Data Analysis Tool (see Appendix D) allowed for cross-comparison of the various intervention programs in relevant ca tegories associated w ith proposed standards for science intervention programs. The cat egories included program objectives, program format, program location, target populati on, recruitment and selection, intervention activities, staff information (demographics training, compensation, qualifications), and financial information (funding source, stipends, fees). The standards are discussed later in this chapter. Data on the following categ ories were collected via Program Coordinator Questionnaires (see Appendix C) and supplem ented by personal communication with program coordinators and print materials such as web pages and brochures.

PAGE 64

53 Program objectives. Program objectives, comparable to program goals, arise out of a need to address a specific problem. A program’s objectives also determine its format and scope (Clewell et al., 1992a). Consequently, a program that aims to increase awareness of science-related careers will differ from a program that strives to improve classroom achievement in science. An examin ation of the objectives of existing science intervention programs reveals their goals and an expectation of the type s of activities that should be offered. The articulation of a progr am’s objectives to pa rticipants and staff affects their ability to achieve those goals. Furtherm ore, the program objectives and corresponding activities illustrate the perceive d strengths and weaknesses of the target group. Some objectives of the programs involved in the study include: to increase student performance on national and state performance tests, to help students learn math and science concepts, to create a familiar environment for learning science and math, to excite students about science and math, and to introduce students to space science and stimulate their awareness of relevant careers. Program format. “[Intervention] programs use a wi de range of formats, and some combine two or more formats” (Clewell et al ., 1992a, p. 96). Program format refers to when a program operates (after school, dur ing school, on Saturdays, and/or during the summer), its duration (several weeks, yearlong, or by semest er), and the length of each meeting (all day, half-day, or set number of contact hours). An examination of format reveals a connection between program objectiv es. The needs of a program shape its format. For example, a program that inte nds to encourage posi tive attitudes toward science may meet more regularly or in more concentrated periods of time than a program

PAGE 65

54 designed to introduce science-related careers The format can also account for the quantity and quality of the sc ience experiences to which students are exposed. Programs that meet frequently or for long periods of time are better suited for in-depth discussions, intense hands-on activities, real-world connect ions, and field trips or guest speakers. Programs that meet infrequently or for short pe riods of time simply lack the time for deep studies. The study sample included the following pr ogram formats: one day per week for 20 weeks during the school year and a two week summer component, six-week summer program, two-week summer academy, and 10 consecutive Saturdays during the spring semester. Program location. Intervention programs vary in location. Some occur at local elementary, middle or high schools, while others utilize university facilities, community centers, or churches. Local schools offe r convenience and familiarity to program participants, but likely lack the resources to conduct science experiments, visit laboratories, and meet scientists and college students. University facilities meet these needs, though often without the convenie nce of a neighborhood school. Additionally, university campuses provide the amenities of a residential program—room, board, and a variety of teaching spaces. Despite their benefits, intervention programs that occur at local schools or universities can perpetuate the idea that sc ience is a remote endeavor; that one must go elsewhere to see or do sc ience. The use of community centers or churches combats this idea by bringing science from its hypothetical pedestal to the neighborhood. This offers an accessible pe rception of science, particularly to

PAGE 66

55 disadvantaged neighborhoods. The science inte rvention programs included in the study occurred at a local church, a community center, middle schools, and universities. Recruitment/selection and target population. Intervention programs recruit and select students who meet their target criter ia. A program that recruits in a specific neighborhood or school is likely to attract a different type of student than a program with a broader recruiting range. Likewise, a progr am that recruits in a suburban, middle class neighborhood will attract students who are di ssimilar to urban, lower socioeconomic students. While some programs recruit specif ic types of students, others invite a wider assortment of participants. Some program s select their participants by grade point average, intelligence quotient, at-risk status, teacher recommendations, or penchant for science, though others select on a first-come, first-served basis. The recruitment and selection processes of existing science inte rvention programs disti nguish their target populations. Programs that claim to target any minority student will recruit and select differently than a program that prefer s high-performing minority students. The recruitment activities of the prog rams evaluated in this study involved partnerships with schools and community organizations, announcements at local churches, and word-of-mouth. The target popu lations identified in the study included minority students who were in a specific or ra nge of grade levels, resi dents of a particular state or county, inner-c ity dwellers, and cons idered at-risk. Intervention activities. “The effectiveness of appr oaches and strategies depends on a knowledge of the target population and on the application of theoretically sound practices” (Clewell et al., 1992a, p. 98). Activit ies that include role modeling, mentoring, exposure to real world and hands-on scie nce experiences, and career discussions

PAGE 67

56 stimulate positive attitudes toward science and science-related careers. Experiences that focus on tutoring, science enrich ment activities (both remedia tion and intensive studies), unique instructional strategies, and test prep aration encourage students to improve their academic performance and science achievement. The study identified programs that empl oyed the following activities: worksheets, hands-on science activities, field trips, gue st speakers, design pr ojects, reading, crossdisciplinary experiences (math, technology, ar t, critical thinking, public speaking, and writing), model-building, career exposure, and special instruction. Program staff. Information about staff members, including number, demographics, qualifications, training, and compensation, provides insight regarding the ability to effectively meet the programs’ objec tives. The demographics of the staff, when compared to that of the participants, may shed some light on the effectiveness of the intervention program. For some students, undergraduate staff members can be more effective role models or mentors than older staff because of similar or shared experiences as a result of fewer generational differences. Ethnic and gender diversity among staff can play a role in their perceptions of the partic ipants and their ease in relating to them. While the qualifications and training of staff members impact their ability to achieve the objectives of the programs, their compensa tion may affect their commitment to the success of the program. Volunteers may be le ss consistent and less dedicated than staff who receive financial compensation or course credit. A course, program, or departmental requirement may encourage undergraduate particip ation, but at the cost of high turnover. Students’ fulfillment of a requirement may preclude them from continuing their

PAGE 68

57 participation with the program. Although a new student replaces the old, the uniformity of the program can be compromised. The programs included in the study co mprised undergraduate science and engineering majors, undergraduat e students from a variety of majors, pre-service, inservice, and retired teachers, and universit y professors. Many staff members were volunteers, but most were pa id for their participation. Financial information. While recruitment and selecti on criteria explicitly engage or disengage certain types of students, the financial cost of participation serves to implicitly include or exclude others. Program s with exorbitant fees can discourage lowincome families while free programs appear more inviting. Though fee-based programs usually provide some scholarships or other fi nancial assistance, this information is not widely publicized. Thus, not only must help be requested, but parents must know that the help is available. Stipends can motivate participation and allow students to earn money as they improve their science awareness, in terest, and/or performance. The source of funding determines the extent to which fees a nd stipends are availabl e. Internal funding (university) may be more prohibitive than ex ternal funding (state, federal, or a private granting agency). Hence, university-sponsored programs may require a fee payment. The research identified programs that requ ired a weekly fee, no fee, a registration fee, and offered no stipends. The funding s ources included state governments and federal agencies. A critical analysis of the interrelati onship among the eight aforementioned facets of science intervention programs disclosed vital information regarding the underlying

PAGE 69

58 premises of these programs. Data collection was followed by examination, and was used to develop models for science interv ention programs for Black students. Examining Data As the artifact, questionnai re, observation, and interview data were examined for characteristics in the aforementioned categor ies, the distinguishing qualities of each science intervention program emerged. These qualities were recorded in a data analysis tool (see Appendix D) that allowed for a cros s-comparison of the intervention programs. Research Question #2 The second research question (What doe s a cluster evaluation of existing intervention programs reveal about their intent and efforts?) was answered using methods described by Taylor and B ogdan (1984). Hence, the collected data were examined repeatedly to discover themes and patterns. As themes and patterns surfaced among the categories for one program and across all progr ams, they were classified and further examined until the simplest classifications re mained. Various interpretations and ideas about science intervention programs emer ged and were recorded. A scheme was developed to classify program characteristi cs and identify themes. This scheme was directly related to the data: “It is through concepts and propositions that the researcher moves from description to interpretation and theory ” (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984, p. 133), thus classification yielded con cepts (abstract ideas generalize d from empirical facts) and propositions (general statements of fact s grounded in the data), and ultimately, a storyline. This storyline was analyzed, us ing as a backdrop a desc ription of standards (see below) to be upheld by science inte rvention programs for Black students, and resulted in numerous interpretations, themes, concepts, and propositions of such programs. The standards, developed by the researcher, were based on educated intuition

PAGE 70

59 and related research. The changing results of the analysis were iden tified and described. The data were further examined to iden tify additional categor ization, and a clear distinction of the type of data that fit each category was made. The categories were examined for overlap, leading to the emerge nce of major coding categories. The coding system was continually inspected for commona lities and reduced to the fewest number of unique categories. All the data were then coded and categories modified as needed in accordance with the “[cardinal rule of coding in qualitative analysis]—make the codes fit the data and not vice versa” (Taylor & B ogdan, 1984, p. 137). The data were physically sorted into coding categories. Only the data that fit the anal ytical scheme were used. As new categories surfaced, the interpretations we re refined. A new analysis re-examined the data in the context in which they were collected. This process of discounting (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984) provided credibility to the data by considering: Solicited versus unsolicited data The presence of the researcher on the setting during site visits Personal bias and assumptions Sources of information. The result was a critical portrayal of scienc e interventions in the South, as represented by the five programs included in the study. To facilitate the cluster evaluation and b ecause none currently exist, a set of standards for science intervention for Black students was developed by the researcher. The standards described below specify criteri a that should be cons idered when planning science intervention programs. These standa rds, based on the researcher’s educated intuition, personal experience, a nd a review of the re lated literature, de lineate qualities of effective programs. These qualities relate to the core categories associated with intervention programs (Clewell et al., 1992a): objectives, format, types of activities,

PAGE 71

60 target population, selection/recruitment, program location, staff information, and financial information. While each of the ot her categories comprises its own section, relevant financial data is included in the participants and staff sections. The following standards were based on the researcher’s experience and knowledge of past and present science in tervention programs, as well as related literature on science intervention and science education, including the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council [N RC], 1996). The standards re present the researcher’s perception of qualities that should be addre ssed in science intervention programs for Black students. Program Objectives The objectives should focus on science pr ocess skills, science content knowledge, attitudes toward science, and science-rela ted careers (SKAC). Science intervention should incorporate these four components to provide studen ts opportunities to learn and apply science process skills and content. Increasing their proficiency may positively affect their attitudes toward sc ience, and themselves as doers of science. This, in turn, may encourage Black students to pursue science -related careers. Furthermore, students’ attitudes toward science can aff ect their interest in science, and ultimately the pursuit of a science-related career. Though Black students report positive att itudes toward scie nce during their elementary years, their achievement leve ls remain low (Anderson, 1989; Catsambis, 1995). Science intervention programs shoul d allow Black students to do science by focusing on skills enhancement and career aw areness (Berryman, 1983; Clewell, 1987). This will help maintain the positive attit udes of elementary students and encourage positive attitudes among middle and high school st udents. SKAC addresses two barriers

PAGE 72

61 to minority participation in science—low pe rformance levels in science courses and on standardized tests and insufficient interest or knowledge of sc ience-related careers (Clewell, 1992a). Objectives should represent a range of cognitive (knowledge, understanding, inquiry, processes), affective (attitudes, values, habits of mind), psychomotor (physical skills), and social (communicat ion, interaction) learning outc omes (Carin & Bass, 2001). This well-rounded approach can strengthen stud ents’ perceptions of science and increase their content knowledge and skills, while s howing how this improvement can benefit them in the future. Focusing on SKAC may give students the much-needed relevance to make science an important entity in their lives, while answering the following questions: What are the skills of science? How can these skills be used in all aspects of my life? What science knowledge is important to know at my developmental level? How can my science literacy be used to make informed decisions everyday of my life? How do I feel about science? How do I feel about myself as a doer of science? What are my perceptions of science? And how can my science skills, knowl edge, and attitudes be used to benefit society in the form of a car eer? As a minimum standard, the program objectives should aim to increase any combina tion of at least two of the following: skills, knowledge, attitudes and/or career awarene ss. Ideally, all should be emphasized. The objectives should be clearly articulate d to staff members via training, regular meetings, handbooks, or some other notable presentation. The articulation of the objectives to the staff can in crease the likelihood of those objectives being met. The more the staff learns about the goals and pur poses of the program, the better they can tailor their activities to achi eve those ends. The standard suggests that the objectives

PAGE 73

62 should be clearly articulated to staff members duri ng pre-program training. Ideally, these objectives should be reiterated during the course of the pr ogram at regular meetings (especially for yearlong programs). The program objectives should be clearly articulated to participants and their parents via informational sessions, handbooks, in formative letters, or some other notable presentation. Parents and participants s hould be well aware of the objectives, purposes, and goals of the program prior to the pr ogram’s commencement. A parent who is concerned about his/her children’s science grad es needs to know if the program will meet their needs. Of integral importance is finding the right fit between program and participants. At a minimum, the objectives s hould be clearly articula ted to participants (and parents) via a pre-program informationa l session, letter, or handbook. Ideally, the parents should be invited to a recruiting session where the objec tives will be discussed in detail. The program’s objectives should be meas urable, and should be measured. An internal or external evaluator should measur e the objectives to determine the extent of success to make suggestions for improvement and to identify gaps in se rvice delivery. At a minimum, the objectives should be measured via traditional met hods (e.g., paper-pencil tests, surveys, and gains in test scores and grades) by an internal ev aluator. Ideally, the objectives should also be measured vi a alternative methods (e.g., interviews, observations, portfolios, and performance tasks) by an extern al evaluator. Program Format Each program’s format should be consis tent with its objectives. The program format should represent the goals and purposes of the program (Cle well et al., 1992a). To provide the most effective science interv ention programs, the format should offer the

PAGE 74

63 best possible platform for the goals and purpos es. As the standard, program developers will use their objectives to determine the best format for their programs. A science intervention program should offe r frequent contact during the program duration to facilitate sustai ned inquiry and understanding du ring extended investigations (NRC, 1996). For as long as the program operates, students should be in contact on a regular basis. Daily and weekly sessions cons titute a regular basis. The effectiveness of a program can diminish as the length of time between each session increases. At a minimum, for concentrated sessions (i.e., su mmer components), meetings should be on a daily basis, and for widespread sessions (i.e., year-round) meetings should be on a weekly basis. This is also the ideal. Sessions should occur during concentr ated periods of time throughout the program’s duration. Programs should offer a summer component of at least two weeks to reinforce the yearlong component. This con centrated period of tim e can provide intense study, increased interaction with peers, mentor s, and role models, and a period of science emphasis with fewer outside distractions than a weekly component can provide. The researcher’s personal experience with scienc e intervention and other youth programs has shown that two weeks is a sustained peri od of time that is long enough to positively impact students and maintain consistent atte ndance. In two weeks, students can pursue an interest, engage in a variety of rele vant activities, and develop friendships. Additionally, participants and parents are more likely to insist on daily attendance because of the seemingly short duration of the program. Regular absences during a twoweek program can decrease the quality of th e intervention experience for participants. Competing activities, such as summer school, vacations, family events, camps, and other

PAGE 75

64 programs, can affect a student’s participat ion in a science intervention program. A lengthy program has a greater likelihood of overlapping other activities and interests. This can result in sporadic student attendance and decreased family commitment, and can reduce the positive impact of the program. As the standard, programs should offer a summer component of at least two weeks. Ideally, the prog ram should be residential in nature and/or at least three weeks. Students should be given the opportunity to continue their participation for additional years or sessions. C ontinuity can be important in the life of a child (Santrock, 1998), thus continuous involvement in a mean ingful program can serve to motivate, inspire, and positively affect each participant. Furthermor e, continuous involvement may improve the effect of the intervention activitie s, whether they are geared toward skills, knowledge, attitudes, or caree rs. At a minimum, programs should give students the opportunity to continue their participation for one additiona l year. Ideally, students should continue their particip ation throughout the duration of their schooling (as long as they stay in the local area). Program Location Programs should operate at community si tes other than schools or university campuses. Programs that occur in community sites can help remove science from its hypothetical pedestal (Rahm & Downey, 2002). The act of demystifying science can encourage students to view science as accessi ble rather than as a remote endeavor. Participants can realize that they need not travel elsewhere to see or do science. Community-based science intervention program s can also provide an additional use for community spaces. For example, a local center that normally houses athletic games, community forums, and talent shows can be utilized as a site for science programming.

PAGE 76

65 This may broaden the realm of usage for that site, while giving the community access to and ownership of science education. At a minimum, programs should occur primarily at a community site or neighborhood school, not on a university campus. The university and school campuses should supplement the community-based intervention by allowing access to well-equipped laboratories and other facilities. Ideally, programs should occur in a community site and directly relate to the community. Programs not operated in the community should take field trips or conduct projects/activities within the community. Exampl es include visiting a lo cal lake to test its water quality or using local i ndustry as a resource for hi ghlighting careers in science (NRC, 1996). The science intervention should no t be limited to the university, school, or other host site. Students should be encourag ed to see and do science in their own communities (Rahm & Downey, 2002). As th e standard, programs not operated in the community should use community sites for projects /activities and field trips. This should occur at least twice during the program. Id eally, all science intervention programs should use community sites for a majority of thei r projects/activities and field trips. Programs should be operated in sites that foster hands-on science activities (NRC, 1996). These sites should be equipped with plenty of tabletops, work space, sinks, floors that can handle spills, comfortable seati ng, comfortable temperature, and adjustable lighting. These characteristics can promote an active learning environment that invites hands-on activities. Additionally, the site should provide access to science equipment and the supplies necessary for science experiments, activities, and demonstrations. As a standard, programs should have ready access to an environment that fosters hands-on

PAGE 77

66 activities and provides access to science equipment and supplies. Ideally, programs should have a fully equipped labor atory for science intervention. Participants Program participants should represen t a range of achievement levels. A heterogeneous group of students can be importa nt for peer collabora tion, peer tutoring, and exposing students to othe rs with whom they may not normally interact due to differences in course taking. Programs s hould not be limited to high-performing, lowperforming, or even average students. A diverse group of students can motivate some, provide opportunities to help fo r others, and prevent the furthe r stigmatization of students who spend much of their school day in academic tracks. As a standard, programs should recruit a wide variety of stude nt achievement levels. Ideall y, a special effort should be made to ensure that many levels of student performance are represented. Unless specifically designed to prov ide opportunities for males or females, programs should strive for equal representa tion of both sexes. The racial/ethnic composition of the program should reflect th e target population, but not to the omission of other races/ethnicities. Programs designe d to attract Black students, for example, should not exclude other minorit ies or White students on the basis of race/ethnicity. To encourage relationship building, a small participant-to-instructor ratio should be maintained (Achilles, Finn, & Pate, 1997/1998). This situation should afford staff members the opportunity to work with student s on a one-on-one or small group basis. The level of comfort between the staff and st udents can increase, and the interactions can become positive. The researcher’s experi ence in youth programs with participant-toinstructor ratios as high as 15: 1 indicates that a smaller prop ortion should be established. The wide range of student achievement levels coupled with the need to manage materials

PAGE 78

67 and student engagement provide challenges that may be alle viated by a smaller ratio. Most school field trips require a 10:1 particip ant to chaperone ratio. Science intervention programs should go further, as they are desi gned to “[utilize] approaches somewhat different from those of the traditional educ ational system” (Clewell et al., 1992a, p. 13). As a standard, programs should seek to sustai n a participant-to-instr uctor ratio of 8:1. Ideally, the ratio should be 6:1. To avoid the implicit exclusion of students every effort should be made to offer a free or very low cost program. The program’s major activities should be affordable, with special experiences offered at additional fees, gi ven the availability of funds. Fees should be appropriated only if necessa ry. If fees become inevitable, financial assistance or scholarships should be readily available. Th ese options should be publicized and offered to several students. Ideally, the prog ram should be free for all students. Students should feel wanted by the program through active recruitment. Programs should excite students and motivate them to sign up, rather than convince parents to send their children. The goal should be for students to want to attend, not to feel like they must. The researcher’s experience with scie nce intervention program participants who enrolled due to parental require ment rather than personal inte rest provides a rationale for this standard. While these students compla in and disengage from the program, they create mischief and disruption. Regardless of how these students feel about specific science activities, their attitudes toward th emselves as doers of science may never improve, thus inhibiting their pursuit of science-related ca reers. This undermines the purpose of the science intervention program. Additionally, active recruitment can also bring new participants to the program, rather than relying on former students to return.

PAGE 79

68 These students can rejuvenate the program wh ile impacting their peers. The standard suggests that programs should recruit students, not just parents. Ideally, programs should recruit families. Unless specifically targeting a particul ar underserved neighborhood, community, or school, programs should make an effort to se rve a wide variety of students. The mixing of neighborhoods, communities, and schools can introduce students to other youth, help ease local rivalries, and broa den the experiences/exposure of the participants. Different neighborhoods, communities, and schools bring different viewpoints, experiences, and realities. Allowing students an opportunity to interact with different kinds of people can develop open-minded and aware citizens. Intervention Activities Each program’s activities should be consis tent with its objectives. The program format and activities should represent the goa ls and purposes of the program (Clewell et al., 1992a). To provide the most effective sc ience intervention programs, the format and activities should offer the best possible plat form for the goals and purposes. As the standard, programs should use base their form at and activities on the objectives they have determined. Programs should offer a variety of activities to satisfy the needs of various learners (NRC, 1996). The activities should span disciplines, learning styles, and grouping arrangements. Activity examples include ha nds-on experiments, design projects, mathenriched lessons, language-enriched experiences, art-enriched activitie s, creative/critical thinking, traditional activities (w orksheets, quizzes), oral pr ojects, individual, pair, and group work, short-term projects, and long-term projects. The activities should feature real-world issues and dilemmas. At a minimum, programs should offer hands-on

PAGE 80

69 activities, traditional activities, group work, and individual work. Ideally, a wider variety of activity types should be offere d in comparable proportions. Science intervention programs should provide opportunities for ha nds-on activities. Hands-on experiments and design activities should be a fundame ntal part of the program (NRC, 1996). Science intervention program s should encourage active involvement of participants. Students should be actively involved in the program activities, and not viewed as mere receptacles. An abundance of lectures, videos, and worksheets does not constitute active involvement. As a standard, programs should offer at least three handson activities per week (for summer component s) or one per session (for year-round) and at least one design project for su mmer and year-round components. Programs should allow expose participants to mentors and role models. Mentors and role models can motivate and inspire st udents to achieve their goals (Ferreiera, 2002). Female and minority mentors in science can demonstrate to these underrepresented groups the potential for success in science (Stern, 1997). Exposure to mentors and role models should consist of college students (underg raduate and graduate) and professionals who represent the fields of interests, gende rs, ethnicities, and backgrounds of the student partic ipants, as well as other dive rse groups. At a minimum, programs should offer mentors in the form of staff members who represent a range of genders, ethnicities, and cultural backgrounds, including those of the participants. These mentors should be older than, but in the same generation, as the stude nts. These mentors should be in regular contact w ith the students (i.e., present at every session). Programs should offer role models in the form of gue st speakers, staff, or biographical studies representing a range of genders, ethnicities and cultural backgrounds, including those of

PAGE 81

70 the participants. These role models should be presented at least twice for summer programs and at least once every three mee tings during yearlong programs. Ideally, the role models should be present at every session. Programs should introduce students to scie nce-related careers. Programs should emphasize, through role models and career pres entations, the variety of science-related careers available to students. Programs s hould make an effort to determine student interests and relate those to possible career s in science. The purpose of increasing student achievement and student interest to decrease the leve ls of underrepresentation in science would be for naught if students fail to eventually choo se careers in science. As a standard, programs should emphasize a variet y of science-related careers, including examples of professionals, desc riptions of the type of work involved, and discussions of preparing for such careers. This should be accomplished via field trips, guest speakers, biographical studies, and disc ussions. Ideally, these careers should represent commonly considered (e.g., research scientist, science teacher, engineer, a nd science faculty) and less common careers (e.g., scienc e illustrator, science writer, sales representative, science reporter, and public relations). Program Staff Programs should make every effort to sta ff a diverse group (regarding gender, race, and ethnicity) of interventi on personnel. Diverse demographics can increase the likelihood of shared or similar experien ces, backgrounds, and vi ewpoints (Aikenhead, 2001; Norman et al., 2001; Parsons, 2000) thus providing a positive means for role model/mentor relationships to form. Staff should be given the opportunity to c ontinue their particip ation for additional years or sessions. Continuity can be important in the life of a child (Santrock, 1998) thus

PAGE 82

71 continuous involvement in a meaningful pr ogram serves to motivate, inspire, and positively affect each participant. Furtherm ore, continuous involvement may improve the effect of the intervention ac tivities, whether they are ge ared towards skills, knowledge, attitudes, or careers. As rela tionships are built between staff and students, the benefits of the intervention can increase. At a minimum, programs should give staff the opportunity to continue their participation for one additi onal year. Ideally, sta ff should continue their participation throughout the duration of a group of students’ participation. Programs should require intensive sta ff training that emphasizes the goals, purposes, and objectives of the pr ogram prior to its start. Staff should be aware of, and agree to support, the pol icies, activities, and ideals of the program. Programs should also provide a written version of this information for staff to refer to as necessary. Based on the researcher’s pe rsonal experience with various educational programs for youth, intensive training is essential. Without explicit, interactive, and thorough training, program staff run the risk of misinterpreti ng the objectives of the program. As this misinterpretation results in implementation, th e vision of the program developers may be lost. Moreover, simply reading a han dbook or attending a brief meeting does not sufficiently prepare staff for the science interv ention program. The standard suggests that programs should require a four-hour works hop or seminar as a pre-program training session. Ideally, pre-progra m training should occur for one to three days Programs should offer financial or academ ic compensation to staff. While the qualifications and training of staff member s can impact their abil ity to achieve the objectives of the programs, their compensa tion may affect their commitment to the success of the program. The researcher’s expe rience with volunteers has shown that they

PAGE 83

72 can be less consistent and less dedicated than paid staff (whether the payment be financial compensation or course credit). As their schedules become less permissive or their interest wanes, volunteers can become le ss committed. A course, program, or departmental requirement may encourage underg raduate participation, but at the cost of high turnover. Based on the researcher’s personal experience, as students fulfill their requirement, they may not continue worki ng with the program. Although a new student replaces the old, the un iformity of the program can be compromised. As a standard, staff members should be offered financial or acad emic compensation. While some volunteer staff is appropriate, most should be compensated. Research Question #3 Empirical and critical evidence from ex isting science intervention programs and theoretical evidence from related literature provided the foundation for two models of science intervention programs for Black student s. The strengths of the sample programs were emphasized and correlated to the sta ndards to inform the development of the models. These models were intended to influence existing and/or new programs.

PAGE 84

73 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION #1 The study identified 46 science interven tion programs administered by the 42 public universities in South Ca rolina, Georgia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Of those 46 programs, 15 targeted and recruite d minorities and met the other criteria to be included in the study. Five of the 15 eligible programs participated in the study. This chapter answers Research Question #1: What science intervention pr ograms do Southern state universities offer in an e ffort to make science for all? Other questions addressed in Research Question #1 include: what are the objectives of the progr ams, what are the formats of the programs, where do the program s occur, what populations do the programs target, how are participants recruited and selected, what types of intervention do the programs provide, and how do the programs train, compensate, and pay staff? For the purpose of detailed reporting, the program na mes and university affiliations have been altered, however Appendix E lists all of the id entified science intervention programs. The discussion of each science intervention program includes the 2000 Carnegie Classification of the associat ed university. The 2000 Carneg ie Classification includes all U.S. colleges and universities that grant degr ees and bear accreditation by an agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, n.d.). The Ca rnegie Foundation used data from 1995-1996 through 1997-1998 to generate the 2000 Carneg ie Classification. The programs included in this study represented three classifications: (a) Doctoral Intensive, (b) Master’s I, and (c) Master’s II. According to the Carn egie Foundation for the Advancement of

PAGE 85

74 Teaching’s web site, Doctoral Intensive inst itutions “typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are comm itted to graduate education through the doctorate. During the period studied, they awar ded at least ten doctoral degrees per year across three or more disciplin es, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall.” Master’s I institutions “typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the master's degree. During the period studied, they awarded 40 or more master's degrees per year ac ross three or more disciplines.” Likewise, Master’s II institutions, “typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are comm itted to graduate education through the master's degree. During the period studied, th ey awarded 20 or more master's degrees per year.” Program 1—MidCom Administered by a Master’s I, state-funded university in Northwest Georgia, the MidCom Program offered middle school stude nts an opportunity to prepare for postsecondary education while emphasizing science and math. Supported by state initiatives, the overall goal of the program was to help students in grades 7-12 meet tougher college admissions standards as established by the Board of Regents for the state university system. In its second year of operation, MidC om represented one university’s efforts to achieve this goal, while using science and math as the vehicle of choice. The fictitious name highlights two important qualities of the intervention program—a middle school (Mid) target audience and its use of community sites (Com) to house the program. Observations and interviews during a vis it to the summer co mponent, the Program Coordinator Questionnaire, and artifact data provided the following information about the MidCom program.

PAGE 86

75 Program Objectives The program coordinator identified the fo llowing objectives of MidCom: (a) to prepare at-risk students to be tter prepare for post-secondary admissions, (b) to create (during the summer) a familiar environment for learning science and math, (c) to help students learn science and math concepts, and (d) to improve the attitude of students concerning career options in science, mathematics, and engineering. The program coordinator articulated the obj ectives to MidCom staff via workshops, brochures, and individual convers ations. Parents and particip ants learned of the program objectives through presentations at their respective school or community site, as well as through the paperwork each parent received. The first two program objectives appear difficult to measure, though all were m easured by: the number of students who participated in the program, the number of students who completed the program, student attitudes during and after the program, a nd ultimately the number of students who succeed in college. This information was colle cted by the program coordinator and staff. Program Format MidCom operated during the school year, as well as in the summer. The school year component met one day per week for 20 weeks from August through May. The 20week component was divided into two 10-w eek sessions, and each session served a different group of 25 students. In other word s, no student was allo wed to participate in more than one school-year component. These meetings were held after school. Five days per week for two weeks comprised th e summer component. These meetings, in June, lasted from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.

PAGE 87

76 Program Location As aforementioned, MidCom was administer ed by a Master’s I level university in Northwest Georgia. Four sites were util ized during the summer—two middle schools, a church, and a girl-oriented community cente r. At each middle school, one classroom with computers and a laboratory area were available. The church used a large multipurpose room with nine large tables and plenty of floor space. MidCom participants at the girls’ center congregated in a compact r oom with five large ta bles and a conference room with one large table. Despite diffe rences in the facilities, each site served approximately 25 participants. While close to 70% of the program’ s activities provided little interaction among the four sites, stude nts from all sites atte nded field trips and participated in the culminating activity t ogether. During the after-school component, only the two middle schools housed the program. Target Population MidCom targeted students in grades 68 who were considered at-risk due to barriers caused by financial status, lack of knowledge, poor academic skills, race, religion, national origin, or gender. One sti pulation of the statewid e initiative was that the program be comprised of at least 60% students from underrepresented groups (i.e., African American, Hispanic Americans, and Na tive Americans). Due to the location of the administering university and the partner schools a nd organizations, MidCom was designed to attract at le ast 80% minority students pr imarily from one county. Recruitment and Selection MidCom recruited participants through its partnerships with local middle schools and youth-focused civic organizations. A nnouncements and flyers at these target locations, in addition to flye rs distributed at community churches provided recruitment

PAGE 88

77 opportunities. To be considered, students we re required to complete an application and student information sheet, write an essay describing their inte rest in the MidCom summer program, and obtain parental consent. St udents who participat ed in the summer component were expected to continue th eir participation during the following school year. Furthermore, through a series of collaborations with other programs, the participants will receive intervention from 6th grade through their college years. The participants were chosen by a team of representatives from MidCom and the partner schools and organizations. The team considered the applicants’ desire and commitment to attend college, as evidenced by their essay and information sheet. Other criteria used to select par ticipants included the number of students to be served (100 maximum); the desire for diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, soci al status, financial status, and academic skills; students’ willi ngness and ability to complete the program; and students’ willingness to accept a leadersh ip role among their peers. Approximately 85% of the participants were African American, while 10% were Hispanic Americans. The remaining 5% consisted of Caucasians, Asians, Native Americans, and other racial/ethnic groups. Nearly 65% of the students were female with 35% being male. No more than 1-2% of the students reported a mental or physical disability. Most participants were classified as below-average students, and some were considered honor students. Intervention Activities MidCom’s summer component utilized a va riety of activities, including reading, maintaining a journal, worksheets, hands-on laboratory activities, field trips, guest speakers, and special projects. The beginni ng of the summer session began with teambuilding activities such as name games, a human scavenger hunt, learning and reciting

PAGE 89

78 the student pledge, and taking group photogra phs. Additionally, students divided into teams that were used throughout the summer for group projects and competitions. Each team created a name, designed a banner, wr ote a song, composed a slogan, and developed a cheer. The student pledge and individual t eam cheers became an integral part of each day’s activities. Several students per day were assigned various leadership roles, such as photographer, time manager, and journal manage r. These incentives allowed students to take photographs of the MidCom group, manage the time allotted for each activity, and collect the journals. The teams competed in various contests such as assembling a tower of uncooked spaghetti, constructing a ro cket-powered car, building a bridge, and solving math problems. Other group activitie s included creating Power Point presentations to promote the MidCom program throughout the community, using the local newspaper to learn science, identifying the components of a mystery brew, and designing a science experiment. The instructors devoted time to highlighting observ ation as a science process skill, describing selected scientific discoveries and inven tions, allowing students to practice mathematical opera tions via worksheets, and using brainteasers to motivate students to think critically and creatively. The middle school students were introdu ced to various types of colleges and universities—2-year, 4-year, t echnical, private, and public. A college scavenger hunt and presentations by their instruct ors facilitated this process. During the 2-week summer component, five field trips to neighboring colleges, universities, and a nature center allowed the students to meet college students, professors, and researchers. After each field trip, the students were expe cted to record the experience in their own journal. In

PAGE 90

79 fact, the students were expected to record each day’s experien ces in their journal. Each field trip lasted approximately five hours, including travel and lunch. Tours of the various facilities and special presentations of current research were included in all field trips. A laser show was one presentation th e students particularly enjoyed. The emphasis on colleges and science-relate d fields of study was supplemented by discussions on scholarships, federal grants and federal loans. As students were instructed on the specifics of a state funded scholarship program (i.e., Hope program) they learned how to begin to make themselves eligible for those funds. The culminating experience for the students was an overni ght stay on a college campus. MidCom participants enjoyed a barbecu e with their families and invi ted guests, displayed their projects and awards from the summer pr ogram, and ended the evening with a dance before retiring to their dormitory rooms. The next morning, after eating breakfast in a campus cafeteria, the summer co mponent officially ended. The after-school component c onsisted of sessions that highlighted the goals of the program and student expectati ons, requirements and costs of college, presentations by the program coordinator, hands-on science activ ities, various guest speakers, worksheetbased math problems, real-world based math problems, educational Internet activities, web page design, and an awards reception. Staff Information MidCom employed approximately 20 staff members, including two instructors per site, a team of coordinators, and other help. Most of the staff me mbers were retired, inservice, or pre-service teach ers who received specialized tr aining (twice a year) for the MidCom program. The program coordina tor was a full professor in the biology department at the administer ing university. A dditionally, a training manual for future

PAGE 91

80 staff was in the development stages. The staff members were invited to participate in future years/sessions, and had already received the initial training for the upcoming afterschool component. Compensation varied from $200 to $12,000 and was based on the quality and quantity of time devoted to the pr ogram. All staff were paid. The ethnicity of the staff was comparable to that of the participants, with 75% African American, 20% Caucasian, and 5% Hispanic American, Africa n, and other racial/ethnic groups. Only one of the eight staff members was male. Financial Information MidCom operated free of charge to pa rticipants and offered no stipend. The program’s funding ($90,000 per year) came fr om both a statewide initiative and a regional initiative within the state. Program 2–Elchurch Administered by a Master’s I, state-funded university in Northwest Georgia, the Elchurch Program offered elementary student s an opportunity to become excited about science and math. The fictitious name hi ghlights two important qualities of the intervention program—an elementary (El) ta rget audience and its use of a neighborhood church (church) to house the program. Th e Program Coordinator Questionnaire and artifact data provided the following information about the Elchurch program. Though for five years, the program had provided mu ch-needed science experiences for younger children, the program coordinator’s grow ing emphasis on middle and high school intervention ultimately phased out the Elchurch program. After the summer session ended, a comprehensive elementary program was no longer offered. Hence, the following data relates to the fi nal session of Elchurch.

PAGE 92

81 Program Objectives The program coordinator identified the fo llowing objectives of Elchurch: (a) to excite students about science and math to the de gree that they want to participate in them and (b) to have students learn new practical knowledge and skills that will help them throughout their educa tional careers. Program staff learned the objectives via te acher workshops, staff meetings, and in all of the written material they received. Parents and participants were informed of Elchurch’s objectives at the orientation, from written materials, and via constant reminders from the staff. Staff, student and parent surveys, administered by the program coordinator, served as an assessmen t tool. The participants’ attitudes toward science were measured by attendance and beha vior patterns of the participants, while science skills and knowledge were assessed via worksheets and hands -on activities. Program Format Elchurch operated during the summer, and pa rticipants met five days per week for six weeks. These sessions were from 9:00 a. m. until 5:00 p.m., and in July and August. Program Location Elchurch operated at a Baptist church locat ed in the heart of the African American and public housing communities in the program’s service area. The congregation of the church was mostly African American. The pr ogram activities occurred primarily in the multi-purpose room and classroom areas in the church. These rooms were equipped with large tables, many chairs, and sufficient floor space to avoid cramped quarters.

PAGE 93

82 Target Population Elchurch targeted students in grades 2-5 from the local area. The program sought to engage the area’s minority populations, African Americans and Hispanic Americans. Students representing a wide range of abilitie s were encouraged to participate. Recruitment and Selection Elchurch recruited participants through a nnouncements and flyers at local churches, in addition to word of mouth. Despite the de sire of the program c oordinator to attract participants from the area’s relatively large Hispanic American population, Elchurch attracted only African American students. Participants were accepted on a first come, first served basis until capacity was reached. Also, because a weekly fee was charged to all participants, no applicant was rejected on any basis other than program capacity. Scholarships were available for st udents who were unable to pay. Intervention Activities Elchurch utilized a variety of activities, including read ing, solving puzzles, playing games, telling stories, watching videos, creating art, conducting science experiments, completing worksheets, maintaining journals, and taking field trips. Each of these activities was designed to accommodate the vari ous developmental levels of elementary students. Because the focus of the progr am was on science a nd mathematics, all intervention activities were related to those disciplines. Staff Information Elchurch employed approximately six sta ff members, ages 25-45. The two males and four females were all African American educators (in-service or retired). Special training sessions prepared each instructor fo r the Elchurch program. Each of these two sessions focused on the program’s goals, objectiv es, activities, rules and regulations, and

PAGE 94

83 other concerns. According to the program c oordinator, the younger, more mobile staff members were less likely to plan to con tinue with Elchurch, while the older members were more likely. Compensation varied fr om $20 per hour to $30 per hour and was based on the nature of each staff member’s contribution. All staff were paid. The program coordinator was a full professor in the biology department at the administering university. Financial Information To support its $8,000 per year budget, Elchur ch required a nominal weekly fee for each participant. The amount of the weekly fee was not disclosed. Scholarships were available for students who were unable to pay. Program 3—Enviroyear Administered by a Master’s II, state-funded university in the Piedmont region of South Carolina, the Enviroyear program offe red middle school students an opportunity to prepare for undergraduate education while emphasizing environmental science. Supported by a five-year federal initiative, the overall goal of the progr am was to help atrisk students in grades 7-8 enroll, persist i n, and graduate from an institution of higher learning. In its third year of operation, Enviroyear represen ted one university’s efforts to achieve this goal, while using environmental science, mathematics, and technology as the vehicles of choice. The fictitious name highlights two important qualities of the intervention program—its environmental scie nce (Enviro) focus and the use of a yearround (year) program to achieve its goals. Observations and interv iews during a visit to the summer program, the Program Coordinator Questionnaire, and arti fact data provided the following information about the Enviroyear program.

PAGE 95

84 Program Objectives The program coordinator identified the follo wing objectives of Enviroyear: (a) to prepare middle school students for undergra duate education, (b) to improve general progress in math and science classes, (c) to increase students’ readiness to meet the objectives of the Enviroyear pr ogram, and (d) to obtain suggestions and ideas for future improvements. These four objectives were em braced by the overall goals of the initiative to which Enviroyear belongs: to increase e ducational expectations for participating students; to provide an en riched, stimulating, and active learning environment; and to increase student and family knowledge of pos t-secondary opportunitie s and financial aid options. The Enviroyear staff learned of the program objectives through formal and informal meetings, a parent orientation, and through the evaluation of their written curricula. Recruitment and orientation sessions informed the parents and participants of the objectives. Additionally, the intervention activities reminded students of the goals of the program. The objectives were measured by surveys, scores on state-mandated achievement tests, and action research. Th e action research involved an analysis of student participation, student work, and inte rviews with students, instructors, and mentors. The surveys and test scores, though collected by the program coordinators, were evaluated by the funding source. The program coordinators conducted the action research. Program Format Enviroyear operated during the school year as well as in the summer. The school year component met one day per week for 16 Saturdays during the school year. Each Saturday meeting was from 9:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. The summer component was a 15-

PAGE 96

85 day non-residential program, with meetings fr om 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Meetings, in June, lasted from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. The summer component targeted rising eighth grade students. These students, as eighth grad ers, were invited to participate in five Saturday experiences during th e following fall semester. A second Saturday component occurred during the spring semester, and invi ted current seventh grade students. Hence, Enviroyear students participated in thr ee different components—spring semester of seventh grade, summer before eighth grade, and fall semester of eighth grade. Program Location Enviroyear, administered by a Master’s II level university in South Carolina’s Piedmont region, utilized the university as its primary site. The science classes occurred in fully equipped science labs, and the inst ructors had complete access to the science equipment and materials. Other classes used computer labs, technology-enriched classrooms, and the physical education f acilities (swimming pool and gymnasium), and all meals were served in the university cafeteria. Field trips to places such as a lake, a d eaf community, state parks, a ropes course, and a Spanish-speaking neighborhoo d and restaurant allowed th e Enviroyear participants to visit local areas. Trips to other colleges and universities in the South Carolina exposed students to small, mid-sized, large, historica lly Black, public, and priv ate institutions of higher learning. Target Population Enviroyear targeted seventh grade stude nts at the eligible public middle schools from the five counties surrounding the admi nistering university. The partner schools were chosen because of their high free/reduced lunch constituencies. The program targeted at least 75% free/reduced lunch re cipients and a high minority population.

PAGE 97

86 According to the program coordinator, Envi royear was designed for students with potential, and represented neither the top nor bottom 10% of their class’ academic abilities. Recruitment and Selection Enviroyear recruited particip ants from the five partne r middle schools in the five counties surrounding the administering universit y. Enviroyear invited selected seventh grade students or the entire seventh grade class to attend a recruiting fair at each school. A selection committee comprised of a team of Enviroyear staff members and teachers and principals from the partner schools reviewed the applications to choose the participants. Information included during th e application process included free/reduced lunch status, race/ethnicity, la nguage minority status, disability status, and school district representation. Additional information in cluded scores on the state-administered achievement test, letters of recommendation from guidance counselors and teachers, and letters of participation from parents. E nviroyear met its goal to serve at least 75% free/reduced lunch recipients and mostly minority (African American) students. Generally, all students who applied (usua lly 65-70 students) were selected to participate in Enviroyear. By the end of the 16 Saturdays in the spring semester, the number of participants had dropped to 45-50. The summer component served approximately 30 students. Intervention Activities The Enviroyear summer component utilized a variety of activities, including handson science activities, technology-based expe riences, design projects using robotic Legos leadership activities, problem-solving drills, physical educ ation and exercise studies, and Spanish and sign language classes. Two cohorts of morning sessions rotated

PAGE 98

87 through project-based learning in science, mathematics, technology, and team-building activities as the students participated in ha nds-on science activities. One science teacher took advantage of the environmental theme a nd, with her classes, examined ecosystems, the environment, and water. Using modified versions of nationally recognized curricula, such as Project Wet, Project Wild, Project Wild Aquatic, Project Learning Tree, Tribes, and the National Science Curriculum Project for High Ability Learners, the Enviroyear participants learned about watersheds, oil sp ills, wetlands, water quality testing, and other environmental concepts from one science inst ructor. Another science instructor, on the other hand, preferred physical sc ience topics such as light and optics. Field trips to a local lake, waste management and water tr eatment plant, and an outdoor wilderness challenge supplemented all of these science act ivities. Other field trips, to various colleges in the state, allowed opportunities for guided tours, admissions presentations, and field studies to complement pr evious Enviroyear activities. While the morning sessions offered an em phasis on science, the afternoon meetings highlighted leadership and academic survival skills, creative problem solving, exercise studies, and more team-building activities. During the leadership module emphasis was placed on careers, career development, social aspects of success in college, conflict resolution, self-esteem, and assertiveness trai ning. Three cohorts of students rotated through these experiences. Participants in Enviroyear’s summer component were expected to participate in five Saturday s during the following fall semester. These additional Saturday experiences included handson activities at local parks, state parks, and other outdoor education areas, as well as hands-on activities on the university’s campus.

PAGE 99

88 Enviroyear offered a 16-week Saturday program during the spring semester for seventh graders. This Saturday program highlighted the sciences of languages and personal skills. Three languages, Spanish, si gn, and computer were the focal points. Participants learned introductory Spanish and became familiar with the Hispanic culture. Additionally, they lear ned American Sign Language, and vi sited a school for the deaf to hone their skills. Participants used Lego Robolabs and other computer technology to improve their programming skills. Six fiel d trips, including th ree service-learning opportunities were included in the Enviroyear Sa turday component for seventh graders. In response to observations of past Envir oyear programs, the current staff decided to slow the pace of the academic portions to better meet the abiliti es and needs of the participants. They chose to combine some of the social and academic expectations and integrate the curriculum to be nefit the students. Staff Information During the summer, Enviroyear empl oyed approximately 19 staff members including 7 instructors, 4 professors, 6 mentors, and 2 co-directors (program coordinators). Of the seven instructors, 4 were female, and all were middle school math and science teachers. They were selected based on their reputations for leadership and knowledge in their fields, creativity in their pedagogical approaches, and their desire and ability to work with at-risk middle school stude nts. The professors, an African American couple, one White male, and one White female served as guest lecturers and permanent members of the staff. They were recruited from the administering university and a local technical college. The selecti on criteria for the professors were similar to that of the instructors. Six student me ntors, one Black male, two Black females, and three White

PAGE 100

89 females, were chosen from the university’s leadership program and a group of teaching fellows. Both program coordinators for Envi royear were assistant professors at the administering university—one in the school of education, and the othe r in the school of physical education and exercise sciences. The staff members received training via m eetings with the program coordinators and their involvement with various administra tive duties. Unless they demonstrated an inability to work effectively within the Enviroyear program, each staff member was invited to participate in future years/ sessions. Compensation varied based on the contribution of each staff member to the program, and all staff were paid. Financial Information Enviroyear operated free of charge to participants and offered no stipend. The program’s backing came from the state’s commission of higher education, with funds from a federal initiative. The amount of funding provided by the initiative was not available. Program 4— SumSpace Administered by a Doctoral Intensive level university in the lower Savannah Region of South Carolina, SumSpace offere d middle and high school students an opportunity to interact with space science. The administering university was also recognized as a historically Black instituti on. Supported by a federal agency and housed at a campus-based space center, the overall goals of the pr ogram were to introduce space science to middle and high school students and cr eate an interest in the field. Since 1998, the program aimed to challenge students while exposing them to the scientific learning process. The fictitious name highlights two important qualities of the intervention program—the summer format (Sum) used to deliver the interventi on and the program’s

PAGE 101

90 emphasis on space science (Space ). Artifact data and pers onal communication with the program coordinator provided the following in formation about the SumSpace program. Program Objectives The study identified the following objectiv es of SumSpace: (a) to introduce students to space science and stimulate their awareness of relevant careers, (b) to cultivate an ongoing interest in science in general and the uni verse in particular, (c) to expose students to scientific research, includ ing how data are collect ed and analyzed, (d) to provide skills/techniques that allow students to compete in science fairs, participate in workshops and conferences on a state and nati onal level, (e) to provide students with hands-on experiences using th e telescope, (f) to enhance skills and knowledge through interactive lab activit ies, (g) to provide exposure to undergraduate science majors and practicing experts in the field, (h) to gain experience as team members while developing a better understanding of the solar system, (i ) to instruct teache rs on the use of the Internet as a tool to explore space, and (j ) to develop a resource web page on the solar system. The program objectives were shared with parents and participants via a web site, brochures, and other print materials. How the objectives were articulated to the staff was unclear. Additionally, the methods used to m easure the objectives were not clarified. Program Format SumSpace operated as two overlapping su mmer programs. While one program offered science teachers (grades 7-9) an oppor tunity to interact with college science faculty and students, the other afforded students (grades 7-9) similar experiences. Both programs emphasized space science and com puter technology. The teacher program lasted 13 days, while the student program ope rated for 10 days. Both programs used 8:00

PAGE 102

91 a.m. until 3:15 p.m. as the time allotted for academic study. After that time, the teachers left campus and the students participated in recreational experi ences. The student program was residential, though participants were not permitted to live on campus during the weekends. SumSpace selected five teachers fo r a unique arrangement of program participants/staff. Five middle school or ni nth grade science teachers were invited to participate in the SumSpace teacher compone nt. Only one teacher from a school was eligible. The first three days of the t eacher component consisted of a preparation workshop designed to help teachers hone their astronomy skills and knowledge. The workshop introduced the teachers to inquiry-bas ed, hands-on activities that were based on state and national science standards. The remainder of the program involved two weeks of intensive space science study during which the teachers supervised the student experiences. The teachers and students were divided into teams to achieve the goals of SumSpace. Unless otherwise noted, further di scussion of SumSpace refers to the student component only. Program Location As previously mentioned, SumSpace was administered by a Doctoral Intensive level university South Carolina’s lower Sa vannah region. The university was identified as a historically Black institution of higher learning. The program activities occurred in the science building on the campus of the admini stering university. The participants had access to the Internet, science equipment, and large work areas for their hands-on activities. Additionally, the students resided in campus housing and utilized the cafeteria. Off-campus trips to movie theaters, bowling alleys, and shopping cen ters were provided for evening excursions.

PAGE 103

92 Target Population SumSpace targeted minority students, partic ularly African Americans. Participants were required to attend a South Carolina school and be enrolled in grades 7-9. The program could effectively accommodate 20 students. Recruitment and Selection SumSpace recruited participants from the en tire state of South Carolina. To be considered, students were requi red to submit an application, essay, and registration fee. The application asked for data including grad e point average, awards and achievements, and career interest. A 250-word essay suppl emented each application, and described the applicant’s career objectives, interest in science, and how SumSpace could be an asset. Intervention Activities SumSpace students resided on the university’s campus (except on weekends) and participated in a variety of activities that were designed to motivate them to pursue careers in space science. Some of these activities included hands-on science experiments, Internet use, building a model of the solar sy stem, building a model comet, solving spacerelated problems, visualizing in 3D, creating a resource web page on the sun and planets, observing the summer sky, visiting the campus planetarium, and l earning about various space science careers through discus sions with undergraduate science majors and experts. Leisure activities, such as bowling, organizing a talent show, and vi ewing movies were planned for the evenings. Staff Information For two weeks, the teachers served as Su mSpace staff members, and were paid a stipend of $715 upon full completion of the program. They led the activities that supported the goals of the stude nt component. Comparable to the student component, the

PAGE 104

93 teacher component recruited minority, particul arly African American, science teachers in South Carolina. Training for SumSpace invo lved a two-hour orientation session in May and the three-day preparation workshop. Other staff members included undergraduate science students who served as mentors to the seventh-ninth gr ade students. The compensation provided to the mentors was uncle ar. The program coordinator was a staff member of the space center that was housed at the university. Financial Information Though SumSpace required a registration f ee of $60, participation was free of charge. Students who were not accepted to the program were refunded their money. No stipends were offered to the student partic ipants. The National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), through a campus-based resear ch center, provided the primary funding for SumSpace. Information regarding the ex act amount of funding was not available. Program 5— SpringSat Administered by a Master’s I, historically Black, st ate-funded university in a residential area of Baltimore, Maryland, the SpringSat program offered to students an opportunity to become more interested in sc ience, engineering, and mathematics. In operation since 1989, and supported by federal funding, the overall goal of the program was to develop more science, engineering, and mathematics students. The fictitious name highlights two important qualities of th e intervention program—its spring semester (Spring) duration and its use of Saturday s (Sat) to offer intervention. A program coordinator questionnaire and artifact data provided the following information about the SpringSat program.

PAGE 105

94 Program Objectives The program coordinator identified the fo llowing objectives of SpringSat: (a) to increase student performance on national and state performance tests, (b) to increase student motivation and performance in scie nce, engineering, and mathematics (SEM), and (c) to increase parent pa rticipation and involvement in the development of SEM students. Training sessions and weekly meetings pr ovided the staff with an opportunity to learn the objectives. Parent s and participants attended a pre-program workshop, during which the objectives were articulated. To measure the objectives, SpringSat staff administered preand post-tests. Additionally, parent interviews were used to garner information about school achievement, work ha bits, and test scores. The program staff and coordinators facilitated the assessment. Program Format SpringSat operated during the spring semest er of the school year. The program met for six hours each on 10 consecutive Saturdays. Program Location As aforementioned, SpringSat was administered by a Master ’s I, historically Black university in a residential ar ea in Baltimore, Maryland. A ll of the progr am activities occurred on campus. The specifics of each room varied with each session, therefore that information was unavailable. Target Population SpringSat targeted inner city, minority students in grades 3-12. Due to the historical Black nature of the administeri ng university, and the composition of the city, most participants were African American. The broad nature of the target population

PAGE 106

95 allowed the program to serve multiple abil ity levels, and information regarding the number of participants was not available. Recruitment and Selection SpringSat used relationships with local schoo ls to recruit its participants. Because no academic requirement was stipulated, the program operated on a first come, first served basis. Students who had previously par ticipated were invited first, and nearly half of all students returned each year. Intervention Activities SpringSat utilized a variety of activities, including mathematics and language arts classes, with an emphasis on critical thinking, writing, and speaking. Additionally, participants attended computer classes and completed engineering design projects. Because the program served grades 3-12, Spri ngSat provided experiences appropriate for a wide range of developmental levels. Staff Information SpringSat employed several st aff members, most of whom were African American. Though many of the staff were female, some were male. A fiveday session offered specialized training for SpringSat staff. The program coordinators, who had years of mentoring and tutoring experien ce, facilitated the training. Most staff members were volunteers, though some were paid $200 at the end of the program. The program coordinator was an associate professo r in the school of engineering. Financial Information SpringSat operated free of charge to pa rticipants and offered no stipend. The program’s funding came from a coalition of engineering schools supported by the

PAGE 107

96 National Science Foundation. Information re garding the amount of funding was not available.

PAGE 108

97 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION #2 The study identified 46 science interven tion programs administered by the 42 public universities in South Ca rolina, Georgia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Of those 46 programs, 15 targeted and recruite d minorities and met the other criteria to be included in the study. Five of the 15 eligible programs participated in the study. An investigation of the de scriptive and interpretive data collected for the Research Question #1 resulted in an evaluation of the underlyi ng premise of existing science intervention programs. The following discussion answers Research Question #2: What does a cluster evaluation of existing science intervention progra ms reveal about their intent and efforts? The data collection categories associated with each science intervention program (i.e., program objectives, program form at, program location, target population, recruitment/selection, interven tion activities, program staff, and financial information) organized the analysis. A data analysis tool (see Appendix F) was used to compare the standards for science intervention programs de veloped by the researcher to the collected data. See Chapter 3 for a thorough discussion of the standards used for comparison. This chapter outlines the analysis of each data colle ction category, as well as an evaluation of each analysis. In accordance with the esse nce of cluster evaluation, the following analyses and evaluations refer to the cluster of science intervention programs rather than individual programs.

PAGE 109

98 Program Objectives Program objectives outlining the goals of each science in tervention program determine the format and scope of the program The objectives identify the scope of the intervention activities. Acco rding to the standard, scienc e intervention programs should address at least two of the following: scie nce skills, science content knowledge, attitudes toward science, and sciencerelated careers. Ideally, a ll four components should be addressed. Program staff, parents, and part icipants should be aware of the objectives prior to the start of the inte rvention. To exceed the standar d, staff should be reminded of the objectives via regular meetings throughout the course of the program, and parents should first learn of the object ives at a recruiting session. Th e standard suggests that the objectives should be measurable and measured via traditional, pape r-pencil methods. An internal evaluator shou ld facilitate program evaluation. Ideally, an external evaluator should employ alternative techniques such as interviews, observations, and performance tasks. Analysis Each of the five programs in the cluster identified science content knowledge as a major component of their objectives. Three programs also emphasi zed attitudes toward science, but science-related car eers and science process skil ls were not well represented in the cluster. Objectives for science-relate d careers and science pr ocess skills were each identified for only two programs. All programs outlined effective means to articulate their objectives to staff, pare nts, and participants. Though th ree programs reiterated their objectives to staff during the course of the programs, only one offered the same reminder to parents and participants. Of the 23 obj ectives stated by the programs, 83% were measurable, and three of five programs ins tituted appropriate evaluation tools to assess

PAGE 110

99 the majority of their objectives. One progr am had unclear evaluation methods, and the other four programs met the minimum st andard for measuring objectives. Evaluation Though attitudes toward science remain an important focus of science intervention programs, its overemphasis occurred at the e xpense of science skill s and science-related careers. Research indicates that Black stude nts tend to express posit ive attitudes toward science but demonstrate low achievement in science (Anderson, 1989). Consequently, as the cluster highlighted attitudes toward science and science content knowledge, it understated the importance of sc ience skills and science-rela ted careers. The programs’ aims did not enable Black students to im prove skills with science processes and equipment or increase their aw areness of pertinent career opportunities. Although the cluster emphasized science content knowledge, the application of such knowledge (i.e., science skills and careers) was minimal. Accordingly, the cluster did not provide the much-needed relevance to encourage participants to view science as an important entity in their lives. Students were not grante d the opportunity to answer the following questions, first posed in Chapter 3: What are the skills of science? How can these skills be used in all aspects of my life? And how can my skills, knowledge, and attitudes be used to benefit society in the form of a career? The cluster used traditiona l assessment methods, such as preand post tests, surveys, and worksheets to measure program objectives. These structured evaluation tools did not consider the achievements of part icipants with various learning modalities. Though traditional methods, employed by an intern al evaluator, served the basic purpose of measuring objectives, alte rnative methods and an exte rnal evaluator would have provided a richer perception of the effectiveness of the programs.

PAGE 111

100 Overall, the cluster’s objectives were cons tructed in a manner that created gaps in program emphasis. The assessment tools perpetuated these gaps by not providing opportunities for participants to demonstrate thei r expertise and/or defi ciencies in science content knowledge, science skills, attitudes toward science, and science-related careers. The assessments were appropriate for the pr ograms’ stated objec tives, but the use of limited tools affected the extent to which the objectives could be measured. More comprehensive assessments could have reve aled gaps in program emphasis. This information could have been used to devel op additional objectives to meet the needs of the students. In the area of program objectives, the cl uster’s effort can be deemed good. The programs presented measurable objectives, articul ated these objectives to staff, parents, and participants, and measured the achievem ent of the objectives. This strength was countered by the under-inclusion of science process skills and science-related careers. Program Format Program format refers to when a progr am operates (after school, during school, Saturdays, and/or summer), its duration, and th e length of each meeting. Program format should be closely linked to program objectives, in that the goals of the program determine its needs, which require a part icular design. Science interv ention programs should be in constant contact with their participants. Da ily and weekly meetings allow for effective intervention, whereas long breaks between meetings may lessen the success of the program. The standard suggests that program s offering concentrated sessions, such as summer components, should meet on a daily basi s. This component should be at least a two-week, nonresidential sessi on. Ideally, the summer session should be at least three weeks and residential. For programs that o ffer widespread components, such as year-

PAGE 112

101 long sessions, students should meet on a week ly basis. According to the standard, students should be able to continue their participation for one additional year and/or session. Ideally, students shoul d continue their participa tion throughout the duration of their schooling. Analysis Four of five programs offered activities th at were clearly cons istent with their objectives. All programs provided frequent m eetings with participants. The summer components met on a daily basis for at least two weeks, and the yearlong and semester components met weekly for at least 10 week s. Three programs invited students to continue participation in future years/se ssions, whereas one progr am was discontinued. For obvious reasons, these student s were not able to remain involved. The nature of one program deemed it unlikely to allow repeat par ticipants, but this information could not be corroborated. Evaluation Through the various designs of the interv ention programs examined in this study, the cluster acknowledged the correlation be tween program objectives and program format. The programs were not designed ar bitrarily, but in fact, represented program developers’ knowledge of the potential benef its of certain activi ties. The “educated intuition” of the program developers, as described by Clewell ( 1989, p. 99), appeared to be an effective means of pr oviding opportunities for students that were consistent with the scope of the programs. Additionally, science intervention programs allowed students to continue their participati on in future sessions/years. The prospect of continued involvement imparts consistency in students’ academic growth and personal relationships with peers, mentors, role models, science cont ent, and science-related careers. Overall,

PAGE 113

102 the cluster offered sound program designs that were related to the stated objectives of each program. The availability of consistent involvement allowed students to remain motivated, inspired, and positively affected by the intervention programs. Consequently, the cluster presented a strong effort with regard to program format. Program Location Although the sites of science interventi on programs vary, programs generally utilize local schools, universit y facilities, community cente rs, or neighborhood churches. According to the standard, science inte rvention programs should be conducted at community sites or schools, and be supplem ented by the use of university resources and facilities. Ideally, these programs should occur in community s ites and investigate community-related issues using local and uni versity resources. Programs housed in university facilities should engage students in experiments, projects, and activities within the community at least twice during the pr ogram. Ideally, all science intervention programs should use community sites for most of their activities and field trips. Science intervention programs require the use of facilities th at foster hands-on science activities. Hands-on activities can be fostered by large tabletops, work space, sinks, uncarpeted floors, comfortable seating, comfortable temperatur es, and adjustable lighting. Furthermore, science intervention demands science equipment and supplies. The standard suggests that all programs shoul d have ready access to an environment that fosters hands-on activities and provides access to science equipment and supplies. To exceed the standard, programs should have a fully equipped laboratory for students use. Analysis Three of the programs in the cluster were housed in university facilities, and the other two utilized community sites. One pr ogram actually used four sites, two middle

PAGE 114

103 schools, one church, and one girl-oriented youth center. The othe r program was housed at a church. Of the programs housed on university campuses, only one visited community sites for field trips or to conduct sc ience activities. As a result of the program with four locations, the number of sites included in the cluster increased to eight. Five of eight program sites fostered hands-on scienc e activities, however an analysis of the community-based sites versus university-based sites revealed an interesting difference. Programs housed in the community failed to provide adequate access to science equipment and supplies for student use. The university-based programs supplied the necessary equipment and resources for students. Evaluation While local schools and community sites pr ovide convenience and familiarity to participants, university facilities have eas ier access to resources for conducting science experiments, visiting laborato ries, and meeting scientists and college students. For residential programs, university facilities offer room, board, and other amenities. Implicitly, programs housed at universities perp etuate the notion that science is a remote endeavor, and that one must go elsewhere to see or do science. Co mmunity sites counter this idea by offering an accessible perception of science. As such, the cluster attempted to challenge the notion of remote science, but did not provide enough experiences for students to view their communities as sites for seeing and doing science. The repeated use of universities to house the programs without adequate community-based field trips and projects perpetuated the aforementi oned idea. Within the community-based programs, the lack of science equipment, mate rials, and other charac teristics that foster hands-on activities also perp etuated the remote nature of science. Although these programs included neighborhoods and commun ities in science through their physical

PAGE 115

104 locations, inadequate resources impeded the perception change from remote science to accessible science. Overall, the cluster demons trated a weak effort regarding its portrayal of accessible science as evidenced by program location. Target Population and Recruitment/Selection Science intervention programs determine the population they aim to serve, and identify recruitment and selection strategies to achieve their goal. Programs recruit and select in accordance with the target popul ations. Some programs specify important criteria, such as race/ethnici ty, gender, grade point average, intelligent quotient, teacher recommendations, proficiency or interest in science, achievement level, socioeconomic status, geographical location, and/or school enrollment. Other programs operate on a first-come, first-served basis. Science inte rvention programs utilize various recruiting strategies, including partners hips with local schools, churches, and community organizations and word of mouth. According to the standard, science inte rvention programs should recruit with a wide range of academic performance levels. Gender parity should be evident in all programs unless a program specifically target s one gender. The composition of the programs should reflect the target populati on of the local commun ity, but not to the omission of other races/ethnic ities. A small participant to instructor ratio should be maintained at 8 to1, or ideally, 6 to 1. Sc ience intervention programs should be free for participants, or charge a nominal fee. F ee-based programs should pr ovide scholarships or other financial assistance. The standard s uggests intervention program s utilize strategies to recruit students and parents, not just pare nts. Unless a specific area has been targeted, science intervention should serve a wide variety of communities, neighborhoods, and schools.

PAGE 116

105 Analysis All of the science intervention programs in the cluster selected participants representing a range of acad emic performance levels. N one of the programs included students on either end of the ability spectru m—gifted/talented and students with extreme learning challenges. None of the programs was gender-specific, but only one program coordinator was able to identif y the percentages of participa ting girls and boys. Four of five programs did serve their target populat ions, with one program failing to attract minorities other than African Americans. With two programs not clarifying their participant to instructor ratio, the ability of the cluster to provid e adequate opportunities for relationship buildi ng between students and staff c ould not be determined. Three programs did not charge a fee to participan ts, while one program required a refundable registration fee. One program charged a weekly fee, but offered scholarships to those in financial need. Though the programs served a wide variety of communities, neighborhoods, and schools using various recr uitment strategies, the focus of their recruitment—parents, students, and/or families—was not clear. Evaluation The science intervention programs in the cl uster selected students who represented a range of ability levels. All of the program s targeted and served minority, particularly Black students. Despite serving both genders the cluster was unaware of the number of males and females in the programs. The pr ogram coordinators likely collected such information, but did not or coul d not access it readily. This indi cated a lack of interest in gender issues related to science intervention programs. Program coordinators should be aware of potential gender differe nces in the effectiveness of their intervention. Minority males and females may respond differently to intervention efforts. Coordinators who

PAGE 117

106 document gender demographics and analyze th e effects of their pr ograms on males and females can be better equipped to provide e xperiences that benefit their participants. Furthermore, they should correlate the gender de mographics of their pa rticipants to those of the role models and mentors they em ploy. The program coordinators provided ambiguous information regarding participant to in structor ratios. Clos er attention to this matter could shed light on the effectiveness of the cluster’s ability to maintain a low participant to instructor ratio. Overall, the cluste r exhibited a strong effort concerning the inclusion of a range of academic performan ce levels, and a weak effort regarding gender parity and participant to instructor ratios. Intervention Activities “The effectiveness of approaches and strategies depends on a knowledge of the target population and on the application of th eoretically sound pract ices” (Clewell et al., 1992a, p. 98). According to the standard, program activities should be consistent with the objectives. As such, they should incorporate some combination of science process skills, science content knowledge, att itudes toward science, and science-related careers. Additionally, programs should in corporate a variety of ac tivities, including hands-on experiments, design projects, interdiscipl inary lessons, creative and critical thinking, worksheets, oral presentations, and individua l and group work. The standard requires that students be actively engaged in hands-on ac tivities at least thr ee times per week for summer components and one per session for ye arlong components. Also, one long-term design project should be incor porated into summer and ye arlong sessions. Exposure to mentors and role models should be an integr al part of intervention activities. The standard suggests that these mentors and role models should be college students and professionals who represent the fields of inte rest, genders, ethnicitie s, and backgrounds of

PAGE 118

107 the student participants. Programs should o ffer mentors in the fo rm of diverse staff members who interact with students at each session. Role models should be guest speakers, staff, and biographical studies re presenting a diverse gr oup of people. They should be presented at least twice for summe r programs and every three meetings during yearlong sessions. The intervention activitie s should introduce students to a variety of science-related careers via field trips, guest speakers, biographical studies, and discussions. According to the standard, car eer awareness should include examples of professionals, descriptions of the type of work involved, and discussions related to preparing for such careers. Analysis The cluster provided intervention activities that were consistent with the program objectives. These program activities were ha nds-on and traditional, and incorporated group as well as individual work. The clus ter provided ample opportunities for students to engage in design project s during summer and yearlong components. Three of the programs in the cluster exposed students to mentors and role models. Though three of the programs did not identify career awaren ess as an objective, they did emphasize science-related careers through the use of role models, guest speakers, and presentations during field trips. Evaluation The cluster’s use of divers e intervention activities was valuable for students with various learning modalities. Students’ exposure to mentors and role models complemented the other intervention activities. As previously discussed, most of the programs did not identify career awareness as an objective, yet they did emphasize science-related careers. This resulted in comp eting perceptions of the cluster. On one

PAGE 119

108 hand, the secondary nature of the career-re lated activities did not detract from the importance of science-related careers. Rather, it implicitly underscored the application of the science skills, knowledge, and attitudes that were explicit to the programs. A planned focus on careers would likely result in mo re connections made between students’ interests and related professions, but the unpl anned attention was positive. The program coordinators valued the peri pheral inclusion of science-related caree rs and offered the exposure as an unintended bonus. On the othe r hand, the lack of an intended focus on science-related careers resulted in an unde termined quality of student exposure. Although participants learned of science-related careers the peripheral treatment perpetuated the underrepresentation that curr ently plagues the science community. The ultimate goal of science for all is to increase science literacy and thus affect the participation of females and minorities in science-related careers. The cluster’s lack of planned experiences to reach this goal se rved a counterproductive purpose that could cause one to question the inten tions of the programs. With regard to providing a variety of intervention activit ies and mentors/role models, th e cluster demonstrated a strong effort. Concerning career awareness, howev er, the effort was fairly implemented but poorly designed. Program Staff An analysis of program staff can provide insight regarding the program’s ability to meet the needs of the target population. The program staff should represent, but not be limited to, the gender, race, and ethnicity of the student participants. According to the standard, the staff should have an opportunity to work with the program for at least one additional year. This provides continuity for the program, as well as the students. Staff should be trained prior to the start of th e program. This intensive training should

PAGE 120

109 highlight the program’s goals, purposes, and objectives, as well as program policies, activities, and ideals. According to the standard, the tr aining should last at least four hours. Staff members should be compensated either financially or academically. The majority of the staff should earn a stipend, sa lary, or course credit. The motivation of compensation may offset the lack of commit ment or high turnover that volunteerism or a requirement may produce. Analysis All programs in the cluster utilized staff members who represented, but were not limited to, the demographics of the target populations. Staff members were able to continue their participation for at least one ad ditional year. Adequate training in all five programs prepared the staff members for th e upcoming intervention activities. All programs in the cluster provided financial comp ensation, often quite competitive, to their staff. Evaluation The cluster’s use of training, continued participation, and financial compensation cultivated the needs of the staff, thus enab ling them to concentrat e on the needs of the students. Intensive tr aining sessions, frequent meetings, handbooks, and open communication provided the staff with the nece ssary tools for intervention. The staff members for each program were well prepared. The programs, with the possible exception of one, invited their staff to continue working in future years. The sustained involvement of staff and stude nts allowed lasting relationshi ps to develop. As these relationships grew among the staff, students, and families, the strength of each program similarly grew. The influence of these affective factors cannot be overlooked or

PAGE 121

110 discounted when determining the impacts of sc ience intervention progr ams. Overall, the cluster presented a strong effort in selecti ng, preparing, and compensa ting staff members. Overall Evaluation of the Cluster Overall, the cluster exhibited many strengths related to the implementation of science intervention programs. These stre ngths, though executed differently for each program, included: (a) sound, measurable objectives; (b) articul ation of program objectives to staff, parents, and participants; (c) frequent co ntact during sessions; (d) the potential for continuous involve ment of staff and particip ants; (e) participants who represented a range of academic performance levels; (f) progra ms that served their target group; (g) the participati on of various communities, neighborhoods, and schools; (h) effective recruitment strategies as eviden ced by the congruence be tween target population and actual participants; (i) financially inclus ive programs; (j) a variety of intervention activities; (k) intensive training for staff, and (l) duly compensated staff members. In addition to these accomplishments, the cluster exhibited areas that could use improvement. The following lists the facets of the cluster that could benefit from further development: (a) inadequate focus on sciencerelated careers and sc ience process skills, (b) insufficient use of communities as sites for doing and seeing science, and (c) meager intervention strategies for younger students. Other issues, though not as glaring, should also be considered. These include: (a) the use of narrow evaluation tools to assess the accomplishment of the program objectives, (b) lack of attention to gender equity for participants, and (c) poor participant to in structor ratios. As represented by the five programs in th e cluster, science intervention programs for Southern Black students revealed good inte ntions, but with some limitations. The strengths demonstrated eff ective structural components, such as program format,

PAGE 122

111 recruitment and selection, and intervention activities, whereas the weaknesses stemmed from nonstructural, yet equally important factors. As a metaphor, consider the construction of a home. When building a home, the physical structure must be supportive and safe, and is usually attractive. The bu ilding, once standing and covered with a roof, serves its basic purpose, though other entities—some consider ed necessities and others viewed as luxuries—must be in place before the home can be inhabited. These entities include running water, electrici ty, smoke detectors, doors with locks, banisters, security systems, and carpet or finished floors. In terms of science intervention programs the cluster utilized a strong foundation and frame. Its metaphorical house was structurally sound and served its primary function. The program objectives, formats, a nd intervention activitie s were effective. Many essential items needed to dwell in th e house, however, were lacking. Although the house can be used, it does not offer the security and comfort the amenities provide. The inclusion of these components should not be rega rded as unnecessary perks. They are, in fact, necessary to providing a comprehensive environment that supports the participation of Blacks in science. This s upports the purpose of the national science for all initiative. Gaps in Program Emphasis The cluster stressed positive attitudes toward science, without sufficiently highlighting science-related careers and scie nce process skills. Continually promoting positive attitudes toward science without expos ing students to practical uses of science does little to reduce the underparticipation of Blacks in scien ce. Of what value is science intervention if students do not develop an inte rest in pursuing scienc e as a profession? A focus on attitudes and science content doe s not provide a large enough platform for students to utilize thei r knowledge. They must be exposed to the science process skills,

PAGE 123

112 which will prepare them to become doers of science, rather than bystanders. If science intervention programs aim to produce stude nts who hold positive attitudes toward science, and possess increased knowledge of science content, then ignoring science process skills and science-related careers w ould be justified. Science intervention, via science for all, however inte nds to counter the underrepres entation of minorities and females in science. As a result, interven tion programs must pur posely and adequately emphasize science process skills, science c ontent knowledge, attitude s toward science, and science-related careers. Insufficient Use of Community Sites The cluster attempted to challenge the noti on that science is a remote endeavor and that one must leave the community to see or do science. Despite its attempt, the cluster did not provide enough relevant, hands-on, and community-based science experiences. Students participated in science activities th at were not derived from local issues or dilemmas. These science experiences, t hough interesting and informative, did not address the concerns of the community. Thus, the cluster sustained the inaccessible perception of science. This bears importanc e because students who believe science is an unattainable entity will not be motivated to pursue science. Likewise, youth who do not believe science affects their lives will not be interested in doing science. Science intervention programs can provide opportunitie s for students to see the influence of science knowledge, study, and inte rest on local areas. Students need to be exposed to the problems that inspire scientific investigations. They need to understand that people use science to answer questions about the worl d around them, including the local area.

PAGE 124

113 Meager Intervention Strategies for Younger Students The cluster did not provide sufficient scien ce experiences for elementary students. Science for all should not begin in middl e school. Early, positive, and relevant experiences in science can stimulate students to continue their participation. Science intervention programs that do not include younger students fail to tap into a large source of potential science-related prof essionals. The cluster contributed to this slimming of the science pool by not addressing the needs of younger students. What purpose does middle and high school intervention serve when el ementary students are omitted? Why should science intervention wait until students are in middle school and pursuing other interests? Why not provide relevant, hands-on science e xperiences to young children when they are displaying their curiosity? Th e cluster’s poor attention to young students served to limit the number of students who could eventu ally pursue science-related careers.

PAGE 125

114 CHAPTER 6 RESULTS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION #3 The study identified 46 science interven tion programs administered by the 42 public universities in South Ca rolina, Georgia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Of those 46 programs, 15 targeted and recruite d minorities and met the other criteria to be included in the study. Five of the 15 eligible programs participated in the study. An investigation of the de scriptive and interpretive data co llected for Research Question #1 resulted in an evaluation of the underlyi ng premise of existing science intervention programs. The evaluation was a response to Research Question #2. The following discussion answers Research Question #3: How can existing programs inform the development of models for science in tervention programs for Black students? Each of the programs in the cluster, other programs familiar to the researcher, and empirical evidence informed the developmen t of two models for science intervention programs. The models represent two diffe rent approaches to science intervention, strengthened by different aspects of the cl uster programs and addressing the areas of improvement discussed in Chapter 5. Model #1 Model #1 exemplifies a university-administered program that services its local area. The program targets rising sixth-grad ers and follows them throughout their middle school matriculation. In accordance with the goa ls of science for all, a university-wide intervention program for middle school stude nts can benefit the participants, the

PAGE 126

115 university, and the local community. This model provides a gateway through which underrepresented groups can enter sc ience-related car eers. Program Objectives The objectives of Model #1 include emphases on science process skills, science content knowledge, attitudes to ward science, and sciencerelated careers. They incorporate cognitive (i.e., knowledge, unders tanding, inquiry, and processes), affective (i.e., attitudes, values, and habits of mind), psychomotor (i.e., physical skills), and social (i.e., communication and inter action) learning objectives. Th e well-rounded approach of Model #1 allows students to iden tify the relevance of science in their lives, as well as answer questions including: Wh at are the skills of science? How can these skills be used in all aspects of my life? What science knowledge is important to know at my developmental level? How can my science liter acy be used to make informed decisions everyday of my life? How do I f eel about science? How do I feel about myself as a doer of science? What are my perceptions of science? And how can my science skills, knowledge, and attitudes be used to benef it society in the form of a career? Model #1 articulates the program objectives to staff members during a one-week pre-program training workshop. Additionally, these objectives are thoroughly discussed in a program handbook, and reiterated at bi-w eekly meetings during the course of the program. Parents and participants learn of the objectives duri ng recruiting sessions, orientation meetings, and via a parent/participant handbook. To assess the achievement of the objectives Model #1 uses surveys, preand posttests, interviews, and performance measures. Program staff administers these measures at the end of each program cycle. That is students who have completed one summer and one academic year are assessed. These a nnual assessments can provide information

PAGE 127

116 regarding the effectiveness of each cycle, and can serve as formative evaluation tools. At the end of three cycles, an outside evalua tor should conduct exte nsive reviews of the program using a variety of quantitative a nd qualitative evaluation techniques. An external summative assessment can determine the impact of Mode l #1 on students who have remained with the pr ogram for three years. Program Format Model #1 uses its objectives to develop its format. Students enter the program during the summer before th eir sixth-grade year and continue with a yearlong intervention. The three-week residentia l summer component, designed to provide relevant laboratory and fiel d experiences, exposes program participants to a number of science fields. The following school year co mprises four-hours of intervention each week. These four hours can be arranged in two after school sessions or one Saturday session. Model #1 strongly encourages stude nts to participate th roughout their middle school years. Program Location During the summer component, Model #1 utilizes a university campus as its primary site. This provides students with th e amenities of a reside ntial program, as well as ready access to science fac ilities and equipment. In ad dition to the dormitories and cafeterias, students use laboratories, meeti ng rooms, and other university facilities. Though the program is housed at the universit y, students also partic ipate in off-site, community-based projects. A variety of fiel d trips provide other means for students to experience different locations. The school year component is housed at a central community site, such as a public library, youth center, or church. The site facilitates hands-on sc ience activities, and

PAGE 128

117 includes large tabletops, work space, sinks, uncarpeted floors, comfortable seating, and adjustable lights and temperature. Program staff accumulates a wide array of science equipment and supplies and stores them in a lo cked area at the site. The model allows for occasional visits to the university during the school year to conduct some science activities. Occasional field trips to co mmunity sites during the school year expose students to a range of locations for seeing and doing science. Target Population and Recruitment/Selection Model #1 recruits minority, predominately Black, rising-s ixth grade students. Though the program seeks minority students, all students are encouraged to apply. These students represent various levels of ability a nd interest in science, and attend local middle schools. Special attention to minority male and female proportions ensures fair access to the intervention. Model #1, free of cost to participants, aims to achieve a participant to instructor ratio ranging from 6:1 to 8:1. To encourage participation, the program offers one-hour recruiting sessions at area middle schools, churches, youth centers, publ ic libraries, and other popular spots throughout the local area. These sessi ons use hands-on science activities, demonstrations, attractive handouts, and dyna mic presentations to entice students and their families to participate. Supplemental r ecruiting strategies include mailing letters to parents and setting up boot hs at local shopping center s and grocery stores. Intervention Activities Because Model #1 is a university-wide science intervention program, the intervention activities involve various units (i.e., colleges, departments, and centers) across the campus. During the summer com ponent, guest speakers, field trips, and hands-on activities related to current local research in the medical and veterinary schools,

PAGE 129

118 as well as in the entomology/nematology, earth sciences, ecology, chemistry, physics, and agriculture departments, introduce students to each area of expertise. The activities emphasize science process skills, science c ontent knowledge, attitude s toward science, and science-related careers. Attention to the requirements for uni versity admissions and how middle school students can begin to prepar e (i.e., by considering the implications of high school coursework selection and study habits.) for future academic endeavors supplements the exposure to possible career pa ths. The school-year component includes weekly activities on Saturdays. These activ ities include hands-on science activities, mentoring, field trips, career explorations, biographical st udies, and other motivational experiences to maintain the students’ in terest. Additionally, monitoring students’ progress in school holds them accountable for their achievement. Ideally, Model #1 participants remain in th e program throughout their middle school matriculation. Program Staff The university’s college of education admi nisters the program, and is responsible for recruiting and selecting middle school par ticipants. Graduate assistants from the college of education who represent the ge nder, race, ethnicity, and background of the participants work directly with the students as their residential a dvisors and school year mentors. The graduate assistants, who earn a competitive salary during the summer and a stipend during the school y ear, learn about the program during a one-week training workshop. In preparation for the science in tervention activities, the education students work with the science faculty and graduate students to develop pedagogically sound, yet relevant hands-on activities. This also incr eases the levels of competence and comfort education majors have with science. The science faculty member s create meaningful presentations and serve as role models and tour guides of applicable sites. The program

PAGE 130

119 calls for one week of partic ipation per department. Hence, one summer component utilizes three departments. The science faculty earns honor aria large enough to share with their graduate students, should they make that choice. As the program continues the following summer, six departments participate— three new departments for returning students and the three previous departments for new students. Student who remains with Model #1 for their entire middl e school careers gain familiarity with nine science departments/fields. That number bears significance, considering the lack of scie nce exposure and experiences noted by female and minority students in a number of research studies. Discussion Model #1 offers great benefits to its stude nt participants. Kahle and Lakes (1983) report that by middle school, students’ at titudes toward science are fixed. Although Steinkamp and Maehr (1984) note that both boys and girls experience declines in their positive views toward science during adolescence, the attitudes of boys manage to rise later, while those of girls do not. Hence, a program that targets girl s in their early middle school years provides a supportiv e environment that can coun ter a potential attitudinal decrease. Additionally, Kahle and Lakes (1983), A nderson (1989), and Catsambis (1995) all found that girls and minorities fail to understand the applications or relevance of science. Girls and minorities also seem unaware of the variety of science-related careers. The Draw-A-Scientist test (Chambers, 1983) indicates that most students believe scientists are old, White men w ho wear glasses and work in a laboratory. Exposure to the variety of science disciplines noted above offe rs an opportunity to address that antiquated perception. Additionally, the emphasis on resear ch based on local issues demonstrates to students the significance of unive rsity-level research on their everyday lives. Speaking

PAGE 131

120 with diverse, active researchers/faculty pr ovides answers to th e questions Model #1 participants undoubtedly pose—“Why is scie nce important?” and “How does science affect me?” Female and minority students w ho participate in the program meet and talk with female and minority students in the departments that Model #1 visits. The relationships that develop, as well as the benefits of sheer observation, indicate that opportunities exist for people of all types. Model #1 benefits the university community and faculty participants in several ways. During uncertain times of looming budget cuts and discussi ons of departmental consolidation, the more exposure each departme nt receives, the grea ter the likelihood of attracting potential students. The outreach opportunity fosters an understanding of the relevance of each field to everyday life. As Kahle and Lakes (1983) explain, when students have positive experiences in science, they gain an understanding of the uses and applications of science. This nurtures a pos itive attitude, and may ultimately lead to a career in science. The public university, functioning as an e ducational agent for the state, develops a heartier relationship with the local community. The potential for each participating department to attract new stude nts, educate the public, participate in local outreach, and become involved with cross-cam pus collaboration serve as remarkable incentives to be a part of Model #1. The implementation of Model #1 varies with the resources of each university. This model serves as a template to be used when developing new science intervention programs and modifying existing programs. Model #2 Model #2 targets multiple portions of the educational pipeline—elementary, high school, and university. Although girls and minorities from low performing elementary

PAGE 132

121 and high schools in a localized area are ta rgeted, Model #2 can become a network of programs that spans a state or region. The lo cal school district or university administers each program, but similar goals and an overa rching infrastructure connects each Model #2 program. The program should serve the Sout h Atlantic region of the U.S. because, as Clewell, Anderson, and Thorpe (1992b) reported, the majori ty of the existing science intervention programs are not located where the ma jority of the Black population resides. Program Objectives The objectives of Model #2 include emphases on science process skills, science content knowledge, attitudes to ward science, and sciencerelated careers. They incorporate cognitive (i.e., knowledge, unders tanding, inquiry, and processes), affective (i.e., attitudes, values, and habits of mind), psychomotor (i.e., physical skills), and social (i.e., communication and inter action) learning objectives. Th e well-rounded approach of Model #2 allows students to iden tify the relevance of science in their lives, as well as answer questions including: Wh at are the skills of science? How can these skills be used in all aspects of my life? What science knowledge is important to know at my developmental level? How can my science liter acy be used to make informed decisions everyday of my life? How do I f eel about science? How do I feel about myself as a doer of science? What are my perceptions of science? And how can my science skills, knowledge, and attitudes be used to benef it society in the form of a career? Model #2 articulates the program objectives to university staff members during a one-week pre-program training workshop. A dditionally, discussions of the objectives occur in a program handbook and at bi-week ly meetings during the course of the program. Parents and participants learn of the objectives duri ng recruiting sessions, orientation meetings, and via a parent/participant handbook.

PAGE 133

122 To assess the achievement of the objectives Model #2 uses surveys, preand posttests, interviews, and performance measures. Program staff administer these measures at the end of each school year. This provides in formation regarding the effectiveness of that year and can serve as a formative evaluation tool. At the end of two years, an outside evaluator should conduct extensive review s of the program, using a variety of quantitative and qualitative ev aluation techniques. An ex ternal summative assessment can determine the impact of Model #2 on st udents who have remained with the program for two years. Program Format Model #2 uses its objectives to devel op its format. The model, a year-round science intervention program, offers afte r-school and summer components and involves three types of participants: elementary st udents, high school students, and university students. University students enter the program during the summer, while high school students enter during the fall semester and c ontinue through the following summer. The high school summer component offers a two-we ek residential experience. Elementary students’ participation is limited to the school year in an after school format. These three groups of students participate in a layered intervention, where the university students service the high school students during the sc hool year and summer, and the high school students service the elementary students dur ing the school year. Model #2 strongly encourages high school and university students to pa rticipate throughout their matriculation. Program Location Portions of each component occur at th e local elementary school or other after school site, at the local unive rsity, and at local community sites, such as businesses,

PAGE 134

123 factories, and other areas of commerce and industry. During the first summer component, Model #2 utilizes a univ ersity campus as its primary site. This is the location of the university students’ six-week scie nce methods/science resources course that prepares them for the intervention program. Additionally, it provides them with access to science and education faciliti es and equipment while preparing science activities. The university students also use loca l community resources to plan field trips, identify guest speakers, and arrange other relevant experiences for th e high school students. During the school year, Model #2 utilizes th e university. Again, this provides the high school and university students access to sc ience facilities and equipment. During the outreach experiences, Model #2 takes place at numerous local elementary schools or other after-school sites. Th e sites should facilitate hands -on science activities, and include large tabletops, workspace, sinks, unc arpeted floors, comfortable seating, and adjustable lights and temperature. The high school summer component uses the university as its primary site. The univers ity offers the amenities of a residential program, as well as ready access to science faci lities and equipment. In addition to the dormitories and cafeterias, students use laborat ories, meeting rooms, and other university facilities. Target Population and Recruitment/Selection Model #2 targets three types of students, university, high school, and elementary. Kahle and Lakes (1983) and Oakes (1990) have found that by the time they enter middle school, students’ attitudes toward science are fixed. Due to the importance of developing positive attitudes toward science in the ear ly years of school, the majority of the participants in Model #2 will be elementa ry school students. The target population includes elementary students at low-perfor ming or disadvantaged schools because they

PAGE 135

124 are more likely to have a high proportion of minority students (Kahlenberg, 2000) and less likely to have adequate resources with which to offer effective school-based science programs (AAAS, 1997). Model #2 does not recr uit specific students at target schools, but instead seeks to include the entire sc hool population. The model directly affects students who participate in the after-school or extended day programs at each elementary school. If no after-school program is availabl e, or if the program is not widely used, other popular after school sites, such as youth centers, public libraries, or churches, can function as alternatives. Local high school students serve as the ne xt group of particip ants for Model #2. The demographic characteristics match thos e of the population of elementary students with whom they work. Model #2 recruits average and above-average performing high school students who may or may not be motivated to study science. The local university supplie s the third group of particip ants. Model #2 recruits undergraduate and graduate students from educat ion and science fields to take advantage of the expertise offered by both professions. Ideally, the universit y students compose a heterogeneous group of females and minorities, similar to the elementary and high school students with whom they work, however, the in ability to meet this standard should not impede any science intervention efforts. Intervention Activities The program coordinator for a particular district hires 10-15 university students, graduate and undergraduate, from both scien ce and education departments. During a sixweek summer course taught by the coordina tor, the university students learn science pedagogy, expand their content kno wledge, conduct a variety of science experiments and activities, and identify numerous resources for local science te aching and learning.

PAGE 136

125 Under the tutelage of the program coordinator, the students work toge ther to prepare their arsenal of relevant information. Early in the fall semester, th e university students begin to recruit local high school students to work with elementary students in an exciting, hands-on science setting. The university students tap res ources such as youth job-tr aining programs and other community programs to find high school recruits If this is unsuccessful, the university students make themselves visible in the high schools. The promise of earning a paycheck, having a university mentor, and the op portunity to work with children lures the high school students to Model #2. When each university student has recruite d 6-8 high school students, the training process begins at the university. Training, f acilitated by the university students, consists of the science and education majors shar ing, finding, and learning a number of science activities that cover a wide range of science topics a nd pedagogical techniques with their high school students. While the university students may pair up for efficiency, each remains a major mentor to his six to eight mentees. Using personal experiences, science activity books, the Internet, and other resour ces, the university and high school students work together to develop interesting, releva nt, and fun science activ ities to share with elementary students. The high school student s’ experiences in th e community provide the context for the science activ ities. Local culture, landmar ks, events, activities, issues, and people provide the means by which the scie nce content is introdu ced. The university students assist the high school students in id entifying the appropriate science content and activities to complement the community-based topics. This allows the science that is shared with the elementary students to be relevant, meaningful, and engaging. During the

PAGE 137

126 training process, field trips to various local resources and pertinent guest speakers provide additional enhancements to the high sc hool students. After approximately two months of training (i.e., three days per week and occasional Saturdays for field trips), Model #2 university and high school participants are rea dy to visit the elementary students. The Model #2 coordinator devises a sche dule in which two groups of high school students (i.e., 8-12 high school students accomp anied by 2 university students) travel to a different elementary school or other site every day for three times a week. Each of these visits occurs after school. The rotating scheduling allows each elementary school to receive as many visits as possi ble over the course of the sc hool year. The university and high school students present thei r hands-on science activities to the elementary students in an engaging way that facilitates meaningful learning. Permanent fixtures in each visit include strong content knowledge, emphasis on science content sk ills, and pedagogical techniques, including questioning. While at the elementary schools, the high school students’ main responsibility is presen ting/sharing hands-on activities, while the university students primarily supervise and assist. After the elementary school component, th e high school students participate in a residential summer program designed to pr ovide them with hands-on laboratory and problem-solving experiences with science. This two-week compone nt also provides the high school students with exposure to a vari ety of science-related careers. This component occurs at the university, and gran ts the high school a nd university students with access to a fully equipped science laborat ory. The program coordinator purchases additional materials and supplies. The univers ity students facilitate this program, thus

PAGE 138

127 maintaining their mentor/role model relationshi p with the high school students. Ideally, Model #2 participants conti nue their involvement throughout their remaining years in high school and at the un iversity, respectively. Program Staff An assistant, associate, or full professor of science education serves as the program coordinator for Model #2. Th e coordinator hires 10-15 univers ity students, graduate and undergraduate, from both science and edu cation departments. The gender, race, ethnicity, and background of the students represent the demogr aphics of the local area. These students earn a combination of course credit, a tuition waiver, and a competitive stipend for their participati on in two summers and one school year. A six-week summer course prepares the students to begin work ing with Model #2, and frequent meetings remind them of the objectives and policies of the program. Each university student hires six to eight high school student s who represent the demographi cs of the local area. The high school students earn minimu m wage, and this cost may be offset if a youth jobtraining program sponsors the high school students. Discussion The arrangement of Model #2 benefits all groups of students involved. Elementary students, who may otherwise have limited expos ure to science and its applications, gain first-hand experiences. Through the use of hands-on activities and meaningful questions, they acquire useful knowledge and skills. Additionally, this process occurs on the students’ own terms. In contrast to Ha berman’s (1991) pedagogy of poverty, Model #2 allows students to take responsibility for th eir own learning. They do not behave as mere receptacles of knowledge, but in stead participate in a non-threatening endeavor. Model #2 facilitates this through the use of local ly based engaging activities, a variety of

PAGE 139

128 questions, and positive relationships among the participants. Students do not behave as they do in a passive classroom, or expect the sa me interactions to be present in an afterschool setting. Elementary students do not ear n grades for participa tion, but rather they enjoy and choose to participate. The mode in which the high school students pr esent the activities and information is comfortable to them and their elementary counterparts. Parsons’ (2000) notion of culturalizing science instru ction and Monhardt’s (2000) insistence that cultural inc ongruity results in problems in education support this arrangement. Because both the high school and elementary students come from the same neighborhoods, attend the same churches, know th e same people, and confront the similar local issues, a connection links these two groups of students. A level of cultural congruity exists between the high school and elementary sc hool students that likely does not exist between either group of students and their science teachers. The extrapolation of this cultural congruity to relevant experiences gives sc ience the perception of being accessible and not for the culturally elite. Hence, the incorporation of positive experiences and influences affects the attitude s, knowledge, and skills of the participants. The high school students benefit from the me ntor-mentee relationship they have with both the university students and the elementa ry students. Their views of science and themselves become more positive, and may improve their achievement in science. Additionally, through the university students, di scussions, presentations, and field trips, the high school students are exposed to car eers in science and sc ience education. The university students benefit from M odel #2 because they develop caring relationships with youth. The shared sc ience and pedagogical knowledge motivates science majors to learn how to educate effectively in the fields of science, and encourages

PAGE 140

129 education majors to incorporat e science into their teaching. This aims to achieve the ultimate goal of affecting generations of cu rrently underrepresented minority and female science students. The implementation of Model #2 varies with the resources of each university. This model serves as a template to be used when developing new science intervention programs and modifying existing programs. Conclusion Clewell, Anderson, and Thorpe (1992a) id entified five key components of science intervention programs—goals, design, content, context, and outcomes. Goals refer to program objectives, while design focuses on fo rmat, location, and recruitment/selection. Content emphasizes program staff and inte rvention activities. Program design and content interact to produce th e desired participant-related outcomes. These outcomes can include students’ attitudes, performance and achievement, course taking, and career choice. The context considers elements that exist outside of the program, yet still affect the program, such as funding opportunities, th e need for the program, and collaborative relationships with the local community a nd institutions. This study focused on the components of goals, design, content, and contex t. Due to the variation in intervention programs and the focus of this study on desc riptive patterns and evaluative meanings, program outcomes were not investigated. Model #1 was informed by elements of MidCom, SumSpace, and Enviroyear (see Appendix G). While only one facet each of content (i.e., education-trained staff) and context (i.e., community sites as field trips) were influential, several facets of design affected the model. Likewi se, regarding the influence of the cluster programs on Model #2 (see Appendix H), one facet of content (i.e., education-trained staff) and seven facets

PAGE 141

130 of design were significant. Th is suggests the non-prescriptive nature of these models. As program objectives lead to program de sign, program design focuses on structural components that can be tailored to meet th e particular needs a nd resources of the program. Format, location, and recruitment/s election (i.e., design) provide a foundation that can be adjusted given the content, contex t, and desired outcomes. In this manner, the two models serve as adaptable templates for science intervention programs for Black students. Although many other potential models exis t, the two models described above effectively address the weakne sses identified in th is study’s cluster evaluation. Science intervention programs can be structured in a number of ways. The two models represent only two approaches to science intervention pr ograms. Each of thes e models tackles the issue of science intervention in unique ways, and can be modified according to the availability of resources. While Model #1 provides science in tervention for middle school students, Model #2 involves elementa ry, high school, and university students. A university that incorpor ates both models has the opportuni ty to greatly impact the local community. Nearly all aspects of the educati onal pipeline can be se rved, thus providing numerous opportunities for Black st udents to study science.

PAGE 142

131 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION The purpose of the study was to investig ate the underlying meanings of existing, publicly administered science intervention programs for elementary through high school Southern Black students. The study utilized a modified cluster eval uation approach to examine science intervention programs in South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, the areas with th e highest proportions of Blacks in their populations. Five science intervention progr ams, representing f our public universities and three states, comprised the sample. Data collected from print materials, site visits, questionnaires, and interviews were used to identify implicit patterns that illustrated the nature of efforts to achieve the goal of Project 2061—scien ce for all. The study used empirical research and the strengths and w eaknesses of existing programs to develop two models for new and/or modified science intervention programs. The study answered three research ques tions: (a) What science intervention programs do Southern state universities o ffer Black elementary through high school students in an effort to make science for all? (b) What does a cluster evaluation of existing science intervention pr ogram reveal about their inte nt and efforts? and (c) How can existing programs inform the developm ent of a model for science intervention programs for Black students? Of the 15 science intervention programs that met the criteria to be included in the study, five agreed to participate. To answ er the first research question, data were collected regarding each program’s objectiv es, format, locations, target population,

PAGE 143

132 recruitment and selection strategies, inte rvention activities, staff, and financial information. The data sources included print materials, Program Coordinator Questionnaires, observations duri ng site visits, and interviews with program participants and staff. As the characteristics of each program emerged, they were recorded in a matrix that allowed for cross-comparison of the programs. The second research question was answer ed by first outlining the minimum and ideal standards for science intervention progr ams for Black students. These researcherdeveloped standards consisted of attributes that science intervention programs should bear. The programs were not evaluated indi vidually, but rather we re evaluated as a cluster of programs with a similar overarch ing goal—to increase the participation of Blacks in science. The cluster of existing pr ograms was reviewed to determine its ability to achieve the minimum and ideal standards. An evaluation of the cluster emerged from the review. The cluster evaluation identified numerous strengths and accomplishments in the five science intervention pr ograms, but also revealed gaps in emphasis, insufficient use of community sites, and meager interv ention activities for younger students. The results of the cluster evaluation, in addition to empirical research and the researcher’s knowledge of othe r relevant programs, inform ed the development of two models for science intervention. The models addressed the third research question. Each of the models contained a discussion of the program’s objectives, format, location, target population, recruitment and sele ction strategies, interven tion activities, staff, and financial information. Discussion The study found that science intervention pr ograms for Black students do exist in the South. These programs aim to achieve a wi de range of objectives through a variety of

PAGE 144

133 means. Though these programs offer valuable opportunities for part icipants and staff, they could benefit from improvement in th ree key areas: (a) increasing their emphasis on science process skills and sc ience-related careers, (b) improving the use of community sites for doing and seeing science, and (c ) expanding intervention efforts to include elementary students. The notion that knowledge is power (Sleeter & Grant, 1991) can be extrapolated to include science as knowledge, and thus scie nce knowledge as power. Baptiste (1989) maintains that the social distribution of scie nce knowledge in the United States results in White males with access to power and its bene fits, while minorities and females remain powerless and subject to oppr ession. The findings indica te that the cluster’s good intentions do not suffice in the effort to c ounter the past ills of science. The cluster maintains its own social distribution of science knowledge that excludes local communities and young students, without focusi ng on career-oriented applications of science. In recent decades, U.S. society’s acknowle dgement of unequal science participation among men and women and minorities and White s has resulted in efforts to decrease these disparities. Through science interven tion programs, society aims to make science for all by the year 2061 (Rutherford & Ah lgren, 1990). This need for science intervention stems from several rationales: (a) to maintain and increase the industriousness and economic strength of the country (Johnson, 1992; Miller, 1995); (b) to participate in areas such as healthcare, biomedical rese arch, and environmental issues that will benefit underrepresented groups (Johnson, 1992; Miller, 1995), while maintaining Dewey’s (1944) image of a par ticipatory democracy, and (c) to provide

PAGE 145

134 equitable science opportunities for minority a nd female students (Atwater, 2000). Miller (1995) explained the ability to increase the nation’s industriousness and economic strength as a balance between the educated elite, who advance knowledge, and the welleducated general population, who apply knowledge. The programs evaluated in this cluster emphasized attitudes toward science and science content knowledge. Highlighting th ese areas encouraged students to value science, while learning relevant content. T hough important, this occurred at the expense of science process skills a nd science-related careers, wh ich were underemphasized. The cluster prepared students to apply knowledge, rather than advance knowledge. Thus the cluster added to the general population, not the educated elite. The need to highlight science process ski lls, including designing and conducti ng experiments, was underscored by the insufficient focus on science-related career s that rely on the use of science process skills. This exposed the underlying conseque nce of the cluster—th e good intentions of the programs did little to produce me mbers of the educated elite. As Miller (1995) explained, the educat ed elite possesses the expertise and knowledge to create, modify, and discover sc ientific and technological advancements. The general population, on the othe r hand, applies the advancements to daily life. Even the labels attributed to each group identify their relative status. The honored reputation of the advancers bears a great er value than that of the appliers. As Black students participate in existing science intervention pr ograms, they may become relegated to the status of the genera l population and fail to gain entry to th e educated elite. This serves to perpetuate the status quo, rather than eliciting lasting, systemic changes.

PAGE 146

135 Clewell, Anderson, and Thorpe (1992a ) identified 163 science, math, and technology intervention programs for minoritie s and females. Their study, the only relevant comprehensive study to date, identifi ed the South as the region with the fewest science intervention programs. An acknowle dgement of the high population of Blacks in the South may lead one to realize that the location of most science intervention programs prevents the involvement of most Black students in the country. The cluster of science intervention program s administered by public universities in the South demonstrated a level of efforts currently underway to reverse this situation. The cluster represented five programs in Mary land and various regions in South Carolina and Georgia. Coincidentally, the populat ions of South Carolina and Georgia are comprised of 29.5% and 28.7% Blacks, resp ectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Washington, D.C. (60%) and Maryland (27.9%) contain large proportions of Blacks, as well. Though Washington, D.C. contains more Blacks than the other states in the cluster, it contains only one publicly funded universit y. The close proximity of Maryland allows some of Maryland’s universities to serve stude nts in the District. Thus the burden of science intervention in Washington, D. C. does not fall on one institution. Of the 46 science interv ention programs offered by the 42 publicly funded universities in South Carolina, Georgia, Mary land, and the District of Columbia, 15 met the criteria for the study. Afte r discounting the limitations of the criteria, only 33% of the identified intervention programs in the South targeted minority or Bl ack students. Given that the South Atlantic sub-re gion contains the highest propor tion of Blacks (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001), it stands to reason that to positively affect the Black population, more than one-third of science intervention progr ams in that region should target Blacks or

PAGE 147

136 minorities. This disparity unveils the conti nued shortage of intervention programs for Black students, especially in areas with a high Black population. Fenske et al. (1997) discussed the surge in intervention programs designed to ease the elementary-secondary-post-secondary ga p for disadvantaged and underrepresented students. These intervention programs use f unds from a variety of sources to develop seamless transitions from elementary to secondary to post-secondary education. Schoolcollege collaborations subscribe to the K16 model that demands systemic changes as schools and universities work t ogether to address issues of educational accountability (Fenske et al., 1997). In this study, the cluster utilized the K-16 model, and benefited both the students and the universities. The students gained educational opportuniti es and experiences, while the institutions created a system to r ecruit and prepare potential matriculants. Additionally, the intervention programs satis fied a core quality of each university’s mission—to provide service to th e local area and/or state. The findings highlighted the strengths of the cluster, as well as their constraints in providing comprehensive science experiences for Black students. The two models, informed by the investigation of science in tervention programs a nd empirical evidence, can serve as templates to be used when modifying and creating new programs, thus potentially improving the overall quality of science interventi on programs targeting Black students. Limitations of the Study Several limitations must be considered when interpreting the results of this study. The study called for continuous programs, including programs that offered year-round intervention, school-year intervention, and/or summer programs of at least two weeks.

PAGE 148

137 Programs such as competitions, fairs, guest speakers, special days, field trips, and oneweek summer programs did not meet the criteri a of the study. This may have contributed to the apparent dearth of science intervention programs in the South. The study examined programs that claimed to target minority or Black students. Programs that did not specify a target group or that specified a nother target group, but served primarily Black students were not included. Additionally, programs that served primarily Black students, but based their target group on factors other than race or ethnicity, were disqualified. Again, this limitation may have d ecreased the number of eligible programs. The study investigated programs administer ed by public universities. Excluded programs were those managed by centers, school districts, schools, and private institutions, as well as community colleges, four-year college s, and professional schools that were not part of the stat e university system. The effort s of these institutions were overlooked, and may have affected the portrayal of science intervention. This limitation, while decreasing the number of eligible progr ams, also delegated the burden of science intervention to public universities. The science intervention progr ams were identified primarily via Internet searches. Programs with no web site or that were not acknowledged on a university web site were not included in the study. These programs were unknown to the researcher, and their exclusion may have reduced the sample pool for the study. The quantity and quality of information availa ble to the researcher also served as a limitation. While some program coordinato rs responded to the questionnaire with thorough answers and supplemental materials, ot hers provided only the bare minimum.

PAGE 149

138 Likewise, some coordinators made themselves available for further questions via electronic mail and telephone cal ls, but others did not. The quantity and quality of information on the university web sites varied, thus limiting the research. For various reasons, the number of site vi sits was limited. In one case, the program was not operating during the data collection phase of the study. Another program was phased out during the data collection phase. A third program could not be visited because the program coordinator did not comp lete the required paperwork. Thus, the inability of the study to report site visit and interview data for all programs in the cluster served as a limitation. While not necessarily a limita tion, the exploratory nature of this study prevents generalization. This study investigates science intervention programs for Southern Blacks as represented by the five programs in the cluster. Additional research is required to corroborate the findings of this study, particularly as they pertain to other science intervention programs and the larger initiative, science for all. Implications The public generally assumes the effectiven ess of science intervention programs for minorities while educational researchers, theorists, and practitioners debate the existence of equitable experiences for st udents. This study makes four major contributions to the debate, and each has implications. Three of the contributions stem from the three research questions, while one arises from the research design. The study (a) identifies and describes several science intervention programs for Black students, (b) uses a modified cluster evaluation to formatively eval uate the South’s effort to make science for all, (c) provides a set of minimum and ideal standards for science intervention programs for Black students, and (d) shares two research -based models that meet the standards and

PAGE 150

139 address the weaknesses of existing programs. The implications of each of these contributions will be described below. Identification and Description Science intervention programs for Black students remain a major component of efforts to make science for all, but very little comprehensive research has been conducted. Most research about science in tervention programs reveals insight about specific programs or the efforts of a particular institution. This study offers a portrayal of science intervention in the South, which provide s one level of wide-ra nging research. In addition to identifying a number of science intervention programs, this study describes their key characteristics. This contribution, as valuable as it is unique, provides key data to funding agencies, program coordinators, and individuals and institut ions with a desire to engage in science intervention. The data can be used to ascertain areas of service gaps and/ or overlap, and to compare and contrast the various designs of existing programs. Th is study can be used to distinguish well-served stude nts and local areas from those that are underserved. As a result, funding agencies can isolate new ta rget groups and geographical locations to sponsor or encourage. Consequently, exis ting and potential coordinators can design programs to serve new students and local areas thus closing current gaps in service. Other service gaps relate to program emphases, as represented by the program objectives. This study reports specific program objectives, and classifies them into four categories (i.e., science process skills, science conten t knowledge, attitudes toward science, and science-related careers). This information can be used to develop new programs that address underemphasized categories, thus closing current gaps in service.

PAGE 151

140 The descriptions of each program contain data on eight key co mponents of science intervention programs (i.e., objectives, format, location, ta rget population, recruitment/selection, interven tion activities, staff, and financial information). These thorough descriptions can se rve as the foundation for further research on the identification and/or effectiv eness of science intervention programs, and the development of a relevant database. Further research, in cluding development of a database of science intervention programs can benefit the educati onal community, students, parents, funding agencies, and the overall effort to make scie nce for all. The benefits can result from increased awareness of existing programs and thorough comparisons of the programs’ key components. As such, this study can serv e as a catalyst for comprehensive research on science intervention programs for Southern Blacks. Cluster Evaluation The national initiative to make science fo r all should come to fruition by the year 2061, and this study offers a formative view of the South’s effort to comply. As funding agencies and government entities dole out monies to create progr ams and services to make science for all, they require form ative and summative evaluations of those endeavors. To date, no indivi dual or organization has attemp ted to evaluate the progress of the overall initiative as it re lates to science intervention fo r Black students. This study, however, makes such an attempt. Using a modified cluster approach, this study evaluates science intervention for Black students in the South. This contribution undergir ds current conversations on science intervention, science education, and educational equity because it considers underlying patterns and meanings. Hence, effo rts to make science for all in the South may imply different meanings and result in different manifestati ons than comparable

PAGE 152

141 efforts in other regions of the United States Because this study j udges existing attempts as an aggregate, rather than individually, it can inform parties interested in systemic changes. Those parties can use the evaluati on results to determine areas of strength and weakness in science intervention programs for Black students, as represented by the cluster. Thus, the evaluation offers one in terpretation of the effectiveness of science intervention programs in the South. Cluster evaluation, a developing but still narrowly used evaluation approach, lacks sufficient research and app lication to perpetuate it s growth. Though employing a modified use of cluster evaluation, this st udy demonstrates the nove l application of the methodology. For evaluation experts, this can contribute to the de velopment of cluster evaluation as a bona fide approach. Standards for Science Intervention While some science intervention programs may be based on research, most are developed from educated intuition. Some pr evious research has identified effective characteristics of science intervention progr ams, but none has named and described a set of standards to be implemented. This st udy provides that much-needed framework for science intervention programs. The standards consider eight components of science interven tion programs (i.e., objectives, format, location, target popul ation, recruitment/selection, intervention activities, staff, and financial informatio n), and explain how each component should be addressed in minimum and ideal situations. The specificity of the standards can facilitate structured program evaluation, even with vary ing program designs. Due to the previous lack of standards, existing programs eval uate their effectiveness on self-determined criteria. While this serves a purpose, no st andards exist for norm -referenced evaluation,

PAGE 153

142 until now. As these standards become widely implemented, funding agencies, government entities, and educational rese archers will have a means of comparing programs to each other. During this era of standards-based accountability this study offers a valuable tool for program evaluation. Program developers can use the standard s described in this study to improve existing programs and to create new programs. The two levels of standards, minimum and ideal, allow program developers to consid er available resources, as well as the needs and personalities of th eir target population and local area. Though explicit, the standards do not prescribe program designs. They do, however, describe key components that should be implemented in accordance with program design. Two Models The cluster evaluation included in this study resulted in a de scription of the strengths of science interventi on in the South, as well as some areas of improvement. To assist in the improvement process, the study presents two models of science intervention programs. These models, different in desi gn and implementation, address the perceived weaknesses of the cluster. The models repres ent the collaboration of empirical research, relevant literature, the standards included in this study, personal experience with science intervention, and the investigat ed cluster of programs. The existence of the models offers practical means to address the theoretical issues contained in the study. Rather than merely identifying the shortcomings of science intervention programs, the study presents two templates to attend to those limitations. This bears importance when considering th e historical quarrel between educational theorists and practitioners. The study moves beyond the description and criticism common to theorists and into the realm of viable change for practitioners. As many

PAGE 154

143 program coordinators likely spend little time researching theory and criticism, the inclusion of concrete suggestions (i.e., two models for science intervention programs) can offer meaningful assistance during program development. Recommendations As previously mentioned, a database iden tifying science intervention programs can benefit the research community, as well as pa rents and students. This study provides the groundwork for beginning such a database. Th e database can be or ganized by: target population, geographic locati on, program format, funding source, or type of administering institution. This resource can provide the foundation for further research on science intervention programs. The results of the study demonstrate that existing science intervention programs carry explicit benefits and implicit losses. These benefits and losses can be elucidated by further research. Additional studies on sc ience intervention programs for Southern Black students should consider more programs than this study allowed. Perhaps the selection criteria should be broadened to include progr ams administered by institutions other than public universities. The current emphasis on socioeconomic status, rather than race/ethnicity suggests that futu re research should take into account this changing tide of intervention efforts. A similar study should be conducted with an incentive for program coordinators to become involved. This will increase the sa mple size and provide a far-reaching picture of science intervention in the South. This picture can be fu rther illuminated via a series of cluster evaluations conducte d in a number of states, s ub-regions, or regions. The results of this study indicate that further research can be used to evaluate science

PAGE 155

144 intervention efforts that include females, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and other underrepresented groups. Because this study highlights the efforts to improve science participation by the year 2061, additional research should be accomplished with the same deadline in mind. Evaluations of Project 2061 shoul d be conducted periodically to assess its progress and to suggest areas of improvement. Further res earch will reveal the successes and needs of the initiative to make science for all. This study provides the groundwork for additional research that may ultimately affect the a ppropriation of government and private funds, the development of future science interventi on efforts, and the ability of the nation to achieve the goal of Project 2061—s cience literacy for all.

PAGE 156

145 APPENDIX A STUDY DESIGN MATRIX Phase 1 Description & Interpretation Phase 2 Evaluation Phase 3 Model Formation Research Question What intervention programs do Southern public universities offer in an effort to make science for all? What does a critical analysis of existing intervention programs reveal about their intent and efforts? How can existing programs inform the development of a model for science intervention programs for Black students? Data Sources Print artifacts (web pages, brochures, newspaper/magazine/ journal articles, reports), questionnaires from program coordinators, communication with program coordinators, field notes, interview notes Print artifacts, questionnaires, field notes, interview notes, personal communication, interpretations of data Empirical evidence (strengths, weaknesses, suggestions for programs) from related research, literature reviews (how children learn science, how, Black students learn, intervention programs) Data Collection Techniques Web search, databases, & newspaper archives, telephone calls, email, mail, observations, semistructured interviews Research notebook/audio recorder to document interpretations, use collected data Use collected data, library/database search Data Analysis Techniques Constant comparison (discovery, coding, discounting), triangulation of all data Cluster evaluation Synthesis of all data Timeline March 2002December 2002 December 2002January 2003 January 2003-February 2003 Note : Interpretation of data will be an ongoing process. The timeline merely indicates when the bulk of the interpretation will be completed. Additionally, writing the narrative will be an ongoing process.

PAGE 157

146 APPENDIX B 42 PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN GEORGIA, MARYLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND WASHINGTON, D.C. Georgia 1. Albany State University (HBCU) 2. Armstrong Atlantic State University 3. Augusta State University 4. Clayton College & State University 5. Columbus State University 6. Fort Valley State University (HBCU) 7. Georgia Institute of Technology 8. Georgia State University 9. Georgia Southern University 10. Georgia Southeastern State University 11. Kennesaw State University 12. Savannah State University (HBCU) 13. North Georgia College & State University 14. Southern Polytechnic State University 15. State University of West Georgia 16. University of Georgia 17. Valdosta State University 18. Gwinnett University Center 19. Georgia College & State University

PAGE 158

147 Maryland 20. Bowie State University (HBCU) 21. Coppin State University (HBCU) 22. Frostburg State University 23. Salisbury State University 24. Towson University 25. University of Baltimore 26. University of Maryland, Baltimore 27. University of Maryland at Baltimore County 28. University of Maryland at College Park 29. University of Maryland Eastern Shore (HBCU) 30. Morgan State University (HBCU) South Carolina 31. The Citadel 32. Clemson University 33. Coastal Carolina University 34. Francis Marion University 35. Lander University 36. Medical University of South Carolina 37. South Carolina State University (HBCU) 38. University of South Carolina-Aiken 39. University of South Carolina-Spartanburg 40. University of South Carolina-Columbia 41. Winthrop University

PAGE 159

148 Washington, D.C. 42. University of the District of Columbia (HBCU) Note : HBCU denotes Historically Bl ack Colleges and Universities

PAGE 160

149 APPENDIX C PROGRAM COORDINATOR QUESTIONNAIRE (PCQ) PROGRAM NAME: UNIVERSITY: 1. What are your program’s objectives? 2. How have these objectives been articulated to your staff? 3. How have these objectives been articulated to your participants? 4. How are the program objectives measured? 5. How often does your program meet? 6. How long does the program m eet during each contact? 7. In what types of activities are your participants engaged? 8. Describe the students your progr am targets (gender, ability level, race/ethnicity, local community). 9. Describe the students your progr am actually serves (gender, ab ility level, race/ethnicity, local community). 10. How are participants r ecruited to your program? 11. How are participants selected? 12. Do participants have an opportunity to participate next year/session? 13. Where do the program activities occur? 14. How do the demographics of your staff (race /ethnicity, gender) compare to that of your participants? 15. Do staff members have an opportunity to participate next year/session? 16. How are staff members trained? 17. How are staff members compensated?

PAGE 161

150 APPENDIX D DATA ANALYSIS TOOL Standards MidCom Elchurch Enviroyear SumSpace SpringSat Program Objectives Should emphasize at least two of SKAC (ideally, all) Should be articulated to staff during pre-program training (ideally, reiterated during program at regular meetings) Should be articulated to participants/parents via preprogram session, letter, or handbook (ideally, parents come to recruiting session) Should be measurable and measured by an internal evaluator via traditional methods (ideally, also external evaluator with alternative methods) Program Format Daily meetings for concentrated sessions, weekly meetings for yearlong sessions (ideal) Students should be able to participate next year (ideally, continue throughout schooling) Program Location Primary location should be at a community site or neighborhood school with university facilities as supplement (ideally, occur in and relate to community site) Programs not in community should take field trips or conduct projects/activities within community at least 2X (ideally, all program use community sites for majority of projects and field trips) Programs should foster hands-on activities, including access to science equipment and supplies (ideally, fully-equipped laboratory)

PAGE 162

151 Standards MidCom Elchurch Enviroyear SumSpace SpringSat Target Population & Recruitment/Selection Participants should represent a range of ability levels Participants should not be excluded on the basis of fees; program should be free or aid be readily available (ideally, programs should be free) Participants should be actively recruited, not just their parents (ideally, families should be recruited) Programs should serve a variety of neighborhoods, communities, and schools, unless a special neighborhood, community, or school is the target group Intervention Activities Activities and program format should be consistent with the objectives Hands-on, traditional, group work, and individual activities should be offered (ideally, in comparable proportions) Programs should offer 3 hands-on activities for concentrated components or 1 for year-long; programs should offer 1 design project for concen trated or yearlong programs Programs should offer mentors (same generation) in the form of diverse staff who are present at every session Role models should be diverse guest speakers, staff, or biographical studies at least 2x for concentrated sessions and once every 3 meetings for year long (ideally, role models present at all sessions) Programs should emphasize science-related careers via field trips, guest speakers, biographical studies, and discussions (ideally, less common and more common careers should be emphasized)

PAGE 163

152 Standards MidCom Elchurch Enviroyear SumSpace SpringSat Staff Information Staff should be able to continue their participation next year (ideally, staff should continue their participation throughout the group’s participation) Staff should be trained in a 4-hour workshop or seminar before the program (ideally, pre-program training should be 1-3 days) Staff should be offered financial or academic compensation

PAGE 164

153 APPENDIX E SCIENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN SOUTH CAROLI NA, GEORGIA, MARYLAND, AND WASHINGTON, D.C. South Carolina 1. Space Science Academy – Sout h Carolina State University 2. Adventures in Science – Univer sity of South Carolina-Columbia 3. Summer Science, Engineer ing, and Architecture Enrich ment Program for Rising 712th Graders – Clemson University 4. Teaching Kids About the Environm ent (KATE) – Clemson University 5. Camp Tech Quest/Camp SeeWee – Clemson University 6. Camp Wildlife – Clemson University 7. Explore the IPM House – Clemson University 8. Landscapes for Learning – Clemson University 9. Project Youth and Environmental Studi es (YES)/GEAR-UP – Lander University Georgia 10. Summer Camps at the Aquari um – University of Georgia 11. PREP – North Georgia College & State University 12. Summer Prep-it Up – Kennesaw State University 13. Elementary School Experience – Kennesaw State University 14. Eagle Science Residence Camp – Georgia Southern University 15. Volunteer Training Camp – Ge orgia Southern University 16. Partners in Education Summer Explorat ory Program – Augusta State University

PAGE 165

154 17. Middle Grades Students and Teachers E ducational Partners Academy – Augusta State University 18. Kids University – Augusta State University 19. Project Success – Augusta State University 20. Saturday Science – Southern Polytechnic State University 21. Georgia Youth Science and Technology Center s, Inc. – Southern Polytechnic State University 22. CARES Camps – Columbus State University 23. PRIME Camp – Columbus State University 24. Prep PRIME – Columbus State University 25. SMART Camp – Columbus State University 26. Power Camp – Columbus State University 27. GEAR-UP – Savannah State University 28. SummerScape – Georgia Institute of Technology 29. Career Awareness in Science and Engin eering – Georgia Institute of Technology 30. SECME – Georgia Institute of Technology 31. PREP – Georgia Institute of Technology 32. MITE – Georgia Institute of Technology Maryland 33. NASA/Center for Math, Science, and Technology – University of Maryland Eastern Shore 34. Academy for Applied Science and Mathematics – Towson University 35. E=mc2 – University of Maryland at College Park 36. Upward Bound Math/Science Regional Center – University of Maryland at College Park 37. 10th Grade Girls Summer Program – Universi ty of Maryland at College Park

PAGE 166

155 38. Hands-on Minds-on: Science, Mathematics, Reading, and Writing – University of Maryland at College Park 39. Upward Bound Regional Math/Science Ce nter – Frostburg State University 40. Saturday Academy – Morgan State University 41. Project PRIME – Morgan State University 42. Academic Champions of Excelle nce – Morgan State University 43. Baltimore Ecosystem Study – University of Maryland at Baltimore County 44. New funding, program yet to be admini stered – University of Maryland at Baltimore County Washington, D.C. 43. Project Camps 2 – University of DC 44. Science, Engineering, Mathematics, a nd Aerospace Academy – University of DC

PAGE 167

156 APPENDIX F COMPLETED DATA ANALYSIS TOOL Standards MidCom Elchurch Enviroyear SumSpace SpringSat Program Objectives Should emphasize at least two of SKAC (ideally, all) X X XX+ X Should be articulated to staff during pre-program training (ideally, reiterated during program at regular meetings) X X+ X+ X X+ Should be articulated to participants/parents via preprogram session, letter, or handbook (ideally, parents come to recruiting session) X X X X X+ Should be measurable and measured by an internal evaluator via traditional methods (ideally, also external evaluator with alternative methods) X X X X X Program Format Daily meetings for concentrated sessions, weekly meetings for yearlong sessions (ideal) X+ X+ X+ X+ X+ Students should be able to participate next year (ideally, continue throughout schooling) X+ XX Not clear, not likely X+ Program Location Primary location should be at a community site or neighborhood school with university facilities as supplement (ideally, occur in and relate to community site) X X XXXPrograms not in community should take field trips or conduct projects/activities within community at least 2X (ideally, all program use community sites for majority of projects and field trips) N/A N/A X XXPrograms should foster hands-on activities, including access to science equipment and supplies (ideally, fully-equipped laboratory) X+, X+ X-, X(4 sites) XX+ X+ X

PAGE 168

157 Standards MidCom Elchurch Enviroyear SumSpace SpringSat Target Population & Recruitment/Selection Participants should represent a range of ability levels X+ X+ X+ Not clear X+ Participants should represent target group, but not be excluded on the basis of race/ethnicity X XX X X Programs should serve a variety of neighborhoods, communities, and schools, unless a special neighborhood, community, or school is the target group X X X X X Participants should not be excluded on the basis of fees; program should be free or aid be readily available (ideally, programs should be free) X+ X X+ X X+ Participants should be actively recruited, not just their parents (ideally, families should be recruited) Not clear Not clear X Not clear Not clear Intervention Activities Activities and program format should be consistent with the objectives X XX X X Hands-on, traditional, group work, and individual activities should be offered (ideally, in comparable proportions) X X X+ X X Programs should offer 3 hands-on activities for concentrated components or 1 for year-long; programs should offer 1 design project for concen trated or yearlong programs X X X X X Programs should offer mentors (same generation) in the form of diverse staff who are present at every session XXX X X Role models should be diverse guest speakers, staff, or biographical studies at least 2x for concentrated sessions and once every 3 meetings for year long (ideally, role models present at all sessions) X Not clear X+ X Not clear Programs should emphasize science-related careers via field trips, guest speakers, biographical studies, and discussions (ideally, less common and more common careers should be emphasized) X XX X N/A

PAGE 169

158 Standards MidCom Elchurch Enviroyear SumSpace SpringSat Staff Information Staff should be able to continue their participation next year (ideally, staff should continue their participation throughout the group’s participation) X+ X X Not clear X Staff should be trained in a 4-hour workshop or seminar before the program (ideally, pre-program training should be 1-3 days) Not clear X+ Not clear X+ X+ Staff should be offered financial or academic compensation X X X X XNote : X indicates the standard was met, Xindicates th e standard was not met, X+ indicates the ideal was met.

PAGE 170

159 APPENDIX G INFLUENCE OF THE CLUSTER ON MODEL #1 Model #1 M idCo m Enviroyear SumSpace Summer & fall format Education trained staff Residential program University lab and other facilities University campus Field trips to community sites Access to science lab/facilities University campus access during school year component

PAGE 171

160 APPENDIX H INFLUENCE OF THE CLUSTER ON MODEL #2 Model #2 MidCom SumSpace Enviroyear School year intervention at local schools Education trained staff Targets entire school population University lab and other facilities Overlapping intervention p rograms Focus on elementary students Access to science lab/facilities Residential p rogra m Elchurch

PAGE 172

161 LIST OF REFERENCES Achilles, C.M., Finn, J.D., & Bain, H.P. (1997/1998). Using class size to reduce the equity gap. Educational Leadership 55(4), 40-43. Aikenhead, G.S. (2001). Students’ ease in crossing cultural bo rders into school science. Science Education 85, 180-188. American Association for the A dvancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy New York: Oxford University. American Association for the A dvancement of Science (1997). Blueprints on-line Retrieved March 30, 2003 from http://www.project2061.org/to ols/bluepol/blpframe.htm American Association for the Advancement of Science (n.d.). Science for all Americans on-line Retrieved March 30, 2003 from http://www.project2061.or g/tools/sfaaol/Intro.htm Anderson, B.T. (1989). Black participation and performance in high school science. In W. Pearson, Jr. & H.K. Bechtel (Eds.) Blacks, science, and American education (pp. 43-58). London: Rutgers University Press. Atwater, M.M. (2000). Equity for black Americans in precollege science. Science Education 84, 154-179. Baptiste, P.H., Jr. (1989, December). Multiculturalizing math and science instruction: A philosophy long overdue Paper presented at the Excellence in Mathematics for All Kansas Student Conference, Wichita, KS. Barley, Z.A. & Jenness, M. (1993). Clus ter evaluation: A method to strengthen evaluation in smaller programs with similar purposes. Evaluation Practice, 14 141-147. Berryman, S.E. (1983). Who will do science? Trends and their causes in minority and female representation among holders of advanced degrees in science and mathematics New York: Rockefeller Foundation. Bradley, R.M. (1997, February). Science ed ucation for a minority within a minority. American Biology Teacher, 59, 73-79.

PAGE 173

162 Burnham, B.R. (1999). Cluster evaluation as program development. Paper presented at the American Evaluation Association (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED435677). Carin, A.A. & Bass, J.E. (2001). Teaching science as inquiry (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (n.d.). Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education Retrieved January 12, 2003 from http://www.carnegiefoundati on.org/Classifcation/ Catsambis, S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicit y, and science education in the middle grades Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 243-257. Chambers, D. (1983) Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education 67, 255-265. Chenoweth, K. (1999). Education’s weak link. Black Issues in Higher Education, 16(1) 36-39. Clark, J.V. (1999, May). Minorities in science and math (ERIC Digest). Columbus, OH: Clearinghouse for Science, Mathema tics, and Environmental Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Se rvice, No. ED433216). Clewell, B.C. (1987). What works and w hy: Research and theoretical bases of intervention programs in math and scien ce for minority and female middle school students. In American Association fo r the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Students and Science Learning (pp. 95-129). Washington, D.C.: AAAS. Clewell, B.C. (1989). Intervention programs: Three case studies. In Pearson, W. and Bechtel, H.K. (Eds.) Blacks, Science, and American Education London: Rutgers University. Clewell, B.C., Anderson, B.T., & Thorpe, M.E. (1992a). Breaking the barriers San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clewell, B.C., Anderson, B.T., & Thorpe, M. E. (1992b). The prevalen ce and nature of mathematics, science, and computer science intervention programs serving minority and female students in grades four through eight. Equity & Excellence, 25(2-4), 209-215. Coleman, J.S. (1966). Equal schools or equal students? Public Interest 4, 70-75. Contreras, A. & Lee, O. (1990). Different ial treatment of students by middle school science teachers: Unintended cultural bias. Science Education, 74, 433-444. Crawley, P. (1998). Extracurricular opport unities: Broadening student horizons by encouraging scientific success. Science Teacher 65(3), 37-38.

PAGE 174

163 Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education New York: Free Press. Eisner, E. (1983). Educational c onnoisseurship and cr iticism: Their form and functions in educational evaluation. In G.F. Madaus, M.S. Scriven, & D.L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educa tional and human serv ices evaluation (pp.335-347) Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Fenske, R.H., Geranios, C.A., Keller, J.E., & Moore, D.E. (1997). Early intervention programs: Opening the door to higher education ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report (Volume 25, No. 6). Washington, DC: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Ferreira, M. (2002, April). Ameliorating equity in science, mathematics, and engineering: A case study of an after-school science program. Equity & Excellence in Education 35(1), 43-49. Haberman, M. (1991, December). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan 290-294. Heath, S.B. (1982). Questioning at home and at school: A comparative study. In George Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action (pp. 102-131). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Jenness, M. & Barley, Z.A. (1995). Using clus ter evaluation in the context of science education reform. In R.G. O’Sullivan (Ed.), Emerging roles of evaluation in science education reform (pp. 53-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Johnson, R.C. (1992). Providing African American st udents access to science and mathematics (Research Report No. 2). Clevel and, OH: Urban Child Research Center. (ERIC Document Repr oduction Service No. ED361456). Jones, M.G., Howe, A., & Rua, M.J. (2000). Ge nder differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84, 180192. Kahle, J.B. & Lakes, M.K. (1983). The my th of equality in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 131-140. Kahle, J.B., Parker, L.H., Rennie, L.J., & R iley, D. (1993). Gender differences in science education: Building a model. Educational Psychologist, 28 379-404. Kahlenberg, R.D. (2000, December). Mixing cl asses: Why economic desegregation holds the key to school reform. Washington Monthly Online. Retrieved April 3, 2002 from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com /features/2000/0012.kahlenberg.html Lynch, S. (2000). Culture, worldview, and prejudice. In Lynch, S. (Author) Equity and science education reform (pp. 67-94). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

PAGE 175

164 McCuthcheon, G. (1982). Educational critic ism: Reflections and reconsiderations. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing 4(1), 171-176. Mickelson, R.A. & Smith, S.S. (2001). Can educ ation eliminate race, class, and gender inequality? In Anderson, M.L. and Collins, P.H. (Eds.), Race, class, and gender (pp. 376-388). Belmont, CA: Wads worth/Thomson Learning. Miller, L.S. (1995). An American imperative: Accelerating minority educational advancement New Haven, CT: Yale University. Monhardt, R.M. (2000). Fair play in scienc e education: Equal oppor tunities for minority students. Clearing House, 74, 18-22. Morgan, H. (1990, April). Assessment of student s’ behavioral interactions during on-task classroom activities. Perceptual and Motor Skills 70 566-567. Murphy, D. & Sullivan, K. (1997). Connecting adolescent girls of color and math/science interventions Paper presented at the Asso ciation for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ERIC Docume nt Reproduction Service No. ED410106). National Center for Edu cation Statistics (n.d.a). Third international mathematics and science study Retrieved October 14, 2002 from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/timss95/index.asp National Center for Edu cation Statistics (n.d.b.). Third international mathematics and science study-Repeat Retrieved October 14, 2002 from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/timss-r/index.asp National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform Retrieved October 14, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html National Research Council (1996). National science education standards Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Science Board Commi ssion on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st century: A plan of action for improving mathematics, science a nd technology education for all American elementary and secondary students so that their achievement is the best in the world by 1995 Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation (1998). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering Retrieved October 21, 2002 from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/sr s/nsf99338/start.htm National Science Foundation (2000). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering Retrieved October 21, 2002 from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/sr s/nsf00327/start.htm

PAGE 176

165 Nisbet, M.C., Scheufele, D.A., & Shanaha n, J. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29 584-608. Norman, O., Ault Jr., C., Bentz, B., & Meskimen, L. (2001). The Black-White “achievement gap” as a perennial cha llenge of urban science education: A sociocultural and historical overview with implications for research and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38, 1101-1114. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How school s structure inequality New Haven, CT: Yale University. Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women a nd minority students in science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education, 16, 153-222 O’Sullivan, C.Y., Reese, C.M., & Mazzeo, J. (1997). NAEP 1996 science report card for the nation and the states Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Parsons, E.C. (2000). Culturalizing science instru ction: What is it, what does it look like, and why do we need it? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11 207-219. Rahm, J. & Downey, J. (2002, May/June). A sc ientist can be anyone! Oral histories of scientists can make real science accessible to youth. Clearing House, 75 253-257. Rosebery, A.S. & Warren, B. (1999). Children’s ways with words in science and mathematics: A conversation across disciplines (Special Report No. 00-1). Durham, NH: Cheche Konnen Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED446907). Rutherford, F.J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans New York: Oxford University. Santrock, J.W. (1998). Adolescence (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Sinacore, J.M. & Turpin, R.S. (1991). Multiple sites in evaluation research: A survey of organizational and methodological issues. In Turpin & Sinacore (Eds.), Multisite evaluations, (pp. 5-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Slate, J.R. & Jones, C.H. (1998, Spring ). Fourth and fifth grade st udents’ attitudes toward science: Science motivation and science im portance as a function of grade level, gender, and race. Research in the Schools, 5(1) 27-32. Sleeter, C.E. & Grant, C.A. (1991). Mappi ng terrains of power: Student cultural knowledge versus classroom knowledge. In C.E. Sleeter (Ed.), Empowerment through multicultural education (pp. 49-68). New York: Stat e University of New York Press.

PAGE 177

166 Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (1988). Understanding and conducting qualitative research Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Steinkamp, M.W. & Maehr, M.L. (1984). Gender differences in motivational orientations toward achievement in school science: A quantitative synthesis. American Educational Research Journal 21 39 59. Stern, G.M. (1997). Flourishing scientific careers. Black Issues in Higher Education 13, 31 32. Straw, R.B. & Her rell, J.M. (2002). A framework for understanding and improving multisite evaluations. In Herrell & Straw (Eds.), Conducting multiple site evaluations in real world settings (pp. 5 15) San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Stufflebeam, D. (2001). Evaluation models. In J.C. Greene & G.T. Henry (Eds.), New directions for evaluation, no. 8 San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Task Force on Education for Economic Growth (1983). Action for excellence: A comprehensive plan to improve our nation's schools Denver, CO: Education C ommission of the States. Task Force on Women and the Handicapped in Science and Technology. (1988, September). Changing America: The new face of science and engineering (Interim report). Washington, D.C.: Author. Taylor, S.J. & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduc tion to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings New York: John Wiley & Sons. Tobin, K. & Gallagher, J.J., (1986). Target students in the science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 61 75. U.S. Census Bureau (2001). Popu lation by race and Hispanic or Latino origin for the United States, regions, divisions, states, Puerto Rico, and places of 100,000 or more population Retrieved October 7, 2002, from http://www. census.gov/population/cen2000/phc t6/tab02.txt U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Secretary (2002). What to know and where to go: Parents guide to No Child Left Behind Washington, D.C.: Author. Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in studen t attitudes toward science: A meta analysis of the literature from 1970 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32 387 398. Worthen, B.R. & Matsumoto, A. (1994). Conceptual challenges confronting cluster evaluation Retrieved January 8, 2002, from http://aglec.unl.edu/rockwell/worthen.txt

PAGE 178

167 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Courtney Anne Johnson was born on April 13, 1975, in Brooklyn, New York, to Ronald and Linda Johnson. After living in Ne w York for two years, she and her family, which consisted of Mom, Dad, and older br other Ronald, moved to Cleveland, Ohio. Courtney spent the next 12 years atte nding Shaker Heights public schools and experiencing the many wonders of the Clevel and area. In 1985, he r family grew to include brother Carlos, a spirit ed two-year old. Courtney’s family continued to expand when Dad married Rosemary, who had a son Othello. Siblings Sarah and Philip and stepfather Bert came several years later. As a ninth grader, Courtney moved to J acksonville, Florida, where she attended Kirby-Smith Middle School and Andrew Jack son Senior High School. She graduated from Jackson as class valedictorian in 1993 and earned a full scholarship to Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU) in Tallahassee, Florida. Her plans to become a pediatrician changed after spendi ng two summers conducting yeast research at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland. Instead, she intended to pursue a career as a re search scientist. After earning a Bachelor of Science degree in biology in 1997, however, she began teaching science at Jefferson Davis Middle School in Jacksonville, Florida. That experience reveal ed to Courtney her true passion— education. Realizing the need for formal education tr aining, Courtney enroll ed in the Proteach teacher education program at the Universi ty of Florida (UF). While in Proteach,

PAGE 179

168 Courtney’s love for learning was inspired by her interest in after-s chool education. She was hired as the site coordinator for Projec t Learn at the Alachua County Boys and Girls Club-Southeast Unit where she coordinated e ducational activities for first through tenth graders. Immediately after ea rning a Master of Education degree in secondary science education in 1999, Courtney began her doctora l program in curriculum and instruction with a special emphasis on science education. As a doctoral student in UF’s College of Education, Courtney supervised secondary science interns and taught elementary scienc e methods. Additionally, she served as an outreach coordinator for the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH), where she worked with two after school science programs. That was a great e xperience for her, as Courtney’s doctoral research focused on science intervention programs. In May 2003, Courtney earned her Doctor of Philosophy degr ee. She plans to continue working with and researching science intervention progr ams for African American students.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000710/00001

Material Information

Title: Science Intervention Programs for Southern Black Students: A Cluster Evaluation and Two Proposed Models
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000710:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000710/00001

Material Information

Title: Science Intervention Programs for Southern Black Students: A Cluster Evaluation and Two Proposed Models
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000710:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












SCIENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS FOR SOUTHERN BLACK STUDENTS:
A CLUSTER EVALUATION AND TWO PROPOSED MODELS
















By

COURTNEY ANNE JOHNSON


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2003

































This dissertation is dedicated to all the children I have known and will know.
This study reflects my commitment to you.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my Creator, my merciful Father, the Lord Jesus Christ. I am grateful for the

many blessings He has bestowed upon me. I thank God for my supportive doctoral

committee. Their influence has allowed me to develop into the educator I am, and will

become. Dr. Linda Jones, my committee chair, has motivated and encouraged me

throughout my years at UF. Dr. Rose Pringle, my mentor and listening ear, has guided

me through the emotional roller coasters of my doctoral work. Dr. Sevan Terzian, a great

thinker, provided the foundation I needed to be critical. Dr. Mary Jo Koroly cheered me

on with her great excitement and kindness. I am forever grateful to these scholars.

I truly appreciate Rebecca Penwell for her academic collaboration and her

friendship. I also want to acknowledge the many classmates and colleagues who, through

the years, have supported me in various ways. My fellowship with members of the Black

Graduate Student Organization has been instrumental to me throughout the years, as they

helped bring balance to my life.

I am indebted to Bill and Melinda Gates, who funded me through the Gates

Millennium Scholarship. I thank Thomas Alexander and Michael Bowie, whose

Minority Education Scholarship supported my master's years and doctoral summers.

Without their financial support, this would not have been possible. I am very

appreciative for the drive and assistance of the coordinators who represent the programs

included in this study.









Even before my undergraduate years, Dr. Lynette Padmore urged me to find and

pursue my passions. Her dedication to academia, commitment to me, and sophisticated

intelligence inspired me years ago.

I especially want to thank God for the love of Mom, Dad, Rosemary, Bert, all of

my siblings, Damond, and Carmen. They were there for me like nobody else has been.

They endured my long conversations, extended silences, periods of joy, and moments of

stress. They have allowed me to be myself, while bettering myself. I thank them

immensely.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S .................................................................... ......... .............. iii

A B ST R A C T ............... .................................................................................. ..... x

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

State ent of the Problem ............................................................................. ........ 2
Fem ales and M minorities in Science .................................................................... .... 4
Intervention Efforts .................. .................................... .. ................ .6
P project 206 1 ........................................................................................................ 8
Purpose of the Study ....................................................... ................. 10
R research Q u estion s........... .................................................................. ........ .. ... 10
D elim stations ........................................................................................... ..... .... 11
L im itatio n s ................................................................................. 12
Significance of the Study ............................................................................ .... .......13
A ssu m p tio n s ............................................................................................................... 14
D definition of Term s ..... ...................... ....................... .... .... .. ............ 14
M e th o d ............................................................................... 14
Sum m ary of the Chapters ........................................................................ 15

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 17

Statistics on Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering..............................17
Gaps in Science Achievement and Attitudes toward Science ..................................18
Gaps on Achievem ent Tests ........................... ..... .................................... 19
Differences in Science Experiences ....................................... ............... 20
Differences in Science Teaching ...................................................... 22
Cultural Contrasts in the Classroom .............................. ................. ........ ....... 23
The Need for Science Intervention Programs................................ ...............27
National Industriousness and Economic Strength.............................................27
G roup G oals and D em ocracy ........................................ ......................... 28
S cien ce an d E du cation .............................................................. .....................2 9
Research on Science Intervention Programs ................................... .................30
Developmental Level of the Students................................. .........................31
Inquiry Learning ......... ............................... ........................ 32
A ttitu des and B ehaviors ........................................................... .....................32



v









Examples of Intervention Program s ....................................... ............... 33
Postsecondary Institutions and Intervention Programs............... ...............35
Types of Intervention Programs ................. ............... ........................36
The K 16 M odel .......... ........... ............... .............................. 38

3 METHODOLOGY & METHOD................................................................... 40

R research Q uestions........... .................................................................. ........ .. ... 40
M methodology ................................... ................................... ....... .......... 41
Historical Development of Cluster Evaluation.................................................41
Description of Cluster Evaluation .................................................. 42
Cluster Evaluation and Other Forms of Evaluation ................. .................43
Status of Cluster Evaluation ...................................................... ..... .......... 45
Unique Application of Cluster Evaluation ...................................... ............... 46
Stu dy D design ..................................................... ......... ...... 48
R research Q question # 1 ............................. .... ...................... .. ...... .... ...... ...... 49
Identify ing th e S am ple ............................................................. .....................50
C collecting D ata ..................................................... ..... .......... .51
E x am in in g D ata ................................................................ ........ ... .... .. 5 8
R research Q question #2 .............................. ......................... ... ...... .... ...........58
Program O objectives ............................................. ........ ... ........ .... 60
P program F orm at............. .......................................................... ........... ...... 62
Program Location .............................................. ..... ...... .. ........ .... 64
P articip ants ........................................................................66
Intervention A activities ............................................... .. .... .. ........ .... 68
Program Staff .................................................................. ..........70
R research Q question #3 .............................. .... ...................... .. ...... .... ...... ...... 72

4 RESULTS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION #1 .................................. ...............73

P program 1- M idC om ...................................................................... .....................74
Program Objectives .............................. ........... .. .. .. ..... .......... .... 75
P program F orm at............. .......................................................... ........... ...... 75
P program L location ........................................................................ ..... ..... 76
Target Population ...................................... ............... .... ....... 76
R ecruitm ent and Selection........................................................ ............... 76
Intervention Activities ................... ...................................... ........ 77
Staff Inform action ........................ ...... ....... ..... .. ... ........ .................79
Financial Inform ation ................... .. ...... .................. ....... .... ...........80
Program 2-Elchurch ........ ...................... ..... ............... ............ 80
Program O objectives ..................................... ............... .. .. ........ .... 81
P ro g ram F o rm at............. .................. ........................................ ........ ....... .. 1
Program Location ............................................ .................... ........ 81
Target Population ........................ .............. ............... .... ....... 82
R ecruitm ent and Selection........................................................ ............... 82
Intervention A activities ............................................... .. .... .. ........ .... 82
Staff Inform action ............................ .................................. .......... ............... ... 82









Financial Inform ation ................................................ .............................. 83
Program 3- E nviroyear ........................................................................ ...............83
P program O objectives ......... ...................................................... .......................84
P program F orm at............. ............ .............................................. ............ ...... 84
Program Location ........... .. .... ....................... .. ......... ................ 85
T target Population ...................... ...... ............ ................. .... ....... 85
R ecruitm ent and Selection ......................................... ............... ............... 86
Intervention A activities ......... ................................................ ........ .... .... 86
Staff Information .......................... ...... ...... .. .. .................... ........88
Financial Inform ation ................... .................. ................... ........ 89
Program 4- Sum Space ................................................................... ............... 89
P program O objectives ..... .. .................................................. .......... ....... 90
P program F orm at............. ............ .............................................. ............ ...... 90
Program Location ..... .. .... ........................... ........ ....... .. ........ .... 91
T target Population ...................... ...... ............ ................. .... ....... 92
R ecruitm ent and Selection ......................................... ............... ...............92
Intervention A activities ......... ................................................ .. .......... ......92
Staff Information .......................... ...... ...... .. .. .................... ........92
Financial Inform ation ................... .................. ................... .. ...... 93
Program 5- SpringSat....................................................................... ............... 93
P program O objectives ..... .. .................................................. .......... ....... 94
P program F orm at............. ............ .............................................. ............ ...... 94
Program Location ....... .... ........................... ............... .. ........ .... 94
T target Population ...................... ...... ............ ................. .... ....... 94
R ecruitm ent and Selection ......................................... ............... ...............95
Intervention A activities .......... ................................................ ......... ...... 95
Staff Information .......................... ...... ...... .. .. .................... ........95
Financial Inform ation ................... .................. ................... ........ 95

5 RESULTS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION #2 .................................. ...............97

P ro g ram O bjectiv es .......................................................................... .... ..............9 8
A n aly sis ......... ................... ........................... .....................................9 8
Evaluation ............................................. 99
Program Form at ................. ...................................................................... ...... 100
A n a ly sis ................................ ..............................................................1 0 1
E valuation ............................................. 101
P program L location ............................................................... 102
Analysis ........................... ................... .... 102
Evaluation....................................... ......... 103
Target Population and Recruitment/Selection ......... ............................... 104
A analysis ................ ................................. ................ ... ........ 105
E v alu atio n .............................................................................10 5
Intervention Activities .................. ........................... ...... .. ............... 106
A naly sis .................................................................................................. ....... 107
E v alu ation ............................................. 107
Program Staff ..........................108..............................................108









Analysis ............... ......... ................ 109
Evaluation........................................ .......... 109
Overall Evaluation of the Cluster ............................. .....................110
Gaps in Program Emphasis .................. .............. .. ..................111
Insufficient Use of Community Sites ........... ............................... .......... 112
Meager Intervention Strategies for Younger Students .............. ...............113

6 RESULTS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION #3 ................................ ..................1.14

M o d e l # 1 ............................................................................................................. 1 1 4
Program O objectives ..................................... ....... .. ...... .. ........ .... 115
Program Form at ............................................... ........ ................ 116
Program Location ................................................... ................ ........ ..... 116
Target Population and Recruitment/Selection............................117
Intervention Activities ............................ ......... .. .... ............... 117
Program Staff ..................................... .......... ........118
Discussion .............................................. 119
M odel #2 ....................................... ......... ..... .... ............................. 12 0
Program Objectives ............................ ................... ...............121
P ro g ram F o rm at........................................................................................... 12 2
Program Location .......................................................... ...... 122
Target Population and Recruitment/Selection ...............................................123
Intervention A ctiv ities ................................................................................. 124
Program Staff ................................................................................................ 127
D isc u ssio n .................................................................................................... 12 7
C o n c lu sio n ................................................................................................... 12 9

7 CONCLUSION ..................... .................. 131

D isc u ssio n ........................................................................................1 3 2
Lim stations of the Study ............................................... ............... 136
Im plications .........................................138
Identification and D description ............................................................ ....... 139
Cluster Evaluation .............................................................................. 140
Standards for Science Intervention............................ .... ......... 141
T w o M o d e ls ................................................................................................. 14 2
Recommendations.......................................................143

APPENDIX

A STU D Y D E SIGN M A TRIX ................... ...................1...........................5

B 42 PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN GEORGIA, MARYLAND, SOUTH
CAROLINA, AND WASHINGTON, D.C. .........................................146

C PROGRAM COORDINATOR QUESTIONNAIRE (PCQ) .................................... 149









D D A TA A N A L Y SIS T O O L ............ .....................................................................150

E SCIENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC
UNIVERSITIES IN SOUTH CAROLINA, GEORGIA, MARYLAND, AND
W A SH IN G T O N D .C ...................................................................... ..................... 153

F COMPLETED DATA ANALYSIS TOOL................................... ...............156

G INFLUENCE OF THE CLUSTER ON MODEL #1 ............................................159

H INFLUENCE OF THE CLUSTER ON MODEL #2 ............................................160

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ...................................................................... ..................... 16 1

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................. ...............167















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

SCIENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS FOR SOUTHERN BLACK STUDENTS:
A CLUSTER EVALUATION AND TWO PROPOSED MODELS

By

Courtney Anne Johnson

May 2003

Chair: Linda Cronin-Jones
Major Department: Teaching and Learning

This study investigated science intervention programs for Black students in South

Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland. The sample consisted of five programs that aim to

increase the participation of Blacks in science via after-school, Saturday, and summer

experiences. These long-term programs offered a variety of experiences, including

hands-on science activities, contact with mentors and role models, exposure to science-

related careers, and opportunities to increase science content knowledge and improve

science process skills. Artifact data, a Program Coordinator Questionnaire, site visits,

and interviews were used to identify and describe five existing science intervention

programs for Black students.

The study proposed a set of standards for science intervention programs for Black

students. These standards addressed eight components of programs, including objectives,

format, location, target population, recruitment and selection, intervention activities,

staff, and financial information. Using a modified approach to cluster evaluation, the five









programs were compared to the standards. This evaluation revealed the strengths and

underlying weaknesses of the cluster that informed the development of two models for

future science intervention programs.

Though implemented in numerous ways, the cluster's strengths included sound,

measurable objectives; articulation of program objectives to staff, participants, and

parents; frequent contact during sessions; the potential for continuous involvement of

staff and participants; the inclusion of a range of student achievement levels; programs

that served their target group; the representation of various communities, neighborhoods,

and schools; effective recruitment strategies; financially inclusive programs; a variety of

intervention activities; intensive training for staff; and substantial staff compensation.

Three major shortcomings of the cluster were identified as inadequate focus on

science-related careers and science process skills; poor use of communities as sites for

doing and seeing science; and meager intervention strategies for younger students. These

shortcomings perpetuated underlying inequities of knowledge and power, despite the

well-intended science intervention efforts.

This study identified and described several science intervention programs,

developed standards for implementing and evaluating science intervention programs, and

proposed two models for future programs. In light of current efforts to make science for

all students by the year 2061, the value of these contributions is high.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, it has been believed that knowledge is power (Sleeter & Grant,

1991). Science is knowledge, thus science is power. For years, science has been the

domain of White men, and has been deemed hard, complex, and only for the most

intelligent. Under this premise, if the holders of science knowledge (i.e., White males)

have power, then those without the knowledge (i.e., women and minorities) are powerless

and subject to oppression (Baptiste, 1989).

In recent years, American society has noticed the underrepresentation of women

and minorities in the quantitative sciences. The systemic vices (i.e., tracking, apathetic

teachers, unprepared teachers, ill-equipped classrooms, poor funding) leading to this

underrepresentation have also been acknowledged (Atwater, 2000; Chenoweth, 1999;

Clark, 1999; Oakes, 1985; Slate & Jones, 1998). Those in power have realized the

damage this unequal participation can do to the United States-reducing the nation's

competitive edge-and consequently have pledged to make science accessible to all

students (Miller, 1995; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990). A number of intervention

programs has been established to increase female and minority participation in the

sciences. These programs attempt to reach the untapped potential along the educational

pipeline with the hopes that these groups will eventually choose science-related careers.

A study of intervention programs for girls and minorities found that most programs

do not exist in the region of the country (i.e., the South) that houses the majority of the

U.S. Black population (Clewell, Anderson, & Thorpe, 1992b). If the fewest intervention









efforts occur where most Black students live, clearly a great deal of science potential is

being overlooked and left untapped. According to the 2000 U.S. Census (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2001), the South remains the region of the country with the highest percentage of

the Black population. The South Atlantic sub-region (Delaware, Maryland, Washington,

D.C., West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida)

contains a larger portion of Black people than any other sub-region in the South. Within

the South Atlantic, Washington, D.C. (60%), South Carolina (29.5%), Georgia (28.7%),

and Maryland (27.9%) have the largest proportions of Blacks relative to their individual

populations. These three states and the District of Columbia contain 42 publicly funded

universities, nine of which are historically Black. State universities have a fundamental

interest in the state's populace to produce as many thinkers, creators, educators, and

researchers who ideally will remain in the state, and a mission to make education more

accessible to the public. Recently, this has involved more community interaction and

outreach, some of which has been in the form of science intervention programs for

minority students. An investigation of science intervention programs for Black students

that are administered by state universities in the South can provide insight into the

meanings of current efforts to make science for all students.

Statement of the Problem

Knowledge is central to power. Knowledge helps us envision the contours and
limits of our existence, what is desirable and possible, and what actions might bring
about the possibilities. Knowledge helps us examine relationships between what is
ethical and what is desirable; it widens our experiences; it provides analytic tools
for thinking through questions, situations, and problems. Empowering knowledge
centers on the interest and aims of the prospective knower. Apart from the knower,
knowledge has no intrinsic power. (Sleeter & Grant, 1991, p. 50)









The above quote illustrates the tremendous effect of knowledge. If knowledge

yields power, then those who understand and generate new knowledge are endowed with

much power. This scenario applies to all forms of knowledge, including science

knowledge. Baptiste (1989) argues that science knowledge is socially distributed in U.S.

classrooms, thus providing one group of students (i.e., White males) access to power and

its benefits, while other groups (i.e., minorities and females) remain powerless and

subject to oppression.

Historically, science in the United States has been described as a White male

endeavor. The sciences, particularly mathematical sciences, have been deemed as

selective and elitist in nature. This exclusivity has resulted in monolithic answers to

common questions about science-What is science? Who does science? What counts as

science knowledge? Ever since the Russians launched Sputnik in the 1950s, the United

States has realized its scientific/technological vulnerability (Carin & Bass, 2001).

Subsequent international tests in math and science continue to expose the country's

inability to be a top academic competitor with other developed nations (National Center

for Education Statistics, n.d.a; n.d.b). This prompted the scientific and educational

communities to recognize the untapped scientific potential found in women and

minorities, as well as the systemic vices (i.e., tracking, apathetic teachers, ill-equipped

classrooms, poor funding) leading to the underrepresentation of these groups (Atwater,

2000; Chenoweth, 1999; Clark, 1999; Oakes, 1985; Slate & Jones, 1998). A pledge to

make science literacy for all, introduced in Science for All Americans (Rutherford &

Ahlgren, 1990) and subsequently described in Benchmarksfor Science Literacy

(American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993), has resulted in a









number of intervention programs designed to increase female and minority participation

in the sciences.

Females and Minorities in Science

Despite the emphasis on science for all students, minorities and females continue to

be underrepresented in science (Catsambis, 1995; Clark, 1999; Kahle & Lakes, 1983;

Oakes, 1990). The reason can be described in terms of a game. To play any game, it is

necessary to understand its rules. Those players who lack an understanding also lack an

equal opportunity to win the game. Females and minorities have an unfair disadvantage

because they neither helped establish nor understand the rules associated with the game

of science. To win (or at least have a chance to win) females and minorities must learn

and understand the rules (Monhardt, 2000). Teachers have the task of teaching the rules

to their students, but the task becomes complicated by a number of factors. Clewell,

Anderson, and Thorpe (1992a) view these factors as barriers to female and minority

participation in the sciences that include negative attitudes and perceptions of science,

poor academic performance, insufficient course and extracurricular participation, and

limited knowledge of related professions.

Gender differences in attitudes toward science begin to appear during middle

school and become fixed by the end of high school (Oakes, 1990). Boys are more likely

than girls to consider science useful and applicable to everyday life (Kahle & Lakes,

1983). Furthermore, sixth grade girls tend to have fewer experiences with, and less

interest in, science than boys, particularly the physical sciences (Jones, Howe, & Rua,

2000). These circumstances may be a cause of the performance anxiety found in female

science students. Interestingly, although eighth grade girls score significantly higher than

boys on science achievement tests, they hold more negative attitudes toward science than









their male counterparts (Catsambis, 1995). Students' participation in science-related

extracurricular activities strongly indicates their interest in science. Among all students,

African American students report the highest levels of participation in extracurricular

science activities (Catsambis, 1995), despite low scores on science achievement tests.

Other studies (reported in Kahle & Lakes, 1983) note the low participation of African

American and female students in extracurricular science activities. These achievement-

attitude contradictions of females and minorities indicate that the development of gender

and race/ethnicity differences in attitudes toward science occur independently of

achievement levels. These studies suggest that a phenomenon may be occurring in

schools to discourage positive attitudes toward science among females and minority

students.

Mondhart (2000) describes the common practice of grouping minority students

together and negatively labeling them. In 1996, 29% of high school classes with few

minority students were labeled low ability, while 42% of high school classes with at least

40% minority students were labeled low ability. Though most teachers are female, 92%

of science teachers in grades 7-12 are White, 5% are African American, and 3% represent

other ethnicities (Bradley, 1997). These statistics may seem meaningless without a

consideration of the cultural baggage teachers bring to science classrooms.

Differential treatment in the way science content is presented in daily instructional

activities exists in U.S. schools (Atwater, 2000; Contreras & Lee, 1990; Kahle, Parker,

Rennie, & Riley, 1993). Teachers of high performing students allow their students better

access to science content by spending a critical amount of time on instructional activities,

presenting relatively more content knowledge, and offering support and attempting to









motivate students. On the other hand, teachers of low performing students reportedly

spend more time dealing with classroom management issues (Contreras & Lee, 1990).

African American boys make up a disproportionate number in academically less-

challenging classes, while White students largely populate more-challenging classes

(Catsambis, 1995). Furthermore, minority students face unqualified science teachers

more than their White counterparts. Teachers with low expectations of their Black

students consciously and unconsciously impart these perceptions, which in turn lead to

students' low expectations of themselves. This self-fulfilling prophecy results in a group

of students who believe they are unable to learn the rules of the science game (Monhardt,

2000). The dearth of female and minority science role models (e.g., teachers, older

students, and scientists) further compounds the problem by inadequately illustrating the

achievements of females and minorities in science. Consequently, student-centered

intervention programs aim to relieve the burdens that minimize female and minority

participation in the sciences.

Intervention Efforts

Student-centered intervention efforts include in-school, after school, weekend, and

summer programs. These programs target a number of grade and achievement levels,

and focus on any combination of science skills, knowledge, careers, and attitudes: "Since

intervention programs [arise] out of the recognition that formal education [fails] to

address the problem of low minority and female representation in [science] careers, it is

logical that the programs [utilize] approaches somewhat different from those of the

traditional educational system" (Clewell, Anderson, & Thorpe, 1992a, p. 13). Clewell et

al., (1992a) have conducted the only comprehensive review to date of science, math, and

technology intervention programs for female and minority students in grades four









through eight. Of the 163 programs throughout the U.S. that satisfied their criteria, 54%

targeted both females and minorities, whereas 13% and 33% target only females and

minorities, respectively. Sixty-seven percent of the programs actually served female

students, while 88% served minority students. Of all ethnic groups, Blacks (83%) were

served more than any other group. The vast majority of the programs (64%) focused on

science, math, and technology, while 17% of the programs focused on science only. The

study found a positive relationship between increasing grade level and number of

programs. As grade level increased from four to eight, more programs existed. The

geographic distribution of the intervention programs within the U.S. was interesting. The

West [had] the greatest number of programs (30%) followed by the Northeast (28%),

then by the Central states (24%), and the Southeast (18%). The top five states for

programs were [California, New York, Georgia, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.]"

(Clewell et al., 1992b, p. 211). While the preponderance of science intervention

programs in some states/regions and the dearth of programs in others cannot be

explained, it is clear that Black and Native American students remain underserved by

current efforts (Clewell et al., 1992b).

The variety of current efforts to increase female and minority participation in

science classes and science-related careers can be viewed as bandage approaches that

merely aim to quiet concerned voices without actually changing the sociocultural

structure that nurtures the conditions to allow for underrepresentation. On the other hand,

intervention efforts can be perceived as good faith efforts to reverse the ills of

marginalized females and minorities in science.









Project 2061

In an effort to reform U.S. science, mathematics, and technology education, the

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) initiated Project 2061.

This project was designed to help the nation achieve science literacy for all Americans

(AAAS, n.d.). The long-range effort began in 1985, the last time Comet Halley visited

the earth's vicinity. The goals of the initiative are to be accomplished by the year of

Comet Halley's next visit, year 2061.

Realizing that all Americans are not science-literate and that U.S. students

consistently rank poorly on international science and mathematics exams, Project 2061 is

based on the following convictions (AAAS, n.d.): (a) all children need and deserve a

basic education in science, mathematics, and technology that prepares them to live

interesting and productive lives; (b) world norms for what represents a basic education

have changed in response to the growth of scientific knowledge and technological power;

(c) U.S. schools have not taken enough steps to prepare young people-especially

minority children-for a world shaped by science and technology; (d) systemic changes

in the kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) educational system will have to be made

to achieve science literacy for all Americans; and (e) reaching a clear understanding of

what constitutes science literacy is the first step to achieving that goal.

As a long-term initiative, Project 2061 has three phases (AAAS, n.d.). The already

completed Phase I established a conceptual base for reform. Science for AllAmericans,

the product of Phase I, defines the science knowledge, skills, and attitudes that all

students should gain as a result of their K-12 matriculation. Panels of renowned

scientists, mathematicians, and engineers worked together to develop this book. Phase II,

scheduled to end in 1992, devised a variety of science literacy curriculum models to be









used by school districts and states. Phase II also described the characteristics of other

areas that supplement the new curricula, such as teacher education, testing policies and

practices, technology and new materials, the organization of schooling, state and local

policies, and research. This phase involved collaborative work between scientists and

educators, and resulted in so-called blueprints for reform. The final phase involves

various affiliations (i.e., scientific societies, educational organizations and institutions,

and other groups) working to transform the blueprints into educational practice.

Equity issues remain major challenges in the quest for science literacy for all

Americans (AAAS, 1997). Reformers seek to make science understandable, accessible,

and even enjoyable for all K-12 students. Traditionally, while all students had been

expected to learn reading and math, science had been accessible only to privileged

students. Groups of students who are currently underrepresented in science classes and

science-related careers include females, African Americans, Hispanic Americans,

American Indians/Alaskan Natives, students with disabilities, and English language

learners. Additionally, socioeconomic status largely affects students' achievement in

school. As a result, Project 2061 believes: "Young people of all abilities, ethnicities, and

backgrounds will be less likely to participate in math and science if they express low

confidence in their abilities to master mathematics and science and to succeed in careers

requiring these skills; if they value success and participation in these fields less than they

value success and participation in other fields; if they do not enjoy mathematics and

science; and if they experience a nonsupportive environment for learning mathematics

and science, either in school or at home. Therefore, it is particularly important to remedy

these conditions for groups that are already underrepresented in mathematics and









science" (AAAS, 1997). As funding agencies and government entities dole out monies to

create programs and services to make science for all, they require formative and

summative evaluations of those endeavors. To date, no individual or organization has

attempted to evaluate the progress of the overall initiative as it relates to science

intervention for Black students.

Purpose of the Study

This study was designed to investigate existing, publicly administered science

intervention programs for elementary through high school Southern Black students.

Using data from print materials, site visits, questionnaires, and interviews, the study

identified implicit patterns that represent the nature of efforts to achieve the goal of

Project 2061-science literacy for all. The exploratory nature of this study precluded any

attempts to generalize the results to programs other than the ones represented.

Additionally, the study utilized the strengths and weaknesses of existing science

intervention programs to inform the development of two models for new and/or modified

programs. This study investigated science intervention programs for Southern Blacks as

represented by the five programs in the cluster. Additional research is required to

corroborate the findings of this study, particularly as they pertain to other science

intervention programs and the larger initiative, science for all.

Research Questions

The research answered the following questions:

1. What science intervention programs do Southern state universities offer Black
elementary through high school students in an effort to make science for all?

a. What are the objectives of the programs?
b. What are the formats of the programs?
c. Where do the programs occur?
d. What populations do the programs target?









e. How are participants recruited and selected?
f. What types of intervention do the programs provide?
g. How do the programs train and compensate staff?

2. What does a cluster evaluation of existing science intervention programs reveal
about their intent and efforts?

3. How can existing programs inform the development of models for science
intervention programs for Black students?

Delimitations

The research focused on science intervention programs targeting elementary,

middle, and/or high school minority students, and serving primarily Black students.

Programs that incorporate math, technology, or other subjects in addition to science were

included in the sample. The target population included science intervention programs

administered by the 42 public universities in Washington, D.C., South Carolina, Georgia,

and Maryland. These states are part of the South Atlantic sub-region, which contains the

largest proportion of Black people in the South. The sample consisted of five programs

in South Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland. These five programs comprised a cluster that

was evaluated to determine the underlying meanings of science intervention in the South

and to inform the development of two models. The exploratory nature of this study

precluded any attempts to generalize the results to programs other than the ones

represented. Because they suggest a sustained effort to effect change, continuous

programs, not isolated efforts, were considered. Continuous programs included year-

round intervention, school year efforts, and long-term (more than one week) summer

programs. Examples of efforts that were excluded include those whose prominent

activity consisted of competitions, fairs, guest speakers, or field trips and endured for a

one-time or short-term (one week) basis. Inclusion in this study did not hinge on the

funding for intervention being provided by the university. Federal, state, and private









funding agencies offer grants to researchers and educators nationwide. Hence, the

opportunity to establish intervention programs for minorities remains an option

independent of the university's financial status. This gave the study external validity.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (Rutherford &

Ahlgren, 1990) described the impetus to make science for all before the year 2061.

Efforts to replicate this study before 2061 should result in comparable findings. If, after

the deadline, the focus of science education shifts, the attention of science intervention

programs similarly will shift. Therefore, the reliability of the study remains intact as long

as the goals of science education fail to undergo dramatic changes.

Limitations

The research was limited by the parameters of the investigation. Due to the types

of programs studied, intervention efforts of other types may have been overlooked. Only

programs that claim to target minorities were considered. Consequently, programs that

claim to target other groups or no group in particular, but actually served minorities were

not acknowledged. Due to the nature of this study, only programs administered by public

universities were included. Intensive Internet searches facilitated the investigation.

Intervention programs without web sites and those not acknowledged on a university web

site were not identified, and were thus excluded. Variation in the program coordinators'

participation affected the quality and quantity of information collected. While some

coordinators shared information freely and made themselves available for additional

queries, others provided minimal assistance. These limitations may have resulted in

various levels of program description and a negative portrayal of current attempts to

make science for all. The particulars of each intervention program varied with the needs,

wants, and interests of the local communities they served. A lack of control of some of









these program characteristics, as well as the personality of each program, threatened the

internal validity of the research.

Significance of the Study

A cluster evaluation of existing programs presents new contributions to a dialogue

among researchers, theorists, and practitioners. Two research-based models for science

intervention programs for minorities and an evaluation of existing programs offer new

knowledge to the relevant field of study.

Rather than assuming the effectiveness of science intervention programs for Black

students, this study provides evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of these

programs. A cluster evaluation reveals strengths and weaknesses, as well as their

underlying premises. As these ideas come under scrutiny, an argument emerges

regarding the nature of the efforts to make science for all. The network of science

intervention programs can be deemed as good faith efforts, bandage attempts, or some

intermediate approach based on the analysis. The ensuing judgment contributes to the

ongoing conversation about academic equity and equality and systemic reform among

educational theorists, researchers, and practitioners.

Research indicates that most intervention programs are the result of educated

intuition rather than research on how students learn and methods that work for minority

students (Clewell, 1987). The proposed models arise from accepted research and

empirical evidence. The development of models based on existing programs allows for

the strengths of the programs to be matched and balanced.

Applications of cluster evaluation, a still-evolving approach, remain limited

because of its current status. This study's use of cluster evaluation will contribute to its









use and to subsequent analyses of the approach. This study's significance to the field of

science education is underscored by its contribution to the field of evaluation.

Assumptions

The research takes for granted the following assumptions:

* The intervention programs aim to increase student achievement in science and/or
improve student attitudes toward science and science-related careers.

* The program participants (students and staff) are willing participants and without
intentions to hinder the success of the program.

* The science for all initiative, highlighted by Project 2061, is a large developing
project that subsumes existing science intervention programs.

Definition of Terms

The study utilizes the following terms as described below:

Program administrator public university that implements the science intervention
program, regardless of the funding source

Program coordinator individual who manages and/or operates the science
intervention program; usually affiliated with the university

Science for all the goal of current efforts to transform American science
education from an elitist system into an inclusive system that seeks to reverse the
current underrepresentation of certain groups of students (i.e., females, African
Americans and other racial/ethnic minorities, and students with disabilities) in
science classes and science-related careers

Science intervention program a continuous effort (i.e., in-school, after school,
weekend, or summer) that targets elementary, middle, and/or high school minority
students, serves primarily Black students, and attempts to increase any combination
of science skills, knowledge, attitudes, or career awareness

Method

The study targeted science intervention programs administered by the 42

universities in Washington, D.C., Georgia, Maryland, and South Carolina. The sample

included five programs in Georgia, Maryland, and South Carolina that were identified

through extensive Internet searches, a review of the related literature, and communication









with various personnel at the target universities. These personnel included faculty and

staff in science, engineering, and education colleges/departments and offices of outreach,

public service, continuing education, and minority recruitment. Preliminary information

was collected through Internet and literature explorations until personal communication

with the program coordinators was initiated. Some program coordinators provided

additional information via a Program Coordinator Questionnaire. Site visits to two

programs and interviews with program participants and staff supplied qualitative data,

such as observations of program implementation and student and staff perceptions of the

programs.

The collected data were used to describe the phenomenon of science intervention

programs in the South. A modified cluster evaluation facilitated the examination and

interpretation of the data. The strengths and weaknesses of the investigated programs and

a review of related literature contributed to the development of two models for science

intervention programs for Southern Blacks. Further details of the methodology of the

study are provided in Chapter 3.

Summary of the Chapters

While this chapter contains a description of the problem and its significance to the

field of science education, Chapter 2 provides a review of the relevant literature. Sub-

headings within the literature review include gaps in science achievement and attitudes

toward science, cultural contrasts in the classroom, the need for science intervention

programs, research on science intervention programs, and postsecondary institutions and

intervention programs. Chapter 3 details the research design and methodology. Chapters

4, 5, and 6 report the results of Research Questions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. A summary






16


of the results, implications, and recommendations for future studies on science

intervention programs are presented in Chapter 7.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

A study of science intervention programs for Black students would not be complete

without an adequate review of pertinent literature. The following discussion highlights

research in the areas of statistical data regarding women and minorities in science and

engineering, gaps in science achievement and attitudes toward science, cultural contrasts

in the classroom, the need for science intervention, research on science intervention

programs, and postsecondary institutions and intervention programs. The "gaps in

science achievement and attitudes toward science" section contains three sub-sections-

gaps on achievement tests, differences in science experiences, and differences in science

teaching. The "need for science intervention programs" section focuses on national

industriousness and economic strength, group goals and democracy, and science and

education. "Research on science intervention programs" considers the developmental

level of students, inquiry learning, and attitudes and behaviors. In addition to sharing

examples of science intervention programs, the section details various types of

intervention programs, including private initiatives, school-college collaborations, federal

and state-supported intervention, and academic outreach. The section concludes with an

explanation of the K-16 Model.

Statistics on Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering

Participation of women and minorities in science can be correlated to their pre-

college and college enrollment, as well as their involvement in the science workforce.

The report Women, Minorities, and Persons n i/h Disabilities in Science and Engineering









(National Science Foundation [NSF], 1998; NSF, 2000) presented relevant statistical

data. Although women comprise 51% of the U.S. population and 46% of the workforce,

they are only 22% of scientists and engineers (NSF, 1998). While Blacks, Hispanics, and

Native Americans represent 23% of the U.S. population, they comprise approximately

6% of scientists and engineers (3% Blacks, 3% Hispanics, less than 1% Native

Americans). Asians, though only 3% of the U.S. population, comprise 10% of the

scientists and engineers in the U.S. (NSF, 1998). Between 1985 and 1995, minorities

showed increases in the percentage of bachelor's degrees earned in science and

engineering. Blacks represented 7% of all science and engineering bachelor's degrees

awarded to U.S. citizens (up from 5%). Hispanics improved from 4% to 6%, while

Native Americans earned 0.6% (up from 0.4%). During the same time period, women

remained constant (near 38%) until the percentage of U.S. science and engineering

bachelor's degrees awarded to women reached 46% (NSF, 1998; 2000). Examining the

representation of women and minorities in science (and engineering) throughout the

educational pipeline as well as in the workforce can provide insight on how gaps in

participation can be alleviated.

Gaps in Science Achievement and Attitudes toward Science

In the United States, females and minorities traditionally have been

underrepresented in the sciences, particularly the quantitative sciences. In April 1983,

the National Commission on Excellence in Education released its groundbreaking report,

A Nation At Risk, which described the inadequacies of the American educational system

as a whole. Though this report did not focus on any one discipline, it spurred a number

of reform efforts in many disciplines. Also in 1983, the Task Force on Education for

Economic Growth issued a report, Action for Excellence, which focused America's









attention on the issues of urban high schools and the minority students they serve. This

report motivated urban school reform efforts. The National Science Board Commission

on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology released a report in

1983 that called for a number of programs to supplement formal education in

mathematics, science, and technology. The mid- to late 1980s ushered in a wave of

reform efforts and reports in science education. By 1988, a report by the Task Force on

Minorities, Females and the Handicapped in Science acknowledged the presence of

science intervention efforts but described them as being too sparse and underfunded to

realize their full potential. Since these reports, and others, the problem of

underparticipation of females and minorities continues to plague science education.

Gaps on Achievement Tests

Kahle and Lakes (1983) analyzed the results of the 1976-77 National Assessment

of Educational Progress (NAEP). The NAEP, a standardized test administered to 75,000

to 100,000 students aged 9, 13, 17, and 26-35, tests knowledge in a number of academic

disciplines. The researchers searched for data relevant to females and science, and

excluded results from the 26-35 age category. Kahle and Lakes (1983) discovered what

they termed the "myth of equality in science classrooms." Essentially, girls have fewer

experiences in science, which leads to a lack of understanding about the uses of science.

This results in negative attitudes toward science and science understanding, and

ultimately to a lack of participation in science as a career. Kahle and Lakes (1983) found

that at age nine, girls have very positive attitudes toward science. As girls continue to

age, their attitudes toward science become increasingly negative. The researchers

purported that the girls' lack of science experiences (or observations) directly affected

their attitudes toward science.









Anderson (1989) also analyzed the results of the 1976-77 NAEP. She, however,

focused on the data as they pertain to science and African American high school students

(age 17). She noted an attitude-achievement paradox among Black students. Despite

their positive attitudes toward science, they did not fare well on standardized science

achievement tests. The results of current national and international science tests, such as

the NAEP and the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) and Third

International Math and Science Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R), indicate that achievement gaps

between Black and White and male and female students still exist (National Center for

Education Statistics [NCES], n.d.a; NCES, n.d.b). On the 1996 NAEP, male and female

students in grades 4 and 8 received similar scores; however in grade 12, males scored

higher than females. White students earned higher average scores than Black and

Hispanic students in all three grades (O'Sullivan, Reese, & Mazzeo, 1997). Middle and

high school girls continually score lower on science achievement tests than their male

counterparts though minimal science achievement gaps exist between elementary girls

and boys.

Differences in Science Experiences

Catsambis (1995), Oakes (1985), Kahle and Lakes (1983), and Steinkamp and

Maehr (1984) reported that male/female differences in science achievement do not

emerge until the middle school years. However, once they emerge they remain fixed.

Researchers attribute this to a lack of related science experiences from which girls can

draw and then form connections to classroom science. Despite Steinkamp and Maehr's

(1984) findings that girls are more positively oriented toward chemistry (a physical

science) than boys, females typically fare worse in the physical sciences. Clewell,

Anderson, and Thorpe (1992a) indicated that minority students perform at lower levels in









science than White students as early as age nine. Scores on international tests, such as

the TIMSS and TIMSS-R, and national exams, including the NAEP, offer confirmation

(NCES, n.d.a; NCES, n.d.b; O'Sullivan et al., 1997). Additionally, the greatest

difference in minority/White achievement occurs in the physical sciences. Minorities and

females enroll in fewer advanced science courses, especially in physical sciences.

Compared to males and Whites, females and minorities show less understanding of

science content, inquiry, and science-technology-society issues (Anderson, 1989; Kahle

& Lakes, 1983; O'Sullivan et al., 1997). These data illustrate the need for efforts to

increase the performance of females and minorities in U.S. science classrooms.

Steinkamp and Maehr (1984) conducted a meta-analysis of the empirically based

literature regarding gender and motivational orientations toward science. Coincidentally,

much of the literature was published between 1981 and 1983, during the time of the

science education reform rush (Weinburgh, 1995). Steinkamp and Maehr (1984) found

that girls are more motivated in school-based science. They explained school-based

science as those subjects (e.g., chemistry, biology, and botany) that students learn more

readily at school. In other words, students are more likely to have educative experiences

with chemistry in a formal setting such as school, than in an informal setting such as play.

On the other hand, boys are more motivated in science subjects (e.g., physics) with which

they are likely to have had experiences outside of school. Additionally, Steinkamp and

Maehr (1984) reported that girls from disadvantaged communities have more positive

attitudes toward, and higher achievement in, science than their male peers, and that boys

from advantaged communities have more positive attitudes toward science than their

female peers. The researchers concluded that because science is associated with school,









and school success is deemed a feminine quality in disadvantaged communities, girls fare

better than boys. For privileged youth, science bears a masculine image; therefore boys

benefit, while girls maintain low interest, and in most cases, low achievement.

Oakes (1985) described the masculine image of science and the perception that

girls find science boring, hard, and difficult to understand. This view of science can best

be exemplified by the popular Draw-A-Scientist test (Chambers, 1983) in which students,

when asked to draw a picture of a scientist, draw an old White male with a baldhead or

messy hair, eyeglasses, and a lab coat. The lack of diversity in the illustrations reflects

the homogenous image of scientists in the minds of American children.

Differences in Science Teaching

Contreras and Lee (1990) conducted an average of 30 classroom observations of

two science teachers in different contexts. They observed one Black female and one

White male middle school science teacher. Each teacher was responsible for one

enriched class (primarily White students) and one mainstream class (mostly minorities).

The researchers noted that the White male teacher clearly differentiated his pedagogy by

race. To his enriched class he presented science as a useful, thoughtful endeavor to solve

relevant problems. His students were involved in hands-on experiences and discussions.

His attention was on the content and its applications. He afforded each student in the

enriched class an opportunity to participate in a science field trip. To his mainstream

class, on the other hand, the White male teacher presented science as seatwork and just

another school subject. His students did not participate in hands-on experiences and he

reserved the field trip for the most well-behaved students. His attention was on

classroom management. The Black female instructor, however, presented a different

perspective of teaching science. She nurtured her students both academically and









personally, and provided to both classes hands-on experiences and full access to the field

trip. She found that she made more efforts to motivate her mainstream students simply

because they perceived themselves as ordinary, not highly capable students.

Just as classroom teachers differentiate their behavior based on race, they also

differentiate based on gender. Tobin and Gallagher (1986), among other researchers,

found that boys receive more teacher-attention than girls in science classrooms. Teachers

are more likely to respond to boys' call-outs more frequently; call on boys more often;

offer assistance to boys more than to girls; and more closely monitor boys. This lack of

attention in the science classroom leads girls to substantiate Oakes' (1985) findings of the

masculine image of science. Additionally, while doing group activities, boys are more

likely to take the lead-handling the materials, manipulating equipment/instruments,

observing, and talking about the science phenomena-while girls are often relegated to

the tasks of taking notes, answering worksheet questions, and cleaning.

Cultural Contrasts in the Classroom

Historically, the specifics of educational reform have been devised with

mainstream students (i.e., White, male, average to above-average performance) in mind,

with the conjecture that they can be trickled down to non-mainstream contexts. Because

these efforts fail to consider the perspectives of diverse learners, including alternative

notions of knowledge and culture, they rarely succeed in providing an equitable

education for all students (Rosebery & Warren, 1999). Instruction generates or maintains

a cultural context that influences the extent to which a student learns. The basis of this

influence lies in the congruity or incongruity between the culture of instruction and the

student's culture (Aikenhead, 2001; Parsons, 2000). Norman, Ault, Bentz, and

Meskimen (2001) describe urban science classrooms as cultural interface zones, in which









teachers and students from diverse backgrounds and viewpoints must interact to achieve a

common goal. The authors' perception of urban science classrooms, however, may be

extrapolated to include any classroom that houses teachers and students from different

circumstances.

According to Cobem, "In modem America, a primary goal of science education is

the development of a scientific worldview, especially with regard to scientific ways of

thinking" (as cited in Lynch, 2000, p. 73). Worldview, the underlying organization of the

mind that directs one's thoughts and feelings, supports rationality and influences

conceptions of norms and values. A typical student gains exposure to a variety of science

worldviews as depicted in the school curriculum, science textbooks, science education

reform efforts, peers, parents, and teachers. A student's conflict with the worldviews of

science presented in school may predispose him to difficulty in science classes. On the

other hand, a student may be favorably inclined to the notions of science presented in

school (Lynch, 2000). The ability of a student to excel in science depends, considerably,

on the negotiation between the habits of mind associated with the worldview of Western

science and the habits of mind associated with the student's worldview.

Differences of perspective result in teachers deeming poor and minority students as

"off-topic, confused, concrete rather than abstract in their thinking, magical rather than

logical, lacking essential vocabulary, and not scientific in how they [approach] problems,

how they [use] language, or in their understanding" (Rosebery & Warren, 1999, p. 8).

These misunderstandings can be attributed to discrepancies between the cultural

philosophies of White Americans and those of Black Americans, particularly several

focal values as described by Parsons (2000).









As described by Parsons (2000), White Americans tend to subscribe to the notions

of mind-body dualism, a materialistic conception of reality, individualism, and a work-

related use of time. Black Americans embrace concepts of spirituality, harmony, affect,

communalism, expressive individualism, and a social perspective of time. Mind-body

dualism, the idea that the mind and body can be and should be separated, gives rise to a

set of dichotomies including subject-object and affective-cognitive. This rationalist

perspective views affect, or the expression of emotion, as disruptive to the process of

making effective decisions. Mind-body dualism, a facet of White cultural philosophy,

opposes the value placed on emotions and feelings by Black cultural philosophy (affect).

The materialistic conception of reality accepted by White Americans suggests that all

elements within the universe possess a natural, mechanistic order that accounts for an

objective, static reality regardless of the perspective from which it is viewed. The Black

cultural viewpoint, however, values spirituality and harmony (Parsons, 2000). These

facets acknowledge how a supreme being, in addition to other elements of life, influences

reality and fate.

While White cultural philosophy recognizes individualism as the basic human unit,

Black Americans place a premium on communalism and expressive individualism

(Parsons, 2000). Simply stated, individualism favors a person who is separate,

independent, and distinct from others. Communalism prefers social interdependence and

responsibilities rather than individual benefits. Expressive individualism acknowledges

one's unique character and genuine personal expression. According to Parsons (2000),

White Americans consider time a commodity, thus recognizing its value only when it can

be translated into personal gain or use. Black Americans, on the other hand, view time as









a "social phenomenon marked by human interaction and by the event shared by others"

(Parsons, 2000, p. 212). Other facets of Black cultural philosophy include movement

(intermingling ideas of rhythm and percussion), verve (preferring intense, lively

stimulation), and orality (favoring oral/aural communication). These cultural contrasts,

when present in science classrooms, yield differences in Black and White teacher and

student interactions and expectations.

Manifestations of the previously discussed cultural differences between Black

students and their White teachers and peers can account for gaps in behavioral

interpretations and achievement. Morgan (1990) found that Black middle school

students appeared more peer-oriented and socially interactive than their White

counterparts. Consequently, Black students were more likely than White students to

initiate peer-contact. These communalistic experiences may be misconstrued as

disruptive to a teacher who does not provide social and interdependent instructional

activities. Heath (1982) described the sociolinguistic characteristics of Southern Blacks.

She found that Black working-class adults embraced a storytelling environment.

Children who took initiative became welcome into the conversation, and earned approval

through imaginative talk with dramatic expression. Additionally, working-class Black

adults tended to ask their children "what is it like?" (analogy) questions. Middle-class

White adults, though, expected more direct, specific responses from their children.

Traditionally, classrooms operate on teacher-controlled oral discourse. The teacher

chooses the topic, and decides who talks and when. Students speak only with

permission-one person at a time (Miller, 1995). A discrepancy exists between the

socio-linguistic traditions of Blacks and the nature of traditional classroom discourse.









Students who have difficulty negotiating between the cultures of home and school

struggle against teachers who do not even realize that such negotiations transpire. A

science classroom under these conditions can provide the recipe for misfortune.

The Need for Science Intervention Programs

The need for intervention programs in science is a direct consequence of

socioeconomic issues in U.S. education and failures in science classrooms. Concerns for

the nation's industriousness and competitiveness, economic strength, realization of group

goals, the maintenance of American democracy, and educational equity support the need

for science intervention programs.

National Industriousness and Economic Strength

Miller (1995) and Johnson (1992) described similar motivations for science

intervention programs. They discussed the implications of the 1950's launch of the

Russian satellite Sputnik. After that major event, and in the wake of international math

and science achievement tests, the United States' vulnerability became apparent. The

nation realized its lack of academic competitiveness ultimately led to decreased scientific

and technological capabilities, which placed it in grave danger of not being a leader

among the "industrialized nations club" (Miller, 1995, p. 6). Finding sources of untapped

science potential meant encouraging the participation of underrepresented groups, hence

the birth of science intervention programs.

Miller (1995) further described the need for two major groups of people in any

industrialized nation-the educated elite and the well-educated general population. The

educated elite consists of those individuals who possess the expertise and knowledge to

create, modify, or discover scientific and technological advancements. The educated

elite, also known as the advancers, remains a relatively small proportion of the









population. The general population, on the other hand, comprises the vast majority of the

nation's people. The well-educated general population, or appliers, serves to apply the

advancements of the elite to daily life. The challenge lies in balancing the knowledge of

the elite with that of the general population. Contributions of the advancers that far

exceed the knowledge base of the appliers lead to inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and lack

of success on the part of the nation. The need exists for science intervention programs to

heighten the education of the general population and increase the pool of the educated

elite.

Group Goals and Democracy

Johnson (1992) and Miller (1995) both offered benefits for increased participation

of females and minorities in science. These groups remain most underrepresented in

areas of study that most affect them. Examples include health care, biomedical research,

and environmental issues. Encouraging minorities and females to enter science-related

careers provides a variety of new perspectives to research questions. Issues of well-being

that had previously been addressed from a White male perspective gain attention from

minorities and females. This affects the overall welfare of those groups. Additionally, as

females and minorities become more visible in historically underrepresented fields, they

may feel a greater sense of responsibility to maintain and increase their visibility. As

their contributions increase and their participation becomes noticeable, more females and

minorities may consider careers in science. This group self-edification also allows each

group to realize the fullness of its recently won civil rights.

Johnson (1992) argued that science intervention programs increase female and

minority participation in the sciences. Gains in knowledge and representation eventually

lead to gains in power, and ultimately to entry into the decision-making process. Females









and minorities who continue to struggle to take advantage of their civil rights find easier

access as their science knowledge/power increases.

John Dewey's (1944) image of the Great Society-one that fosters participatory

democracy-can be realized through the effects of science intervention programs,

according to Miller (1995) and Johnson (1992). Dewey (1944) envisioned a society in

which every individual participates in the social, political, and cultural life, and strives to

maintain the ideals of democracy. Inequities in the current situation prevent the full

participation of each individual. Disparities in the science achievement and experiences

of minorities and females when compared to the cultural majority and to males remain an

obstacle to the Great Society. Miller (1995) and Johnson (1992) recognized science

intervention programs as efforts to attain equity and parity.

Science and Education

Atwater (2000) distinguished equality and equity. She defined equality as "the

state of being the same," and equity as "the state of being fair or just" (Atwater, 2000, p.

155). The U.S. educational system fails to provide equitable opportunities for minorities

and females to achieve success in science. Equal opportunities do not address the

inability of minorities and females to begin at the same level. Atwater (2000) highlighted

unfair funding/resources, unprepared teachers, and apathetic teachers as sources of

inequity. Schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods tend to serve minority students more

than schools in wealthier neighborhoods. Interestingly, poorer schools receive less

funding for science supplies; tend to have more inexperienced or improperly trained

teachers; and subscribe to Haberman's (1991) pedagogy of poverty-one that views the

core functions of urban teaching as giving information, asking questions, giving

directions, making assignments, monitoring seatwork, reviewing assignments, giving









tests, reviewing tests, assigning homework, reviewing homework, settling disputes,

punishing noncompliance, making papers, and giving grades. This type of pedagogy is

"sufficiently powerful enough to undermine the implementation of any reform effort

because it determines the way pupils spend their time, the nature of the behaviors they

practice, and the bases of their self-concepts as learners. Essentially it is a pedagogy in

which learners can 'succeed' without becoming either involved or thoughtful"

(Haberman, 1991, p. 292). As teachers gain experience, they tend to prefer suburban

schools (with fewer minority students than urban schools). This relegates inexperienced

teachers to the schools that need the most skilled instructors. The attitudes and behaviors

of students who have been conditioned to the pedagogy of poverty by previous teachers

disenchants excited, new instructors who quickly revert from their constructivist

pedagogy to one more familiar to their students.

Because most standardized tests previously focused only on math and reading

skills, science instruction rarely occurred throughout the elementary school years. As

states begin to mandate science assessments, and as President Bush's No ChildLeft

BehindAct (U.S. Department of Education, 2002), which will eventually include science,

comes to fruition, the need for science interventions will increase.

Research on Science Intervention Programs

Clewell, Anderson, and Thorpe's (1992b) comprehensive study of 163 science,

mathematics, and computer science intervention programs that targeted minorities and

females in grades four through eight revealed an interesting fact-the developers of most

intervention programs do not consider major philosophies or theories when creating their

programs. Instead, they rely on what Clewell (1987, p. 99) termed "educated intuition,"

empirical data on what works in similar programs, and years of trial-and-error in search









of the right fit. This process creates a wide array of intervention program models that

bear common characteristics. Clewell (1987) described intervention as those programs

that aim to achieve a goal or goals the school has been unable to reach. Universal traits

of academic intervention programs include (Clewell, 1987):

* Operating separately from the school system (although they may include in-school
components).

* Targeting a particular group or groups of students.

* Focusing on a specific educational issue rather than the entire realm of problems
specific to the target groupss.

* Considering the needs and interests of the target audience.

* Maintaining student-centeredness, rather than teacher-centeredness.

* Offering a range of activities and experiences that aim to address various aspects of
the targeted educational issue.

* Arranging the activities so that all participants experience some level of success.

Through their investigation of numerous science intervention programs, Clewell et

al (1992a) identified underlying educational and developmental theories. Despite the

lack of acknowledgement of these theories by the program developers, the researchers

note three complementary relationships-developmental level of the students, benefits of

inquiry learning, and the relationship between attitudes and behaviors.

Developmental Level of the Students

Science intervention programs span the educational pipeline. While the first

intervention programs primarily focused on high school and undergraduate students,

today's programs include elementary and middle school as well (Clewell, 1987). Each

segment of the educational pipeline demands certain needs. Consequently, program

coordinators must consider the developmental needs of the students they wish to serve.









The cognitive theory proposed by Inhelder and Piaget (as cited in Clewell, 1987)

describes the mode of thinking most prevalent in schoolchildren-concrete. By

presenting science concepts as concrete, through examples, hands-on experiences, and

observations, then gradually moving towards the abstract, intervention program

participants can gain an understanding of concepts. Additional researchers, including

Bandura and Dorman (as cited in Clewell, 1987) acknowledged adolescents' need for

social interaction, role models, and cooperative learning situations.

Inquiry Learning

Taba and Suchman (in Clewell, 1987) presented models of inductive thinking and

inquiry learning that benefit student learning. Both types of models "are concerned with

the ways people handle stimuli from the environment, organize data, identify problems,

generate concepts and solutions to problems, and employ verbal and nonverbal symbols"

(as cited in Clewell, 1987, p. 11). The inquiry approach serves as an effective approach

to intervention in that it requires disciplined independence. Examples of models of

inquiry include rational (involves student/teacher discussions), free discovery (student

has limitless access to the materials with which to manipulate), guided discovery (teacher

uses questioning to direct the materials' manipulation to a certain end), and experimental

(student follows specific steps in problem solving) (Clewell, 1987). Most intervention

programs encourage active participation in the learning process through hands-on,

inquiry experiences (Clewell, 1987).

Attitudes and Behaviors

Bem's Theory of Self-Perception underlies many science intervention programs (as

cited in Clewell, 1987). According to Bem, a student with positive personal experiences

with a phenomenon (in this case, science) will gradually begin to view that phenomenon









through a rose-colored lens. In other words, as students participate in science, their

attitudes toward science grow more positive. Intervention programs offer varied

experiences-such as hands-on activities, field trips, and guest speakers-that aim to

nurture positive student attitudes, and eventually lead to increased participation in

science. Mentors and role models provide additional positive reinforcement for the

above-named science experiences.

Program developers seem to heed Berryman's (1983) suggestion that science

intervention programs that target females focus on fostering more positive attitudes

toward science first, then deal with achievement and that intervention programs for

minorities focus on achievement while nurturing the students' already positive attitudes

toward science.

Examples of Intervention Programs

Programs such as Project SPLASH! (Murphy & Sullivan, 1997) that target

minority females in grades 7-9 incorporate cooperative learning and non-competitive

situations. Project SPLASH! involves a cooperative venture between Washington

University and Heritage College (located on a Native American reservation). Participants

spend three weeks at one of the campuses experiencing hands-on science activities

related to water and wave activity. During the fourth week, students from both campuses

work together on educative, theme-related activities. The minority female participants,

most of who are African American and Hispanic, work in social situations and avoid the

competitiveness and stereotypes perpetuated by their male peers. Interestingly, few

opinions have been offered regarding the focus of programs designed with minority

females in mind. Should attitudes toward science or science achievement be addressed

first? Project SPLASH! appears to consider both by offering science stimulation in a









comfortable environment. The use of hands-on activities related to common yet

commonly unstudied phenomena (i.e., water and wave activity) supports student-centered

inquiry learning.

Project Interface (Clewell, 1989), an Oakland, California science intervention

program, fosters tutoring/mentoring relationships between local community college and

high school students. Based at Allen Temple Baptist Church, Project Interface

incorporates heavy parental participation as well. Each community college student works

with small groups of high school students to increase their achievement in school science.

Additional activities include social functions, field trips, and guest speakers. Though

Project Interface does not utilize an inquiry model, it aims to increase achievement via

academic tutoring. The personal relationships developed serve as positive reinforcement,

in accordance with Bem's theory (as cited in Clewell, 1987). The location of Project

Interface serves as a key factor in the effectiveness of the program. Housing Project

Interface within the students' community demystifies science as an endeavor only for the

elite. This, to a certain degree, removes science from the metaphorical pedestal that has

long kept minorities and females from full participation. Although Project Interface does

not provide any hands-on science activities, its presence in the local community, rather

than at a nearby college or university, remains a huge step.

Broward County, Florida's Saturday/Summer Science Academy targets high-

potential urban high school students who are not currently enrolled in college-preparatory

courses (Crawley, 1998). The program offers a comforting situation for students who

may feel out of place while at school because of their motivation for academic success.

The five-week summer component incorporates hands-on science experiences to increase









students' proficiency and knowledge of experimenting skills, science content, and

science-related careers. The Saturday component provides additional support and

relevant activities during the school year. Students who participate in the Academy

throughout their four years of high school earn dual enrollment credits at the local

community college, as well as Advanced Placement credits. The Academy, therefore,

hones in on students' concerns for their future while extending a supportive social

network.

Despite the varied formats of science intervention programs, key characteristics

that are common to intervention can be identified. Though the particular needs of

minorities and females have been recognized in current research, little discussion of

intervention strategies for minority females has been offered. Nonetheless, through

educated intuition, reliance on empirical evidence, and trial-and-error, science

intervention programs have made great strides.

Postsecondary Institutions and Intervention Programs

In a 1966 study of nearly 600,000 students, James S. Coleman reported two major

findings related to the educational attainment of minority students:

(1) these minority children have a serious educational deficiency at the start of
school, which is obviously not a result of school; and (2) they have an even more
serious deficiency at the end of school, which is obviously in part a result of school.
Altogether, the sources of inequality of educational opportunity appear to lie first in
the home itself and then cultural influences immediately surrounding the home;
then they lie in the schools' ineffectiveness to free achievement from the impact of
the home, and in the schools' homogeneity, which perpetuates the social influences
of the home and its environs. (pp. 72-74)

This report is said to have shaped the Great Society legislation of the mid-1960s,

including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

1965, and the Higher Education Act of 1965, in that it aimed to improve the condition of









education for minority students both in school and out of school. The legislation

attempted to balance the resources of schools and the opportunity to access these

resources, as well as to improve the academic achievement of minority students through a

variety of support services and programs.

A historical dichotomy exists between elementary and secondary institutions and

postsecondary institutions. Since the mid-19th century, primary and secondary education

have been compulsory and viewed as fundamental to the civic and economic survival of

the United States. Postsecondary schooling, on the other hand, has been considered

elective, selective, and elitist (Fenske, Geranios, Keller, & Moore, 1997).

Types of Intervention Programs

The past 20 years have ushered in a "vast, uncoordinated proliferation of programs"

designed to ease the elementary/secondary-postsecondary gap for disadvantaged and

underrepresented students (Fenske et al., 1997, p. 1). These intervention programs offer

financial assistance and encouragement to needy youth, their families, and their

communities. With funds from federal, state, local, and benevolent sources, intervention

programs attempt to develop seamless transitions from elementary to secondary to

postsecondary education. Four categories (private initiatives, school-college

collaboration, federal and state-supported intervention, and academic outreach) span the

six types of intervention programs currently in existence. These six types include: (a)

programs established by charitable organizations, (b) federally supported programs, (c)

state-sponsored programs with matching federal support, (d) entirely state-supported

programs, (e) systemic changes involving school-college collaborations, and (f) college

or university-sponsored programs (Fenske et al., 1997).









Private initiatives. Private foundations, including the Ford Foundation, Carnegie

Corporation, and DeWitt Wallace-Readers' Digest Fund, continue to support intervention

programs (Fenske et al., 1997). Grants awarded to public and private colleges, school

districts, and educational organizations and associations fund projects that include

mentoring, counseling, financial assistance, and academic training for students.

Recently, the number of privately funded initiatives has decreased perhaps due to adverse

changes in tax laws and an increase in federally funded intervention programs (Fenske et

al., 1997).

School-college collaborations. School-college collaborations began as a major

component of the educational reform movement of the 1980s. These collaborations

range from short-term, K-16 programs with specific aims to systemic changes that

involve seamless transitions through the educational pipeline. Partnerships between

postsecondary and elementary/secondary institutions "recognize demographics of the

student population and the need to target efforts toward minority and at-risk students

traditionally underserved by either institution" (cited in Fenske et al., 1997, p. 36).

Systemic changes include broad issues such as teacher and administrator preparation and

the allocation of funds and resources.

Federal and state-supported intervention. The involvement of the federal

government in intervention programs most notably includes the TRIO programs (Upward

Bound, Student Support Service, Talent Search, and the Ronald E. McNair Post-

baccalaureate Achievement Program). With the exception of the McNair program, which

targets minority students, these programs serve students from low-income households.

Each involves some combination of summer enrichment programs, Saturday activities,









college/career counseling, and financial assistance. TRIO programs operate under the

auspices of the Department of Education on over 1,200 college and university campuses

(Fenske et al., 1997). State-supported intervention programs generally aim to increase

high school graduation rates, increase enrollment of at-risk students in math and science

courses, prepare high school graduates for careers and/or college, and encourage in-state

college attendance (Fenske et al., 1997). Georgia's HOPE program serves as an example

of a state-supported intervention.

Academic outreach. Academic outreach programs, usually administered by

colleges or universities, represent an expansive mix of intervention programs. Academic

outreach can pursue nearly any goal and be initiated by any institutional unit including a

college, department, center, program, or individual. Funding for outreach programs can

be obtained from a variety of sources. Some academic outreach programs focus on

recruiting and preparing students to pursue a specific discipline, such as science or math,

and others offer a broader view of college preparation and readiness.

The K-16 Model

School-college collaborations, a burgeoning theme since the early 1980s, demand

systemic change as schools and universities work together to address issues of

educational accountability. The disappointing results of the A Nation At Risk report

(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) catalyzed the K-16 model as a

means to improve the academic achievement of American students when compared on an

international level. College and university-sponsored intervention programs benefit both

the students they serve and the host institutions. While the students gain enhanced

educational opportunities, the institutions create a system to recruit and prepare potential

matriculants. Colleges and universities that examine the intervention efforts that directly









affect their institution can then develop programs to close service gaps and avoid

unnecessary duplication. An interesting paradox exists between the institutions' need to

serve their local areas and the competition between an institution's academic

departments. The drive for each department to recruit a diverse sample of students from

a limited local population lessens cross-campus coordination of intervention efforts

(Fenske et al., 1997). Consequently, the self-interest of any one academic unit far

outweighs the collective interests of all the units (i.e., the college or university).

Additionally, finding a single source of information about all the academic intervention

programs offered by one university proves to be a difficult task.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY & METHOD

The study was designed to investigate the underlying meanings of existing science

intervention programs for elementary through high school Southern Black students.

Using data from print materials, site visits, questionnaires, and interviews, the study

identified implicit patterns that represent the nature of efforts to achieve the goal of

Project 2061-science for all. Additionally, the study utilized the strengths and

weaknesses of existing science intervention programs to develop two models for new

and/or modified programs.

The study was organized into three phases-description and interpretation,

evaluation, and model formation. The study design is further explained in a section of

this chapter entitled "study design." The study identified 46 potential science

intervention programs administered by the 42 public universities in South Carolina,

Georgia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Of those 46 programs, 15 targeted and

recruited minorities, and met the other criteria to be included in the sample. Five of the

15 eligible programs participated in the study.

Research Questions

The research answered the following questions:

1. What intervention programs do Southern state universities offer in an effort to
make science for all?

a. What are the objectives of the programs?
b. What are the formats of the programs?
c. Where do the programs occur?
d. What populations do the programs target?









e. How are participants recruited and selected?
f. What types of intervention do the programs provide?
g. How do the programs train and compensate staff?

2. What does a cluster evaluation of existing intervention programs reveal about their
intent and efforts?

3. How can existing programs inform the development of models for science
intervention programs for Black students?

The research was conducted using a modified approach to cluster evaluation. The

core qualities of science intervention programs for minorities were ascertained and

analyzed for their meanings and associations. This led to the development of a stance

regarding the overall implications of existing science intervention programs.

Methodology

The study applied cluster evaluation to science intervention programs in a unique

way. A cluster can be defined as several individual, local programs that share a common

mission, strategy, or population, and that usually fall under a broad intervention initiative

(Worthen & Matsumoto, 1994). This cluster of programs can be appraised collectively to

assess the broad initiative, rather than each program. This discussion undergirds the

justification for using cluster evaluation to critically analyze science intervention

programs for Southern Black students. This discussion emphasizes: the historical

development of cluster evaluation, a description of the approach, its relationship to other

forms of evaluation, and the current status of cluster evaluation.

Historical Development of Cluster Evaluation

Despite the lack of solid documentation of the origin of cluster evaluation,

scholarly lore suggests it was first used in 1988 by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation

(WKKF) to appraise a group of individual, local projects that shared a common mission,

strategy, or population (Barley & Jenness, 1993; Straw & Herrell, 2002; Worthen &









Matsumoto, 1994). In accordance with the values of the foundation, cluster evaluation

sought "to improve, not prove" (cited in Worthen & Matsumoto, 1994, p. 7). WKKF was

not interested in identifying the causal effects of their funded programs, but rather

adopted cluster evaluation "to answer fundamental questions about policy and

programming, including the central question of whether the strategy which led to funding

the cluster of projects was a wise investment of Foundation resources" (Worthen &

Matsumoto, 1994, p. 7). In addition to its use as an appraisal tool, cluster evaluation has

been used as a tool for program development (Bumham, 1999). Patton (as cited in

Burnham, 1999) termed the use of cluster evaluation during the early stages of program

development as "active-reactive adaptive [evaluation]" (Burnham, 1999, p. 10). Since its

inception, cluster evaluation has been tailored to satisfy various sizes of clusters,

geographical locations of projects, compositions of target populations, and degrees of

similarity of program implementation. These differences have confounded an effort to

define and prescribe methods for conducting cluster evaluation.

Description of Cluster Evaluation

According to WKKF, the fundamental purpose of cluster evaluation is "to answer

the questions, "what happened and why?" for the cluster of projects as a whole" (as cited

in Worthen & Matsumoto, 1994, p. 5). A key function of cluster evaluations is to

"examine initiatives or interventions based in local communities to identify common

themes or components that [were] associated with positive impacts, as well as the reasons

for these associations" (Straw & Herrell, 2002, p. 7). Worthen and Matsumoto (1994)

furthered Straw and Herrell's explanation by outlining four key traits of cluster

evaluation: (a) identifying the common threads and themes of related programs that bear

great significance when viewed as an aggregate; (b) explaining what happened with









respect to the cluster, as well as why those events occurred; (c) encouraging collaboration

between the programs, funding source, and evaluator, and (d) reporting the data as a

collective, rather than emphasizing individual programs. Burnham (1999) discussed the

four characteristics used to define cluster evaluations: (a) the involvement of multiple

sites; (b) a focus on long-term projects; (c) the application of different approaches, within

the cluster, to similar problems, and (d) a goal to improve, on a large-scale, the social

condition. Cluster evaluations report only comprehensive data, and do not disclose

information about specific programs included in the cluster. This allows the evaluator to

determine the overall impact of the cluster without evaluating the effectiveness of

individual programs. Cluster evaluations typically take place during program

development, or in the early stages of a program, and are thus classified as formative

evaluations. Through collaboration, cluster evaluations can provide credible information

about programs from the perspectives of various stakeholders, including funding sources,

program staff, and the public (Barley & Jenness, 1993).

Cluster Evaluation and Other Forms of Evaluation

The cluster evaluation approach is often associated with multisite evaluations.

Sinacore and Turpin (1991) were among the first researchers to use the term multisite

evaluation (MSE). Although the authors recognized a lack of established criteria for

defining a MSE, they did emphasize two factors that distinguish MSEs from other forms

of evaluation-the use of multiple sites and an evaluation based on cross-site analysis.

Among MSEs, these factors can contain variations regarding the number of sites included

in a study, the operational definition of a site, and specific characteristics of a site, such

as geographical location and program implementation. Multisite evaluations can be

classified as retrospective or prospective, based on the data collection process utilized.









Retrospective MSEs rely on data already collected by each site, whereas prospective

MSEs rely on data collected by the evaluator. Sinacore and Turpin (1991) identified two

subtypes of multisite evaluations: (a) a program that is implemented in the same way at

different geographical locations and (b) a program that is implemented in different ways

at different geographical locations. MSEs, concerned with standardization, seek

generalizable and replicable findings.

Straw and Herrell (2002) described three types of multisite evaluations, one of

which is cluster evaluation. Worthen and Matsumoto (1994), however, find only

superficial similarities between cluster evaluation and multisite evaluations. They

suggest the two approaches are "actually rather distant conceptual relatives, not the close

conceptual cousins they may appear to be upon casual inspection" (Worthen &

Matsumoto, 1994, p. 10).

Worthen and Matsumoto (1994) discussed how cluster evaluation fits in with more

widely held concepts and ideas in evaluation. They identified 11 key concepts including:

evaluation, informal versus formal, formative versus summative, internal versus external,

evaluation as a scientific activity, evaluation as a political activity, alternative evaluation

approaches, meta-evaluation, generalizability and replication, standardization and control

versus treatment variability, and cross-site communication. Each of these is discussed

below.

* Evaluation purists may consider cluster evaluation to be policy analysis or a form
of social intervention that supports and facilitates evaluation. While cluster
evaluation should be considered a form of evaluation, cluster evaluators often find
themselves serving roles beyond evaluation. Evaluators who subscribe to other
forms of evaluation face this situation as well.









* Despite its still-emerging status, cluster evaluation involves systematic efforts to
identify and apply criteria and strategies. Thus, cluster evaluation is a form of
formal evaluation.

* Cluster evaluation can be formative and summative with respect to the larger
initiative being investigated and formative with respect to the individual programs.

* Typically, cluster evaluators are external evaluators, though individual program
evaluators may be internal.

* The use of empirical and philosophical inquiry grants cluster evaluation its status as
a scientific activity. The evolving nature of cluster evaluation deems this scientific
activity as less disciplined than other forms of evaluation.

* The concept and practice of cluster evaluation can be described as a political
activity or a rational activity occurring within a political context.

* The classification of evaluation approaches based on their orientations (e.g.,
objectives, management, consumer, expertise, adversary, and participant) poses a
problem for cluster evaluation, which does not fit neatly into any widely used
categorical scheme.

* Meta-evaluation of programs is avoided by cluster evaluation. Cluster evaluators
do not seek to critique the evaluations of individual programs. Meta-evaluation
does not bode well for the cross-site aggregation of data.

* Generalizability and replicability are of little concern in cluster evaluation.

* Cluster evaluation does not require standardization of program implementation, and
views implementation as a product of the personality of each program site.

* Sharing information across sites is at the core of cluster evaluation. This is
considered one of the strengths of the evaluation approach.

Status of Cluster Evaluation

Internal documents for WKKF and annual contributions from American Evaluation

Association presenters have yielded several manuscripts and publications about cluster

evaluation (Worthen & Matsumoto, 1994). Relative to other evaluation approaches,

however, little research has been conducted on cluster evaluation. Though cluster

evaluation has been applied most frequently within WKKF, the method continues to

evolve and distinguish itself as a worthwhile contribution to the field of evaluation.









"Perhaps it is being in the throes of adolescence's awkwardness that raises so many

issues [about cluster evaluation] that need to be resolved. But if these issues are resolved,

there is great potential for cluster evaluation to make a broader contribution, for many

state and federal agencies fund programs with multiple projects that could use such a

strategy, if cluster evaluation can be captured conceptually in ways that allow its use to

be clearly understood by potential users in various contexts where a non-causal [multisite

evaluation] were deemed appropriate]" (Worthen & Matsumoto, 1994, p. 22). Hence,

additional research and examples of appropriate use are necessary for the continued

development of cluster evaluation. Furthering the use of cluster evaluation could result in

a standardized language and set of core concepts. This will better position it as an

established approach to evaluation.

The cluster evaluation approach benefits science education in that it allows a broad

perspective of pertinent issues. In the case of science intervention programs, cluster

evaluation moves beyond the limits of investigating a single program, and into the realm

of identifying and describing shared themes, patterns, strengths, and weaknesses.

Though single-program studies remain valuable sources of information, they do little to

portray the relationship among related programs or between programs and the overall

initiative. This study's significance to the field of science education is underscored by its

contribution to the field of evaluation.

Unique Application of Cluster Evaluation

The study assumed the science for all initiative, highlighted by the coming of year

2061, to be a large developing program. This larger program, though subsuming smaller

science intervention efforts, remains in its formative stages. While the individual

programs discussed in this study have surpassed the need for formative evaluation, the









larger initiative has not. Thus, the current cluster evaluation of programs compliant with

science for all represents a formative evaluation of the initiative. Using a modified

approach, this study applied cluster evaluation to the analysis of science intervention

programs for Black students. The modifications satisfied the aforementioned major

characteristics described by Burnham (1999) and Worthen and Matsumoto (1994).

Burnham's (1999) characteristics of cluster evaluation included: (a) the

involvement of multiple sites; (b) a focus on long-term projects; (c) the use of different

approaches, within the cluster, to similar or the same problems, and (d) a goal to improve,

on a large-scale, the social condition. The current study emphasized science intervention

programs for Black students across South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, and the District

of Columbia. Public universities administered each program. Five programs formed the

cluster, and thus represented multiple sites. None of the cluster programs was a short-

term effort. Each had been in operation for the past several years, and the duration of

each program was yearlong and/or summer intensive. Hence, the cluster represented

long-term programs. The cluster aimed to address the problem of underparticipation of

minorities, particularly Blacks, in the sciences. Using various formats and activities, each

program attended to the issue. Because the underparticipation of any group of people in a

field of study precludes that group's perspective, encouraging full participation yields

positive results for that group and others. The cluster used science intervention to

promote science involvement among Black students, thus affecting the disciplines of

science, the Black population, and potentially, society, as a whole.

Worthen and Matsumoto (1994) identified the following characteristics of cluster

evaluation: (a) identifying the common threads and themes of related programs that bear









great significance when viewed as an aggregate; (b) explaining what happened with

respect to the cluster, as well as why those events occurred; (c) encouraging collaboration

between the programs, funding source, and evaluator, and (d) reporting the data as a

collective, rather than emphasizing individual programs. The current study investigated

the cluster of science intervention programs for common patterns and themes. Further

analysis of these commonalities revealed the underlying intents and premises of science

intervention programs targeting Black students. When viewed as a whole, this delineated

an interpretation of the meaning of science intervention for Black students. For the

purpose of explicating how data collection and analysis occurred, information about

individual programs was included. These descriptions identified each program by a

pseudonym. The essence of the study, however, called attention to the cluster, rather than

individual programs. The models for science intervention developed by the researcher

represented key elements of each of the cluster programs, as well as related literature.

The models denoted a modified collaboration among the cluster. Although program

coordinators and funding sources did not physically participate in the model-building

process, their ideas and insights regarding their particular programs comprised significant

contributions. The model took into account the context and characteristics of each

program. As described above, the overall analysis of science intervention in the South

was reported as an aggregate.

Study Design

The study design was organized into three phases-description and interpretation,

evaluation, and model formation. Description and interpretation consisted of collecting

data about each science intervention program and analyzing the data for patterns. This

phase answered Research Question #1. Evaluation involved making a judgment about









the meanings and intents of the cluster of science intervention programs. Research

Question #2 was answered by the evaluation phase. This process informed the

development of two models for science intervention for Black students, which was a

response to Research Question #3. See Appendix A for a visual representation of the

study design.

Research Question #1

The first research question (what intervention programs do Southern state

universities offer in an effort to make science for all?) was answered by a thorough

examination of artifacts related to the specific intervention programs included in the

sample. The sample consisted of five science intervention programs administered by four

public universities in South Carolina, Georgia and Maryland (see Appendix B).

Continuous programs, rather than isolated efforts, were considered. Continuous programs

include year-round intervention, school year efforts, long-term (more than one week), and

summer programs. Examples of efforts that were excluded are those whose prominent

activity consists of competitions, fairs, guest speakers, and field trips on a one-time or

short-term (one week) basis. Examination of relics such as web pages, brochures,

articles, reports, and other print sources was guided by the aforementioned sub-questions

(see the Research Questions section of this chapter). In the event of unavailable or

outdated print sources, personal contact with program coordinators was attempted via

mail, electronic mail, or telephone. The information sought by personal contact was also

guided by the sub-questions. Additionally, a questionnaire (see Appendix C) was mailed

to a program coordinator representing each intervention program. The questionnaire

supplemented the artifact data.









Identifying the Sample

The extensive Internet search began with thorough investigations of each

university's web site. Key pages accessed (where available) for each university included

departments and/or colleges of science, engineering, education, and offices of outreach,

public service, continuing education, and minority recruitment. Electronic messages

were sent to central personnel for each unit. These messages served to clarify

information presented on the web sites and to direct the researcher to other sources, if

necessary. Additionally, Internet and site-specific keyword searches were initiated using

combinations of the following words: African American, after school, Black, children,

education, elementary, enhancement, enrichment, high school, intervention, middle,

minority, outreach, pre-college, program, public, Saturday, science, summer, and youth.

Initially, twenty-one programs were identified, but further examination of the

available information and communication with key personnel revealed missing criteria,

such as lack of a target group, non-minority target group, short-term duration (one week

or less), and emphasis on teachers not students. Consequently, six programs were

removed from the sample. As these program coordinators were contacted, they

contributed information that deemed them unsuitable for the study. One program served

teachers rather students. Two program representatives identified their programs as

defunct. One program offered only a one-week intervention, while another program's

funding was so recent that an actual intervention had not been established. One program

did not target a specific group of students, while another program targeted students not

relevant to this study. Two program coordinators provided minimal assistance via

telephone and electronic communication, but did not return the signed consent form that

made them eligible to complete the Program Coordinator Questionnaire (see Appendix









C) or to host a site visit. Eight program coordinators chose not to participate in the study.

In those cases, the funding sources were contacted to provide proposals and annual

reports that contained much-needed data including program objectives, target group,

types of intervention activities, and staff information. Only one funding source

responded with the appropriate information and within the deadline. A private agency

with no obligation to provide information freely, offered a report that contained no

specific information regarding the intervention program of interest. A third agency,

despite its federal responsibility to make information available to the public, did not

respond to numerous requests. After reviewing all data related to each of the identified

programs, and eliminating programs that did not meet the conditions specified by the

study, fifteen science intervention programs remained. Of the fifteen programs, five were

represented by coordinators who were willing research participants, and one coordinator

represented two programs.

Collecting Data

Clewell, Anderson, and Thorpe (1992a) identified five key components of science

intervention programs-goals, design, content, context, and outcomes. Goals refer to

program objectives, while design focuses on format, location, and recruitment/selection.

Content emphasizes program staff and activities. Program design and content interact to

produce the desired participant-related outcomes. These outcomes can include students'

attitudes, performance and achievement, course-taking, and career choice. The context

considers the elements that exist outside of the program, yet still affect the program, such

as funding opportunities, the need for the program, and collaborative relationships with

the local community and institutions. The interrelationship and interdependence of these

elements determine the effectiveness of each program (outcomes). Additionally,









investigating each component of a science intervention program provides a

comprehensive view of the processes that affect the program's success or failure. This

study concentrated on the components of program goals, design, content, and context.

Context was modified to include student fees and stipends as factors that should not be

overlooked when examining science intervention programs. Due to the variation in

intervention programs and the focus of this study on descriptive patterns and evaluative

meanings, program outcomes and the specific characteristics of each local area were not

investigated. Despite the significance of these two components, both represent aspects of

science intervention programs that were not crucial to this study. These aspects delve

into the particulars of specific programs, and therefore pose conceptual challenges when

conducting a cluster evaluation that focuses on broader features of programs. While

these aspects should be investigated in future studies, they were beyond the scope of this

study.

A Data Analysis Tool (see Appendix D) allowed for cross-comparison of the

various intervention programs in relevant categories associated with proposed standards

for science intervention programs. The categories included program objectives, program

format, program location, target population, recruitment and selection, intervention

activities, staff information (demographics, training, compensation, qualifications), and

financial information (funding source, stipends, fees). The standards are discussed later

in this chapter. Data on the following categories were collected via Program Coordinator

Questionnaires (see Appendix C) and supplemented by personal communication with

program coordinators and print materials such as web pages and brochures.









Program objectives. Program objectives, comparable to program goals, arise out

of a need to address a specific problem. A program's objectives also determine its format

and scope (Clewell et al., 1992a). Consequently, a program that aims to increase

awareness of science-related careers will differ from a program that strives to improve

classroom achievement in science. An examination of the objectives of existing science

intervention programs reveals their goals and an expectation of the types of activities that

should be offered. The articulation of a program's objectives to participants and staff

affects their ability to achieve those goals. Furthermore, the program objectives and

corresponding activities illustrate the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the target

group.

Some objectives of the programs involved in the study include: to increase student

performance on national and state performance tests, to help students learn math and

science concepts, to create a familiar environment for learning science and math, to

excite students about science and math, and to introduce students to space science and

stimulate their awareness of relevant careers.

Program format. "[Intervention] programs use a wide range of formats, and some

combine two or more formats" (Clewell et al., 1992a, p. 96). Program format refers to

when a program operates (after school, during school, on Saturdays, and/or during the

summer), its duration (several weeks, yearlong, or by semester), and the length of each

meeting (all day, half-day, or set number of contact hours). An examination of format

reveals a connection between program objectives. The needs of a program shape its

format. For example, a program that intends to encourage positive attitudes toward

science may meet more regularly or in more concentrated periods of time than a program









designed to introduce science-related careers. The format can also account for the

quantity and quality of the science experiences to which students are exposed. Programs

that meet frequently or for long periods of time are better suited for in-depth discussions,

intense hands-on activities, real-world connections, and field trips or guest speakers.

Programs that meet infrequently or for short periods of time simply lack the time for deep

studies.

The study sample included the following program formats: one day per week for 20

weeks during the school year and a two week summer component, six-week summer

program, two-week summer academy, and 10 consecutive Saturdays during the spring

semester.

Program location. Intervention programs vary in location. Some occur at local

elementary, middle or high schools, while others utilize university facilities, community

centers, or churches. Local schools offer convenience and familiarity to program

participants, but likely lack the resources to conduct science experiments, visit

laboratories, and meet scientists and college students. University facilities meet these

needs, though often without the convenience of a neighborhood school. Additionally,

university campuses provide the amenities of a residential program-room, board, and a

variety of teaching spaces. Despite their benefits, intervention programs that occur at

local schools or universities can perpetuate the idea that science is a remote endeavor;

that one must go elsewhere to see or do science. The use of community centers or

churches combats this idea by bringing science from its hypothetical pedestal to the

neighborhood. This offers an accessible perception of science, particularly to









disadvantaged neighborhoods. The science intervention programs included in the study

occurred at a local church, a community center, middle schools, and universities.

Recruitment/selection and target population. Intervention programs recruit and

select students who meet their target criteria. A program that recruits in a specific

neighborhood or school is likely to attract a different type of student than a program with

a broader recruiting range. Likewise, a program that recruits in a suburban, middle class

neighborhood will attract students who are dissimilar to urban, lower socioeconomic

students. While some programs recruit specific types of students, others invite a wider

assortment of participants. Some programs select their participants by grade point

average, intelligence quotient, at-risk status, teacher recommendations, or penchant for

science, though others select on a first-come, first-served basis. The recruitment and

selection processes of existing science intervention programs distinguish their target

populations. Programs that claim to target any minority student will recruit and select

differently than a program that prefers high-performing minority students.

The recruitment activities of the programs evaluated in this study involved

partnerships with schools and community organizations, announcements at local

churches, and word-of-mouth. The target populations identified in the study included

minority students who were in a specific or range of grade levels, residents of a particular

state or county, inner-city dwellers, and considered at-risk.

Intervention activities. "The effectiveness of approaches and strategies depends

on a knowledge of the target population and on the application of theoretically sound

practices" (Clewell et al., 1992a, p. 98). Activities that include role modeling, mentoring,

exposure to real world and hands-on science experiences, and career discussions









stimulate positive attitudes toward science and science-related careers. Experiences that

focus on tutoring, science enrichment activities (both remediation and intensive studies),

unique instructional strategies, and test preparation encourage students to improve their

academic performance and science achievement.

The study identified programs that employed the following activities: worksheets,

hands-on science activities, field trips, guest speakers, design projects, reading, cross-

disciplinary experiences (math, technology, art, critical thinking, public speaking, and

writing), model-building, career exposure, and special instruction.

Program staff. Information about staff members, including number,

demographics, qualifications, training, and compensation, provides insight regarding the

ability to effectively meet the programs' objectives. The demographics of the staff, when

compared to that of the participants, may shed some light on the effectiveness of the

intervention program. For some students, undergraduate staff members can be more

effective role models or mentors than older staff because of similar or shared experiences

as a result of fewer generational differences. Ethnic and gender diversity among staff can

play a role in their perceptions of the participants and their ease in relating to them.

While the qualifications and training of staff members impact their ability to achieve the

objectives of the programs, their compensation may affect their commitment to the

success of the program. Volunteers may be less consistent and less dedicated than staff

who receive financial compensation or course credit. A course, program, or departmental

requirement may encourage undergraduate participation, but at the cost of high turnover.

Students' fulfillment of a requirement may preclude them from continuing their









participation with the program. Although a new student replaces the old, the uniformity

of the program can be compromised.

The programs included in the study comprised undergraduate science and

engineering majors, undergraduate students from a variety of majors, pre-service, in-

service, and retired teachers, and university professors. Many staff members were

volunteers, but most were paid for their participation.

Financial information. While recruitment and selection criteria explicitly engage

or disengage certain types of students, the financial cost of participation serves to

implicitly include or exclude others. Programs with exorbitant fees can discourage low-

income families while free programs appear more inviting. Though fee-based programs

usually provide some scholarships or other financial assistance, this information is not

widely publicized. Thus, not only must help be requested, but parents must know that the

help is available. Stipends can motivate participation and allow students to earn money

as they improve their science awareness, interest, and/or performance. The source of

funding determines the extent to which fees and stipends are available. Internal funding

(university) may be more prohibitive than external funding (state, federal, or a private

granting agency). Hence, university-sponsored programs may require a fee payment.

The research identified programs that required a weekly fee, no fee, a registration

fee, and offered no stipends. The funding sources included state governments and federal

agencies.

A critical analysis of the interrelationship among the eight aforementioned facets

of science intervention programs disclosed vital information regarding the underlying









premises of these programs. Data collection was followed by examination, and was used

to develop models for science intervention programs for Black students.

Examining Data

As the artifact, questionnaire, observation, and interview data were examined for

characteristics in the aforementioned categories, the distinguishing qualities of each

science intervention program emerged. These qualities were recorded in a data analysis

tool (see Appendix D) that allowed for a cross-comparison of the intervention programs.

Research Question #2

The second research question (What does a cluster evaluation of existing

intervention programs reveal about their intent and efforts?) was answered using methods

described by Taylor and Bogdan (1984). Hence, the collected data were examined

repeatedly to discover themes and patterns. As themes and patterns surfaced among the

categories for one program and across all programs, they were classified and further

examined until the simplest classifications remained. Various interpretations and ideas

about science intervention programs emerged and were recorded. A scheme was

developed to classify program characteristics and identify themes. This scheme was

directly related to the data: "It is through concepts and propositions that the researcher

moves from description to interpretation and theory" (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984, p. 133),

thus classification yielded concepts (abstract ideas generalized from empirical facts) and

propositions (general statements of facts grounded in the data), and ultimately, a

storyline. This storyline was analyzed, using as a backdrop a description of standards

(see below) to be upheld by science intervention programs for Black students, and

resulted in numerous interpretations, themes, concepts, and propositions of such

programs. The standards, developed by the researcher, were based on educated intuition









and related research. The changing results of the analysis were identified and described.

The data were further examined to identify additional categorization, and a clear

distinction of the type of data that fit each category was made. The categories were

examined for overlap, leading to the emergence of major coding categories. The coding

system was continually inspected for commonalities and reduced to the fewest number of

unique categories. All the data were then coded and categories modified as needed in

accordance with the "[cardinal rule of coding in qualitative analysis]-make the codes fit

the data and not vice versa" (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984, p. 137). The data were physically

sorted into coding categories. Only the data that fit the analytical scheme were used. As

new categories surfaced, the interpretations were refined. A new analysis re-examined

the data in the context in which they were collected. This process of discounting (Taylor

& Bogdan, 1984) provided credibility to the data by considering:

* Solicited versus unsolicited data
* The presence of the researcher on the setting during site visits
* Personal bias and assumptions
* Sources of information.

The result was a critical portrayal of science interventions in the South, as represented by

the five programs included in the study.

To facilitate the cluster evaluation and because none currently exist, a set of

standards for science intervention for Black students was developed by the researcher.

The standards described below specify criteria that should be considered when planning

science intervention programs. These standards, based on the researcher's educated

intuition, personal experience, and a review of the related literature, delineate qualities of

effective programs. These qualities relate to the core categories associated with

intervention programs (Clewell et al., 1992a): objectives, format, types of activities,









target population, selection/recruitment, program location, staff information, and

financial information. While each of the other categories comprises its own section,

relevant financial data is included in the participants and staff sections.

The following standards were based on the researcher's experience and knowledge

of past and present science intervention programs, as well as related literature on science

intervention and science education, including the National Science Education Standards

(National Research Council [NRC], 1996). The standards represent the researcher's

perception of qualities that should be addressed in science intervention programs for

Black students.

Program Objectives

The objectives should focus on science process skills, science content knowledge,

attitudes toward science, and science-related careers (SKAC). Science intervention

should incorporate these four components to provide students opportunities to learn and

apply science process skills and content. Increasing their proficiency may positively

affect their attitudes toward science, and themselves as doers of science. This, in turn,

may encourage Black students to pursue science-related careers. Furthermore, students'

attitudes toward science can affect their interest in science, and ultimately the pursuit of a

science-related career.

Though Black students report positive attitudes toward science during their

elementary years, their achievement levels remain low (Anderson, 1989; Catsambis,

1995). Science intervention programs should allow Black students to do science by

focusing on skills enhancement and career awareness (Berryman, 1983; Clewell, 1987).

This will help maintain the positive attitudes of elementary students and encourage

positive attitudes among middle and high school students. SKAC addresses two barriers









to minority participation in science-low performance levels in science courses and on

standardized tests and insufficient interest or knowledge of science-related careers

(Clewell, 1992a).

Objectives should represent a range of cognitive (knowledge, understanding,

inquiry, processes), affective (attitudes, values, habits of mind), psychomotor (physical

skills), and social (communication, interaction) learning outcomes (Carin & Bass, 2001).

This well-rounded approach can strengthen students' perceptions of science and increase

their content knowledge and skills, while showing how this improvement can benefit

them in the future. Focusing on SKAC may give students the much-needed relevance to

make science an important entity in their lives, while answering the following questions:

What are the skills of science? How can these skills be used in all aspects of my life?

What science knowledge is important to know at my developmental level? How can my

science literacy be used to make informed decisions everyday of my life? How do I feel

about science? How do I feel about myself as a doer of science? What are my

perceptions of science? And how can my science skills, knowledge, and attitudes be used

to benefit society in the form of a career? As a minimum standard, the program

objectives should aim to increase any combination of at least two of the following: skills,

knowledge, attitudes and/or career awareness. Ideally, all should be emphasized.

The objectives should be clearly articulated to staff members via training, regular

meetings, handbooks, or some other notable presentation. The articulation of the

objectives to the staff can increase the likelihood of those objectives being met. The

more the staff learns about the goals and purposes of the program, the better they can

tailor their activities to achieve those ends. The standard suggests that the objectives









should be clearly articulated to staff members during pre-program training. Ideally, these

objectives should be reiterated during the course of the program at regular meetings

(especially for yearlong programs).

The program objectives should be clearly articulated to participants and their

parents via informational sessions, handbooks, informative letters, or some other notable

presentation. Parents and participants should be well aware of the objectives, purposes,

and goals of the program prior to the program's commencement. A parent who is

concerned about his/her children's science grades needs to know if the program will meet

their needs. Of integral importance is finding the right fit between program and

participants. At a minimum, the objectives should be clearly articulated to participants

(and parents) via a pre-program informational session, letter, or handbook. Ideally, the

parents should be invited to a recruiting session where the objectives will be discussed in

detail.

The program's objectives should be measurable, and should be measured. An

internal or external evaluator should measure the objectives to determine the extent of

success to make suggestions for improvement and to identify gaps in service delivery. At

a minimum, the objectives should be measured via traditional methods (e.g., paper-pencil

tests, surveys, and gains in test scores and grades) by an internal evaluator. Ideally, the

objectives should also be measured via alternative methods (e.g., interviews,

observations, portfolios, and performance tasks) by an external evaluator.

Program Format

Each program's format should be consistent with its objectives. The program

format should represent the goals and purposes of the program (Clewell et al., 1992a).

To provide the most effective science intervention programs, the format should offer the









best possible platform for the goals and purposes. As the standard, program developers

will use their objectives to determine the best format for their programs.

A science intervention program should offer frequent contact during the program

duration to facilitate sustained inquiry and understanding during extended investigations

(NRC, 1996). For as long as the program operates, students should be in contact on a

regular basis. Daily and weekly sessions constitute a regular basis. The effectiveness of

a program can diminish as the length of time between each session increases. At a

minimum, for concentrated sessions (i.e., summer components), meetings should be on a

daily basis, and for widespread sessions (i.e., year-round) meetings should be on a

weekly basis. This is also the ideal.

Sessions should occur during concentrated periods of time throughout the

program's duration. Programs should offer a summer component of at least two weeks to

reinforce the yearlong component. This concentrated period of time can provide intense

study, increased interaction with peers, mentors, and role models, and a period of science

emphasis with fewer outside distractions than a weekly component can provide. The

researcher's personal experience with science intervention and other youth programs has

shown that two weeks is a sustained period of time that is long enough to positively

impact students and maintain consistent attendance. In two weeks, students can pursue

an interest, engage in a variety of relevant activities, and develop friendships.

Additionally, participants and parents are more likely to insist on daily attendance

because of the seemingly short duration of the program. Regular absences during a two-

week program can decrease the quality of the intervention experience for participants.

Competing activities, such as summer school, vacations, family events, camps, and other









programs, can affect a student's participation in a science intervention program. A

lengthy program has a greater likelihood of overlapping other activities and interests.

This can result in sporadic student attendance and decreased family commitment, and can

reduce the positive impact of the program. As the standard, programs should offer a

summer component of at least two weeks. Ideally, the program should be residential in

nature and/or at least three weeks.

Students should be given the opportunity to continue their participation for

additional years or sessions. Continuity can be important in the life of a child (Santrock,

1998), thus continuous involvement in a meaningful program can serve to motivate,

inspire, and positively affect each participant. Furthermore, continuous involvement may

improve the effect of the intervention activities, whether they are geared toward skills,

knowledge, attitudes, or careers. At a minimum, programs should give students the

opportunity to continue their participation for one additional year. Ideally, students

should continue their participation throughout the duration of their schooling (as long as

they stay in the local area).

Program Location

Programs should operate at community sites other than schools or university

campuses. Programs that occur in community sites can help remove science from its

hypothetical pedestal (Rahm & Downey, 2002). The act of demystifying science can

encourage students to view science as accessible rather than as a remote endeavor.

Participants can realize that they need not travel elsewhere to see or do science.

Community-based science intervention programs can also provide an additional use for

community spaces. For example, a local center that normally houses athletic games,

community forums, and talent shows can be utilized as a site for science programming.









This may broaden the realm of usage for that site, while giving the community access to

and ownership of science education. At a minimum, programs should occur primarily at

a community site or neighborhood school, not on a university campus. The university

and school campuses should supplement the community-based intervention by allowing

access to well-equipped laboratories and other facilities. Ideally, programs should occur

in a community site and directly relate to the community.

Programs not operated in the community should take field trips or conduct

projects/activities within the community. Examples include visiting a local lake to test its

water quality or using local industry as a resource for highlighting careers in science

(NRC, 1996). The science intervention should not be limited to the university, school, or

other host site. Students should be encouraged to see and do science in their own

communities (Rahm & Downey, 2002). As the standard, programs not operated in the

community should use community sites for projects/activities and field trips. This should

occur at least twice during the program. Ideally, all science intervention programs should

use community sites for a majority of their projects/activities and field trips.

Programs should be operated in sites that foster hands-on science activities (NRC,

1996). These sites should be equipped with plenty oftabletops, work space, sinks, floors

that can handle spills, comfortable seating, comfortable temperature, and adjustable

lighting. These characteristics can promote an active learning environment that invites

hands-on activities. Additionally, the site should provide access to science equipment

and the supplies necessary for science experiments, activities, and demonstrations. As a

standard, programs should have ready access to an environment that fosters hands-on









activities and provides access to science equipment and supplies. Ideally, programs

should have a fully equipped laboratory for science intervention.

Participants

Program participants should represent a range of achievement levels. A

heterogeneous group of students can be important for peer collaboration, peer tutoring,

and exposing students to others with whom they may not normally interact due to

differences in course taking. Programs should not be limited to high-performing, low-

performing, or even average students. A diverse group of students can motivate some,

provide opportunities to help for others, and prevent the further stigmatization of students

who spend much of their school day in academic tracks. As a standard, programs should

recruit a wide variety of student achievement levels. Ideally, a special effort should be

made to ensure that many levels of student performance are represented.

Unless specifically designed to provide opportunities for males or females,

programs should strive for equal representation of both sexes. The racial/ethnic

composition of the program should reflect the target population, but not to the omission

of other races/ethnicities. Programs designed to attract Black students, for example,

should not exclude other minorities or White students on the basis of race/ethnicity.

To encourage relationship building, a small participant-to-instructor ratio should be

maintained (Achilles, Finn, & Pate, 1997/1998). This situation should afford staff

members the opportunity to work with students on a one-on-one or small group basis.

The level of comfort between the staff and students can increase, and the interactions can

become positive. The researcher's experience in youth programs with participant-to-

instructor ratios as high as 15:1 indicates that a smaller proportion should be established.

The wide range of student achievement levels coupled with the need to manage materials









and student engagement provide challenges that may be alleviated by a smaller ratio.

Most school field trips require a 10:1 participant to chaperone ratio. Science intervention

programs should go further, as they are designed to "[utilize] approaches somewhat

different from those of the traditional educational system" (Clewell et al., 1992a, p. 13).

As a standard, programs should seek to sustain a participant-to-instructor ratio of 8:1.

Ideally, the ratio should be 6:1.

To avoid the implicit exclusion of students, every effort should be made to offer a

free or very low cost program. The program's major activities should be affordable, with

special experiences offered at additional fees, given the availability of funds. Fees should

be appropriated only if necessary. If fees become inevitable, financial assistance or

scholarships should be readily available. These options should be publicized and offered

to several students. Ideally, the program should be free for all students.

Students should feel wanted by the program through active recruitment. Programs

should excite students and motivate them to sign up, rather than convince parents to send

their children. The goal should be for students to want to attend, not to feel like they

must. The researcher's experience with science intervention program participants who

enrolled due to parental requirement rather than personal interest provides a rationale for

this standard. While these students complain and disengage from the program, they

create mischief and disruption. Regardless of how these students feel about specific

science activities, their attitudes toward themselves as doers of science may never

improve, thus inhibiting their pursuit of science-related careers. This undermines the

purpose of the science intervention program. Additionally, active recruitment can also

bring new participants to the program, rather than relying on former students to return.









These students can rejuvenate the program while impacting their peers. The standard

suggests that programs should recruit students, not just parents. Ideally, programs should

recruit families.

Unless specifically targeting a particular underserved neighborhood, community, or

school, programs should make an effort to serve a wide variety of students. The mixing

of neighborhoods, communities, and schools can introduce students to other youth, help

ease local rivalries, and broaden the experiences/exposure of the participants. Different

neighborhoods, communities, and schools bring different viewpoints, experiences, and

realities. Allowing students an opportunity to interact with different kinds of people can

develop open-minded and aware citizens.

Intervention Activities

Each program's activities should be consistent with its objectives. The program

format and activities should represent the goals and purposes of the program (Clewell et

al., 1992a). To provide the most effective science intervention programs, the format and

activities should offer the best possible platform for the goals and purposes. As the

standard, programs should use base their format and activities on the objectives they have

determined.

Programs should offer a variety of activities to satisfy the needs of various learners

(NRC, 1996). The activities should span disciplines, learning styles, and grouping

arrangements. Activity examples include hands-on experiments, design projects, math-

enriched lessons, language-enriched experiences, art-enriched activities, creative/critical

thinking, traditional activities (worksheets, quizzes), oral projects, individual, pair, and

group work, short-term projects, and long-term projects. The activities should feature

real-world issues and dilemmas. At a minimum, programs should offer hands-on









activities, traditional activities, group work, and individual work. Ideally, a wider variety

of activity types should be offered in comparable proportions.

Science intervention programs should provide opportunities for hands-on activities.

Hands-on experiments and design activities should be a fundamental part of the program

(NRC, 1996). Science intervention programs should encourage active involvement of

participants. Students should be actively involved in the program activities, and not

viewed as mere receptacles. An abundance of lectures, videos, and worksheets does not

constitute active involvement. As a standard, programs should offer at least three hands-

on activities per week (for summer components) or one per session (for year-round) and

at least one design project for summer and year-round components.

Programs should allow expose participants to mentors and role models. Mentors

and role models can motivate and inspire students to achieve their goals (Ferreiera,

2002). Female and minority mentors in science can demonstrate to these

underrepresented groups the potential for success in science (Stern, 1997). Exposure to

mentors and role models should consist of college students (undergraduate and graduate)

and professionals who represent the fields of interests, genders, ethnicities, and

backgrounds of the student participants, as well as other diverse groups. At a minimum,

programs should offer mentors in the form of staff members who represent a range of

genders, ethnicities, and cultural backgrounds, including those of the participants. These

mentors should be older than, but in the same generation, as the students. These mentors

should be in regular contact with the students (i.e., present at every session). Programs

should offer role models in the form of guest speakers, staff, or biographical studies

representing a range of genders, ethnicities, and cultural backgrounds, including those of









the participants. These role models should be presented at least twice for summer

programs and at least once every three meetings during yearlong programs. Ideally, the

role models should be present at every session.

Programs should introduce students to science-related careers. Programs should

emphasize, through role models and career presentations, the variety of science-related

careers available to students. Programs should make an effort to determine student

interests and relate those to possible careers in science. The purpose of increasing

student achievement and student interest to decrease the levels of underrepresentation in

science would be for naught if students fail to eventually choose careers in science. As a

standard, programs should emphasize a variety of science-related careers, including

examples of professionals, descriptions of the type of work involved, and discussions of

preparing for such careers. This should be accomplished via field trips, guest speakers,

biographical studies, and discussions. Ideally, these careers should represent commonly

considered (e.g., research scientist, science teacher, engineer, and science faculty) and

less common careers (e.g., science illustrator, science writer, sales representative, science

reporter, and public relations).

Program Staff

Programs should make every effort to staff a diverse group (regarding gender, race,

and ethnicity) of intervention personnel. Diverse demographics can increase the

likelihood of shared or similar experiences, backgrounds, and viewpoints (Aikenhead,

2001; Norman et al., 2001; Parsons, 2000) thus providing a positive means for role

model/mentor relationships to form.

Staff should be given the opportunity to continue their participation for additional

years or sessions. Continuity can be important in the life of a child (Santrock, 1998) thus









continuous involvement in a meaningful program serves to motivate, inspire, and

positively affect each participant. Furthermore, continuous involvement may improve the

effect of the intervention activities, whether they are geared towards skills, knowledge,

attitudes, or careers. As relationships are built between staff and students, the benefits of

the intervention can increase. At a minimum, programs should give staff the opportunity

to continue their participation for one additional year. Ideally, staff should continue their

participation throughout the duration of a group of students' participation.

Programs should require intensive staff training that emphasizes the goals,

purposes, and objectives of the program prior to its start. Staff should be aware of, and

agree to support, the policies, activities, and ideals of the program. Programs should also

provide a written version of this information for staff to refer to as necessary. Based on

the researcher's personal experience with various educational programs for youth,

intensive training is essential. Without explicit, interactive, and thorough training,

program staff run the risk of misinterpreting the objectives of the program. As this

misinterpretation results in implementation, the vision of the program developers may be

lost. Moreover, simply reading a handbook or attending a brief meeting does not

sufficiently prepare staff for the science intervention program. The standard suggests that

programs should require a four-hour workshop or seminar as a pre-program training

session. Ideally, pre-program training should occur for one to three days

Programs should offer financial or academic compensation to staff. While the

qualifications and training of staff members can impact their ability to achieve the

objectives of the programs, their compensation may affect their commitment to the

success of the program. The researcher's experience with volunteers has shown that they









can be less consistent and less dedicated than paid staff (whether the payment be financial

compensation or course credit). As their schedules become less permissive or their

interest wanes, volunteers can become less committed. A course, program, or

departmental requirement may encourage undergraduate participation, but at the cost of

high turnover. Based on the researcher's personal experience, as students fulfill their

requirement, they may not continue working with the program. Although a new student

replaces the old, the uniformity of the program can be compromised. As a standard, staff

members should be offered financial or academic compensation. While some volunteer

staff is appropriate, most should be compensated.

Research Question #3

Empirical and critical evidence from existing science intervention programs and

theoretical evidence from related literature provided the foundation for two models of

science intervention programs for Black students. The strengths of the sample programs

were emphasized and correlated to the standards to inform the development of the

models. These models were intended to influence existing and/or new programs.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION #1

The study identified 46 science intervention programs administered by the 42

public universities in South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.

Of those 46 programs, 15 targeted and recruited minorities and met the other criteria to be

included in the study. Five of the 15 eligible programs participated in the study. This

chapter answers Research Question #1: What science intervention programs do Southern

state universities offer in an effort to make science for all? Other questions addressed in

Research Question #1 include: what are the objectives of the programs, what are the

formats of the programs, where do the programs occur, what populations do the programs

target, how are participants recruited and selected, what types of intervention do the

programs provide, and how do the programs train, compensate, and pay staff? For the

purpose of detailed reporting, the program names and university affiliations have been

altered, however Appendix E lists all of the identified science intervention programs.

The discussion of each science intervention program includes the 2000 Carnegie

Classification of the associated university. The 2000 Carnegie Classification includes all

U.S. colleges and universities that grant degrees and bear accreditation by an agency

recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education (Carnegie Foundation for the

Advancement of Teaching, n.d.). The Carnegie Foundation used data from 1995-1996

through 1997-1998 to generate the 2000 Carnegie Classification. The programs included

in this study represented three classifications: (a) Doctoral Intensive, (b) Master's I, and

(c) Master's II. According to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of









Teaching's web site, Doctoral Intensive institutions "typically offer a wide range of

baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the

doctorate. During the period studied, they awarded at least ten doctoral degrees per year

across three or more disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall."

Master's I institutions "typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they

are committed to graduate education through the master's degree. During the period

studied, they awarded 40 or more master's degrees per year across three or more

disciplines." Likewise, Master's II institutions, "typically offer a wide range of

baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the

master's degree. During the period studied, they awarded 20 or more master's degrees per

year."

Program 1-MidCom

Administered by a Master's I, state-funded university in Northwest Georgia, the

MidCom Program offered middle school students an opportunity to prepare for post-

secondary education while emphasizing science and math. Supported by state initiatives,

the overall goal of the program was to help students in grades 7-12 meet tougher college

admissions standards as established by the Board of Regents for the state university

system. In its second year of operation, MidCom represented one university's efforts to

achieve this goal, while using science and math as the vehicle of choice. The fictitious

name highlights two important qualities of the intervention program-a middle school

(Mid) target audience and its use of community sites (Com) to house the program.

Observations and interviews during a visit to the summer component, the Program

Coordinator Questionnaire, and artifact data provided the following information about the

MidCom program.









Program Objectives

The program coordinator identified the following objectives of MidCom: (a) to

prepare at-risk students to better prepare for post-secondary admissions, (b) to create

(during the summer) a familiar environment for learning science and math, (c) to help

students learn science and math concepts, and (d) to improve the attitude of students

concerning career options in science, mathematics, and engineering.

The program coordinator articulated the objectives to MidCom staff via workshops,

brochures, and individual conversations. Parents and participants learned of the program

objectives through presentations at their respective school or community site, as well as

through the paperwork each parent received. The first two program objectives appear

difficult to measure, though all were measured by: the number of students who

participated in the program, the number of students who completed the program, student

attitudes during and after the program, and ultimately the number of students who

succeed in college. This information was collected by the program coordinator and staff.

Program Format

MidCom operated during the school year, as well as in the summer. The school

year component met one day per week for 20 weeks from August through May. The 20-

week component was divided into two 10-week sessions, and each session served a

different group of 25 students. In other words, no student was allowed to participate in

more than one school-year component. These meetings were held after school. Five

days per week for two weeks comprised the summer component. These meetings, in

June, lasted from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.









Program Location

As aforementioned, MidCom was administered by a Master's I level university in

Northwest Georgia. Four sites were utilized during the summer-two middle schools, a

church, and a girl-oriented community center. At each middle school, one classroom

with computers and a laboratory area were available. The church used a large multi-

purpose room with nine large tables and plenty of floor space. MidCom participants at

the girls' center congregated in a compact room with five large tables and a conference

room with one large table. Despite differences in the facilities, each site served

approximately 25 participants. While close to 70% of the program's activities provided

little interaction among the four sites, students from all sites attended field trips and

participated in the culminating activity together. During the after-school component,

only the two middle schools housed the program.

Target Population

MidCom targeted students in grades 6-8 who were considered at-risk due to

barriers caused by financial status, lack of knowledge, poor academic skills, race,

religion, national origin, or gender. One stipulation of the statewide initiative was that

the program be comprised of at least 60% students from underrepresented groups (i.e.,

African American, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans). Due to the location of

the administering university and the partner schools and organizations, MidCom was

designed to attract at least 80% minority students primarily from one county.

Recruitment and Selection

MidCom recruited participants through its partnerships with local middle schools

and youth-focused civic organizations. Announcements and flyers at these target

locations, in addition to flyers distributed at community churches provided recruitment









opportunities. To be considered, students were required to complete an application and

student information sheet, write an essay describing their interest in the MidCom summer

program, and obtain parental consent. Students who participated in the summer

component were expected to continue their participation during the following school

year. Furthermore, through a series of collaborations with other programs, the

participants will receive intervention from 6th grade through their college years.

The participants were chosen by a team of representatives from MidCom and the

partner schools and organizations. The team considered the applicants' desire and

commitment to attend college, as evidenced by their essay and information sheet. Other

criteria used to select participants included the number of students to be served (100

maximum); the desire for diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, social status, financial

status, and academic skills; students' willingness and ability to complete the program;

and students' willingness to accept a leadership role among their peers. Approximately

85% of the participants were African American, while 10% were Hispanic Americans.

The remaining 5% consisted of Caucasians, Asians, Native Americans, and other

racial/ethnic groups. Nearly 65% of the students were female, with 35% being male. No

more than 1-2% of the students reported a mental or physical disability. Most

participants were classified as below-average students, and some were considered honor

students.

Intervention Activities

MidCom's summer component utilized a variety of activities, including reading,

maintaining a journal, worksheets, hands-on laboratory activities, field trips, guest

speakers, and special projects. The beginning of the summer session began with team-

building activities such as name games, a human scavenger hunt, learning and reciting









the student pledge, and taking group photographs. Additionally, students divided into

teams that were used throughout the summer for group projects and competitions. Each

team created a name, designed a banner, wrote a song, composed a slogan, and developed

a cheer. The student pledge and individual team cheers became an integral part of each

day's activities. Several students per day were assigned various leadership roles, such as

photographer, time manager, and journal manager. These incentives allowed students to

take photographs of the MidCom group, manage the time allotted for each activity, and

collect the journals.

The teams competed in various contests, such as assembling a tower of uncooked

spaghetti, constructing a rocket-powered car, building a bridge, and solving math

problems. Other group activities included creating Power Point presentations to

promote the MidCom program throughout the community, using the local newspaper to

learn science, identifying the components of a mystery brew, and designing a science

experiment. The instructors devoted time to highlighting observation as a science

process skill, describing selected scientific discoveries and inventions, allowing students

to practice mathematical operations via worksheets, and using brainteasers to motivate

students to think critically and creatively.

The middle school students were introduced to various types of colleges and

universities-2-year, 4-year, technical, private, and public. A college scavenger hunt and

presentations by their instructors facilitated this process. During the 2-week summer

component, five field trips to neighboring colleges, universities, and a nature center

allowed the students to meet college students, professors, and researchers. After each

field trip, the students were expected to record the experience in their own journal. In









fact, the students were expected to record each day's experiences in theirjournal. Each

field trip lasted approximately five hours, including travel and lunch. Tours of the

various facilities and special presentations of current research were included in all field

trips. A laser show was one presentation the students particularly enjoyed. The

emphasis on colleges and science-related fields of study was supplemented by

discussions on scholarships, federal grants, and federal loans. As students were

instructed on the specifics of a state funded scholarship program (i.e., Hope program)

they learned how to begin to make themselves eligible for those funds. The culminating

experience for the students was an overnight stay on a college campus. MidCom

participants enjoyed a barbecue with their families and invited guests, displayed their

projects and awards from the summer program, and ended the evening with a dance

before retiring to their dormitory rooms. The next morning, after eating breakfast in a

campus cafeteria, the summer component officially ended.

The after-school component consisted of sessions that highlighted the goals of the

program and student expectations, requirements and costs of college, presentations by the

program coordinator, hands-on science activities, various guest speakers, worksheet-

based math problems, real-world based math problems, educational Internet activities,

web page design, and an awards reception.

Staff Information

MidCom employed approximately 20 staff members, including two instructors per

site, a team of coordinators, and other help. Most of the staff members were retired, in-

service, or pre-service teachers who received specialized training (twice a year) for the

MidCom program. The program coordinator was a full professor in the biology

department at the administering university. Additionally, a training manual for future









staff was in the development stages. The staff members were invited to participate in

future years/sessions, and had already received the initial training for the upcoming after-

school component. Compensation varied from $200 to $12,000 and was based on the

quality and quantity of time devoted to the program. All staff were paid. The ethnicity

of the staff was comparable to that of the participants, with 75% African American, 20%

Caucasian, and 5% Hispanic American, African, and other racial/ethnic groups. Only

one of the eight staff members was male.

Financial Information

MidCom operated free of charge to participants and offered no stipend. The

program's funding ($90,000 per year) came from both a statewide initiative and a

regional initiative within the state.

Program 2-Elchurch

Administered by a Master's I, state-funded university in Northwest Georgia, the

Elchurch Program offered elementary students an opportunity to become excited about

science and math. The fictitious name highlights two important qualities of the

intervention program-an elementary (El) target audience and its use of a neighborhood

church (church) to house the program. The Program Coordinator Questionnaire and

artifact data provided the following information about the Elchurch program. Though for

five years, the program had provided much-needed science experiences for younger

children, the program coordinator's growing emphasis on middle and high school

intervention ultimately phased out the Elchurch program. After the summer session

ended, a comprehensive elementary program was no longer offered. Hence, the

following data relates to the final session of Elchurch.









Program Objectives

The program coordinator identified the following objectives of Elchurch: (a) to

excite students about science and math to the degree that they want to participate in them

and (b) to have students learn new practical knowledge and skills that will help them

throughout their educational careers.

Program staff learned the objectives via teacher workshops, staff meetings, and in

all of the written material they received. Parents and participants were informed of

Elchurch's objectives at the orientation, from written materials, and via constant

reminders from the staff. Staff, student, and parent surveys, administered by the

program coordinator, served as an assessment tool. The participants' attitudes toward

science were measured by attendance and behavior patterns of the participants, while

science skills and knowledge were assessed via worksheets and hands-on activities.

Program Format

Elchurch operated during the summer, and participants met five days per week for

six weeks. These sessions were from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., and in July and August.

Program Location

Elchurch operated at a Baptist church located in the heart of the African American

and public housing communities in the program's service area. The congregation of the

church was mostly African American. The program activities occurred primarily in the

multi-purpose room and classroom areas in the church. These rooms were equipped with

large tables, many chairs, and sufficient floor space to avoid cramped quarters.









Target Population

Elchurch targeted students in grades 2-5 from the local area. The program sought

to engage the area's minority populations, African Americans and Hispanic Americans.

Students representing a wide range of abilities were encouraged to participate.

Recruitment and Selection

Elchurch recruited participants through announcements and flyers at local churches,

in addition to word of mouth. Despite the desire of the program coordinator to attract

participants from the area's relatively large Hispanic American population, Elchurch

attracted only African American students. Participants were accepted on a first come,

first served basis until capacity was reached. Also, because a weekly fee was charged to

all participants, no applicant was rejected on any basis other than program capacity.

Scholarships were available for students who were unable to pay.

Intervention Activities

Elchurch utilized a variety of activities, including reading, solving puzzles, playing

games, telling stories, watching videos, creating art, conducting science experiments,

completing worksheets, maintaining journals, and taking field trips. Each of these

activities was designed to accommodate the various developmental levels of elementary

students. Because the focus of the program was on science and mathematics, all

intervention activities were related to those disciplines.

Staff Information

Elchurch employed approximately six staff members, ages 25-45. The two males

and four females were all African American educators (in-service or retired). Special

training sessions prepared each instructor for the Elchurch program. Each of these two

sessions focused on the program's goals, objectives, activities, rules and regulations, and









other concerns. According to the program coordinator, the younger, more mobile staff

members were less likely to plan to continue with Elchurch, while the older members

were more likely. Compensation varied from $20 per hour to $30 per hour and was

based on the nature of each staff member's contribution. All staff were paid. The

program coordinator was a full professor in the biology department at the administering

university.

Financial Information

To support its $8,000 per year budget, Elchurch required a nominal weekly fee for

each participant. The amount of the weekly fee was not disclosed. Scholarships were

available for students who were unable to pay.

Program 3-Enviroyear

Administered by a Master's II, state-funded university in the Piedmont region of

South Carolina, the Enviroyear program offered middle school students an opportunity to

prepare for undergraduate education while emphasizing environmental science.

Supported by a five-year federal initiative, the overall goal of the program was to help at-

risk students in grades 7-8 enroll, persist in, and graduate from an institution of higher

learning. In its third year of operation, Enviroyear represented one university's efforts to

achieve this goal, while using environmental science, mathematics, and technology as the

vehicles of choice. The fictitious name highlights two important qualities of the

intervention program-its environmental science (Enviro) focus and the use of a year-

round (year) program to achieve its goals. Observations and interviews during a visit to

the summer program, the Program Coordinator Questionnaire, and artifact data provided

the following information about the Enviroyear program.









Program Objectives

The program coordinator identified the following objectives of Enviroyear: (a) to

prepare middle school students for undergraduate education, (b) to improve general

progress in math and science classes, (c) to increase students' readiness to meet the

objectives of the Enviroyear program, and (d) to obtain suggestions and ideas for future

improvements. These four objectives were embraced by the overall goals of the initiative

to which Enviroyear belongs: to increase educational expectations for participating

students; to provide an enriched, stimulating, and active learning environment; and to

increase student and family knowledge of post-secondary opportunities and financial aid

options.

The Enviroyear staff learned of the program objectives through formal and

informal meetings, a parent orientation, and through the evaluation of their written

curricula. Recruitment and orientation sessions informed the parents and participants of

the objectives. Additionally, the intervention activities reminded students of the goals of

the program. The objectives were measured by surveys, scores on state-mandated

achievement tests, and action research. The action research involved an analysis of

student participation, student work, and interviews with students, instructors, and

mentors. The surveys and test scores, though collected by the program coordinators,

were evaluated by the funding source. The program coordinators conducted the action

research.

Program Format

Enviroyear operated during the school year, as well as in the summer. The school

year component met one day per week for 16 Saturdays during the school year. Each

Saturday meeting was from 9:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. The summer component was a 15-









day non-residential program, with meetings from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Meetings, in

June, lasted from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. The summer component targeted rising eighth

grade students. These students, as eighth graders, were invited to participate in five

Saturday experiences during the following fall semester. A second Saturday component

occurred during the spring semester, and invited current seventh grade students. Hence,

Enviroyear students participated in three different components-spring semester of

seventh grade, summer before eighth grade, and fall semester of eighth grade.

Program Location

Enviroyear, administered by a Master's II level university in South Carolina's

Piedmont region, utilized the university as its primary site. The science classes occurred

in fully equipped science labs, and the instructors had complete access to the science

equipment and materials. Other classes used computer labs, technology-enriched

classrooms, and the physical education facilities (swimming pool and gymnasium), and

all meals were served in the university cafeteria.

Field trips to places such as a lake, a deaf community, state parks, a ropes course,

and a Spanish-speaking neighborhood and restaurant allowed the Enviroyear participants

to visit local areas. Trips to other colleges and universities in the South Carolina exposed

students to small, mid-sized, large, historically Black, public, and private institutions of

higher learning.

Target Population

Enviroyear targeted seventh grade students at the eligible public middle schools

from the five counties surrounding the administering university. The partner schools

were chosen because of their high free/reduced lunch constituencies. The program

targeted at least 75% free/reduced lunch recipients and a high minority population.









According to the program coordinator, Enviroyear was designed for students with

potential, and represented neither the top nor bottom 10% of their class' academic

abilities.

Recruitment and Selection

Enviroyear recruited participants from the five partner middle schools in the five

counties surrounding the administering university. Enviroyear invited selected seventh

grade students or the entire seventh grade class to attend a recruiting fair at each school.

A selection committee comprised of a team of Enviroyear staff members and teachers

and principals from the partner schools reviewed the applications to choose the

participants. Information included during the application process included free/reduced

lunch status, race/ethnicity, language minority status, disability status, and school district

representation. Additional information included scores on the state-administered

achievement test, letters of recommendation from guidance counselors and teachers, and

letters of participation from parents. Enviroyear met its goal to serve at least 75%

free/reduced lunch recipients and mostly minority (African American) students.

Generally, all students who applied (usually 65-70 students) were selected to

participate in Enviroyear. By the end of the 16 Saturdays in the spring semester, the

number of participants had dropped to 45-50. The summer component served

approximately 30 students.

Intervention Activities

The Enviroyear summer component utilized a variety of activities, including hands-

on science activities, technology-based experiences, design projects using robotic

Legos, leadership activities, problem-solving drills, physical education and exercise

studies, and Spanish and sign language classes. Two cohorts of morning sessions rotated









through project-based learning in science, mathematics, technology, and team-building

activities as the students participated in hands-on science activities. One science teacher

took advantage of the environmental theme and, with her classes, examined ecosystems,

the environment, and water. Using modified versions of nationally recognized curricula,

such as Project Wet, Project Wild, Project Wild Aquatic, Project Learning Tree, Tribes,

and the National Science Curriculum Project for High Ability Learners, the Enviroyear

participants learned about watersheds, oil spills, wetlands, water quality testing, and other

environmental concepts from one science instructor. Another science instructor, on the

other hand, preferred physical science topics such as light and optics. Field trips to a

local lake, waste management and water treatment plant, and an outdoor wilderness

challenge supplemented all of these science activities. Other field trips, to various

colleges in the state, allowed opportunities for guided tours, admissions presentations,

and field studies to complement previous Enviroyear activities.

While the morning sessions offered an emphasis on science, the afternoon meetings

highlighted leadership and academic survival skills, creative problem solving, exercise

studies, and more team-building activities. During the leadership module emphasis was

placed on careers, career development, social aspects of success in college, conflict

resolution, self-esteem, and assertiveness training. Three cohorts of students rotated

through these experiences. Participants in Enviroyear's summer component were

expected to participate in five Saturdays during the following fall semester. These

additional Saturday experiences included hands-on activities at local parks, state parks,

and other outdoor education areas, as well as hands-on activities on the university's

campus.









Enviroyear offered a 16-week Saturday program during the spring semester for

seventh graders. This Saturday program highlighted the sciences of languages and

personal skills. Three languages, Spanish, sign, and computer were the focal points.

Participants learned introductory Spanish and became familiar with the Hispanic culture.

Additionally, they learned American Sign Language, and visited a school for the deaf to

hone their skills. Participants used Lego Robolabs and other computer technology to

improve their programming skills. Six field trips, including three service-learning

opportunities were included in the Enviroyear Saturday component for seventh graders.

In response to observations of past Enviroyear programs, the current staff decided

to slow the pace of the academic portions to better meet the abilities and needs of the

participants. They chose to combine some of the social and academic expectations and

integrate the curriculum to benefit the students.

Staff Information

During the summer, Enviroyear employed approximately 19 staff members

including 7 instructors, 4 professors, 6 mentors, and 2 co-directors (program

coordinators). Of the seven instructors, 4 were female, and all were middle school math

and science teachers. They were selected based on their reputations for leadership and

knowledge in their fields, creativity in their pedagogical approaches, and their desire and

ability to work with at-risk middle school students. The professors, an African American

couple, one White male, and one White female, served as guest lecturers and permanent

members of the staff. They were recruited from the administering university and a local

technical college. The selection criteria for the professors were similar to that of the

instructors. Six student mentors, one Black male, two Black females, and three White









females, were chosen from the university's leadership program and a group of teaching

fellows. Both program coordinators for Enviroyear were assistant professors at the

administering university-one in the school of education, and the other in the school of

physical education and exercise sciences.

The staff members received training via meetings with the program coordinators

and their involvement with various administrative duties. Unless they demonstrated an

inability to work effectively within the Enviroyear program, each staff member was

invited to participate in future years/sessions. Compensation varied based on the

contribution of each staff member to the program, and all staff were paid.

Financial Information

Enviroyear operated free of charge to participants and offered no stipend. The

program's backing came from the state's commission of higher education, with funds

from a federal initiative. The amount of funding provided by the initiative was not

available.

Program 4- SumSpace

Administered by a Doctoral Intensive level university in the lower Savannah

Region of South Carolina, SumSpace offered middle and high school students an

opportunity to interact with space science. The administering university was also

recognized as a historically Black institution. Supported by a federal agency and housed

at a campus-based space center, the overall goals of the program were to introduce space

science to middle and high school students and create an interest in the field. Since 1998,

the program aimed to challenge students while exposing them to the scientific learning

process. The fictitious name highlights two important qualities of the intervention

program-the summer format (Sum) used to deliver the intervention and the program's