Title: Taking Science to Afterschool: Supporting Science Identity Development for LowIncome Latino Youth
Ed.D. Candidate: Kelly Stuart, Ed.D. San Francisco State University
Research Question(s):
1. How do afterschool science opportunities support identity development for elementary
aged low-income Latino youth?
2. What do students report and share about what they are learning in becoming sciencetype people?
3. How do students identify the differences between their in school as opposed to
afterschool science instruction?
4. What role does the program leader play in fostering a science identity?
Conceptual Framework and/or Guiding Purpose of the Study:
California is now a minority-majority state, and research on afterschool settings serving large
numbers of Latino children needs further investigation due to the dearth of research with
new majority in California. All of the findings in this study are from Latino youth and nearly all
students in the study come from low-income families. The United States has a total Latino
population of more than forty-six million, and in California, Latinos comprise nearly half the
student population (Perez-Huber, Huidor, Malagon, Sanchez, & Solorazano, 2006).
Nationally, 8.4 million children attend afterschool programs; 21% are Latino. Latinos are
underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields with
less than six percent working in STEM, yet Latino’s represent 14% of overall employment in
the United States (AfterSchool Alliance, September 2011). In addition, Latinos have the
highest dropout rates and lowest college attendance rates of all racial and ethnic groups
(Perez-Huber et al., 2006).
With deep cuts to California’s education funding along with the narrow focus on literacy and
math, science education has been hit particularly hard (Dorph et al., 2011). Understanding
how an afterschool setting can support these students to engage in the practices of science
is essential to examine more fully. Understanding these children’s experience and voice of
what excites them about science can help inform both in school and afterschool programs
serving Latino children. Studies have shown that afterschool programs have demonstrated
success in teaching the so-called “soft skills” of communication, problem solving, and
teamwork, which young people need for any career (Coalition for Afterschool, 2008).
Research on students' conceptions of "who can be a scientist" and students' attitudes about
doing science suggests that not all children come to school believing they are capable of
doing science, or even with similar ideas about what science is (Cobern, 1996). In fact,
many children decide if they will enter a STEM career by middle school (Tai & Maltese,
2011) Often noted, is the difference out of school experiences create for children (Fusco,
2008; McClaughlin, 2000). Most prominent scientists and Nobel Prize winners report
developing their fascination with science and technology outside of traditional classrooms
(Friedman & James, 2007). Well-known innovator Steve Jobs found his passion for
computer science in an afterschool program (Friedman & James, 2007). Combining science
learning with the youth development expertise of afterschool professionals has the potential
to revolutionize both fields by integrating the strengths of both and to change the lives and
trajectories of Latino children in the process (Coalition for Afterschool, 2008).
The program leaders in afterschool programs also referred to as “front line workers” play a
crucial role in identify development and building a community in afterschool because of their
own backgrounds, what they value in youth development, and are often times members of
the communities they serve. Most informal science leaders afterschool do not need require
nor have deep scientific knowledge to facilitate high quality science sessions, but benefit
greatly from materials specifically designed for afterschool. High quality materials with
session guides and enough materials for all students helps them become comfortable with
science activities, which directly affects the students’ view of who can do science. The
curriculum used in this study was developed by Lawrence Hall of Science and was tailor
made for the typical afterschool worker.
Relevant Theoretical and Empirical Literature:
There is a growing need to improve the quality of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) related skills among our citizenry in the United States to fully
understand the scientific complexities underlying national policy debates on cloning, artificial
life, climate change, alternative fuels, and bio-terrorism. Beyond the need for an informed
citizenry, there is great need for underrepresented students, especially Latino youth who are
California’s larges group of students to have access and exposure to the type of experiences
that can prepare them for a STEM career and/or be a science minded person.
Understanding the kinds of instruction and settings Latino students need to develop a
science identity that persists throughout their school-aged years is of immediate concern and
warrants researching. Given the high numbers of students attending afterschool programs
and lack of science instruction during the school day, it is crucial to explore additional
settings. Dorph’s research (2011) revealed that less than 10% of an elementary students
career is spent engaging in high quality science, the kind of science that regularly engages
children in the practice of science. It is clear that California students need settings beyond
school to develop science identities. The afterschool time provides the equivalent of 77
additional days for students over the course of a school year, therefore, examining what and
how the time is spent on teaching science deserves in depth research.
Afterschool research has steadily received more attention in the past fifteen years, which
can be largely attributed to funding and policy initiatives across federal agencies along with
foundations and groups such as Charles Stewart Mott, Robert Bowne, Harvard Family
Research Project, and Afterschool Alliance (Vadeboncoeur, 2006). In particular, much more
attention has focused on what afterschool provides students from underprivileged
backgrounds beyond safety and daycare (Dietel, 2009; Halpern, 2002; Hull & Zacher, 2010;
Vadeboncoeur, 2006). This interest began in the Clinton administration, with bipartisan
support that expanded the 21st Century Learning Community funding from $25 million in
1994 to $800 million in 1999, the most rapid increase in federal funding for any program in
history (Bartko, 2005). Today, afterschool federal funding represents around one billion
dollars. In California, the passing of Proposition 49 in 2004 began funding afterschool
programs with over $550 million per year to support 4,000 sites throughout the state. While
funding has dramatically increased and more research is being conducted, there are still
many gaps in the literature, especially for elementary aged Latino children, California’s
largest group of children.
Research has demonstrated that many children who fail in school, including those from nondominant cultures or lower socioeconomic groups, show competence on the same subject
matter in out of school contexts (McLaughlin, Irby, & Langman, 2001). For example,
Calabrese Barton (1998) research on homeless children set the stage form later studies
focused on development in the afterschool setting as a way to demonstrate how the “borders
of science need to be made fuzzy” to create space for identities within science (Shanahan,
2009). Many argue that this could be due to the design of school-based instruction that
focuses narrowly on tested subjects and single right answers whereas afterschool provides
the freedom from a structured curriculum and timetable (NRC, 2009). For example, in
afterschool, youth workers experience fewer restraints on curriculum and instruction that
allow the programming to relate to the needs and interests of the participants (Norland,
2005). Beyond what the afterschool space provides in terms of freedom from timetables and
the focus on test heavy subject, developing a science identity has the potential to be
supported because of afterschool programs’ focus on youth development as opposed to
standards and assessment prevalent in today’s schools. This study examines how students
in afterschool settings identify as someone who can learn from and apply science.
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis: Design
This transformational mixed methods approach utilized surveys, focus groups, and
observations to understand how children identify as a science type person in their afterschool program. Understanding how students see themselves, how they apply science, and
how they are within the group can nurture identity. The study included a total of 604 children
and 37 program leaders from Youth Superstars, an afterschool program in California’s
Central Valley. Of the 458 children, 221 identified themselves as Latino and only those
students’ results are used for the data analysis. Eleven of the 22 Youth Superstar programs
participated. This study uses a transformational mixed method design placing the
quantitative data and qualitative data sets as equal priorities. The transformational design is
one used to conduct research that identifies challenges in social injustices and inequities
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011 p. 74). Data in the study was collected concurrently with
different questions requiring a different type of methods. The Latino students in this study
are representative of typical children attending after-school programs throughout California
in terms of their demographics (Bhattacharya & Quiroga, 2009).
Quantitative data includes pre and post student surveys and leader surveys. The student
surveys focus on questions that address attitudes towards science, identity, and learning
outcomes. The leader surveys provide information about training backgrounds of the
program leaders and their perceptions about the importance of teaching science in after-
school settings.
The qualitative data, gathered through focus groups and observations of science sessions,
explores students’ direct feedback about why science is important, how they identify
differences between in school and after-school science instruction, and their understanding
of science concepts. The decision to use a mixed methods approach is guided by the types
of questions this study seeks to answer.
Students were given two pre and post surveys. Each survey asked students about their
ethnicity and other demographic data. Below is a table representing the demographics of
children in the study. Due to the counts being slightly different from each assessment, I
chose to report ethnicity counts based on the pre-assessment for the survey administration
with the most comprehensive data set.
Setting, Participants, and Instruments:
The Training Director in partnership with the Site Directors at each school site invited
participants into this study through in person and electronic invitations. Originally, all 22 sites
were invited to be part of the study and 11 agreed to participate. These 11 sites represented
approximately 458 children ranging from grades three to sixth grade and involved 41
program leaders. All leaders were at least 18 years old.
Student Surveys
Students in grades 3-6 were given the pre and post surveys for two types of physical
science: magnetism and air resistance. Lawrence Hall of Science (LHS) at University of
California Berkeley developed the instrument that included four multiple-choice content
questions; seventeen attitudinal questions answered on a four-point Likert scale; and
demographic data.
Focus Groups
Six of the 11 sites were chosen for focus groups. Convenience sampling was used to set up
focus groups. The participants were a range of third through sixth graders. Participation in
the focus groups was invitational and voluntary. Based on volunteers, I chose children with a
mix of gender, Latino background (as identified on their surveys), and a mix of grade levels.
Each group consisted of 4-5 students and only students with signed parent consent forms
could participate. The consent forms covered this level of involvement between the
researcher and the children. The focus group protocol included questions about students
afterschool program, in school vs. after-school experiences, and feedback about science
concepts they have learned from magnetism and air resistance. All focus groups were
recorded with a hand held recorder and later transcribed.
Observations:
I observed at least one science lesson from six sites during the course of the study. To gain
access I worked directly with the Site Directors at the individual sites Program sites were
chosen based on convenience and sessions took about 45 minutes. I took fieldnotes to
understand more about how the leader conducted sessions and what opportunities for
engaging in science children experienced.
Leader Surveys:
Leaders completed their pre-survey in November during scheduled training. For leaders not
receiving in person training, the Training Director administered and collected data at a
regularly scheduled meeting in November. Leaders took their post surveys in January-April.
Time Burden on Participants:
Leaders needed approximately thirty minutes to complete surveys. Children needed
approximately one hour spread over the school year to take pre and posts surveys. The
focus group interviews took 20-30 minutes and observations of sessions typically lasted 45
minutes. All research was conducted during afterschool hours between 3-6pm.
Data Collection:
Data collection occurred from November 2010-June 2011. Leaders received several
packets of information for the group they taught. The packets included permission forms in
English and Spanish for parents, student assent forms, and pre and post surveys for
magnetism and air resistance. The leaders not receiving training received their packets from
their site directors at their individual sites. The pre-surveys were administered before any
science instruction began in the Magnets of Falling and Flying kits. Post assessments were
given after the leader had taught all four sessions.
Timeline of Data Collection:
The student surveys, leader surveys, and consent forms were administered in November.
Each program leader received six packets consisting of parent consents, student assents,
and pre and post surveys for magnets and air resistance. Leaders collected all data from
students and then gave the packets to their site directors, who then gave them to the
Training Director who sent them to me. Table 3.2 displays the overall timeline for the study.
This study spans over two school years with the majority of data collection occurring in 2011.
Table 3.2
Study Timeline
Data Source and Analysis:
Data source
Leader Assessment (pre)
Leader Assessment (post)
Pre-Student Survey (air resistance and
magnetism,)
Post- Student Survey ( air resistance,
and magnetism,)
Focus groups
Analysis
Mean scores
Mean scores
McNemar Test and 2x2 contingency tables
McNemar Test and TTest
Intelligent reading of the transcripts to get a
holistic view. Once the reading is complete, I
put all each line of transcript into Microsoft
Observations
Excel. From there, I coded each line by topic
and theme.
Descriptive codes to describe what I observed
in sessions. Themes emerged from coding
the data.
Initial Analysis and Emerging Recommendations
This section describes the interpretation of findings that address each of the research
answer questions.
Subquestion 1: What Do Students Report and Share About What They Are Learning in
Becoming Science-Type People?
The qualitative findings showed that all seventeen students were able to describe how the
science they were learning helped them discover what happens when they tried different
experiments or tests. The students could explain how their thinking changed while learning
about magnetism and air resistance. For example, students reported understanding how a
parachute with holes will fall more slowly than one without or that by using a magnet they
could move an object without actually touching it. When these students had the opportunity
to engage with materials and work collaboratively, they were able to learn the big concepts
in a short amount of time. The sessions allowed students to be creative, to try different
approaches out, and to receive guidance along the way. Giving students experiences to
engage with the science concepts supported them as people engaging in the practice of
science.
The focus groups allowed children the opportunity to articulate what they were learning in a
less formal structure. The completion of surveys as opposed to the focus group structure
was more representative of the types of community these students reported liking in this
study, one that allowed for joint enterprise (what they were learning about), mutual
engagement (how their interactions led to meaning), and shared repertoire (resources and
tools that supported their learning). Linking practice with community as described by Wenger
(1998) is a key ingredient to identity development.
The quantitative results were mixed compared to the qualitative data for this question. The
results for the eight content item questions had two questions demonstrating significance
and six that had no effect. For both of the questions gauging the students’ understanding of
the big ideas they were learning in air resistance and magnetism there was some statistical
significance. These findings demonstrate that after four sessions in each of the types of
physical science, the students were making some progress in understanding core the
conceptual ideas. However, students were less proficient with the types of questions that
required them to compare or choose multiple right answers, as shown in the additional six
questions on the surveys. This lack of statistical significance from pre to post on these items
could be explained by the types of questions that were asked, the disconnect between what
was taught and the way it was assessed, or the limited amount of time devoted to each
concept as presented in the curriculum. In some cases, the readability of all content
questions could have been challenging for students. It may be that using surveys to gauge
what students learn is an ineffective way to understand what they learned, particularly in a
relatively short intervention. Each of the surveys required the students read three pages of
text. Depending on the students’ reading levels and understanding of vocabulary terms, the
results might under-represent what the students actually learned.
Subquestion 2: How Do Students Identify the Differences Between Their in School As
Opposed to Afterschool Science Instruction?
The data reveals a stark contrast between these students’ experiences in science learning in
and out of school. The implications of these findings are dire.”
If students in this study are representative of Latino youth in California then there is little
chance that they will develop a strong science identity through their school experiences
alone. Given the recent research in California, (Hartry et al., 2012) many students lose
interest in science as they advance in the grade levels and these findings reveal that
afterschool might be the only setting that offers the time and space for children to develop
identity as a science type person.
The findings for this question provided strong evidence that these children have little
opportunity to engage in the practice of science during school; however they viewed their
afterschool time as one that provides collaborative and hands on learning in science.
Students’ descriptions of their afterschool time builds upon earlier research (Fusco, 2008)
that showed afterschool time as a space where students experienced experience
meaningful relationships with adults, gained competency, and a felt a sense of belonging.
Two key themes emerged regarding students’ identity in afterschool and in school science
settings: reading and writing about science in school and working collaboratively afterschool.
Students view their in school science as something they learned from books, worksheets
they completed, and tests they had to take. A few students described opportunities in school
as a time where they learned about rocks, but it was learning by touching a rock or seeing a
picture of one on an overhead projector as opposed to inquiry based learning, field studies,
and collaborative tasks. Students’ responses indicate that their identity in science as
experienced in school does not connect with current research on how young children learn
and experience science. Recent research (NRC, 2009) demonstrates that “children come to
school with a rich knowledge of the natural world and can engage in complex reasoning” (p.
x), but the key ideas of science must be supported by instructional practices that encourage
curiosity and experimentation. The instructional support students describe does not indicate
high quality science experiences during the school day and in many cases students reported
doing little or no science at school.
The data also reveal the ways in which students during their in school time see “doing
science as doing school,” echoing an earlier finding in Calabrese Barton’s (2003) research.
This question clearly reveal that identity in practice as Wenger (1998) defines develops
through negotiated experience, community membership, and a learning trajectory. For the
students in this study, this likely only occurs in afterschool. In contrast with their reports of in
school science experiences, these students described their afterschool science as a
community that allowed for time, materials, collaboration, and engaging with science (doing)
as the way they learn. If identity is developed through a “layering of events of participation
and reification by which experience and its social interpretation inform each other (Wenger,
1998, p. 151) then based on the data in this study, students will not have sufficient time for
this layering to take hold in school, thus limiting the student trajectories in becoming a
science minded person.
Subquestion 3: What Role Does the Program Leader Play in Fostering a Science
Identity?
Few studies exist on how afterschool leaders can provide high quality science instruction for
students in elementary school (NRC, 2009). The findings in this study suggest that with
supportive materials leaders can facilitate sessions that engage students in the practice of
science. The leaders in this study created interest, added science knowledge, scientific
reasoning, reflection, and science practice, all of which are in accord with current
recommendations for the ways in which informal science should be taught (NRC, 2009).
The quantitative findings showed that the program leaders felt comfortable leading the
students in hands-on science, with pre and post mean scores about 4.00 on items related to
confidence in teaching science. The leaders also recognized the interest their students
demonstrated in wanting to learn more about science, as shown in responses to relevant
survey items (see Table 4.19).
Table 4.19
Leaders View of Science with Their Students
Statements
Children in my program are
interested in doing science activities
Children in my program are
interested in learning more about
science
Presurvey
mean
4.31
4.43
4.25
4.43
Postsurvey mean
It is important to note that these two questions specifically asked about the students the
leaders were teaching. Clearly, program leaders observed their student’s interest and desire
to do more science.. The leaders were able to build a sense of community that directly
supported the competence and confidence students were feeling during their science
sessions.
Main Research Question: How Do Low-Income Latino Youth See Themselves As
Being a Science-Type Person in Afterschool Settings?
The finding related to this question revealed that overall students had a positive attitude
about science both before and after the sessions. The findings also show that the students
view science as fun, they think it is important to keep learning about, they view working
together as helpful, and they aspire to careers that would require a strong science
background.
The attitudinal results revealed little change over the course of their science sessions.
Because the survey did not separate in school and afterschool, it is difficult to interpret the
results as the way students view afterschool science identify as opposed to in school
science identities. None of the mean scores for the attitudinal statements yielded statistically
significant differences. Generally, the student’s view of science was positive and
participating in the afterschool sessions continued their positive attitudes. The one statement
that increased on both magnetism and air resistance was, “Learning about science in fun.”
This increase on both surveys could be attributed to the hands on, collaborative experiences
the children in this study experienced.
The qualitative results indicated four key themes related to identity as a science type person:
science as fun, the importance of continuing to learn about science, working collaboratively
as a way to learn, and science careers. These results offer deeper insight than do the
quantitative data as to how students viewed science and their role in it during afterschool.
Nearly all students viewed science as fun in general. For the theme, importance of learning
about science, eleven of the seventeen students shared why continuing to learn about
science would be important later in life. Of the reasons stated, students shared that it would
be important later in life as a way to understand or explain how things work or teaching
someone else about science. Working collaboratively was a theme that 50% of the students
acknowledged as helpful to their learning. In building identity, practice is essential as
membership in a “community of practice translates into an identity as a form of competence,”
(Wenger, 1998, p. 153). For these students, practice in science only occurs in afterschool
and even in this short intervention, students felt competent in the types of science they
engaged with and enjoyed working together.
As students described the types of careers they aspired for they expressed a desire careers
that would need a strong science background and offered examples of why knowing about
science would help their career. The work of identity is always going on and while students
rated themselves low on their survey, it did not stifle their career aspirations. Wenger (1998)
describes the trajectory of an identity as something that is constantly being negotiated. As
these students experience the type of science that actually engages them in the practice of
science and they see a past and present they may begin to understand what matters and
what does not matter in developing their identity as a science type person.
Recommendations:
It is clear that afterschool plays a pivotal role in supporting the identity development of lowincome Latino youth seeing themselves as someone who participates and learns from
science. Based on this research, I suggest three areas of action:
1. Provide all afterschool workers with the curriculum and support they need to
effectively teach science using an inquiry approach
2. Institute policies that explicitly call for high quality science in every elementary
classroom and afterschool program.
3. Provide awareness to all administrator and teachers of the voices of these
students describe their in school versus afterschool experiences.
Currently, this entire elementary aged generation, especially those from Latino backgrounds
are going through school with a limited view of what it means to engage with science. Given
the statistics on students interest decreasing as they advance in school, capturing and
keeping students interest in science must happen in elementary school. Fortunately,
afterschool programs such as the one in this study where engaging in the practice of science
is valued, however, this will not be sufficient if California is to meet future demands of
needing future scientists and an informed citizenry.
Selected References:
Afterschool Alliance (2011) Afterschool: STEM in Afterschool.
Bartko, W. T. (2005). The ABCs of engagement in out-of-school-time programs. New
Directions for Youth Development, 105, 109–120.
Bhattacharya, J. & Quiroga, J., (2009) Learning English and Beyond. Afterschool Matters.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen., S. (2007). Qualitative research on education. New York, NY: Pearson.
Calabrese Barton, A. (1998). Teaching science with homeless children: Pedagogy,
representation, and identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35(4), 379–
394.
Calabrese Barton, A. (1998). Margin and center: Intersection of homeless children, science,
and a pedagogy for liberation. Theory Into Practice 37(4), 296–305.
Calabrese Barton, A. (2001). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of
praxis through critical ethnography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38(8):
899–917.
Cobern, W. (1996). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Science
Education, 80(5), 579–610.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crown Lee, O. (2010). Diverisity and equity in science education. Better: Evidence-based
Education, 2(3), 12–13.
Dorph, R., Goldstein, D., Lee, S., Lepori, K., Schneider, S., & Venkatesan, S. (2007). The
status of science education in Bay Area elementary schools. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence
Hall of Science.
Dorph, R. P., Tiffany-Morales, J., Hartry, A., & McCaffrey, T. (2011). High hopes-few
opportunities: The status of elementary science education in California. Sacramento,
CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd.
Fenichel, M., and Schweingruber, H.A. (2010). Surrounded by Science: Learning Science in
Informal Environments. Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division
of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Fusco, D. (2008). School vs. afterschool: A study of equity in supporting children’s
development.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(4), 391–403.
Grolnick, W. S., Farkas, M. S., Sohmer, R., Michaels, S., & Valsiner, J. (2007). Facilitating
motivation in young adolescents: Effects of an after-school program. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 332–344.
Halpern, R. (2002). A different kind of child development institution: The history of afterschool programs for low-income children. Teachers College Record 104(2), 178–211.
Hartry, A., Dorph, R., Shields, P., Tiffany‐ Morales J.,& Romero,V.(2012). The
status of middle school science education in California. Sacramento, CA. The Center
for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd.
Hull, G. & Zacher, J. (2004) What is afterschool worth? Developing and literacy out of
school. Annenburg Institute.
Kozol, J. (1991 ). Savage inequalities. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
(Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives) (p. 138).
Cambridge University Press.
Lee, O. (2010). Diverisity and Equity in Science Education. Better: Evidence-based
Education(Spring 2010).
Lee, O., & Buxton, C. Science Curriculum and Student Diversity: A framework for equitable
learning opportunities. The Elementary School Journal, 109 (2). 2008.
Maltese, A.V, Tai, R.H., “Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational
experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students,” Science Education,
May 2011.
McClaughlin, M. (2000). Community Counts: How Youth Organizations Matter for Youth
Development. Washington DC: Public Education Network.
McKinsey & Company The economic impact of the achievement gap in America’s schools.
Author; Washington, D.C., April 2009.
McMurrer, J. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the
NCLB era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
National Research Council (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching
Science in Grades K–8. Washington D.C. Committee on Science Learning.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People,
Places, and Pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments.
Philip Bell, Bruce Lewenstein, Andrew W. Shouse, and Michael A. Feder, Editors.
Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Noam, G. Biancarosa, G. & Dechausay, N., (2003) Afterschool Education: Approach to an
Emerging Field, Harvard Education Press, 2003.
Norland, J. (2005). English Language Learners interactions with
various science curriculum features. Ph.D. dissertation, George Mason
University, United States -- Virginia.
Perez-Huber, L., Huidor, O., Malagan, M., Sanchez, G., & Solorzano, D. (2006). Falling
through the cracks: Critical transitions in the Latina/o educational pipeline. Latina/o.
Education Summit Report. UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center, Los Angeles.
Rahm, J. (2002). Emergent learning opportunities in an inner-city youth gardening program.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 164–84.
Rhodes, J. (2004). The critical ingredient: Caring youth-staff relationships in afterschool
settings. New Directions for Youth Development, 101. Wiley Periodicals.
Riggs, N., Bohnert, A., Guzman, M., & Davidson, D. (2010). Examining the potential of
community-based after-school programs for Latino youth. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 45, 417–429.
Shanahan, M. (2009). Identity in science learning: exploring the attention given to
agency and structure in studies of identity. Studies in Science Education. 45, (1) 4364.
Scott, A. (2010). Dissecting the data: The STEM education opportunity gap in California.
San Francisco, CA: Level the Playing Field Institution.
Sullivan, P., Yeager, M., Chudowsky, N., Kober, N., O’Brien, E., & Gayler, K. (2005). States
try harder, but gaps persist: High school exit exams. Washington, DC: Center on
Education Policy.
Tai, R. H., Qi Liu, C., Maltese, A. V. & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science.
Science, 312, 1143-1145.
Tan, E., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2009) Transforming science learning and student
participation in sixth grade science: a case study of a low-income urban, racial
minority classroom. Equity and Excellence in Education, 43(1), 38–55.
Vadeboncoeur, J. A. (2006). Engaging young people: Learning in informal contexts. Review
of Research in Education, 30(1), 239–278.
doi:10.3102/0091732X030001239
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.