“I'm Ready for Scientifical Duty!” Young Museum Program ...

“I’m Ready for Scientifical Duty!” Young Museum Program Alumnus’ Orientations Towards Science

Jacqueline L. Horgan

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee

of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

2021

Abstract

“I’m Ready for Scientifical Duty!”

Young Museum Program Alumnus’ Orientations Towards Science

Jacqueline L. Horgan

Science education has maintained a longstanding goal of enhancing societal interest,

values, and understandings of science. Despite a series of public education reforms and efforts by

scientific researchers, scientific literacy and passion remain sparse across the American public.

In fact, many students demonstrate a lack of interest in the sciences as early as first grade, with

major drop-offs occurring by the age of 14. This is further exacerbated for youth of color, as

science is deeply rooted in pervasive and institutionalized racism. When accessible, out-of-

school science experiences are uniquely positioned to promote youth agency, leverage students’

current values, and challenge structural inequities. Therefore, this work sought to highlight the

narratives of three young science learners who identify as youth of color and graduated from an

eight-year-long museum science program. A narrative inquiry was implemented, guided by

Critical Race Theory and Cultural Learning Pathways as frameworks. Data from semi-structured

interviews, questionnaires, and drawings provided insight into the students’ orientations towards

science and the development of those orientations. The study took place during the Covid-19

outbreak. Implications of the pandemic on the study are discussed. Findings from the study

suggest that students positively identify with science and feel at home in The Museum. It was

also noticed, however, that the students maintained ideologies consistent with Western

perspectives. Recommendations include creating homeplaces, making out-of-school learning

more easily accessible, and creating justice-centered curricula.

i

Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. iv Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... v Chapter I .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Rationale ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 4 Organization of the Dissertation .................................................................................................. 4

Chapter II ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Review of the Literature .................................................................................................................. 6

Seeing a “Science Self” ............................................................................................................... 6 Spaces and Places for Science Engagement .............................................................................. 12 Science Museums: Reminders of Power and Privilege ............................................................. 19

Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................. 22 Critical Race Theory .................................................................................................................. 22 Cultural Learning Pathways ...................................................................................................... 28 Cultural Learning Pathways and Critical Race Theory ............................................................. 32

Chapter III ..................................................................................................................................... 33 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 33

Qualitative Research .................................................................................................................. 34 Narrative Inquiry ....................................................................................................................... 35 Setting ........................................................................................................................................ 36 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 42 The Impact of Covid-19 on Study ............................................................................................. 43 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 44 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 50 Validity and Ethics .................................................................................................................... 56

Chapter IV ..................................................................................................................................... 62

Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 62 Student Stories ............................................................................................................................... 63

Alejandro: “We used our telescope to see the moon.” .............................................................. 63

Marco: “I wanted to show off all the exhibits.” ........................................................................ 68 Vanessa: “Yes ma’am. I’m ready for scientifical duty.” ........................................................... 73

ii

Cross-Case Themes ....................................................................................................................... 79 Orientations Towards Science ................................................................................................... 80

Science Learning at The Museum vs. At School ...................................................................... 89 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 93

Chapter V ....................................................................................................................................... 94 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 94

Homeplaces in Constellation of Situated Events ....................................................................... 94 Opened Learning Outcomes at The Museum ............................................................................ 97

Institutional Racism Pervades ................................................................................................. 100 Implications for Practice .............................................................................................................. 103

Creating Homeplaces ............................................................................................................... 103 Increase Access and Exposure to Science Learning ................................................................ 105 Commit to Critically Conscious Science Education ............................................................... 107

Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 108 Recommendations and Conclusion ............................................................................................. 109 Final Coda ................................................................................................................................... 113

Educational Policy and Research ............................................................................................ 114

Institutional Priorities .............................................................................................................. 116 Curricular Considerations ........................................................................................................ 116 The Child and the Family ........................................................................................................ 117

References ................................................................................................................................... 119 Appendix A: Invitation to Participate Email ............................................................................... 136 Appendix B: Student Interview Protocol .................................................................................... 137 Appendix C: Parent Interview Protocol ...................................................................................... 140 Appendix D: Student Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 142 Appendix E: Parent Questionnaire .............................................................................................. 143

Appendix F: Storyboard .............................................................................................................. 144 Appendix G: Parent Informed Consent ....................................................................................... 145 Appendix H: Parental Permission ............................................................................................... 150

Appendix I: Child Assent ............................................................................................................ 155 Appendix J: Museum Brief ......................................................................................................... 157

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Cultural Learning Pathways Framework (Bell et al., 2013, p. 273) .............................. 28 Figure 2: Alejandro in the “playground” – Museum Gems Hall .................................................. 65 Figure 3: Screenshot of Alejandro’s Museum Website Video ...................................................... 66 Figure 4: Alejandro’s Science Constellations of Situated Events ................................................. 68 Figure 5: Marco’s Corn Snake Drawing ....................................................................................... 69

Figure 6: Marco’s Wolf Diorama Drawing ................................................................................... 70 Figure 7: Maroc’s Science Constellations of Situated Events ....................................................... 73 Figure 8: Vanessa in a Costume for a Museum Play ..................................................................... 75 Figure 9: Vanessa, Classmates, and Parents in Class at The Museum .......................................... 76 Figure 10: Vanessa’s Science Constellations of Situated Events .................................................. 79

iv

List of Tables

Table 1: Museum Science and Investigators Program Science Ideas ........................................... 39 Table 2: Museum Science and Investigators Program Paths ......................................................... 41 Table 3: Participants’ Self-Identified Demographics .................................................................... 43 Table 4: Data Collection Timeline ................................................................................................ 45 Table 5: Examples of Likert-Scale Statements ............................................................................. 48

v

Acknowledgements

The mentorship, friendship, and familial support I have had through my doctoral journey

have been a gift. I extend my deepest gratitude to all who have been along the ride with me.

Thank you to my parents, Bob and Sandy, my sisters, Mandi and Nicole, and my brother, Kylan.

Your endless love and confidence in me inspired my motivation and strength throughout this

process. To Ruthane and Bud, thank you for reminding me to enjoy every day of this experience

and for your steady encouragement. Ryan, you have been a pillar in my life. Thank you for your

unwavering championship, thoughtfulness, and humor. To my friends who offered continuous

support, transformative discussions, and good company, I am truly grateful.

I offer my sincerest appreciation to my dissertation committee members - Professor

Felicia Moore Mensah, Professor Christopher Emdin, Professor Amy Stuart Wells, Dr. Natasha

Cooke-Nieves, and Professor Laudan Jahromi. Your expertise and thoughtfulness pushed my

thinking to a greater standard. Professor Mensah, thank you for believing in me and sharing your

wisdom. I am a stronger scholar because of you and am inspired by your brilliance, passion, and

dedication every day.

To The Museum educators and families, thank you for sharing your curiosity, creativity,

and joy with me. Specifically, to the students and parents who helped bring this study to life.

Thank you for exploring your stories and providing me the privilege to share them in this

manuscript.

It is because of every one of you above that I see the world in the way I do. I see beauty,

wonder, and hope. I see an opportunity for betterment, in the field of science education and in

myself. For that, I am eternally grateful. Thank you.

1

Chapter I

Introduction

As an educator in an out-of-school science program, I have watched young children engage

with the sciences over several years. Through my observations of the students discussing

science, engaging in science activities, and interacting with other members of the out-of-school

program, I became interested in more deeply understanding how they identify with science and

how that has evolved over time. In addition to my observations and fostered relationships with

the students, I recognize the value in engaging students in science at a young age and nurturing

their science sense of self.

Rationale

Science education has maintained a longstanding goal of enhancing societal interest, values,

and understandings of science (Falk & Dierking, 2010). Despite a series of public education

reforms and efforts by scientific researchers, scientific literacy and passion remain overall sparse

across the American public. In fact, many students demonstrate a lack of interest in the sciences

as early as first grade, with major drop-offs occurring by the age of 14 (Tytler, 2014). Carl Sagan

described this phenomenon during an interview in 1995:

You go talk to kindergarteners or first-grade kids, you find a class full of science enthusiasts. And they ask deep questions. They ask ‘what is a dream, why do we have toes, why is the moon round, what is the birthday of the world, why is the grass green?’ These are profound, important questions. They just bubble right out of them. You go talk to twelfth graders and there’s none of that. We see this pattern replicated in the performance of American children on international

assessments like the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Trends in

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Elementary students, around the age of

2

eight, perform as well or better than their international counterparts, while older students fall

behind (Falk & Dierking, 2010).

Attempts at advancing scientific literacy are typically rooted in the schooling systems -

branching off the ‘school-first’ ideology that permeates society (Falk & Dierking, 2010). Yet,

the amount of time the average American spends in a classroom is about five percent of their life,

only a fraction of which emphasizes scientific concepts, ideas, and practices. In 2018, Banilower

et al. explored science teaching and learning across the country through the National Survey of

Science and Mathematics Education. One area of interest was the amount of time elementary

teachers allocated for science teaching. Results of over 7,500 surveys showed that only 17

percent of K-3 and 35 percent of 4-6 classes learn science nearly every day, with only about 18

to 27 minutes per day being allocated for science education. With little exposure to science in the

elementary years, by the time students engage in science classes in middle school, they have

already become disenchanted by the subject. Further, no matter when science is taught in earnest

in schools, it has been criticized for its irrelevant, content-heavy, and boring characteristics

(Lyons, 2006; Rennie, 2014).

School science also functions as a tool perpetuating inequitable barriers for students of color.

How science is taught in schools sends messages that depreciate the knowledge and ideas of

students of color, and reinforce Western scientific views (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Cobern

and Loving, 2001). These messages affect a child’s desire and ability to pursue science-related

fields (Abu El-Haj, 2015; Jennings & Jones-Rizzi, 2017), and interrupt potential opportunities

for the child to identify with science (Carlone & Johnson, 2007).

I, therefore, turn to the science learning that occurs during the other 95 percent of an

individual’s life - the learning that occurs outside of school (Falk & Dierking, 2010). Out-of-

3

school science learning contributes to students’ science motivation, creativity, self-efficacy, and

interest (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007; NRC, 2015; NSTA, 2012). As a result, students who

experience science in out-of-school contexts are more likely to develop personal identifications

with science (Bell et al., 2009; Rennie, 2007). When accessible, out-of-school science

experiences are uniquely positioned to promote youth agency, leverage students’ current values,

and challenge structural inequities (Archer et al., 2016). They create spaces for students to

reconceptualize the nature of science and how they view themselves within the science

community (Rennie, 2017; Falk & Dierking, 2010).

Science museums, in particular, have served as settings for understanding science learning

outside of school. While the learning value of museum visits has been doubted, if properly

executed, museums can function as significant locations for science learning, providing

opportunities for students to engage in conversations, refer to and connect with their own

experiences, and build their narratives (Rennie, 2014). Familial involvement in science museum

spaces further advances the benefits of the out-of-school space (Crowley & Jacobs, 2002; Falk &

Dierking, 2010).

The places and spaces of home, school, or outside of school engage children differently and

act as shapers of students’ “identities and their perceptions of their study capabilities, career

options, and expected success” (Tytler, 2014, p. 97). Engagement in these spaces can take

multiple forms, over time, and can involve a variety of personal and social interactions.

Throughout this study, I consider students as explorers on a journey (Dewey, 1900), navigating

their science experiences both in- and out-of-school, which are governed by historical and

societal constructs. There exists a dearth of literature related to how youth of color develop

orientations towards science over time and across multiple spaces, inclusive of out-of-school

4

museum science programming. This research, therefore, aims to explore this by illuminating the

stories of three young scientists.

Research Questions

As a result of my previous science experiences, an extensive literature review, and my drive

to see greater diversity, equity, and inclusion in science, I developed the following research

questions:

1. What stories do 6th grade students of color, who graduated from a museum science program,

tell about the development of their orientations towards science?

a. What science learning experiences do they identify as meaningful and in what way?

2. What orientations towards science do 6th grade students of color, who graduated from a

museum science program hold?

a. How do the students identify with science?

b. What science-related beliefs and values do the students hold?

3. How do 6th-grade students of color, who graduated from a museum science program,

describe their science learning experiences at The Museum compared to at school?

Organization of the Dissertation

This current chapter explores the rudimentary foundations of this study, highlighting my

personal experiences, the purpose of my research endeavors, and the corresponding research

questions. Chapter II explores literature related to topics on youth development, science

orientations, science experiences for youth of color, and science engagement in both in- and out-

of-school settings. I also present Critical Race Theory and Cultural Learning Pathways as the

theoretical frameworks that ground my research.

5

In chapter III, I discuss my methodology, which followed a narrative inquiry approach. The

setting and participants are introduced in detail. The procedures implemented for data collection

and analysis are also explained. Chapter IV is dedicated to the findings that emerged during this

study. The chapter begins by providing brief narratives of each student and is followed by a

review of the shared themes that transpired as a result of a cross-case analysis.

I present discussions aimed at foregrounding the significance, implications for practice, and

limitations of my research in Chapter V. I also provide recommendations for future research

endeavors, as inspired by this study. Concluding the dissertation is the Final Coda. In this

section, I place my work in a macro context. I consider an approach towards addressing systemic

oppression and discuss how the implications of this study factor into such an approach.

6

Chapter II

Review of the Literature

This chapter is dedicated to a review of literature that helped lay the groundwork for this

study. It begins with an overview of how children develop their identities. This section considers

the cultivation of children’s orientations towards science (a “science sense of self”) and how

youth of color identify with science. Following is a discussion of the different spaces and places

science engagement might occur, such as the home, school, or museum. Here I consider how the

spaces and places sculpt students’ science orientations. A closer look at how Science Museums

function as shapers is explored, specifically within the historical constructs of society. Framing

this study is Critical Race Theory and Cultural Learning Pathways. A review of each framework

and how they serve as lenses for my work conclude the chapter.

Seeing a “Science Self”

Children’s Identity Development

The way youth interact with the world, and the physical, emotional, and cognitive growth

that youth undergo during their adolescent years, is closely linked to identity development.

Social and cognitive theories of identity argue that identity develops over time and is “formed

through interactions with others, and within the context of society as a whole” (Hill et al., 2018,

p. 101). A social-psychological theory of identity would also include the formation of social

schemas, which are used to categorize behaviors, preferences, people, and situations, with

reference to characteristics like race, gender, religion, age, and language (Master et al., 2012).

The development of identity, then, is intrinsically connected with culture (Esteban-Guitart &

Moll, 2013; Hill et al., 2018)

7

Identity begins to develop in early childhood through play, observations, and social

interactions, which provide the individual with a budding sense of self (Mead, 1934). Through

these experiences, children encounter their first moments of success, failure, initiative, praise,

and guilt (Erikson, 1994). The frequency and nature of said moments impact the development of

basic self-virtues such as hope, will, purpose, and competency. For example, multiple encounters

with failure often ensue in feelings of self-doubt and beliefs of inferiority. Long-term effects of

incompetence include a resistance to experiences that once resulted in failure, and engagement in

behaviors that sabotage chances of success, to provide an excuse for failure (Martin, 2012).

Children’s early experiences, then, are important for setting the foundation for their evolving

identities (Erikson, 1994; Hill et al., 2013).

As a person ages, the understanding of self in the context of society evolves to also

include how others perceive their appearance and actions (Holdsworth & Morgan, 2007). During

the adolescent years, beginning around age ten, children develop a greater awareness of “social

processes and social hierarchies, where students’ categorization of themselves and others

becomes more complex” (Hill et al., 2017, p. 104). Children begin to construct their sense of

self, as they relate to the people and the world around them (Head, 1985). Their social circles

become more developed and influential. Friends play a more critical role in supporting

individuals’ self-efficacy, feelings of belonging, and well-being. Through the foundation of

relationships, social norms like how to dress and act are acknowledged, and personal images

begin to take shape (Barber et al., 2005).

As a part of understanding oneself, children in early adolescence begin to nurture unique

interests and develop an idea of potential career paths (Tai et al., 2006). Adolescence is a critical

time in which children are constructing the idea of self and begin to play around with a variety of

8

‘possible selves’ (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Packard & Nguyen, 2003), one of which is a possible

science self.

Developing Science Orientations

A science identity can be defined as the degree to “which people become inspired by

science...to the point of personal relevance, ownership, and integration into the sense of self”

(Center for STEM Learning, 2016). Or more simply put, how much does one identify as a

science person or not, “is science me?” (Aschbacher et al., 2010), both in their opinion and in

their understandings of how others perceive them. Carlone and Johnson (2007) present a model

for understanding science identity, which consists of three dimensions: (a) competence:

knowledge and understanding of science; (b) performance: social performance of relevant

scientific practices; and (c) recognition: being recognized by others and oneself as a science

person. In their model, Carlone and Johnson (2007) also point out that science identity is

influenced by an individual’s intersecting identities related to race, gender, and ethnicity. Other

scholars elaborate on the social and historical contexts of science identity development (Bell et

al., 2013; Varelas et al., 2013), which are further discussed below.

Kane (2012) points out the importance of understanding children’s science identities

when they are young. “We need to be concerned with the possible science selves children

construct in their early years of schooling because these identities will support their continued

interest in, and motivation for, learning science” (Kane, 2012, p. 28). Attitudes such as interest

and motivation contribute to developing individual science identities (Tytler, 2014; Pintrich et

al., 1993). Interest and motivation to learn have been treated as precursors to developing an

identity related to the domain of interest (Bell et al, 2013; Tytler, 2014). An individual who has

9

an interest in science will seek out ways to understand or participate in the scientific field and

experience greater engagement in learning science.

Bandura’s (1997) idea of self-efficacy, an individual’s belief in their capacity and

abilities to do or know something, can influence interest and motivation. That is to say, if

someone believes they can accomplish something, they are more likely to attempt it than

someone who does not believe in themselves. Self-efficacy, as related to science, has been used

to understand how students develop their science identities (Aschbacher et al., 2010).

Self-efficacy, interest, and motivation for students can be influenced by environmental

factors, such as the learning space and behavior surrounding them (Pekrun et al., 2002). Settings

that engage students in active science learning, over extended periods, and demonstrate the value

of science learning can enhance science-related interests and motivation (Eccles, 2009; Lyons,

2006; Tytler, 2014). That said, many students’ engagement with science lacks relevancy and

opportunities for practice, as their science learning is primarily based in school contexts, which

has resulted in declining interests in the sciences. This may be why a decline in children’s

interest in science can be noticed as early as first grade (Murphy & Beggs, 2003; Pell & Jarvis,

2001). Additionally, “by age 14, for most students, interest in pursuing further science studies is

largely determined” (Tytler, 2014, p. 91). In 2006, a survey by the Royal Society revealed that

over 60 percent of about 1,000 professionals in the field of science, technology, and engineering

showed interest in a career related to STEM by the age of 14.

As some adolescent students are shifting towards potential STEM careers, others are

continuing to experience declines in interest in the sciences (Blue & Gann, 2008; Scantlebury,

2014; Simpson & Oliver, 1990; Sorge, 2007). As students lose interest in science, the likelihood

of them developing values and a solid understanding of the nature of science also wanes. This is

10

important to understand, as scientific values and understandings set the foundation for the

development of critical skills and attitudes responsible for innovation, learning, and developed

science identities (Worth, 2010).

Science Orientations for Youth of Color

The science identity construct has been particularly powerful for interpreting the

challenges experienced by students of color, such as indigenous students, and ethnically and

racially diverse groups, having to tackle oppressive conceptions of science (Tytler, 2014).

Varelas and colleagues (2013) elaborate on identity development for students of color. They

point out that we must both discuss actual identities, as well as expected identities:

Actual identities are based on who people believe themselves to be at any particular moment, and how they perform their selves. Designated identities are based on what people expect to be the case, if not now, then in the future. Designated identities have the potential of becoming part of people’s actual identities, and they express wish, commitment, obligation, or necessity. People may expect to ‘become’ a certain kind of person perceiving this becoming as good for them. (p. 6)

Therefore, for adolescent students of color, engaging with science often requires an

identity shift (Aikenhead, 2006). Youth of color in science may experience internal conflict, as

they navigate science experiences and spaces. For example, McKinley (2005) explained how

Maori women scientists struggled to align and find harmony between diverging perceptions of

themselves. Ong et al. (2011) suggest that the Maori women were experiencing ‘splintered’

identities, as they tried to negotiate different versions of themselves - Maori, women, scientists -

that have historically been viewed as counter to one another. Cohen et al. (2006) refer to these

counterstories as examples of ‘stereotype threat,” meaning “that for individuals who are

members of a group who commonly are perceived to fail at science...what inhibits students’

performance is when the individual internalizes the stereotype judgement” (Tytler, 2014, p. 96).

Archer et al. (2010) would support this idea by suggesting that “a sense of self is constructed as

11

much through a sense of what/who one is not, as much as through the sense of who/what one is”

(p. 619).

The traditional image of a person in science narrowly reflects a geeky, White, older, male

(Chambers, 1983; Mead & Metraux, 1975). Any child who does not associate with those

characteristics is more likely to view someone in the sciences as ‘other,’ and will feel less

capable or inclined to develop a science identity or aspire to be in the sciences (DeWitt et al.,

2013; Tan et al., 2013). A child’s science identity, therefore, cannot be extracted from other

personal schemas or social interactions. Specifically, science orientations must also be

considered in connection with other intersections (i.e., gender, race, ethnicity, etc.) (DeWitt et

al., 2013; Lee & Luykx, 2007; Mensah, 2016; Mensah, 2019; Moore, 2008).

The science field is particularly truculent towards Black and Brown students (Hanson,

2009), as science has served as a foundation for constructing ideologies associated with race

(Parsons, 2014).

Scientific work conducted over centuries sought a genetic basis for the construct of race to support its veracity as an evidence-based, objective measure to separate human beings into identifiable groups. (Parsons, 2014, p. 170)

While major biological differences between human beings from different demographics

proved to be untrue, the social implications of racism have pervaded (Zamudio et al., 2010). This

is particularly true For Black and Brown women, as they experience both racism and sexism

Tytler, 2014). Carlone and Johnson (2007) found that the racial tendencies in sciences cause

Black women to feel alienated and struggle to fit in, which disrupts aspirations and identity

development.

The pervasive biases in science have tremendous implications for an individuals’ career

trajectories. This is reflected in the demographics of the STEM workforce, as African American

12

and Hispanic individuals make up less than nine percent of the science and engineering

professions in the country (National Science Board, 2015). This is a disturbing number,

especially as we live in an increasingly diverse nation (The Brookings Institution, 2018) where

diversity of ideas, perspectives, and backgrounds contributes to greater innovation, creativity,

and productive workforces (Daily & Eugene, 2013).

Spaces and Places for Science Engagement

The nature of science orientation development is a product of social and cultural

experiences (Lave & Wenger, 1991), which can occur within a variety of contexts. I consider a

single setting as both a place and space. The place representing the actual physical location; a

school or museum building, for example. Space symbolizes the psychological effects a place

might have on an individual (Oliver, 2004); the way someone feels in a given place, for example.

I utilize both place and space to argue that the “psyche does not exist apart from social

relationships and cultural influences” (Oliver, 2004, p. xiii). The places and spaces of home,

school, or outside of school (like a museum setting) engage children differently and act as

shapers of students’ “identities and their perceptions of their study capabilities, career options,

and expected success” (Tytler, 2014, p. 97). Understanding the pedagogical nature of learning in

a variety of places (Gruenewald, 2003) can support educators in enhancing the emotional

attachments and meanings developed by students in a given place (Semken & Freeman, 2007).

Place-based education intentionally leverages the sense of place and has been shown to

enhance student engagement and retention (Semken & Freeman, 2007). In science, this is

particularly important to consider, as places associated with the pursuit of scientific knowledge

are not neutral settings (Bell et al, 2015; Rodman, 1992; Zumudio et al., 2010). For instance,

Semken and Freeman (2007) stated:

13

Conscientious, effective place-based science teaching must be informed not only by the sound scientific knowledge of the places of study…but also by a respectful if not mutual understanding of the diverse meanings and attachments affixed to these places. These meanings and attachments provide context for the scientific knowledge, and enrichment of the senses of place of students… (p. 1044)

Engagement in school, home, or museum contexts can take multiple forms. For this

paper, I understand engagement as personal and social interactions (Archer et al., 2016).

Personal interactions attend to the energy one expends in a given situation and the affective state

(attitudes, beliefs, and values) related to the context. Social interactions concern how an

individual communicates with others, both verbally, physically, and psychologically.

Science Engagement at School

Although education is experiencing a national shift towards nurturing students’ science

content and practices (National Research Council, 2012), many schools continue to dedicate less

time to science learning, and more to subjects that school personnel are held accountable for -

reading, writing, and mathematics (Berg & Mensah, 2014; Leider & Academy, 2017). By virtue,

there is less advocacy within schools and communities to integrate science into the curriculum

(Mensah, 2010; Tanenbaum, 2017; Wolfe, 2017). This is especially true for younger children, as

it is traditionally believed that their thinking is fixed and simplistic (Duschl et al., 2007). This

has been heavily debunked; however, as research suggests students in grades K-8 are much more

capable of engaging in science practices, developing conceptual understandings, and thinking

(abstractly and critically) than previously assumed (Duschl et al., 2007; Levy & Mensah, 2021).

Unfortunately, even in schools that offer science engagement opportunities for children,

many provide access to only academically higher-achieving students (Emdin, 2009). The

devaluing of the science subject, as well as the misconception that youth are unable to participate

14

in science learning, make it challenging for young children to progress through their elementary

and middle school years interested in or identifying with science.

Further, studies have found that students feel school science lacks a sense of purpose, is

overly repetitive, and forces in too much content (Lyons, 2006; Rennie, 2014). Aikenhead and

Ogawa (2007) described school science as marginalizing and single-minded, potentially creating

conflict between students’ science identities and ‘cultural self-identities.’ Constructing a science

identity in school can be difficult for some students who feel disassociated with the practice, as a

function of how science is presented in schools. It becomes increasingly difficult for youth of

color to succeed in school science, as many teachers engage in stereotyping that is underpinned

by pervasive and institutionalized racism (Archer et al., 2015). Gramsci (1971) explains that

through schools, “students ‘breathe in,’ as the saying goes, a whole quantity of notions and

attitudes which facilitate the educational process properly speaking” (p. 172). Stereotyping

and biases that teachers hold result in racial microaggressions, which create hostile environments

for young students of color (Mensah & Jackson, 2018). “These disabling practices permeate

everyday interactions and communicate low expectations, restrict opportunities, or reveal

academic stereotypes, all of which can damage a learner’s view of his or her potential” (Bell

et al., 2013, p. 281). While school science can be disabling and marginalizing, out-of-school

environments can provide opportunities for students to engage in science learning that

contributes to the development of positive science orientations.

Science Engagement Outside of School

The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (2012) and the National Research

Council (2015) advocate for science learning in out-of-school contexts. NSTA (2012) recognizes

a multitude of experiences as out-of-school learning, such as everyday interactions, after-school

15

programming, engagement with media and technology, and experiences in institutions like

museums or zoos. Hooper-Greenhill (2007) explains that out-of-school learning “offers greater

opportunity for creativity and increased motivation” (p. 45) than in-school settings. In fact,

Lyons (2006) found that some students who expressed negative attitudes towards school science

showed interest in science outside of school. Out-of-school science learning had been linked to

increased student interest, aspirations, and self-efficacy in science (Afterschool Alliance, 2016;

Falk & Dierking, 2010; Rennie, 2014).

In a paper commissioned by the Committee on Successful Out-of-School STEM learning

(Chi et al., 2014), authors compared the goals and outcomes of out-of-school and in-school

programs. Using frameworks from the National Research Council, National Science Foundation,

and the AfterSchool Alliance, it was found that all science learning experiences shared the

following goals: (a) enhance science conceptual understanding, skills, and practices, (b) prepare

students for science-related careers, and (c) increase interest and engagement in science topics,

ideas, and potential careers. While both in-school and out-of-school programs shared overlap in

their goals, in-school programs more heavily emphasized content development, especially

regarding academic achievement. Out-of-school programs, on the other hand, foregrounded

students’ dispositions and values, and addressed the development of a science identity (Chi et al.,

2014; Rennie, 2014).

Out-of-school science learning spaces are uniquely positioned, over schools, to

emphasize student values and identity development because they can promote science learning

and engagement through the reworking and refiguring of science in ways that are more relevant

and equitable (Falk & Dierking, 2010). This is important to understand, as students who only

engage with science in school, typically do not want to be perceived as science people or do not

16

feel they are capable of doing science (Zimmerman, 2012). This makes out-of-school settings,

like home and museums, appropriate locations to explore how students develop identities and

orientations towards science.

Science Engagement at Home

Familial structures and dynamics have been shown to influence how children engage with

science. Parents are ‘untapped resources’ (Harackiewicz et al., 2012) meaning they can play a

critical role in molding children’s attitudes, choices, interests, and identities as they relate to

science (Sjaastad, 2002). Family members who value and promote science learning can be

hugely encouraging to youth attempting to make decisions related to science and understand

their association with the subject (Lyons, 2006). A family’s socio-economic status has also been

argued as determinants of students’ science perceptions of themselves (Parsons, 2014). While

Adamuti-trache and Andre (2008) have suggested that families with higher statuses influence

their children more greatly than other families, Tyler (2017) urges against making such

assumptions, as the status may not function as a direct effect.

Family members in the field of science may also serve as role models. Role models can

also exist in the classroom, among friends, and in the media. Role models in science play a large

part in influencing children’s ideas about whether or not they are a science person (Steinke,

2013). DeWitt et al. (2013) explain that youth who see people who look like them in science

fields are more likely to view themselves as science people.

Science Engagement in Museums

Science museums, in particular, have served as settings for understanding science

learning outside of school. While the learning value of museum visits has been doubted, if

properly executed, museums can function as significant locations for science learning (Rennie,

17

2014). The nature of a museum experience depends on the length of a visit, social interactions,

and individual motivation. Museums, however, offer opportunities for visitors to engage in

conversations, refer to and connect with their own experiences, and build their narratives, all of

which facilitate learning (Rennie, 2014).

The majority of research on science learning in museums has been focused on the

voluntary museum visitor experience or class trips (Rennie, 2014). Less understood are programs

offered by museums that are longer-term and typically have a curricular goal (Chi et al., 2014).

Long-term experiences engage an unchanging group of participants over some time and include

opportunities like afterschool and weekend programs, camps, research experiences, and docent

programs (Chi et al., 2014). Nevertheless, both short-term and long-term museum experiences

can offer similar outcomes. For example, Eilean Hooper-Greenhill (2007) reports on generic

learning outcomes (GLOs) for cultural institutions. The GLOs are broken into five categories, all

of which should be developed throughout a museum experience: (a) knowledge and

understanding, (b) skills, (c) attitudes and values, (d) inspiration, enjoyment, and creativity, and

(d) activity behavior and progression.

Such outcomes have been identified in some evaluations of museum science

programming. The Science Minors Club, for example, is an outreach program located at the

Museum of Science and Industry. The Museum partners with community-based organizations

and schools to engage students in STEM projects. After participating in the program, it was

found that over 85 percent of participants indicated that they enjoy science and are interested in

doing more science (Afterschool Alliance, 2016). Another example is the EVOLUTIONS

afterschool program at the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History. This program is developed

for students aged 14-18 and engages students in scientific research. Upon completion, the

18

majority of students expressed enhanced communication, collaboration, and writing skills. They

also reported an increase in science literacy and improved research capabilities (Afterschool

Alliance, 2016). At the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, studies on

students’ experiences in long-term museum programming revealed enhanced STEM interest,

motivation, persistence, and agency (Adams & Gupta, 2013; Adams et al., 2014; Habig et al.,

2020).

To achieve the general learning outcomes, the National Research Council (2015) suggests

three categories that encompass good museum education models. They suggest that “productive

programs engage young people intellectually, socially and emotionally...respond to young

people’s interests, experiences, and cultural practices…[and] connect [science] learning in out-

of-school, school, home, and other settings” (p. 15). Students, especially those from typically

oppressed groups, can benefit from science engagement that promotes youth agency, leverages

students’ current values, and challenges structural inequities (Archer, et al., 2016).

When youth participate in well-designed out-of-school programming, they become

immersed in the process of science meaning-making and come to understand science as a

valuable contribution to their lives (Adams et al., 2014). Museum educators with an

understanding of effective pedagogies can effectively design programming and transform

learning experiences for students. Less common in school settings, museum educators can

implement a play-based pedagogy. “What distinguishes play from other educational activities is

that children have the freedom and autonomy to make choices based on their personal needs and

interests” (Wood, 2008, p. 167). While typically reserved for early childhood, play can support

learning through adulthood (Johnston et al., 2011; Rieber et al., 1998). Play both engages

learners in higher-order thinking and activates personal commitment, interest, and motivation

19

(Rieber et al., 1998). Implementing play-based pedagogy can be difficult in schools because of

the open-ended nature, which teachers have associated with chaos and discomfort (Wood, 2008).

Because of the flexibility in museum curricula, educators can facilitate play, while also building

“a collegial pedagogy by creating a context in which adult experts and young people are

mutually dependent on each other’s skills and perspectives” (National Research Council, 2015,

p. 24). Play and collegial pedagogy in museum settings lend themselves to the development of

relationships between educators and students that render positive mindsets and aspirations for

young learners.

Science Museums: Reminders of Power and Privilege

While science learning in out-of-school settings, like museums, has been praised, there

also exist barriers presented by how social inequalities are patterned and reproduced by science

museums (Archer, 2017). Birthed as an instrument to inform the American people through

access to objects (Adams, 2007), American science museums have been celebrated for their

missions of discovery, interpretation, and dissemination of knowledge about human life, the

natural world, and the cosmos. By virtue, science museums have come into a position of power,

where they represent a “culturally specific way of seeing the world” (p. 401). Jennings and

Jones-Rizzi (2017) explain that, at best, museums truly are reflective of the happenings in the

world. At worst, museums are “reminders of power and privilege, tangible just moments after

stepping into the lobby” (Jennings & Jones-Rizzi, 2017, p. 65). Displays and objects become

superficial materials for individuals in power to project their own significance (Graves-Brown,

2000), and “to teach visitors about past and present civilization and empire, and about their place

within that order” (Willinsky, 1998, p. 63).

20

Science museums are vehicles for classification, often aspiring to represent the universe

by designing hierarchical categorizations that provide glimpses, as interpreted typically by a

White, masculine point of view (Levin, 2002), into places and spaces unknown to the viewer.

Science museums represent a “place of White perspectives and White privilege” (Jennings &

Jones-Rizzi, 2017, p. 70), as the fields of science and museums are hegemonized by White

leadership. Harris (1995) might consider this under the guise of Whiteness as property, which

“encapsulates the power of certain groups to define reality, to enjoy the nonmaterial and material

effects of this definition, to impose this definition of reality on others, and to exclude others on

the basis of this definition” (Parsons, 2014, p. 181). Educational practices, therefore, that

“restrict or deny access for students of color,...can be analyzed through the lens of Whiteness as

property” (Mensah & Jackson, 2018, p. 8).

The phrase science as White property, identified by Mensah and Jackson (2018),

encapsulates the idea that science is a hegemonized field, excluding students of color from

access and perpetuating Western ideologies. As an extension, science museums can be

considered White property. This may be largely since science museums “work within systems

that have [been] inherited but have not necessarily dismantled and disowned” (Jennings & Jones-

Rizzi, 2017, p. 70). These systems send hidden messages about who museum spaces are for and

whose science is represented (Archer, 2017). Such messages affect an individual’s desire and

ability to feel fully included (Abu El-Haj, 2015; Jennings & Jones-Rizzi, 2017), and can interrupt

any potential opportunities for the individual to identify with the museum, and even with science

(Carlone & Johnson, 2007). This is reflected in the demographics of science museum visitor

profiles, as less than 35% of visitors to science museums identify as members of ethnically and

racially diverse groups (Bell et al., 2009; Reach Advisors, 2010). The way in which science

21

museums are designed, therefore, typically creates heterotopias (Kahn, 1995) for The Museum

visitor to enter the space and place of ‘the other’ (Jaffe-Walter, 2013). Confirmations of Western

subjectivity (Clifford, 1985) envelope museum dioramas and cases, and produce benchmarks for

which society should be measured (Kincheloe, 2001).

The messages science museums send are not going unnoticed. There are practices that

science museums can adapt to take strides towards equality and inclusion. Fillindra et al. (2011)

argue that populations who are being represented and advocated for should be included in

collaborative decision-making efforts. Additionally, a shift in policy statements, representation in

leadership, program offerings, and types of exhibitions can begin to reorient The Museum space

and encourage more diverse participation in museums (Jennings & Jones-Rizzi, 2017).

Cultural institutions, such as museums, have an “obligation to preserve and enforce those

aspects of heritage that are tolerant, compassionate, and respectful of difference, and to work

against, in an open way, traditions of White privilege, racism, inequality, and oppression”

(Jennings & Jones-Rizzi, 2017, p. 64). As Kelly Oliver notes (1958), the anecdote to oppression

and exclusion “is resistance that restores a sense of agency and perhaps even the illusion of

sovereignty and self-possession” (p. 72). In a position of power, science museums are key

players in modeling practices for all individuals to begin to see themselves in science museum

spaces and align with a science identity (Carlone & Johnson, 2007).

The Museum explored in this study works towards this obligation by providing an out-of-

school learning program for youth of color to engage in science learning. During my research, I

considered the historical implications of The Museum and how the program actively worked, or

neglected to work, against the foundational underpinnings of science and The Museum. Critical

22

Race Theory and Cultural Learning Pathways as frameworks helped me to pursue my study from

this perspective.

Theoretical Framework

Critical Race Theory

The nature of law and the processes of legal judgment received critique in the early to

mid-1980s, budding a school of thought, Critical Legal Studies (CLS), that challenged the

immanent social biases in which the law operated (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Law

professors raising critique were concerned with how the law benefited the wealthy and

disadvantaged the poor (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Lynn & Parker, 2006). Emerging from

this analysis came a deeper evaluation of the law, which argued that CLS did not consider more

profoundly the distinct racism permeating the field of legal studies and the effects on people of

color. Derrick Bell, a leading scholar challenging CLS, explained, “we live in a system that

espouses merit, equality, and a level playing field, but exalts those with wealth, power, and

celebrity, however, gained” (2002, p. 8). Bell, along with other legal intellectuals including

Mastuda, Delgado, Harris, and Crenshaw, helped to birth Critical Race Theory and its associated

tenants (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Lynn & Parker, 2006). While Critical Race Theory has

since grown from the 80s, adapted by scholars and other fields of study, certain defining

elements persist.

Critical Race Theory posits that: a) Racism is engrained in and accepted by society.

Racism is taken as normal, acting as the foreground for the development of inequity persisted by

institutions and practices (Delgado et al., 2017; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Lynn & Parker,

2006; Parsons et al., 2011; Zamudio et al., 2010); b) Claims of the existence and attainment of an

equitable and just society are false. Declarations of neutrality, color blindness, and objectivity

23

are adulterated by the continued “exclusionary relations of power” (Lynn & parker, 2006, p.

260), ineffective civil rights efforts, and material determinism (Delgado et al., 2017; Ladson-

Billings & Tate, 1995); c) History matters. “The grand narrative of US history is replete with

tensions and struggles...from the removal of Indians [Native Americans] (and later Japanese

Americans) from the land, to military conquests of the Mexicans, to the construction of Africans

as property…” (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995, p. 53). The current social and institutional

practices are founded on colonial processes of division and exertion of power (Ladson-Billings

& Tate, 1995; Parsons, 2007; Zamudio et al. 2010); and d) The stories of people of color are

essential. Reality is socially constructed and, as such, can be manipulated to the benefit of or the

expense of certain groups. There exists a master narrative by White Americans. The voice of

people of color can play a role in “naming one’s own reality” and changing the stories that are

told (Delgado et al., 2017; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Lynn & Parker, 2006; Zamudio et al.,

2010).

The above four assumptions illuminated by Critical Race Theorists have maintained in

some form throughout the years. It was in the 1990s that CRT was adopted by education to

understand inequities that permeate learning structures (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Lynn &

Parker, 2006).

CRT in Education

Borrowing from both Critical Race Theorists in the law and sociologists of race, Critical Race Studies in education could be defined as a critique of racism as a system of oppression and exploitation that explores the historic and contemporary constructions and manifestations of race in our society... (Lynn & Parker, 2006, p. 282)

In education, CRT has been applied to analyze matters related to testing, affirmative

action, curriculum, multicultural education, tracking, and alternative schools (Delgado et al.,

2017). Since 1990, educational scholars have adapted Critical Race Theory for their work,

24

expanding upon and modifying the foundational assumptions of the movement to suit their

studies. Dixon and Rousseau (2018), however, adjure for the marking of boundaries of CRT in

education. Their concern lies in the notion that Critical Race Theory, if over-manipulated, will

become “a name with no clearly identifiable thing” (p. 129). Therefore, what follows is a review

of seven boundaries set forth by Dixon and Rousseau as overlaid by the thoughts of other critical

theorists. Utilizing these boundaries will help to uphold the focus of Critical Race Theory and

align literature that implements CRT as a framework.

The first boundary in Critical Race Theory in education asserts that a system based on

competitive achievements has contributed to racial inequity in education (Dixon & Rousseau,

2018). Achievement in education is often associated with high marks, ‘good’ behaviors, and

inclusion in programs labeled ‘gifted’ or ‘honor roll.’ Such affiliated elements are most often

enjoyed by White students, who have been privileged with the rights afforded based on race.

Harris (1995) explains this idea further when conceptualizing Whiteness as Property. She

suggests that Whiteness acts as the foundation of racialized privilege, which has been legitimized

by institutional and societal structures. In US education, there are certain rights afforded to White

students strictly because of their race. For example, there is an expectation in American schools

for behaving, dressing, or speaking a certain way, which is typically perceived as “White

norms.” Therefore, those who are not White, namely Black, Brown, Indigenous, and Immigrant

students, must assimilate to those norms or be punished. Further, White students are given the

right to enjoy the educational privileges of being White. Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) explain

that there exists the

…presumption that along with providing educational standards that detail what students should know and be able to do, they must have the material resources that support their learning. Thus, intellectual property must be undergirded by ‘real’ property, that is, science labs, computers and other state-of-the-art technologies, appropriately certified

25

and prepared teachers. (p. 54)

This property offers groups of students the exclusionary opportunity to compete at an advantage,

learn, and achieve.

Secondly, CRT in education critiques how educational policy and practice construct and

perpetuate racism in education (Dixon & Rousseau, 2018). Namely, Brown v. The Board of

Education resulted in what appeared to be a step towards education equity; schools were meant

to be desegregated. Yet currently, behind the written law, what exists is the most desegregated

school system to date (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Students are separated by location and

access to resources, but also by the curriculum implemented. American schooling views the

Western narrative and curriculum as superior (Zamudio et al., 2010).

Nevertheless, critical theorists aim to reject dominant narratives, whether existing in

curriculum or elsewhere (Dixon & Rousseau, 2018). Exemplifying the third boundary, Zamudio

et al. (2010) urges that educational institutions currently operate as disseminators of the

dominant narrative. These institutions, however, are in a unique position to “offer the type of

critical education that equips all students with the tools to effectively interrogate knowledge” (p.

5). It is here we see the great argument for the necessity of counternarratives in education and the

representation of voice from those who are typically oppressed (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002).

Fourthly, Critical Race Theorists in education claim the necessity to closely examine the

historical contexts of racism that have molded current education (Dixon & Rousseau, 2018;

Solorzano & Yosso, 2002). The US story is directed by the divisional processes occurring during

periods of colonization. “Colonial processes divided the world between conquered and colonizer,

master and slave, White and non-White (i.e.., other). It included the development of an ideology,

and a process of spreading that ideology (mostly through education), to justify colonization”

26

(Zamudio et al., 2010, p. 4). Such ideologies have sustained and continue to permeate

educational curricular practices.

While examining education from a historical perspective, critical theorists in education

also consider intersectional analysis as a fifth boundary (Dixon & Rousseau, 2018). It is

impossible to solely evaluate race, as it is interwoven with other identity markers such as gender,

ethnicity, sexuality, and economic status. While race exists as the centrality of analysis, it is

reviewed as influenced by other social factors. This influences the way one perceives and

approaches education, as well as the way someone is perceived by others to approach education

(Solorzano & Yosso, 2002).

Sixthly, Critical Race Theory in education makes a commitment to equity and justice in

education (Dixon & Rousseau, 2018; Solorzano & Yosso, 2002). Zamudio et al. (2011) believed

that:

…CRT is the medicine for education, and as educators, we still have a choice to remedy our schools thereby saving a generation of students from the intellectual numbness that comes from entertaining false assumptions and race in society. (p. 6)

Away should be the days of dominant narratives in education or rights to dispositions given the

colors of one’s skin. Critical theorists aim for education that enlightens students of the

inequitable histories of the country and provides learning remiss of dominant ideologies.

With this, comes one of the more unique, and final, factors related to Critical Race

Theory in education. Critical Race Theorists promote themselves not only as passive scholars but

are critical activists, working towards the “elimination of all forms of domination and

oppression” (Parsons, 2014, p. 182). Although sounding optimistic, CRT recognizes the road to

transformation consists of struggle but notes that “all struggle is good struggle” (Zamudio et al.,

2011, p. 7).

27

The boundaries of Critical Race Theory in education do not diverge far from what was

established in the 1980s. However, Critical Scholars in education aim more directly at the

structures within education and desire an action-oriented approach to addressing learning that

perpetuates inequities. While the education field has seen a rise in the adoption of Critical Race

Theory in general, Parsons (2014) asks whether or not science education is ready for CRT.

CRT in Science Education

Science education has tended to step around its contribution to the construct of race, leaving the young to find themselves at the mercy of this powerful concept with little idea of how it has taken on such importance. They are left to imagine that race is, at some level, a natural division among humankind that has given rise, at times, to horrifying historical effects. (Willinsky, 1998, pp. 166-67)

Science education is saturated by a White narrative. Science has served as a tool for

bringing race and racism to life, from biological deficiency models to cultural deficit ideologies

(Solorzano & Yosso, 2002). It is vital, then, that science education adopt a critical lens, using the

boundaries of CRT outlined above, to evaluate the teaching and learning that falls into the

receptacle of false assumption, ineffective civil rights efforts, and colonial histories. Integrating

Critical Race Theory into science education can not only illuminate the voices of students who

are typically silenced, but also support key stakeholders in education to “think more forthrightly

about the kinds of environments that do support the emotional, social as well as the intellectual

development of students of color” (Lynn & Parker, 2006, p.277).

While less commonly applied in studies in science education (Mensah, 2019; Parsons,

2014), in this study, Critical Race Theory is utilized to acknowledge the historical and societal

structures in which students’ stories are grounded. I hope that each child’s narrative provides

tools for individuals to “challenge the policies and practices that privilege the experiences and

the tacit truths of the dominant group” (Zamudio et al., 2011, p. 6).

28

Cultural Learning Pathways

Bell et al. (2013) perceived a dearth in the literature related to education that considered

learning across settings, over time, and relative to cultural value systems. This was viewed as an

issue, as the dimensions of how, where, and why people learn are intimately linked and should

be jointly evaluated (Banks et al., 2007; Bell et al., 2013; Lee, 2008; Lemke, 2000). In response,

Bell et al. (2013) drew from the works of Lave and Wenger (1991) on situated learning, Banks et

al. (2007) on life-long, life-wide, and life-deep learning, and Ole Dreier’s (2009) theory of

persons to outline the Cultural Learning Pathways (CLP) theoretical framework, represented in

Figure 1. The framework is:

intended to provide a more ecological and holistic accounting of how, why and where people learn in relation to constructs of human difference - race, class, disability designation, etc. - as learners circulate across places and associated operating value systems over multiple timescales. (p. 269)

Figure 1

Cultural Learning Pathways Framework (Bell et al., 2013, p. 273)

29

The framework has two main components, intertwined learning outcomes and

constellations of situated events. Beginning on the right side of the model, a progression of

outcomes of a learners’ experience is illustrated. It suggests that learning is sparked by interest or

concerns and takes an individual through experiences of participation and relationship building,

which all ultimately result in developing identity. The outcomes of learning both influence and

are influenced by sociomaterial practices, which are “practices that are dependent not only on

people and their interactions but also on the material feature of their activity” (Bricker & Bell,

2013, p. 261).

Learning Pathways are initiated by an individual’s interests or concerns, which motivate

them to seek out opportunities for relevant participation (Bell et al., 2013). Participation may

take the shape of engaging in related social practices like joining a club or class or exploring

applicable media. Central to a learner’s increased participation in a particular pathway is social

interaction (Bell et al., 2006; Bell et al., 2012). Social relationships expose a learner to

knowledge, practices, and material associated with a particular domain (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

This exposure supports a learner in understanding the sociomaterial aspects of the topic in which

they are interested or concerned. Through coordinated participation and the development of

meaningful relationships, individuals begin to foster related identities:

Deep disciplinary learning involves coming to identify with such pursuits, appropriating the discourses of affiliated communities, seeing value in the related enterprises relative to personal commitments and goals, wanting to contribute to these enterprises, and coming to be recognized as a developing expert in associated domains. (Bell et al., 2013, p. 275)

It is important to note that the process of ‘becoming,’ or coming to identify with a

particular domain, is fluid. While the framework shows a linear progression from interest to

identity, each outcome can trigger another and is closely intertwined with each other. For

example, as an individual develops social relationships, their interests may increase. The

30

intertwined learning outcomes are visualized through the scopes of possibility, which are opened

or impeded by constellations of situated events.

Constellations of situated events, depicted on the left side of the figure, occur over

periods of time and across varying contexts (Bell et al., 2013). Each constellation is composed of

three pillars, which impact the scopes of possibility for a learner: actions, positions, and

places. Through a learner’s actions, they can express particular stances related to a domain. They

might express commitments, struggles, or budding identities, and utilize discursive repertoires or

ways of talking to demonstrate their stances. Stances inform and are informed by the positions

related to the context of the situation. Positions are associated with storylines related to socially

constructed ‘kinds of persons.’ (Bell et al., 2013, p. 275). The way an individual is positioned

influences how others might perceive them and how they begin to perceive themselves. Their

ability, responsibilities, and titles take shape with regard to their positioning. The assumed

positions can be supportive or restrictive, depending on the individual. Historical issues related

to race, class, gender, and ethnicity are married to socially constructed storylines and dominate

storylines for particular individuals.

A learner is assuming positions and taking actions within particular places. In the CLP

framework, places are viewed from a sociomaterial perspective. That is, the structure of a place

and the materials utilized within it carry messages about who can take what actions and

positions. A place, therefore, has “the power to invite or prohibit opportunities for action, and

therefore the power to position actors within places as having certain rights and duties” (Bell et

al., 2013, p. 276).

A learner’s actions and positions, and the place in which the learning occurs, manages the

scopes of possibilities. Access to resources, opportunities, and social relationships are afforded

31

or constrained by the constellations of situated events. The constellations then influence, and are

influenced by, the learning outcomes. With greater scopes of possibilities, there are more

opportunities for an individual to identify with particular domains. The more limited the scopes

of possibility, the more challenging it is for a learner to explore their interests and concerns.

Application of Cultural Learning Pathways

Cultural Learning Pathways has been applied to studies that explore youth learning across

multiple domains such as debate and gaming (Bell et al, 2013). The CLP framework is

particularly powerful when considering the exploration of the science domain. The field of

science is heavily influenced by social and historical contexts (Jennings & Jones-Riizi, 2017),

which has infiltrated the storylines (positions), places, and sociomaterial practices associated

with the domain (Bricker & Bell, 2014). Further, science and science institutions “tend to make

stylized use of specific materials in specific places imbued with political, epistemic, and social

power” (Bell et al., 2013). This suggests that the scopes of possibilities for students who do not

typically align with the dominant narrative will be more limited than those who do.

Cultural Learning Pathways provides a holistic and critical perspective for my work.

Rather than solely analyzing the affordances or constraints of The Museum context, I took into

consideration all places the students might experience science education (life-wide learning). I

also grounded my studies in historical contexts; I acknowledged the cultural storylines that are

perpetuated through society and influence practices, places, and positions of an individual, and

by virtue, their learning outcomes (life-deep learning). Further, I sought to understand the

progression and development of a learning experience, viewing learning as an endeavor achieved

over time (life-long learning).

32

Cultural Learning Pathways and Critical Race Theory

Cultural Learning Pathways provides a lens for the processes of science learning and the

ways opportunities are afforded or constrained for particular learners. While Cultural Learning

Pathways accounts for the impact of historical, social, and cultural contexts, it does not define

what those influences are nor the degree to which they are influential. To compensate for the

ambiguity in Cultural Learning Pathways, Critical Race Theory, provides a “critique of racism as

a system of oppression” (Lynn & Parker, 2006, p. 282). The seven boundaries of CRT in

education, set forth by Dixon and Rousseau (2018), establish a clear foundation for how racism

is pervasive in society and may infiltrate the learning pathways of learners.

By applying both Cultural Learning Pathways and Critical Race Theory in my study, I

was able to conceptualize students’ science learning across time, space, and person. With CLP

and CRT as guiding frameworks, the students’ stories highlight how science learning can be

powerfully motivating at times, or deteriorating at others, and provide framing for how science

experiences for youth can be restyled to support all students in positively identifying with

science and science spaces.

33

Chapter III

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to explore the science learning experiences and science

orientations of 6th-grade students of color who have engaged in science learning in museum

spaces. To pursue this inquiry, the following research questions were asked, with Critical Race

Theory and Cultural Learning Pathways as acting frameworks:

1. What stories do 6th-grade students of color, who graduated from a museum science program,



2. What orientations towards science do 6th-grade students of color, who graduated from a



b. What science-related attitudes, beliefs, and values do the students hold?



This chapter provides a detailed account of the methods and research design implemented

to answer the above questions. First, the methodological approach is described, followed by a

description of the setting and participants. The data collection and analysis methods are

presented next. Afterward, the elements of validity and a review of ethical considerations

associated with the study are presented. Concluding this chapter is a description of the

limitations.

34

Qualitative Research

The emergence of qualitative research dates back to the late 1700s. Rather than

emphasize empirical objectivity and mathematical certainty, Immanuel Kant (1787) suggested

the mind plays a pivotal role in sculpting human perception and interpretations of the natural

world (Taylor, 2014). This idea laid the foundation for qualitative inquiry, wherein the researcher

aims to understand “the meanings people have constructed; that is, how people make sense of

their world and the experience they have in the world” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 15). To

achieve this, qualitative researchers explore the behaviors, perspectives, emotions, and

experiences of individuals (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Qualitative research may be implemented in a variety of settings, but typically maintains

defining attributes. The design of qualitative research is holistic in nature; it is both conducted

and situated within the natural context of the participants (Cresswell & Poth, 2018; Litchman,

2012). Additionally, participants are provided with multiple opportunities to describe their

perspectives and meanings through a variety of data collection strategies, such as interviews,

conversations, photographs, and artifacts. Throughout qualitative inquiry, the research approach

evolves. There is no single way of doing something in qualitative research, so the study follows a

nonlinear, dynamic, and emergent process guided by both the researcher and participants. The

role of the researcher in qualitative research is a unique mainspring. Qualitative researchers

apply complex reasoning, moving between inductive and deductive interpretations, to surface

participant meanings. This results in a profound connection between the researcher, the data, and

the participants. With this in mind, the qualitative researcher must be reflective of their

background influences and write thick descriptions of research findings to ensure the

participant's voice is in the foreground (Cresswell & Poth, 2018; Litchman, 2012).

35

Understanding the goals of qualitative research and the characteristics that shape the

research design help researchers identify when it would be appropriate to implement qualitative

research. Creswell and Poth (2018) explain that we conduct qualitative research

because we need a complex, detailed understanding of the issues. This detail can only be established by talking directly with people...we conduct qualitative research when we want to empower individuals to share their stories, hear their voices, and minimize the power relationships that often exist between a researcher and participants in a study. (p. 45)

The defining characteristics of and the use cases for qualitative research align well with the

purpose of this study. Qualitative research provided me with the opportunity to empower young

learners, to hear stories in detail, and to develop understandings of how young students of color,

who engaged in museum science learning, talk about and associate with science.

Narrative Inquiry

Qualitative research can take shape in a variety of ways. Familiar approaches to

qualitative studies include phenomenology, case study, ethnography, narrative, and grounded

theory, among others (Creswell & Poth, 2018). This study adopted narrative inquiry, which “is

an approach to the study of human lives conceived as a way of honoring lived experience as a

source of important knowledge and experience” (Clandidnin, 2013, p. 17). The focus of narrative

research explores individuals’ perspectives and experiences within larger narratives, inclusive of

the social, cultural, familiar, linguistic, and institutional stories that shape a single moment,

thought, or experience (Clandnin, 2013). Narrative inquiry provides a holistic view of the ideas

of who am I and supported my understanding of how students consider the questions-- who am I

and who have I been, in relationship to science.

A leading conceptual framework of narrative inquiry is the attention to three

commonplaces: temporality, sociality, and place (Clandinin, 2013). Temporality considers both

36

the past, present, and future of people, which helped me to understand where students currently

were, what process led them there, and where they would like to be. Sociality requires a look at

both personal, and social conditions. Personal conditions attend to feelings, hopes, and desires,

‘I’m good at science or I’m not good at science.’ Social conditions highlight the embeddedness

of an individual's experiences socially, culturally, linguistically, or institutionally, ‘Science is

valued in my family.’ Finally, the place considers the more concrete geographical boundaries of

where events take place, ‘The Museum.’ The three commonplaces are in alignment with

“cultural and cognitive dimensions of learning and development” (Bell et al., 2012, p. 272)

represented in the Cultural Learning Pathways Framework.

From a Critical Race Theory perspective, my research considered the science museum as

a place that is embedded in historical structures founded on race and racism. The role of the

science museum on the science learning of young students of color is of consideration

throughout the study. Narrative inquiry allowed me to emphasize the students’ stories. Their

stories “center the experiences of people of color and bring to light a reality that is often

obfuscated in stories narrated by Whites” (Parsons et al., 2011, p. 953). Their stories become

effective tools “in making visible the structures, processes, and practices that contribute to racial

inequality” (Zamudio et al., 2011, p. 5).

Setting

As of May 2017, a New York City Natural History Museum listed on its website an

institutional mission statement, which reads, “to discover, interpret, and disseminate - through

scientific research and education - knowledge about human cultures, the natural world, and the

universe” (The Museum for this study). Since its establishment in 1869, The Museum has

advanced its worldly mission through an extensive programming of research, education,

37

exhibitions, and more. Nestled within these scientific contributions and housed at The Museum

is a science enrichment program for children, as early as three years old, and their families that

fosters respect for the natural world and a lifelong interest in science. The program design is

based on the idea that science is a “particularly important domain in early childhood, serving not

only to build a basis for future scientific understanding but also to build important skills and

attitudes for learning” (Worth, 2010, para. 2). The Museum and Science Investigators Program

(MSIP, pseudonym) acts as the setting for this narrative study. There are several offerings for

children at The Museum; however, the MSIP is the only program that engages elementary aged

children in long-term programming. The goals of The Museum and Science Investigators

Program follow those laid out by the Committee on Successful Out-of-School STEM learning

(Chi et al., 2014): (a) Enhance science conceptual understanding, skills, and practices, (b)

Prepare students for science-related careers, and (c) Increase interest and engagement in science

topics, ideas, and potential careers.

Children join the program as early as age three and progress through the years until fifth

grade. The participation of a significant adult is key to the MSIP. Adults engage in the classes as

learners along with their children. They also facilitate scientific discussions and engage their

child(ren) in scientific practices, with guidance from the Museum educators. During the early

years, children are accompanied by a significant adult in their lives (parent, grandparent, aunt,

uncle). By third grade, students begin to attend the program independently, with their adult

joining sessions intermittently. Classes for the program meet weekly during the academic school

year for 90 minutes. The program exposes families to a variety of science concepts and engages

students in science practices. Class designs are informed by the Next Generation Science

Standards (2013) and the science represented in Museum halls and exhibitions. Science

38

disciplines explored throughout the years include earth sciences, biology, anthropology,

archaeology, astronomy, and museology.

The classes typically included the following five components, with an emphasis on

opportunities to engage in science practices: (a) Free exploration: classroom tables are arranged

to begin engaging the students in exploration and play. Books, specimens, manipulatives, and

scientific tools, associated with the scientific topic for the class, are available to the families; (b)

Class meeting: the initial class meeting begins by provoking students’ previous knowledge and

experiences as they relate to the topic. Driving questions are presented and used as a catalyst for

the rest of the class; (c) Hall visit: the class visits a Museum hall or exhibit that develops the

students’ understanding of the science idea. The Museum teachers engage families in

conversation in front of dioramas or provide a guiding activity for science learning; (d) Science

related activity: back in the classroom, students participate in a science-related activity such as

experimenting, building models, or playing games; (e) Closing meeting: Families review the idea

and answer the driving question by presenting evidence collected throughout the class.

The class structure remains relatively the same over the eight years, but the science ideas

and activities became more complex. The following Table 1 provides an overview of the science

ideas reviewed each year.

39

Table 1

Museum Science and Investigators Program Science Ideas

Year Science Ideas

Pre-K 1 • Organisms have varying external structures that function to support survival.

• The Earth, moon, and stars follow certain patterns that can be observed.

Pre-K 2 • There are many different kinds of living things and they exist in different places around the world.

• Interdependent relationships exist between organisms within ecosystems.

Kindergarten • Weather patterns can be observed and determine an area’s climate.

• Organisms develop adaptations to survive in a variety of ecosystems.

First Grade • In any given habitat, some organisms can survive better than others.

• Human decisions influence the natural world.

Second Grade • Organisms have varying internal and external structures that function to support survival.

• Patterns of the Earth, moon, stars, and other planets can be observed.

Third Grade • The Earth’s feature shows varying patterns and reveals information about changing landscapes over time.

• When a habitat changes, the organisms living there may also change.

Fourth Grade • There are unique climates for the different regions of the world. • Different regions of the world are subject to environmental

challenges such as invasive species, pollution, and habitat degradation.

• Humans can make personal decisions to protect the Earth’s resources and environment.

Fifth Grade • Organisms have evolved over time. • Humans can design solutions to conserve the Earth’s resources

and environment.

40

The Museum and Science Investigators Program see nearly 600 students throughout the

year, hosting multiple classes of each grade level. There are two paths in which students can

enroll in the program. The first is through parent application and family interviews. Because

there is little attrition throughout the eight years of the program, the majority of the students

enter the program during the first year, at about three years old. All students who are admitted

through the interview process pay full or part program tuition, dependent on financial need.

Students enrolled in this manner participate in classes with other students from a variety of

neighborhoods and schools from the first year in the program to their last.

The second way students enter the program is through a partnership the MSIP has with a

local community-based organization, The Brown Friends School (BFS, pseudonym). The Brown

Friends School is a New York Department of Education Head Start (pre-kindergarten), which is

a part of a larger organization supporting the community of the Upper West Side in New York

City. The Head Start program works within a social justice framework aiming to provide all

people the opportunity to lead equitable and just lives. Part of enacting this framework is the

partnership between Brown Friends and The Museum and Science Investigators Program. A

main objective of the partnership is to open pathways into science for Black and Brown children,

with the hope of supporting a more diverse and equitable field. Teachers in the MSIP practice

culturally relevant teaching, “a pedagogy that empowers students intellectually, socially,

emotionally, and politically by using cultural references to impart knowledge, skills, and

attitudes” (Ladson-Billings, 1996, p. 20). The cultural references include the integration of role

models who share similar cultural backgrounds as the students, utilizing students’ first language

in class, and examining multiple science ideas from around the world (Ladson-Billings, 1996).

41

When students enter the Brown Friends school, at age three, they are also enrolled in the

MSIP. Enrollment is optional by the families, but typically 100 percent of families opt-in.

Families entering the MSIP through the Brown Friends partnership are given a full scholarship

for the entirety of their time in the program. For the first two years in the program, students

attend The Museum with their classmates, family members, and school teachers. Once students

graduate from the Brown Friends School and enter Kindergarten, the MSIP no longer partners

with the students’ teachers. The students do, however, continue to learn in the MSIP alongside

their family members and classmates from the Brown Friends School. The Brown Friends

cohorts remain together until third grade. While the nature of the class structure is different

between the two paths, the science concepts and ideas explored are the same. In the third grade,

students from both paths merge and are intermingled in classes. Family members no longer join

their children, except for a few special classes. Students at this age are meant to work more

collaboratively with other students and develop further as independent learners. The similarities

and differences in path structures are outlined in Table 2 below.

Table 2

Museum Science and Investigators Program Paths

Variables Application & Interview Path Brown Friends Partnership Path

Cost Fully paid or partly paid, subsidized by MSIP provided financial aid

Fully funded by the MSIP

Pre-K Years Attend with family members and students from a variety of schools

Attend with family members, classmates, and school teachers

Kindergarten - Second Grade Years

Attend with family members and students from a variety of schools

Attend with family members and Brown Friends classmates

Third - Fifth Grade Years

Attend with students enrolled in the MSIP, despite the path

Attend with students enrolled in the MSIP, despite the path

Science ideas Same Same

42

Upon completion of The Museum Science Investigators Program, at the end of fifth

grade, students are encouraged to apply to one of two middle school programs offered at The

Museum. The middle school programs are managed by a separate program within the education

department and require an interview to be accepted. Not all students from The MSIP become

enrolled in the middle school programs. The Museum also offers programs, admittance based on

application, for students in high school, college, and graduate school.

Participants

For this study, students who graduated from The Museum and Science Investigators

Program in the Spring of 2019 were asked to participate. The 2019 graduating class consisted of

28 students (15 girls, 13 boys). Of the 28 students, 15 (8 girls, 7 boys) enrolled through the

application and interview path, and 13 (7 girls, 6 boys) enrolled through the Brown Friends

partnership. All students, and their parents, were invited to participate. I had established a

relationship with all the families as a teacher in the MSIP. I taught the graduating students at

varying points throughout their tenure in the program. I was not any of the students’ fifth-grade

teacher; however, the last time I taught some of the graduating class was the academic year of

2017-2018.

In February of 2020, parents or guardians of the graduating class were contacted via

email (Appendix A). I met with families (one child and one parent per family) who expressed

interest in participating to explain the study in detail and review consent, parent permission, and

assent forms. It is important to note that the nature of the study needed to change course due to

the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, discussed further below. Of the families who expressed

interest, three completed the study in its entirety. All student participants began the program

through the Brown Friends Partnership Path and completed all eight years of the program. Table

43

3 provides the pseudonym and self-identified gender, ethnicity, and race of the participants.

Student ages are also provided.

Table 3

Participants’ Self-Identified Demographics

Child Name

Age Child Ethnicity

Child Race

Child Gender

Parent Name

Parent Ethnicity

Parent Race

Parent Gender

Alejandro 11 Nicaraguan Hispanic Male Anita Nicaraguan Hispanic Female

Marco 12 Mexican- American

Hispanic Male Bibiana Mexican Hispanic Female

Vanessa 12 Arab, German, Cuban,

Jamaican

Black Female Maria Arab Black Female

The Impact of Covid-19 on Study

When this study was initially composed, the selection of participants was intended to

follow an alternate route. Eight families responded expressing interest to participate in the study

in February 2020. Four of the families entered the program through the Brown Friends School

path, and the other four through the tuition path. I engaged in conversations related to the study

and shared consent forms. I had planned to ask all families to complete the questionnaires and

storyboards, once consenting to participate. From there, I wanted to purposefully select

participants based upon responses to the questionnaires and storyboards. The data would have

been evaluated for major outliers or consistencies that might reflect problematic, distinguished,

or ordinary experiences (Clandinin, 2013). Based on what surfaced through the initial analysis, I

wanted to narrow the participant selection to two to three students from each pathway to

represent greater experience and demographic diversity. I had envisioned engaging in more

44

comparative analysis by exploring the experiences of students who entered the MSIP through

two different paths.

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, however, five of the eight families withdrew from

the study. The transition to quarantining, working from home, and managing the emotional

trauma related to the pandemic made it challenging for the families to continue. At this point,

three families, all of whom entered the program through the Brown Friends pathway, committed

to remaining in the study. My research questions shifted to understanding the experiences of

students across settings and exploring personal orientations more deeply. Additionally, to be

sensitive to the post-Covid experience for participants’ families, the timelines for collecting data

were extended. While there were unexpected changes to my study due to the pandemic, working

closely with Alejandro, Anita, Marco, Bibiana, Vanessa, and Maria helped me to narrow my

research focus, create rich narratives, and understand more deeply the nature of qualitative

research and my role as a researcher.

Data Collection

While all participants were asked to share their out-of-school science learning experience,

it was expected that other variables are significant in their lives, including their family, friends,

and school worlds (Phelan et al., 1991). Data collection was designed to allow for students to

explore the full scope of their science learning experiences, both related to The Museum and

outside of The Museum.

Clandinin (2013) explains that interviews are the most common method for data

collection in narrative inquiry. Interviews, especially those that are conversational in nature,

allow participants to tell their stories; therefore, interviews were conducted as the major data

source of this study. Questionnaires, with Likert-style and open-ended questions, and storyboards

45

were also collected as additional qualitative data for the study. These data sources were utilized

for triangulation and to develop deeper understandings of the participants’ lives. What follows is

a brief overview of the data collection procedure and detailed descriptions of each of the data

collection sources implemented.

Procedure

In March of 2020, families were provided a storyboard, student questionnaire, and parent

questionnaire to complete at home on their own time. Families were originally asked to return

the documents within two months but were provided two additional months to adjust to the

changing environment due to COVID-19. All families returned their questionnaires and

storyboards by June 2020. I then completed three, 45-minute interviews with the students and

one 30-minute interview with the parents. The first two student interviews and the parent

interview took place during July 2020. The parent interviews were conducted in between the first

and third student interviews. A final interview with each child was completed in November

2020. Interviews were facilitated via Zoom. Parents were welcome to be present or nearby for

the student interviews to promote comfortability and to be cognizant of the students’ home

spaces. All students had their parents within proximity (a nearby room or same room). This was

also the case for the parent interviews. Table 4 outlines the data collection timeline.

Table 4

Data Collection Timeline

March, April, May, June July November Student Questionnaire

Parent Questionnaire

Storyboard

Student Interview (1)

Parent Interview



46

Student Interviews

Interviews can “provide deep, rich, individualized, and contextualized data that are

centrally important to qualitative research” (Ravitch & Carl, 2016, p. 146). The students,

therefore, engaged in three, 45-minute semi-structured interviews with me. The first two

interviews were meant to elicit new information, where the third interview acted as a space for

member-checking and clarification. To control power dynamics (Creswell & Poth, 2018) and

connect to the students’ lives, it was originally requested to have interviews take place in the

participants’ homes. As COVID-19 shut down New York City during the time interviews were

meant to be held, all interviews were conducted and recorded over Zoom. They were scheduled

at a time that was mutually convenient for the families and me. An interview guide was prepared

with questions for me to refer to during each interview (Appendix B). The collection and telling

of stories were a collaborative process between the participants and me, in which we both

learned and changed (Clandinin, 2013).

The interviews aimed to further explore categories included on the questionnaire and

revisit student responses to both the questionnaire and the storyboard. For the study, I used

interviews to (a) develop rich descriptions of students’ science experiences and perspectives, (b)

understand multiple student views, (c) describe processes and experiences of science orientations

and development, (d) develop holistic understandings, (e) learn how individuals interpret science

events in social and cultural contexts, and (f) bridge connections between the participants and

myself (Weiss, 1994).

During the interview process, I maintained the space of being a good listener rather than

an active speaker, ensuring that the students’ points of view were being reflected and their lived

experiences were revealed. Interviews were audio and video recorded and transcribed for later

47

analysis. Students and their parents both consented to the child being recorded during the

interview verbally and in writing via the consent forms. Student interviews were dependent upon

family availability. The first two interviews took place in July 2020. The third was conducted in

November 2020, after engaging in initial data analysis and developing follow-up questions.

Parent Interviews

One parent of each of the child participants engaged in one 30-minute semi-structured

interview embedded after the first student interview, which took place in July 2020. The purpose

of the parent interviews was to provide more contextual grounding, as well as reach relevant

memories that students might not have access to from when they were young (Creswell & Poth,

2018). Parent interviews also helped me to understand the role of the family in the development

of child science orientations. An interview protocol (Appendix C) was referred to as a guide for

parent interviews. Parent interviews were also conducted via Zoom at a mutually convenient

time. They were video and audio recorded for later transcription. Parents consented to the

recording in verbal and written formats.

Student Questionnaire

The three students were asked to complete a researcher-developed questionnaire

consisting of 22 five-point Likert-scale statements and one open-ended question (Appendix D).

The questionnaire included statements that aimed to elicit responses related to students’

orientations towards science. Specifically, the questionnaire was designed to explore research

questions 2 and 3: What orientations towards science do the students hold and how do they

describe their science learning experiences at The Museum compared to school. The Likert-style

questionnaire statements were divided into six categories: (a) personal relevance, (b) social

48

implications, (c) views of science and scientists, (c) personal affect, (d) competence, and (e)

recognition. Examples of questions related to each category can be viewed in Table 5.

Table 5

Examples of Likert-Scale Statements

Category Likert-Scale Question

Personal Relevance The things I learn in science at The Museum are helpful in my everyday life.

Social Implications Science can help make our lives healthier, easier, and more comfortable.

Views of Science and Scientists You can tell a scientist by their appearance.

Personal Affect Science is challenging.

Competence I am good at science.

Recognition My friends think I am good at science.

Categories and questions were designed based on a review of literature relating to

questionnaires constructed for measuring science values, beliefs, and identity (Carlone &

Johnson, 2007; Chetcuti & Kioko, 2012; Cole, 2012; Johnston, 1997; Schreiner & Sjohber,

2004). The open-ended question read, ‘imagine you are working as a scientist and you are free to

do the research, investigations, and/or experiments that you want to do. Write 2-3 sentences

about what you would like to do and why.’ This question was designed to understand the

students’ interests and potential future ambitions.

While a majority of the reviewed literature utilized questionnaire instruments as a

primary tool, the questionnaire in this study served to surface student orientations for use in

developing interview questions and acting as a source of triangulation (Merriam & Grenier,

49

2019). Students were given the months of March, April, May, and June 2020 to complete the

questionnaire at home on their own time.

Parent Questionnaire

Parents were also asked to complete a questionnaire, which consisted of 20 five-point

Likert-scale questions, and one open-ended question (Appendix E). All the questions were

identical to the student questionnaire, except those that were specifically situational. For

example, the student questionnaire asked if the child would like to pursue a job in science,

whereas the parent questionnaire asked if the parent was currently in a career related to science.

The open-ended question was the same. The purpose of the parent questionnaire was to provide

some insight into how closely, or not, the child’s ideas aligned with their parent’s. Parents were

given the months of March, April, May, and June 2020 to complete the questionnaire at home on

their own time.

Storyboard

In addition to the completion of the questionnaire, the families were asked to complete a

storyboard. The storyboard served as a visual timeline of the participants’ experiences with The

Museum and Science Investigators Program. The students were asked to consider their favorite

experiences, times they felt challenged or proud, and new things they have learned. They had the

freedom to use a variety of artistic media, such as drawing and writing, or using photographs or

pictures from magazines. A template (Appendix F) was provided for their use, but they also had

the option to create their own, with the caveat that they include at least one meaningful moment

for each year they attended The Museum and Science Investigators Program. Families worked on

the storyboard over March, April, May, and June 2020 at home on their own time.

50

“Art is uniquely positioned to bring about self-reflexive awareness because it values

preverbal, sensory, embodied, kinesthetic, and imaginary ways of knowing” (Tracy, 2019, p. 70).

The use of a storyboard supported families in beginning to narrate their stories in a manner that

is not restricted by verbal or written communications. Drawings or visual representations have

often been used in research with children. For this study, the storyboard helped students to recall

certain memories from the program and organize their narratives (Hill, 1997). Because children

completed the storyboard with their parents, it was important to consider the possibility that their

ideas were influenced and not completely their ideas (Leonard, 2006). That said, parental

involvement allowed students to reflect on memories unobtainable to them, such as when they

were three years old. Families either mailed or scanned and emailed me their completed

storyboards. They were welcome to choose the method for delivery.

Data Analysis

Creswell and Poth (2018) recommend carrying out the data analysis process within a

general spiral approach. The spiral represents a series of activities and strategies related to data

collection, analysis, and writing. These activities and strategies, rather than following a linear

path, are interwoven - informing one another and occurring simultaneously throughout the

research process. The spiral appeared in my research, for example, as I read interview transcripts

and memoed emerging ideas. These ideas lead to reflections and additional questions that

informed the following interviews. My analysis, data collection, and writing were mutually

advising and occurring fluidly.

“Qualitative analysis entails segmenting and reassembling the data in the light of the

problem statement” (Boeije, 2010, p. 3). One method for doing this in qualitative research is to

implement coding strategies. A code in qualitative inquiry is “a word or short phrase that

51

symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a

portion of a language-based or visual data” (Saldana, 2009, p. 3). Coding behaves as the

connective tissue between the data and its meaning. While coding is not always used for

narrative inquiry, coding in this study acted as a support for surfacing and retelling major

elements of the students’ stories (Saldana, 2009). There exists a diversity of coding strategies;

however, Saldana (2009) recommends choosing an approach that most closely aligns with the

research questions and frameworks at hand. For my study, the elements of coding align closely

with individual orientations, narrative inquiry, Critical Race Theory, and Cultural Learning

Pathways.

My overall approach took both a thematic analysis and literary orientation (Creswell &

Poth, 2018). I was looking, not only for the emergent themes but also for the story the

participants were telling. I explored each family’s stories first individually and then across cases

by creating a profile matrix (Kuckartz, 2014). What follows is a detailed description of the

processes I implemented for data analysis.

Preparing to Code

Before coding, I read through each of my data sources carefully. The process of initial

reading provided a level of familiarity with the contents and began to trigger preliminary analytic

considerations (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2011; Saldana, 2009). To help me reflect and expound upon

the data throughout the analysis process, I engaged in memoing (Miles et al., 2014). My memos

consisted of conversations with myself related to emergent patterns, possible links, contrasting

ideas presenting, and more (Creswell & Poth, 2018). To memo, I followed recommendations of

memoing practices laid out by Creswell and Poth (2018). I began memoing during the initial read

of my data and continued until I completed writing. All my memos were kept in google

52

documents. I organized my memos by the participants and then by the data sources. My memos

were critical to keeping track of and evolve ideas. They also lead me to develop a deeper

understanding of the students’ stories (Janesick, 2011).

First Cycle Coding

After an initial read of each of the data sources, I began first cycle coding in which I

associated segments of data with codes (Tracy, 2019). While a wide range of methods can be

implemented to develop qualitative codes, applying more than one coding method strengthens

the depth and breadth of the findings and enriches the researchers’ meaning-making

(Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). For the first cycle, I used In Vivo Coding, Narrative Coding, and

Open Coding. Below I describe each coding method and how they were applied for the three

types of data sources in this study: interviews, questionnaires, and storyboards.

In Vivo Coding. In Vivo coding is the process of using participants’ words or phrases as

codes (Saldana, 2009). It has also been referred to as ‘verbatim coding,’ as the code is the actual

language present in the data. I chose to use In Vivo coding in the first cycle as a way to

emphasize the students’ perspectives. “The child and adolescent voices are often marginalized,

and coding with their actual words enhances and deepens an adult’s understanding of their

cultures and worldviews” (Saldana, 2009, p. 91). In addition to student voices being silenced,

from a Critical Race perspective, I understand that Black and Brown voices are often oppressed.

By staying very close to the data and utilizing direct words as codes, I was better able to preserve

the stories of young students of color.

Narrative Coding. “Narrative coding incorporates literary terms as codes to discover the

structural properties of participants’ stories” (Saldana, 2009, p. 123). There are multiple ways in

which one can code narratively (Reissman, 2008). Some may take a chronological approach in

53

which they emphasize life-course stages, or an approach focused on analyzing for elements of

plot structure (Creswell & Poth, 2018). I chose to code based on the three commonplaces of

narrative inquiry: temporality, sociality, and place (Clandinin, 2013). When coding for

temporality, I identified past, present, and future elements of the students’ stories. This could

exist on the timescale of their own lives, the lives of others, The Museum, or society, for

example. If the child spoke about the origins of The Museum, I coded this under temporality.

Sociality codes were focused on personal and social aspects. Personal attended to the individual

values, beliefs, and attitudes, while social referred to interactions between the individual and

another living organism (teacher, classmate, animal, or me as the researcher). Finally, the place

code highlighted participant words that were descriptive of a particular setting. For example, the

location, objects within a setting, or ways of access into a setting. These three commonplaces as

codes helped to surface the chronology, events, details, and meanings of each story.

Open Coding. While In Vivo Coding helped me to preserve the participants’ voices and

Narrative Coding highlighted story elements, those coding applications alone can restrict the

ability to achieve a “more conceptual and theoretical level of analysis and insight” (Saldana,

2009, p. 95). For this reason, I also employed Open Coding, which works towards summarizing

the meaning drawn from the data. Open Coding helped me to begin to interpret the concepts

within the contents of the stories being told.

Interviews. All interviews were downloaded from Zoom, transcribed, checked for

accuracy, and uploaded into word documents, where I utilized the commenting feature to code. I

began with line-by-line coding, meaning I assigned each line in my data with a code. Line-by-

line coding helped me to pay close attention to small segments, prompting me to “remain open to

the data and see nuances in it...and identify implicit concerns and explicit statements and refocus

54

later interviews” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 50). During line-by-line coding, I employed the use of both

In Vivo and Open Coding. After line-by-line coding, I reread the transcripts using Narrative

Coding. I did a third read with In Vivo and Open Coding again, to stay close to the data and seek

out any insights I might have missed during the initial reads.

While coding the interviews, I also sought to identify gaps in the data (Charmaz, 2006).

When elements of the story were missing, more elaboration on an idea was needed, or there were

oppositional statements made, I took note to discuss with the participants at later interviews. I

also utilized constant comparative methods as a strategy “to establish analytic distinctions - and

thus make comparisons at each level of analytic work” (Glaser & Straus, 1967, p. 54). This

occurred in multiple layers - within a single transcript, across the transcripts of a single

participant (or case), across all data sources of a single participant, and finally across all cases.

Questionnaires. Student and parent questionnaires consisted of Likert-style questions

and one open-ended question. Likert-style questionnaires are typically reserved for quantitative

analysis; however, I was able to utilize Narrative Coding to dissect the different elements of a

story and how the students associated with them (on a scale of 1 - “strongly disagree” to 5 -

“strongly agree”). In Vivo Coding and Open Coding were not applied to the Likert-style

questions, as the words were researcher created. That said, components of the questionnaire were

discussed with the participants in the interviews (Merriam & Grenier, 2019). What they said

during the questionnaire-related parts of the interview were later analyzed along with the

corresponding interview transcript. The open-ended question was coded line by line (Saldana,

2009) using all three coding strategies-- In Vivo, Narrative, and Open. All questionnaire

responses were input into a Google spreadsheet and coded manually using commenting and

highlighting capabilities, for the first cycle.

55

Storyboards. The storyboards were scanned into word document formats, if they were

mailed by the participants, and coded with highlighting and commenting capabilities. Family

storyboards presented two different formats requiring coding: illustrations (which for this paper

can represent drawings, photographs, magazine cut-outs) and text. The qualitative analysis of

children’s drawings presented some coding challenges. Kuhn (2003) explained features to be

aware of during analysis: a) the talent level of children varies, so the way a child expresses ideas

visually should not be evaluated; b) the illustrations students decide to draw are influenced by

the tools they have available to them at the time of creation; and c) illustrations are comprised of

visual elements, making the presence of meaning more difficult to discern.

It is recommended that when analyzing children’s illustrations qualitatively to develop a

procedure “which delivers clues for the structuring of the material as it proves to be open for

something that appears to be new” (Kuhn, 2003, par. 31). Kuhn analyzes illustrations by

emphasizing both the elements (ex. places, persons) and structural categories (ex. actions,

interactions) present, followed by an interpretive analysis of the drawings. The use of Narrative

Coding and Open Coding for the drawings was in line with this approach, as they both elicit

content and concepts reflected in the data.

In addition to a close review of the illustrations, I also engaged in line-by-line coding of

any text (ex. descriptions, labels) throughout the storyboards, applying all three methods of

coding. Through the analysis of the storyboards, I was able to begin interacting with the

students’ narratives. While initial analysis focused on what the children created, analysis of what

the children said about their storyboards during interviews was coded and interpreted with the

rest of the corresponding transcripts (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Driessnack, 2005).

Second Cycle Coding

56

The second cycle of coding is a “selective phase that uses the most significant or frequent

initial codes to sort, synthesize, integrate, and organize large amounts of data” (Charmaz, 2006,

p. 46). During this cycle, I began to develop fewer and more salient categories by using Axial

and Selective Coding processes. To do this, I pulled all the first cycle codes I created for the data

sources and moved them into OneNote. In OneNote, I was able to move the codes around, as if

they were on a tabletop (Saldana, 2009).

Axial Coding. The goal of Axial Coding “is to strategically reassemble data that were

‘split’ or ‘fractured during the Initial Coding process” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 124). Boeije

(2019) recommends implementing the following steps when employing Axial Coding: a) Ensure

codes efficiently represent the data collected; b) Reassign codes where necessary; c) Merge

codes that are synonymous to create fewer categories; d) Allocate sub-codes for less dominant

codes; e) identify and fill gaps in the data; and f) Engage in constant comparison. By applying

these steps for Axial Coding, I was able to identify the more dominant and relevant codes

presenting and develop descriptive categories and subcategories with those codes.

Selective Coding. Selective coding has been described as the process that “makes the

pieces of the puzzle fit together” (Boeije, 2010, p. 116). During selective coding, I sought to

identify the main concepts represented in the data. To do this, I utilized the research questions

and purpose, literature, data, fascination, and actuality as guiding principles (Boeije, 2010). It

was through this process that themes of the data emerged and coherent stories became apparent.

Validity and Ethics

“No matter how real, natural, or objective they may seem, criteria are social products

created by human beings in the course of evolving a set of practices to which they (and we)

subsequently agree to conform” (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p. 269). Qualitative research is often

57

subjected to critique due to the emphasis on social and humanistic knowledge. There are,

however, techniques within qualitative research to ensure the production of quality research. The

last section of this chapter addresses validity and ethical considerations.

Validity

Validity in qualitative research supports the accuracy of research findings. There is a

multitude of validation approaches that can be executed. It is recommended, however, that

qualitative researchers engage in at least two validation strategies (Creswell & Poth, 2018). In

this study, I used three strategies for validation: Triangulation, member checking, and reflexivity.

Triangulation is the practice in which findings from a variety of data sources are compared for

the corroboration of evidence (Tracy, 2019). I achieved this by collecting multiple data sources

and engaging in constant comparative methods.

Lincoln and Guba (1985) consider member checking to be “the most critical technique

for establishing credibility” (p. 314). Member checking is the process by which the participants

review the researcher’s interpretations of the data and developing conclusions. During participant

interviews, I would often repeat back a statement or a potential idea a participant shared to

ensure I was understanding their communication properly. This was a spur-of-the-moment

member checking but ensured I was receiving accurate descriptions of the parent and child

accounts. Additionally, during my last interview, I asked the students to confirm or correct some

emerging ideas I was beginning to see based on their questionnaires, storyboards, and previous

interviews.

Engaging in reflexivity requires the researcher to highlight their experiences, values, and

perspectives for the reader to understand their position within the study. Reflexivity is a critical

process for a narrative researcher. Clandinin (2018) explains that:

58

as we engage in narrative inquiry with ourselves, and with our participants, we need to inquire into all these kinds of stories, stories that have become intertwined, interwoven into who we are and are becoming. These stories live in us, in our bodies, as we move and live in the world. (p. 22)

Reflexivity. I use this space to reflect on my constellations of situated events that have

led me to this juncture in my life. I began working at The Museum in this study in the Fall of

2014. I had just completed a year as a fifth-grade teacher in a school district north of

Philadelphia, PA – the same district I had attended while growing up. I transitioned to working at

The Museum to be able to fully commit my educational background to science learning. In the

fifth-grade classroom, I had felt constrained by curricular standards, mandated workbooks, and

limited allotted time for science learning. The students also appeared to be disenchanted by

science. At The Museum, however, I was afforded the opportunity to work outside of these

restraints and had access to an institution full of scientific tools, specimens, artifacts, and more.

My experiences at The Museum molded the way I think about science teaching and

learning. With The Museum Science and Investigators Program beginning around age three, I

began to see the way young children engage with science. The young students demonstrated an

ability to develop conceptual understandings and think critically that I had not seen before. Their

excitement and curiosity were refreshing as well; It reminded me of my passion for science.

The excitement the youngest learners demonstrated was also reflected in the older

students. I taught a fifth-grade class at The Museum during my first years and was taken by the

genuine interest and motivation expressed by the students. I wondered how the students in the

Pennsylvania suburban classroom seemed so disconnected from science, while the students of

the same age at The Museum were enraptured by the subject. I was observing the effects of

science learning that was (or was not) life-long and life-wide. The students at the Museum began

engaging in science at age 3 and over multiple contexts: their schools and The Museum, at least.

59

While at The Museum, I also developed a more critical lens and was able to begin

understanding the meaning of life-deep learning. I began working closely with administrators,

teachers, parents, and students at The Brown Friends School to maintain and enhance The BFS

pathway. Students from the Brown Friends School demonstrated comfort, confidence, and

competence in the sciences at The Museum. Through my experience supporting the partnership

and developing strong relationships with the Brown Friends School community, however, I was

exposed to the effects of political, societal, and educational barriers placed on students from

lower economic backgrounds, the majority of whom are Black, Brown, Indigenous, or People of

Color. Such barriers included lack of funding, staffing, and access to materials. I witnessed the

city’s segregated educational structure and the systemic oppression that is perpetuated through

educational institutions. I was both frustrated and enlightened; I had been naïve to pervasive

racism. I took this as an opportunity, however, to learn more about the history of race, science,

and education.

Through my experiences, graduate education, and the guidance of many wonderful

mentors and friends in my life, I manifested a critical worldview. This worldview is guided by

my philosophical assumptions that “reality is based on power and identity struggles…[and] is

known through the study of social structures, freedom and oppression, power, and control”

(Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 36). My assumptions have influenced how I approached my studies. I

implemented a Critical Race Theory Framework and highlighted the personal narratives of

young Black and Brown children. My worldview has also heavily influenced the way I situate

myself and reflect on the role I play as a science teacher and researcher. I identify as a White

woman, who has been afforded many privileges as a result of my race. I dedicate myself to

continual personal reflection by dissecting my privileges, biases, and how I am positioned by

60

perpetuated storylines in the world. Further, with a critical worldview, I believe in the power of

understanding multiple perspectives and voices through narratives and research. I aim to utilize

my studies as a tool for action towards a more just and equitable science field.

Ethics

Throughout this study, I considered the procedural, context-specific, and relational ethics

of qualitative research (Tracy, 2019). Procedural ethics concern the methods related to informed

consent, privacy and confidentiality, and the avoidance of deception and harm. Before beginning

the study, I received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). All participants were

provided consent forms, which were described in detail by me (and a translator when necessary).

There were three different forms: Parental Informed Consent (Appendix G), Parental Permission

(Appendix H), and Child Assent (Appendix I). All forms articulated the purpose of the study, the

requests of the participants, and my role in the study. For the parents where Spanish is their

preferred language, they were provided with forms in both English and Spanish. Families were

made aware that they could withdraw from the study at any point and that privacy and

confidentiality were maintained through pseudonyms, the removal of as much identifying

information as possible, and the secure collection and storage of data.

Situational ethics are related to the issues that might arise for specific populations (Tracy,

2019). The participants in this study included children, a group determined as vulnerable by the

IRB. To protect the children in this study, I requested that a parent be nearby and available

during the interviews. At the beginning of each interview, I asked if the child wanted to continue

in the study, requested permission to record, and explained they could stop at any point.

Throughout the interviews, I would check-in on their comfort level and communicate that they

did not need to answer any questions they did not want to.

61

Finally, relational ethics considers the role of the researcher in qualitative inquiry and the

relationships that develop between researcher and participants. “Relational ethics live at the very

heart, perhaps are the very heart, of our work as narrative inquirers” (Clandinin, 2013, p. 30).

Throughout my study, I prioritized respect and dignity.

62

Chapter IV

Findings This chapter is dedicated to the findings that emerged from the analysis of the student and

parent interviews, questionnaire responses, and storyboard creations. The chapter begins by

providing brief narratives of each student, which were co-constructed by the participants and

myself. The stories provide an understanding for research question 1. The stories are meant to

share the students’ voices and begin to illuminate the ways they describe the development of

their orientations towards science. The stories shared here were written with an emphasis on the

three commonplaces of narrative inquiry (Clandinin, 2013). The form of the narratives will

include nods to temporality (past, present, future timelines), sociality (personal and interpersonal

conditions), and place (physical locations). After the narratives, there is a timeline representing

science learning events and details that contributed to the student’s science-related learning

pathways.

After all the stories are presented, a review of themes that transpired as a result of the cross-

case analysis will be explored. The cross-case findings aim to support the understandings of

research questions 2 and 3. To recall, the following research questions guided this study.








63



Student Stories

Alejandro: “We used our telescope to see the moon.”

I have never seen Alejandro not have a smile on his face. I recall times he pretended to be

grumpy or dissatisfied with something in The Museum classes, but through the facade, a grin

would breakthrough. He described himself as an 11-year-old student who always makes his

friends laugh. He self-identifies as Hispanic. He is curious and loves science. Alejandro’s love of

science has been with him for as long as he can remember:

The first time I started to do [science] I think I was three years old. Well, I think when I was born...I was doing basic things that involve science…But I remember when I was like five, I always used to say, oh, I'm so good at science.

Alejandro explained he believes he is good at science now as well, but during his earlier years he

said:

I just had a stronger ego. Like thinking I know everything...sometimes when I didn’t know the answer, I was so mad...I was that kid that if he knew the answer, he would raise his hand. If he didn’t, he would just sit there.

Alejandro is more comfortable with not knowing the answer now, having been exposed to many

possibilities in science. Although he has learned a lot of science, he attributed his science

experiences in pre-k as pivotal to setting up his relationship with science.

One of Alejandro’s favorite science subjects is chemistry, which he described as being a

part of everything. His affinity for chemistry began with a model of a volcano. Students used

paper cups, model magic, and dirt to craft their miniature volcano models. For the eruption, a

museum teacher placed a small bit of baking soda on top of their volcanoes and the students

poured red-colored vinegar on top:

64

The first time I learned how to do a volcano. Oh, it was awesome. I loved to do that. I remember, I went home and told my mom, ‘where’s the baking soda? Where’s the vinegar? Let’s do this!’ All that is fun and chemistry...Like that volcano part just started every chemistry thing and I just love that so much.

The mixture of vinegar and baking soda is a basic chemical reaction, but for Alejandro, it was a

spark that began a continued wonder and appreciation for chemistry.

As Alejandro got older, his knowledge of science developed, as well as his comfortability

with The Museum, “I was in second grade when The Museum felt like home. I remember going

with my mom and I remembered the whole area, not the whole area, but most of it.” Once

Alejandro developed an understanding of The Museum’s layout and recalled the different areas

well, he began to feel at home in The Museum. Alejandro reflected on another experience during

his second-grade years:

Oh, I remember this gem part so much. We used to call it the playground. It was a big area. Um, I remember you weren’t supposed to, but we ran around in that area. We used to play hide and seek in there. And my favorite part was this little entrance with all the special gold and stuff.

As Alejandro remembered his time in the Gems Hall, he points to a variety of pictures he has

glued into his storyboard of him in the “playground” (Figure 2). Visiting The Museum often

provided Alejandro with an understanding of The Museum’s configuration, as well as moments

when he could bend the rules a bit.

65

Figure 2

Alejandro in the “playground” – Museum Gems Hall

Alejandro’s fond experiences with The Museum program were not confined to The

Museum walls. During fourth grade at The Museum, Alejandro recalled learning about

“pollution, human consumption, habitat degradation, and invasive species in the tropical,

temperate and polar [zones].” As a concluding activity in the class, the students worked in small

groups to create a public service announcement video that spread awareness related to an

environmental challenge threatening planet Earth. Alejandro’s group emphasized the importance

of utilizing natural energy sources. Figure 3 shows a screenshot of a scene from his spotlighted

video. Alejandro reflected on the experience, “I remember we did this presentation. It was a

66

thing and it got posted on a website. Yeah, that was fun to do...It felt awesome...Because I was

on a Museum website. Like on a website people use.” Alejandro views The Museum and The

Museum’s website as a place where people can access information and learn from experts. Being

on The Museum website among other scientists enhanced Alejandro’s confidence and made him

feel more closely integrated into the scientific community.

Figure 3

Screenshot of Alejandro’s Museum Website Video

Alejandro’s recognition as an accomplished science student continued through his last

year in The Museum and Science Investigators Program. He described his best science

experience ever:

When I finished the science program [was my best experience] because I was like, ‘whoa, I finished this whole year.’ It was like seven years, I think. I remember it was our graduation. We were sitting in chairs and rows, and then we had a present under our seats. It was a big book...I felt accomplished...It was calming also because you feel like ‘I did it.’

67

The graduation ceremony provided Alejandro with moments of internal and external recognition.

He felt proud of himself for completing what he recalled as seven, but was actually eight years,

in a Museum program. His peers were there with him, sitting in rows, while his Museum

teachers celebrated their success with a surprise gift, a book of all The Museum dioramas signed

by The Museum teachers.

Alejandro continues to attend classes at The Museum. He was accepted into a program

that runs for an additional seven years until a student graduates from high school. In addition to

continuing classes at The Museum, he spends a lot of time at home with his family, exploring the

wonders of the world. Alejandro shared, “Recently, we used our telescope to see the moon...”

Alejandro paused in the middle of telling me this. He got up from his seat and walked to a

bookshelf. He reached for the top and pulled down a black telescope, which he purchased with

his mom, Anita, outside of The Museum. He presented the telescope in front of his computer

video, “This is our telescope,” and then put it up to his eye as if he were looking through it. “It

was really cool. But then we saw this dot in the sky. It was a big dot and then three other things.

We found out it was, I think Jupiter and…” Alejandro turned to his mom who was in the other

room and confirmed, “La luna?” She must have nodded her head because Alejandro turned back

to face me and continued:

Yea, and their moons. So my dad thought it was the planets, but my mom told him ‘no, it’s Jupiter’s moons because Jupiter has so many moons.’ So we searched [to see] if some sort of thing was happening. We figured it out, and we saw Jupiter and its moons visible.

Alejandro’s excitement was palpable. He told me of other stories where he and his family

explored the world of science together. He finds ways to be curious no matter where he is and

share that with those who are close to him.

68

Alejandro will continue learning science at The Museum and hopes to one day “learn

everything to be a scientist.” He is also considering a career in architecture or business, but

ultimately, he says, “I don’t know what future me would think,” and is still trying to figure it out.

At the end of one of our conversations, I asked Alejandro if there was anything else that he

would like me to know. He concluded with, “I love science.” Figure 4 shows constellations of

situated events that have occurred over Alejandro’s science learning pathway.

Figure 4

Alejandro’s Science Constellations of Situated Events

Marco: “I wanted to show off all the exhibits.”

Marco has a calmness about him; he is quiet but attentive and kind. He described himself

as a tall 12-year-old boy. He self-identifies as Mexican American. He enjoys video games and

hanging out with his friends in the city, spending most of his time in the parks playing soccer.

69

The majority of his childhood has been spent on the Upper West Side and the nearby

neighborhoods. In these areas, he finds himself moving from home, to school, to parks, and to

The Museum. Walking either by foot or riding the subway. Marco explained how he sees the

subway station, which he frequents almost daily, as a representation of science. In elaboration, he

noted, “it gives me a memory of how [the teachers] taught us [at The Museum]. They were

showing us many different things….they were fun times.” The train stop Marco described leads

directly into The Museum. The walls of the platform are artistic renditions of what one might see

in The Museum exhibits. They are impressively mosaiced, donning colorful tiles that, when put

together, create shapes of different animals - flamingos, elephants, sharks, snakes, and more.

Marco included a drawing of a corn snake he recalled from The Museum in his storyboard

(Figure 5).

Figure 5

Marco’s Corn Snake Drawing

70

Marco started taking the subway to The Museum when he was only three years old. His

classmates and teachers from the Brown Friends School would board the subway together, travel

to The Museum, and join Museum teachers weekly for their classes. While Marco noticed tiled

snakes on the subway platform, it was in The Museum classrooms he would find live snakes.

It was during Marco’s Kindergarten years that he said he started to feel like The Museum

was a “second home” to him. It was at this point, The Museum teachers, classrooms, and exhibits

became well known to him, and he was comforted by the familiarity. During kindergarten,

Marco visited one of The Museum’s main halls several times throughout the year. In that hall is

Marco’s favorite diorama, which he described as “the wolf one.” He drew a picture of the wolf

diorama on his storyboard (Figure 6). Being familiar with The Museum made Marco feel like he

could be himself there. It provided a sense of security and excitement, like being at home.

Figure 6

Marco’s Wolf Diorama Drawing

71

Some unexpected moments seemed to appeal to Marco as well. Those moments that

provided an exclusive experience were especially memorable. For example, in second grade,

Marco explained, “We went into a little ball...and we were seeing the stars. They were telling us

about the stars...it was cool.” This little ball he referred to is The Museum’s Star Lab, a portable

planetarium. It was an experience only for Museum students.

While Marco’s pre-k through second-grade years surprised him with exclusive

opportunities and enhanced his comfortability within The Museum space, it was in fourth grade

he experienced shifts related to his science beliefs and attitudes. At about age 9 or 10, Marco

realized science was important for society:

talking about endangered animals...and the lionfish. I remember when [The Museum teachers] showed us a map, a huge map, and it was like all the continents. Every time we would go up and put a dot [on a location] we were learning about [being impacted].

Fourth grade was the first year Marco learned about the delicateness of nature and the

role science could play in protecting it. He began to place more value on science, believing it to

be an important endeavor worth learning. This year also lent itself to Marco realizing he was

good at science. In reflecting, he believes he was always good at science, but fourth grade was

the year he felt he realized that. “In school, we were doing something that nobody really knew,

but then I realized I did this in the science program [at The Museum]. So, we were having a

test...and everyone failed except for me.” Marco explained that tests have felt like obstacles to

him but having often learned the content at The Museum before school, he was able to overcome

them. Passing tests and performing well in school with good grades, or a “100 in science,”

helped to maintain Marco’s association with being good at science.

A sense of accomplishment remains Marco’s favorite memory from The Museum, and

happens to be his last experience with the program. In fifth grade, “it was time for graduation

72

and there was a party…it was like going to middle school, but it felt different. I felt proud of

myself.” While Marco does not continue in any Museum science programs, he still likes to visit

with his mom. His current school also maintains its relationship with The Museum through field

trips. Marco explained during our first conversation:

Actually, yesterday [my class] had a trip here. We went to the ocean exhibit, and we were finding ecosystems in different parts of the ocean….[I felt] good. I wanted to show off all the exhibits, but we could only go to one.

Marco also finds ways to do science outside of The Museum and school, even outside of the

country. Marco visits his family in Mexico, where he does science. “It’s kind of fun,” he said,

“because each time we just go to different places and explore.” There he explores alongside his

mom, Bibiana, and his cousins. He most enjoys going to nearby rivers to look for organisms and

sample the water.

As he grows up, Marco is looking forward to learning more and deciding what career

path he would like to pursue. Currently, he is considering being a paleontologist, accountant, or

soccer player. Figure 7 shows constellations of situated events that have occurred over Marco’s

science learning pathway.

73

Figure 7

Marco’s Science Constellations of Situated Events

Vanessa: “Yes ma’am. I’m ready for scientifical duty.”

Vanessa has a contagious energy. She demonstrates openness and confidence that lights

up a room, even via Zoom. Vanessa is 12-years old. She identifies as Black. She described

herself as a young female scientist. She enjoys playing ice hockey, soccer, and piano, and

connects deeply with her Buddhist religion; she is the year of the rat. Vanessa’s experiences with

science began when she was very young. She reflected on early memories of doing science:

We looked at many beautiful butterflies and bugs [at the Brown Friends School]...We were around three years old…And then we would read nature books...I literally remember everything. I remember [my school teacher] sitting in the small chair while we were sitting on the rug. Behind her, there weren’t any windows, but a bookshelf [with] all the books that we read. And I was sitting there with my face just amazed at how much a book can have. It was one of my favorite times. It kept me still and calm… But once I started going to The Museum, we started doing experiments...There was so much stuff.

74

The Brown Friends School began exposing Vanessa to science through storybooks and

specimens. The Museum built on those experiences by offering her an abundance of resources

that ignited curiosity and wonder. Experiences at The Museum also encouraged Vanessa to

consider the meaning of science. She explained to me that, to her, science is involved in

everything. She recalled the moment she realized “science is everything,” during her pre-k

years. She shared:

Okay, do you remember on the first floor when you go to [The Museum] and there is a big boat? Then you pass the skeleton section and then there are a bunch of bathrooms. And there is this area where there are a bunch of papers about The Museum. There is a security guard in that area...That is where we usually did all our plays, or scientifical presentations for people that are older, our teachers, and for many kids...We did one time a play where we were all different types of species of bugs.

Vanessa elaborated by explaining that during the play, she saw science being used to create the

costumes, make the music, and review the biology related to the animals presented. During our

conversation, Vanessa shared her screen with me, presenting a picture of one of the costumes she

wore at The Museum. The picture is of Vanessa in a green dress with three pink flowers

adorning the waist (Figure 8). She has a lopsided crown atop her head, with pink and silver

plastic jewels. Her hands are stretched out and holding the wings strapped to her back, she is

some sort of insect. She has a wide smile and is looking away from the camera, something going

on in The Museum must have caught her attention.

75

Figure 8

Vanessa in a Costume for a Museum Play

Vanessa continued to scroll through the photographs on her iPad, all of which represented

different times at The Museum. “And this is the bug [diorama]. I’ll never forget it. It is one of

my favorites.” She continued swiping. “This is culture day...Here we were doing surgery to a

banana.” Vanessa seemed to get lost in the memories, describing the pictures to me with a slight

smile on her face as she swiped. Some photographs she moved over more quickly, others she

lingered on. She paused for a while on a photograph of her, a few classmates, and parents, from

her kindergarten years (Figure 9). Everyone is looking at the camera with a smile and showing

off the art projects they are working on. She told me more about the photo and then said, “I’m

like family for you guys…[My mom and I have] been going to the same place for more than

seven years...In The Museum, I feel like I’m home. I’m able to be myself and free at The

Museum.”

76

Figure 9

Vanessa, Classmates, and Parents in Class at The Museum

Vanessa spoke a few times about how The Museum was a special place for her, changing

the way she felt about herself.

So while I was growing up, I had a few difficulties, as you already know. I can’t read or write, and I was always behind...The only reason why I thought that my disability was a situation was because other people were telling me that. The only people that didn’t were my mother and my friend. She treated me like I was any other human being, and the teachers in The Museum. I felt like I was important...I don’t have to drink medication in The Museum. I’m fully there.

Vanessa was diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia when she was young, which proved

challenging for her, as she engaged in learning and establishing new relationships. There were

moments she did not believe in her science abilities, but The Museum served as a safe space for

77

her to build confidence in science. It was in The Museum she explained she became a scientist.

When I asked Vanessa if she was a scientist, she responded by saying, “Yes, Ma’am. I’m ready

for scientifical duty!” saluting to me through the Zoom screen.

Vanessa feels confident in her ability to do science and be a scientist now, but she recalls

the moment she recognized being able to do science well. In fourth grade, she was surprised by

her excellent marks on the state science test:

I thought I was going to fail, but once I did that science test...my mind changed the way I think of science a little bit. Science is honestly my favorite subject in the world. I wouldn’t be who I am right now.

The success of Vanessa’s performance on the state test helped her to feel confident in science

and realize her love of the sciences.

Vanessa’s self-positivity related to science is refreshing. She knows, however, that

success in science does not come equally to all people. She explained to me,

When I was growing up, I had all these toys, like ironmen and lawyers. And we saw that there were many of the big jobs they were showing us, the teachers...they were mostly all formed as a man.

Vanessa explained that this could have been difficult for her, but she had many wonderful role

models in her life who helped her realize she could be a scientist. Her mom has been a huge

inspiration to her, taking her to her classes at The Museum, and demonstrating scientific skills in

her work and schooling.

Vanessa also has role models in her current school. “I am so proud to be in [my school].

Literally, it is the best school. I love schools that have assistant principals that are of color. My

assistant principal is Black.” Vanessa transferred to the school she is currently in a few years ago

and described it as a much more diverse school with mostly students of color. She explained one

of the reasons she is happy she made the move:

78

I really dislike being in a school that is not diverse. I need to have at least one race that is not counted for people that are all judgey...For some reason, a lot of people think that White people are disrespectful and racist...That is the reason I appreciate being...in a diverse school because they understand what you’re feeling.

In Vanessa’s previous school, she experienced White science teachers who treated her differently

than other students. For Vanessa, diversity is critical. It helps her to feel more confident, learn

better, and envision more potential pathways for herself. She appreciated The Museum because

“they treat everybody equally.” She is even more excited, though, by the way scientists around

the world have worked together lately. She shared:

I feel like there’s more [scientists] mixed together now...COVID-19, even though it is bad, it’s actually helping us to stay together no matter what...we have to fight through this together. We shouldn’t fight against each other. This might be our last day. So, let’s live it strong and proud to be who we are.

Vanessa explained to me that she hopes for a more just world and is grateful for the experiences

she has had to make her a strong person, in science and more generally.

As one of our conversations winded down, Vanessa said, “thank you so much for this

meeting. It feels good to talk about The Museum.” Her future plans are still yet to be determined,

but she can’t wait to get back to The Museum and continue “being a good scientist.” In the

meantime, she will carry on doing experiments at home with her mom and consider future career

opportunities such as a veterinarian, museum teacher, or chef. Figure 10 shows constellations of

situated events that have occurred over Vanessa’s science learning pathway.

79

Figure 10

Vanessa’s Science Constellations of Situated Events

Cross-Case Themes

What follows are two main sections aligned with research questions 2 and 3 of this study,

where I describe in detail themes that emerged as a result of the cross-case analysis. The first

section addresses research question 2: What orientations do 6th-grade students of color, who

graduated from a museum science program, hold? The first theme discussed in this section is

positive identifications with science, which begins to answer how the students identify with

science. The following three themes, science and society, Museum and authority, and anyone can

be a scientist seek to explain the science-related beliefs and values the students hold. The second

section addresses the question, How do 6th-grade students of color, who graduated from a

museum science program, describe their experiences at The Museum compared to at school?

80

Here I discuss the following themes: Long-term engagement, exclusivity, and familial

involvement.

Orientations Towards Science

Positive Identifications with Science

Throughout the interviews with Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa science was often

described as “fun,” “easy,” “exciting,” “interesting,” and “challenging.” The most recurring

emotion the students shared concerning science, however, was “love.” Through all my

conversations, the phrase that appeared the most was “I love science.” During one of Vanessa’s

interviews, she explained: “I love science. You can’t blame me. Science is my life.” Vanessa

feels very closely connected with science, as do Alejandro and Marco. As a part of this

connection, when doing science, they feel like they can fully be themselves.

When asked how they feel when doing science, Alejandro replied, “I just feel normal.

Like finally, I can have some time to do the thing that I love to do.” For Vanessa, doing science

“keeps [her] in check with the world.” Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa noted that they do not

have to change the way they behave or speak when doing science. They felt like they could

maintain their usual vernacular when talking about or doing science, while also learning and

using science vocabulary. Although they acknowledge that science has a vocabulary, similarly to

“cooking, sewing, and dancing...you don’t have to speak a specific way to be a scientist”

(Vanessa).

In addition to feeling like they can be themselves while doing science, Alejandro, Marco,

and Vanessa described themselves as good at science. On a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree) on their questionnaires, they all rated themselves a 4 in response to the

statement, ‘I am good at science.’ Marco believes he is good at science because his friends ask

81

him for help in science, which makes him think he must be good at the subject. For Alejandro

and Vanessa, their perception of their abilities in science stems from what others have said about

them. Alejandro’s friends and science teachers tell him he is good at science, while Vanessa

explained that her mom and museum teachers tell her she is good at science. They also all

pointed out how they have performed well on science tests or in school science classes.

Alejandro described receiving a high grade on a test as a proud moment, “I got a unit review. I

remember getting like 27 out of 30. I was very happy.” Marco noted he is currently receiving a

“100” in his class. Seeing as they all consider themselves as good at science and leverage

connections between their science learning in multiple spaces, I was curious why none of them

rated a 5 on their questionnaires. Their responses were the same, in that they could always learn

and do more to be better.

This idea appeared in Alejandro and Marco’s responses to the statement “Are you a

scientist?” Both Alejandro and Marco were neutral in response to this statement on their

questionnaire, marking a 3. During the interview, Alejandro explained, “I would say I’m [a

scientist] in the making...I’m learning what a scientist learns...I haven’t learned everything.”

Marco also pointed out that he is not a scientist yet, but he is “on the way to being a scientist.”

For Alejandro and Marco, the distinction between someone who does science, like them, and

someone who is a scientist is dependent on the amount of information they know and the

credentials they have. Both noted that to become a scientist you must obtain a degree and be

working a job, which neither of them have accomplished yet.

Vanessa’s response was different. She responded to the statement “I am a scientist” with

a 5 - strongly agree - on her questionnaire. When I asked during one of our conversations if she

was a scientist, her reply was a confident yes. Vanessa connected her being a scientist more with

82

the scientific practices in which she engages, rather than content knowledge or credentials. She

talked about becoming a scientist very young and how “even a baby can be a scientist...when

they take a toy they’re actually identifying it with their hands...So technically, a baby is a

scientist.” Interestingly, the students’ responses paralleled that of their parents. While Alejandro

and Marco considered themselves not yet scientists, both of their parents also expressed that they

were not scientists. Vanessa’s mom, Marie, on the other hand, did believe she was a scientist, as

did Vanessa.

Whether they believe that they are current or budding scientists, Alejandro, Marco, and

Vanessa maintained that they should be involved in scientific decision-making. They were

specifically interested in supporting The Museum in making decisions about collection

management and exhibit design. Marco pointed out that he and other students “have been

learning The Museum,” so they should have a say in determining actions of The Museum.

Vanessa conveyed a similar sentiment, “[We] know what happens in The Museum, so I think

[we] should have a say.” As students with an understanding of science and The Museum, they

found themselves to be in an advantageous position to contribute to a scientific community.

Although all students are passionate about science, see themselves as current or

developing scientists, and value their thoughts concerning science museum decision-making,

they are still contemplating their future careers. While their potential professional pathways

consisted of playing soccer, architecture, and cooking, all three also embraced scientific careers.

For example, Marco would enjoy pursuing paleontology, while veterinary medicine or science

education are interests of Vanessa. Although Alejandro did not name a specific career, he did say

he would like to do something related to the sciences.

Science and Society

83

“Science is everything” was the unanimous response when asked, “what is science?”.

With science being so pervasive, Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa all value science learning.

Marco noted that science serves as a “life lesson.” Alejandro elaborated on the importance of

learning science:

[Learning science is] really important. Cause if you don’t know anything about science, you won’t know anything about life, or anything about human culture, animals and all of that. You wouldn't know what a tornado is. You wouldn't know what water is. You wouldn't know that you have to breathe to live...If you don't know anything, basically, I would say you're dead...You can't live without science.

Vanessa shared a comparable opinion as Alejandro:

Science is one of the most important things in life...without science, we wouldn't survive in life. Because without science you wouldn't know how to make all the crazy stuff that can help the world...We wouldn't learn how to change lives...how to make medicine that can cure others...without science, we wouldn't survive...Science is literally our life.

They all viewed science as a fundamental element of life. To them, science behaves as a tool for

others to understand how the world operates, how individuals function, and how to survive

within it all.

While the students emphasized the value of learning science, they also described the

distress that science can bring to society. When I asked if science can be harmful to society,

Marco talked about the disrupting ecosystems and the snowball effect that occurs when science

disturbs a habitat. In response to my question, Vanessa responded, “tell me who invented cars

with gas.” She continued to explain that the development of these cars continues for the scientists

to enjoy financial gains. Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa are keenly aware of the implications

that science has on society, both positively and negatively.

With an understanding of the potential harms of science, they also value scientific

reasoning and evidence to support claims from the scientific community. Alejandro explained,

“if [scientists] actually prove it, then I would trust them. But, if there is no proof, you can’t trust

84

anyone.” Vanessa provided a related idea by saying, “there are some scientists that do false

facts,” so it is important to see all the information associated with scientists’ assertions. In

addition to seeking out verification to support science distributed in society, Alejandro, Marco,

and Vanessa believe creating a more democratic process could help reduce scientific harm on

society. They suggested scientific decision-making should be accomplished through polling

scientists and individuals from the community the decisions would affect.

Through our conversations, what came to light was that Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa

realized both the benefits and destruction science could bring to society. As a result, they value

societal engagement that questions scientists and requires large group decision-making.

Museum as an Authority

Although Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa felt confident questioning science generally

and acknowledging potential science-related issues, The Museum seemed to exist outside of

those critical perspectives. They all placed The Museum on a pedestal of excellence, knowledge,

and dignity. “The Museum is teaching, and people are listening,” Alejandro said to me during

one of our conversations. The students pointed out that people travel from around the world to

visit The Museum and learn from the exhibits, halls, and people inside. With this, they believe

that the information The Museum conveys must be accurate. To their knowledge, all the

dioramas and plaques represent factual details. Alejandro elaborated on his thinking by

explaining that much studying goes into the creation of The Museum halls, so everything should

be correct.

In addition to intensive studying, the students also expressed a belief that the collection

and display of artifacts and specimens must have followed ethical and legal procedures. I asked

Marco who the artifacts in The Museum belong to:

85

Marco: If they collected it, then it is [The Museums]. It is already in The Museum.

Researcher: What if they took it without asking?

Marco: They will probably go to jail.

Marco continued to explain that for The Museum to obtain the artifacts, the scientists must have

had to request permission from someone first. Without doing so, the scientists would be doing

something illegal. Alejandro felt similarly about the process a Museum scientist would have to

follow to acquire an artifact. “I think they have to examine it. They have to see if they can [take

it], if it is legal or not.” All students assumed The Museum must have taken proper precautions

to ensure the collections were developed morally. When I asked if they believe The Museum

scientists have ever done anything wrong, the shared response was something along the lines of

‘not to my knowledge.’ Alejandro said, “I don’t think they’ve done anything wrong in my view.

I don’t think [The Museum teachers] told me anything wrong...but I don’t know.” Through their

experiences at The Museum, Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa had not been exposed to some of

the unethical practices in which the scientists and individuals who helped to build The Museum

engaged. By virtue, seeing The Museum as an authority within the field of science and science

education, they believed there must not be any improper practices at play. Even when I provided

an example related to a statue of Teddy Roosevelt, they were still hesitant to question The

Museum.

Outside of The Museum’s main entrance stands an equestrian statue. Positioned in the

center of a grand staircase, the statue represents Teddy Roosevelt saddling a reined horse. A

Native American figure and an African American figure, one on either side, are adjacent to the

horse. The two figures are standing, feet next to the horse’s hooves and behind Roosevelt’s legs,

which swing over the side of the horse’s body. During this past summer, the statue was requested

86

to be removed. The interpretation of the statue manifests colonialist ideologies and racial

hierarchies, which ignited the call for removal. I used this incident to ask the students their

thoughts on the statue and the decisions coming from Museum officials related to the statues.

Researcher: Did you hear that The Museum is thinking about removing the statue?

Marco: Why?

Researcher: Because they think the statue represents ideas about how Teddy Roosevelt treated people poorly. What are your thoughts on that?

Marco: I don’t know because I don’t really know that much about Teddy

Roosevelt.

Researcher: So if someone came to you from The Museum and said, ‘we need your help to make this decision,’ what would you do?

Marco: Probably leave it there.

Although Marco heard that the statue represents poor ideas, his initial response was to leave the

statue. Perhaps this is because he admitted he does not know much about Roosevelt. That said,

however, Marco did not demonstrate a motivation to understand the issue in more detail.

For Alejandro, his idea of Roosevelt is that “he is a cool guy. He helped a lot.” Alejandro

feels a connection with the statue, not only because he views Roosevelt as a helpful individual,

but also because that statue is the location where he took his first photo at The Museum.

Therefore, he explained, “if they will be removing [the statue] completely, like not putting it

anywhere else, I’ll be mad because I love that statue.” The statue manifests good memories and

resonates well with Alejandro. Despite the issues that others see, the meaning it brings to him

encourages a desire for the statue to be maintained. In a similar vein, Vanessa sees the value in

an individual managing their conceptions about the message of the statue. “[Visitors] don’t think

about it every single time, if they don’t want to think about it...people who know [The Museum]

see it in a totally different way. They don’t see it as control.”

87

All three students considered the statue to be a positive “symbol of The Museum” for

themselves. Because of its association with The Museum, regardless of the colonialist

intimations, Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa concluded that the statue should remain. The lack of

questioning or desire to see a change in The Museum was omnipresent in all the conversations.

Whether with the students or the parents, the common consensus was that The Museum does no

harm and requires no modifications.

Anyone can be a Scientist

When asked “who can be a scientist,” the prevailing response from both students and

parents was “Anyone.” The main driver for becoming a scientist, in their perspective, was the

individual. No matter the age, skin color, or gender, Alejandro explained, “it depends how much

hard work and effort you put into what you want to do.” Marco indicated that “it is all in them. If

they want to be a scientist, they could.” And Vanessa noted, “If they just try. It’s honestly the

person.” They opposed stereotypical images of scientists, all marking 1-strongly disagree on

their questionnaires in response to the statement ‘you can tell a scientist by their appearance.’

Alejandro elaborated during one of our conversations, “you can just be wearing a plain shirt...just

looking casual...and you can be a scientist.”

While Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa argue that anyone can be a scientist, they also

realize that for some people internal motivators must be stronger than external pressures. They

talked about societal influences on looks, gender, and access to resources. When I asked

Alejandro if an individual’s looks could help them succeed more in science, he responded by

saying:

Well, looks don’t affect your knowledge...it depends on the person that is looking at you because they may be annoying and say, ‘oh, that person is ugly. I’m not going to listen to him.’ And there are some people that are nice and don’t care. They just care about what they say and do.

88

Alejandro was pointing out how judgment passed based upon a person’s looks can influence how

someone’s voice is heard. Vanessa spoke more specifically about gender characteristics. Vanessa

explained her understanding of how women are treated and characterized:

Okay, let me put this in categories. When everybody thinks of a scientist, they think of a lab coat and glasses...it would be a man...Women don't get respected like men in the hierarchy.

Vanessa has become aware of the lack of female representation in the science field, as well as

other fields, and correlates the disparity with an absence of respect. While Alejandro did not

discuss the undertones related to gender representation in science, he did note that he is typically

exposed to male scientists in school. That said, both Alejandro and Vanessa pointed out the

exposure to female scientists they received from The Museum. Vanessa found this to be

particularly enjoyable for her, “there are more girl scientists than boy scientists in The Museum.

That’s what I’m really happy about.”

In addition to a person’s physical appearance, the students also pointed out the challenges

someone might run into based upon where they live. Marco spoke about access to resources

looking different around the world. He explained that some places have more technology than

others. Alejandro also felt that an individuals’ location could play a role in their scientific

success. He emphasized access to education by explaining that “people live in not good areas,

like there are no teachers or schools anywhere. They can still learn, but not as much.”

Technology, teachers, and schools were viewed as assets that could support someone in the

sciences. Depending on where those resources are located, some people may have an easier time

taking advantage of them than others.

While I was speaking with Vanessa, she summarized societal hurdles:

People will judge you for what you are these days, or who you are, or where you live, or how your lifestyle is, or how much money you have...in many situations, people that you

89

don't even know...can still give a weird reaction just to the way you are. And then they can start to change you. When you want to stay the way you are, but you don't have the opportunity to tell them, ‘please let me be. This is who I am, and this is the way I would like to do it.’

Vanessa makes nods towards barriers related to physical appearance, location, behaviors, and

economic status. She also points out that these judgments, cast down by others, can begin to have

internal influences on those being criticized.

The students, however, feel as though they have been provided with strong enough

support, by their parents and museum teachers, to challenge prejudices that are pervasive in

science. As mentioned earlier, they all agree an individual can overcome anything. That said,

they also explain that having role models in science helps someone see themselves as a scientist.

“It is good to have diversity [in science]. Let’s say a Spanish person sees another Spanish person

who is a scientist. That gives him more confidence to be one,” Alejandro explained to me during

one of our conversations. Marco and Vanessa shared similar sentiments, pointing out people in

their lives who were role models to them; parents and museum teachers were stated most often.

While they all believe anyone can be a scientist, they recognize the societal hurdles that

some individuals will have to overcome more than others in science. With the help of internal

motivation and those close in their lives, however, Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa believe

anyone can persevere.

Science Learning at The Museum vs. At School

Museum as Second Home

Consistent time with museum teachers and in The Museum developed a comforting

familiarity for the students. Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa’s favorite science teachers were

those who they had several years in a row at The Museum. “I’ve been with them for almost all

my life, and they know me,” Vanessa explained to me during one of our conversations. They all

90

developed connections with their museum teachers that expanded beyond the typical student-

teacher relationship. The students equated The Museum teachers to best friends and family

members, who understand them more deeply than their school teachers do. They felt their

Museum teachers really understood them, pointing out how they sat on the floor with them, used

their first names, and integrated multiple languages. Vanessa also explained that she wished her

school teachers treated her the way The Museum teachers do. “The Museum teachers have high

expectations…My school teachers call me out. They say they do it to everyone, but I know it is

me more than anyone. No one at The Museum would ever do that.”

As relationships with museum teachers developed, so did the students' familiarity with

The Museum space. Over time, Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa became well versed in The

Museum layout, knowing dioramas and halls well. “I know that place like the back of my hand,”

Vanessa told me. The moment that all three of the students felt they knew The Museum’s

configuration well, they began to feel at home. When I asked if the students felt like their schools

or other museums were like home, they all expressed a resounding no. Marco explained, “I don’t

really know what to do in other museums.” About school, Alejandro could not fully articulate

why it did not feel like home, “I don’t know. It just doesn’t.”

Alejandro smiled as he described how he feels in one of The Museum halls, “When I’m

in the Ocean Hall, I just feel like, ‘yay, this is my second home.’ I can just sit and relax.” Going

to a single place over an extended time and exploring the nooks and crannies within it, contribute

to a warm and cozy feeling Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa all described. Vanessa encapsulated

the sentiment, “we’ve been going to the same place for more than seven years...The Museum is

my home. I lived in it. I grew up in it. I turned into a scientist in it.”

Exclusivity

91

The students recalled some of their favorite memories as being associated with a sense of

exclusivity. Being a student in The Museum and Science Investigators Program brought with it a

sense of elitism. Marco revealed that he enjoys showing off the exhibits in The Museum. He

explained that when he tells people he is in a program at The Museum, “they are surprised,”

which makes him feel good. Vanessa also indicated a sense of pride in being a part of the MSIP,

“we are from The Museum,” she said to me, as she described why she knows scientific concepts

and ideas. Additionally, the way the students view their science teachers at The Museum was in

stark contrast to the way they view their science teachers at school. They all said that The

Museum teachers were scientists, while their school teachers were not. As a part of the program,

the students felt like they continued to benefit from exclusive opportunities that made them feel

special.

“I like that some of the classrooms are like a secret place...it’s awesome, like, ‘hey, I’m in

a private space. You’re out there’...I felt like I’m a VIP to this place.” Alejandro was describing

the emotions he had related to entering classrooms that were swipe access and restricted only for

families in The Museum Science and Investigators Program. Alejandro, Vanessa, and Marco

elaborated on the exciting opportunities they received within the private classroom spaces.

Prevalent in their storyboards and our discussions were drawings and stories related to handling

live animals, practicing dissections, engaging in science experiments, and utilizing scientific

tools. They all noted that they could not have had these experiences anywhere else. Specifically,

they said that their school learning is boring and mostly filled with reading textbooks. Vanessa

said, there is “nothing like the beauty of being in one room with enough to explore a century,” as

she described what it was like for her to be in one of the science program classrooms.

92

Outside of the classrooms, but still in private spaces, the students received additional

unique opportunities that they found to be meaningful. The students mentioned private tours

provided by museum scientists, presentations where they could touch real fossils, and

participation in exclusive immersive activities. Alejandro explained, “When we went to secret

places...I thought, ‘no way, I get to go behind the scenes now.’ It was really fun and cool.”

Marco also felt the ‘no way’ sense of surprise related to some of the above experiences. He

noted, “I never thought we were going to do that…” The exclusive science opportunities and

experiences with scientists made the students feel like they were recognized as “VIPs.”

Opportunities were reserved just for them, over other people who were not participants in the

MSIP. This was escalated, as they don’t receive experiences like these in their schools. These

moments stood out to them as exciting, surprising, and inspiring.

Familial Involvement

The involvement of a significant adult in the child’s life, such as a parent, was a

requirement of The Museum program. Up until the third grade, the students came with their

parents to every class. Having their parents learning alongside them was something Alejandro,

Marco, and Vanessa pointed out as being something they all appreciated, as they don’t have that

opportunity in school. They talked about how their parents would help them understand concepts

more deeply both during and after class. When I asked Alejandro what it was like learning with

his mom at The Museum he said:

Oh, it was fun. She always used to say do it, do it! And when I didn’t know something, she used to say this is it right after class. I told her when I didn’t understand. She would write it down and then help me after class.

For Alejandro, learning with his mom, Anita, provided extra support. He was motivated by her to

be involved in classroom activities and would help clarify areas where he felt confused. Anita

93

explained that “science is everywhere and everything,” so to her motivating Alejandro was of

particular importance. Marco and Vanessa also felt their parents were a source of support and

motivation. “If I got stuck, I would get help from my parents...they wanted me to keep going,”

Marco explained to me. Vanessa pointed out why having her mother, Maria, was helpful and

made learning a more meaningful experience than someone less familiar, “we understand each

other.” Maria shared a similar sentiment, “we get to learn together. It is something we can share

and helps us to be closer.”

Anita, Bibiana, and Marie valued learning about, discussing, and exploring science with

their children. They pointed to the special bond science helped to facilitate between them and

their respective child, just as Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa expressed.

Summary

In this chapter, I presented personal stories of Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa. Their

stories were co-constructed by me and them and were shared to illuminate their personalities,

voices, and perceived development of their orientations over time. The student stories also

addressed research question 1. What followed was a presentation of the themes that emerged

from the cross-case analysis. The themes were organized in relation to research questions 2 and 3

of this study. The next chapter is dedicated to exploring the findings in more detail.

94

Chapter V

Discussion

In this chapter, I present a discussion aimed at foregrounding the significance,

implications for practice, and limitations of my research. I also provide recommendations for

future research endeavors, as inspired by this study. The research questions explored were:










Homeplaces in Constellation of Situated Events

Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa’s stories demonstrate science learning pathways that are

life-long, life-deep, and life-wide (Bell et al., 2013). They all began science learning early in

their lives (life-long). Alejandro’s narrative starts his science learning journey from birth,

explaining that when he was born, he was “doing basic things that involve science.” The

students’ narratives are life-deep by connecting their values and cultural backgrounds to their

science learning experiences. Concerning life-wide learning, Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa

spoke of multiple contexts in which their science learning took place-- school, home, The

Museum, and their family’s country of origin.

95

Each of these places appeared in a variety of constellations of situated events (Bell et al.,

2013), as the students maintained varying positions and engaged in different behaviors. The

Museum, however, stood out to all three students as the location that positioned them as science

learners best. Not only did they all explain that they felt highly skilled when at The Museum, but

they also expressed the fact that The Museum has helped them to perform better in other spaces

like home and school.

Typically, places associated with the pursuit of scientific knowledge are not neutral

settings. They are founded on historical, political, and socially constructed pedestals, acting as

disseminators of the dominant narrative, as noted in the second boundary of Critical Race Theory

in education (Bell et al, 2015; Rodman, 1992; Zumudio et al., 2010). Yet, for Alejandro, Marco,

and Vanessa, The Museum was perceived as a second home, which was not the case for other

museums or their schools. “The most important senses of place to consider are the personal

meanings and attachments that exist between each student and the place or places offered as the

context for the curriculum” (Semken & Freeman, 2008, p. 1045). Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa

explained that The Museum evokes feelings of comfort, relaxation, and belonging. The Museum

became more than a physical place for the students; it became a homeplace. The concept of

homeplace can be traced to the early 90s when Bell Hooks wrote of places where Black women

were able to “affirm one another and by doing so heal many of the wounds inflicted by racist

domination” (1990, p. 42). More broadly speaking, a homeplace is a comforting and safe space

(Pastor et al, 1996) fueled by a community that provides “support, fulfillment, and nourishment”

(Love, 2019, p.63).

Eight years of engagement with The Museum and the museum teachers established The

Museum as a homeplace for each participant-- a place they can “sit and relax” (Alejandro),

96

“show off” (Marco), and “grow” (Vanessa). Spending many years of their lives in The Museum,

actually more than half their lives, the students became familiar with the layout. They found

solace in knowing The Museum “like the back of [their] hand.” Familiarity, as a result of

continued engagement, reinforces lines of interest and increases the likelihood of continued

participation (Archer et al., 2015; Linzer & Munley, 2015).

The relationships developed over the years through The Museum program also

contributed to an established homeplace. Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa often referred to The

Museum teachers as family, friends, or role models. Love (2019) explains that an educator can

create a homeplace for their students by setting high expectations and by implementing culturally

responsive teaching practices. The Museum teachers were able to implement a collegial

pedagogy by using their first names, sitting on the floor with the students, and developing

relationships over an extended time (National Research Council, 2015). This type of pedagogy

results in approaches that are more culturally responsive and caring, which has been shown to

enhance the ways youth of color engage with science (Parsons, 2008). The students felt like The

Museum teachers really understood them, responding to their specific needs, like Vanessa’s self-

identified disabilities, or integrating components of their culture into the science lessons. The

ways in which the teachers interacted with the students contributed to the fostering of a

homeplace. Garcia (2017) explored the concept of homeplaces for young Latina girls in a

Catholic school. The Latina girls also found that they felt among family members in their school

homeplace, which afforded them “inspiration, knowledge, information, and skills” (p. 44).

Similarly, Adams et al. (2004) found that students who participated in a long-term museum

program developed “a sense of belonging to the museum both as a physical facility and as a

community…” (p. 17).

97

The homeplace community was further strengthened by the inclusion of family members

in The Museum and Science Investigators Program. It is suggested that to have rich, active

science learning experiences that are meaningful, the significant adults in students’ lives—their

teachers and adult family members—need to participate in their learning (NSTA, 2014).

Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa spoke frequently about their parents’ and other family members’

involvement in their science experiences. They shared stories related to their parents supporting

their scientific learning, sharing similar passions, and motivating them to continue their scientific

pursuits. They explained how their parents would help to reinforce what they learned at The

Museum, whether it be afterschool at home. This is similar to how Falk and Dierking (2010)

explain that familial involvement in science museum programming helps to enhance the benefits

associated with the out-of-school space through talk, motivation, and modeling. Habig et al.

(2020) note similar findings of how families act as sources of aspiration and support students’

persistence in STEM.

As a result of The Museum functioning as a homeplace, the students felt like they could

be their genuine selves in The Museum. As Alejandro explained, “I just feel normal. Like finally,

I can have some time to do the thing that I love to do.” Bell et al. (2015) explained that “through

their actions, persons express stances that relate to their developing commitments, concerns, and

identities in the midst of unfolding events to the degree afforded by the context” (p. 275). The

Museum as a homeplace within the students’ constellations, afforded the students greater scopes

of possibilities for a developing science sense of self (Bell et al., 2013).

Opened Learning Outcomes at The Museum

The different places in which the students engaged with science positioned the learners as

being competent (Bell et al., 2012). Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa ascribed to being good at

98

science and felt like their peers, in all contexts, viewed them as such. The Museum, however,

stood out to all three students as the location that positioned them as science learners best. In

addition to functioning as a homeplace, The Museum context opened access to learning

outcomes for the students, engaging them in coordinated participation and social relationships

grounded in science (Bell et al., 2013).

Science is more relevant, fun, and accessible for them at The Museum than at school. The

MSIP integrates the assets of The Museum, such as the dioramas, artifacts, and scientists into the

students’ classes. Additionally, students are purposefully engaged in science practices.

Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa appeared most excited when they shared with me the unique

opportunities they received while at The Museum. The students expressed elation with meeting

scientists, going into the hidden collections, and learning inside private classrooms. Through

these experiences, Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa found science to be personally relevant and

valuable to society. Specifically, they expressed that science behaves as a tool for people to

understand how the world operates, how individuals function, and how to survive. They stated

that “science is everything.” This aligns with other studies, as explained in the Impact of

Afterschool STEM report (2016), that have shown students who participate in out-of-school

science learning find the value in science learning.

The experiences at The Museum also influenced how the students think about who can be

a scientist. Vanessa explained that “when everybody thinks of a scientist, they think of a lab coat

and glasses….[and] it would be a [White] man.” The visual Vanessa described is a stereotypical

image embraced by institutions, education, the media, and teachers (Atwater, 2000; Carlone &

Johnson, 2007; Mensah, 2011). Although Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa definitively stated that

anyone can be a scientist, they also recognized stereotypes as barriers that may support or

99

impede an individual’s success in the sciences. Alejandro and Marco pointed out access to

resources like technology, teachers, or schools. They explained that not having access to these

resources might make it more challenging for an individual to learn science or become a

scientist. Additionally, Alejandro and Vanessa spoke about the role perceptions of others play in

an individual’s science experiences. Both pointed out that there exists a disproportionate number

of men in the field of science over women. Vanessa also discussed the underrepresentation of

Black men and women in the field. This is of particular importance, as Mensah (2019) stated:

Conceptualizing race as a social construct can have early implications for young children who are treated differently because of their race. With race and racism as defining factors in society, even the youngest of children are socialized and influenced by its power (p. 15).

Alejandro and Vanessa ascribed the current lack of diversity in the sciences to a lack of

exposure to role models. All three students, however, explained that they have been exposed to

role models in science at The Museum. They spoke to the demographics of The Museum

teachers, noting that they represented a group of individuals from diverse backgrounds. This was

something that Vanessa felt very happy about - seeing women who look like her in science.

Alejandro also spoke about meeting Black and Brown scientists at The Museum. They noted

how this was different from other experiences outside of The Museum, where the majority of

their toys at home or pictures of scientists in school were of White men.

By seeing the value in understanding science and role models in the field, the students

were motivated to learn science (Eccles, 2009; Lyons, 2006). Pintrich and colleagues (1993)

specifically note the value of motivation in encouraging conceptual change. Not only did the

students develop sophisticated ideas about science, such as democratizing the field and the

existence of barriers in science professions, but they also nurtured their science identities.

Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa adopted the stance of ‘science is me’ (Aschbacher et al., 2010).

100

While only Vanessa viewed herself as currently a scientist, Alejandro and Marco felt like they

were “on the way” to becoming a scientist. The specific social experiences and engagement in

science activities afforded by The Museum opened access to science learning that nurtures the

development of a science identity (Bell et al., 2013). Habig et al. (2020) also found that

engagement in a Museum science program affords participants the “opportunities to become

practitioners of STEM…and expand their realm of possibilities” (p. 30). This links closely to

what Rennie (2014) noted about out-of-school science learning increasing student interest,

aspirations, and self-efficacy in science. Students who have built science identities attribute part

of their association with and appreciation of science with learning they experienced out-of-

school, as Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa did.

Institutional Racism Pervades

Critical Race Theorists in education claim the necessity to closely examine the historical

contexts of racism that have molded current education (Dixon & Rousseau, 2018; Solorzano &

Yosso, 2002). While Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa were afforded greater scopes of

possibilities (Bell et al., 2013) as a result of their time in The Museum Science Investigators

Program, they expressed certain ideologies related to the pursuit of scientific knowledge that are

rooted in the divisional processes of colonization (Zamudio et al., 2010).

Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa valued the experiences that appeared exclusive or made

them feel elite or like a “VIP.” Specifically, the students discussed their experiences gaining

access to private locations or outperforming their peers on science exams. These experiences are

representative of the first boundary in Critical Race Theory in education, which asserts that a

system based on competitive achievements has contributed to racial inequity in education (Dixon

& Rousseau, 2018). Their feelings of success from performing well in competitive activities are

101

also associated with credentialing theory (Brown, 2001). Credentials act as a “primary

determinant of modern stratification systems,” (p. 19) and are more concerned with taught

cultural dispositions and the exclusion of particular groups through access to experiences based

on status, relationships, and academic achievement.

Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa viewed their access to The Museum program and spaces,

and the attainment of good grades as supporting their processes of identifying with science. This

is particularly important, as the process of “becoming” is closely linked to social perceptions

about who can and cannot participate in a particular role (Bell et al., 2012). Within science, many

students of color do not perceive themselves as scientists because there exists a narrow,

stereotypical perspective of the demographic of scientists (Archer et al., 2015; Mensah &

Jackson, 2018). In addition to being a White male-dominated field, the ‘clever’ characteristic of

scientists permeates societal understandings. This was observed in Alejandro, Marco, and

Vanessa’s responses, as they spoke about the amount of knowledge an individual needs to have

to be a scientist. Marco and Alejandro believed that pathways to becoming a scientist included

obtaining a degree, a job, and a certain level of knowledge, although neither of them were able to

articulate what that means exactly. Butler (1990) wrote that for youth of color, in particular, it is

challenging to identify with the ‘clever’ characteristic, due to the application of stereotypical

storylines that students have to navigate and counter (Bell et al., 2013). This is perpetuated

through the attainment of credentials. Metz (1990) and Ferguson and Martin-Dunlop (2021)

suggest that credentials for students who identify as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color do

not typically yield the same rewards as they do for White students.

Alejandro and Marco, however, spoke with conviction that they will become scientists at

some point in their lives. They both spoke about being “scientists in the making.” Vanessa also

102

showed great confidence in her identification with being a scientist. In fact, Vanessa believes she

is already a scientist, having been one since she started at The Museum. While Alejandro,

Marco, and Vanessa’s pathways have provided them with possibilities for developing identities

towards science, the way they think about attaining such identities is harmful. In addition to an

overemphasis on credentials, the students all stated that anyone can be a scientist, even despite

social barriers, if they work hard enough. This concept represents an idea of meritocracy, which

suggests that everyone has a similar ability to excel (Crozier, 2018). The issue here is that a

belief in meritocracy blinds individuals to the more deeply rooted constructs of racism that make

the pursuit of scientific knowledge more accessible to some than others. Further, the more

normalized the idea of meritocracy and the valuing of credentials becomes, the less likely people

think to change the system (Schwalbe, 2008). It is here that we see that “the reproduction of

inequality has been institutionalized” (Schwalbe, 2008, p. 53).

The air of authority and power prescribed to science museums was evident in how the

students spoke about The Museum. They believed the information presented in The Museum is

correct and those who collected artifacts and specimens for The Museum must have followed

moral protocols. Even when discussing issues perpetuating discrimination and Western colonial

ideologies, the students remained hesitant to challenge The Museum. Perhaps this is because of

the way the students are positioned within The Museum. Their experiences related to the

controversial statue evoked positive emotions, a first picture or symbol of The Museum.

Goffman (1975) speaks about how people project their frames of reference onto the world

around them. He writes, “when participant roles in an activity are differentiated – a common

circumstance – the view that one person has of what is going on is likely to be quite different

from that of another” (Goffman, 1974; p. 8). Kassim (2019) takes this idea and connects it to a

103

museum setting, noting that when visiting a museum, the experience is correlated to the person’s

identity. The way the students have been positioned within The Museum resulted in the

projection of positive frameworks onto The Museum, and the symbols and actions associated

with it.

Althusser (1971) might note that the students’ ideas and actions are merely results of

repetition of practice. Woven into the fabric of society, educational institutions engage students

in a series of practices and experiences that portray a particular ideology (the ruling ideology).

Repetition of the same task fosters belief. Cohen (1971) elaborates on this by noting:

The child comes to associate everything he learns with the state’s symbols that face or develop him while he is learning. These symbols become as much a part of his mind as the alphabet and the concept of zero. School is not only the place to learn arithmetic; it is also the place to learn zealotry. (p. 41-42)

The Museum, although fostering Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa’s science identities, has also

nurtured ideologies that perpetuate systems of racism and oppression.

Implications for Practice

Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa’s orientations towards science and the development of

those orientations, as told through their stories, reveals a need for the broadening of scopes of

possibilities for young learners in science. As a result, I suggest three calls to action within the

field of science education: (1) the creation of homeplaces for students; (2) increased access and

exposure to science practices and communities; and (3) a commitment to critically conscious

science education.

Creating Homeplaces

Establishing relationships with people and places was a consistent thread throughout

Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa’s stories. They associated The Museum with being a second

home and their museum teachers with being close friends or even family. This created a

104

homeplace for them in which they could engage in science practices, associate with a science

community, and develop as learners who identify with science. Thus, science educators should

seek to leverage student relationships and promote long-term engagement in science spaces.

Implementing a collegial pedagogy in which teachers are mutually dependent on their students’

skills and perspectives (National Research Council, 2015) is one way to foster positive

relationships in the science classrooms. For Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa the collegial

pedagogy implemented by The Museum teachers made them feel closely connected to the

teachers, as if they were like family. Teachers should work to also foster their relationships with

students’ families. Familial involvement in science museum spaces further advances the benefits

of the out-of-school space (Crowley & Jacobs, 2002; Falk & Dierking, 2010) and contributes to

the development of a learning space feeling like home.

Feelings related to being surrounded by family contribute to developing a homeplace, as

does continued engagement in a particular place. Science education institutions should

emphasize the value of early and continued engagement. “Learning from any science-related

experience is most likely when young people’s engagement is purposeful and prolonged or

revisited” (Rennie, 2014, p. 138). Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa’s pathways show development

over time. Museums and schools should be responsive to learning being a life-long process. “We

need to be concerned with the possible science selves children construct in their early years of

schooling because these identities will support their continued interest in, and motivation for,

learning science” (Kane, 2012, p. 28). This is particularly important for youth of color and

female youth of color, as representation in the sciences is disproportionate. This can be seen

early on in K-12 schooling that becomes exacerbated in college and onward.

105

About 71 percent of conferred STEM degrees are for White individuals, even though the

US population is about 65 percent White (Landivar, 2013). Hispanic individuals, however,

represent about 14 percent of the population, but only account for seven percent of STEM

degrees awarded. Only six percent conferred STEM degrees are awarded to Black students, who

make up about 15 percent of the population. These numbers are further inflamed concerning

female Black, Indigenous, or People of Color students. That said, early and continued out-of-

school learning has shown to enhance the likelihood of someone of color entering the STEM

field (Ferguson & Martin-Dunlop, 2021).

Increase Access and Exposure to Science Learning

Unfortunately, experiences like the Museum Science Investigators Program are not

always accessible to all students, particularly students of color and students from low-

socioeconomic backgrounds. Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa spoke of the elitist status associated

with being a part of the program. Only some students are admitted into The MSIP and even a

smaller percentage are able to continue in Museum programming after completing The MSIP in

fifth grade. This is the case for many science learning experiences. Even in schools, science

engagement opportunities are often provided only to academically higher-achieving students

(Emdin, 2009).

We know, however, that out-of-school science learning contributes to students’ science

motivation, creativity, self-efficacy, and interest (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007; NRC, 2015; NSTA,

2012). As a result, students who experience science in out-of-school contexts are more likely to

develop personal identifications with science (Bell et al., 2009; Rennie, 2017). Alejandro, Marco,

and Vanessa explained the value of engaging in an out-of-school science learning environment.

They noted that The Museum program offered opportunities that spaces like their school do not.

106

The Museum engaged them in more exciting activities, scientific practices, and relevant content.

It is important then for more students to have access and exposure to science experiences like

The MSIP provided.

One approach would be for more funding to be allocated to programs like The MSIP,

which would require shining a light on the advantages of a science learning program. Burns

(2019) analyzed what it means for a museum to be successful today. She produced three sources

for measuring museum success: (1) Money: How much profit does a museum see throughout a

given amount of time? (2) Morals: What is the reputation of the museum? and (3) Metrics: Who

are the visitors and how many are there? These standards for measurement are where science

museum directors’ interests lie and are terms to which they can relate. Therefore, it would be

fruitful to utilize these interests and values as methods for persuasion to allocate additional

financial resources to creating greater access to science learning in a museum.

Another approach would be to build bridges between out-of-school spaces, like The

Museum and the home and school environments (Rennie, 2014). To achieve this, school teachers

should be provided the support and education to prepare their students “for active but enjoyable

participation in the out-of-school experience and consolidating activities back in the classroom”

(Rennie, 2014, p. 138). Parents would also benefit from additional understandings related to

facilitating out-of-school science learning. Riedinger (2012) recommended a list of strategies for

family members to use when bringing children to out-of-school learning spaces like a museum.

Strategies consisted of helping children to ask open-ended questions, test ideas, and observe

closely. They also identify the importance of family members behaving as interested and excited

role models.

107

Commit to Critically Conscious Science Education

Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa’s portrayal of The Museum was presented as “factual,

uncontroversial, and without ethical dimensions” (Rennie, 2014, p. 124). This, however, is not

representative of the reality of science and is a dangerous ideology to perpetuate, as its roots are

steeped in oppressive and colonial behaviors and perspectives (Zamudio et al., 2010). I argue,

therefore, that cultural institutions have an “obligation to preserve and enforce those aspects of

heritage that are tolerant, compassionate, and respectful of difference, and to work against, in an

open way, traditions of White privilege, racism, inequality, and oppression” (Jennings & Jones-

Rizzi, 2017, p. 64). Facilitating science education that promotes critical consciousness will

support students in reworking their ideas about science, identifying more closely with science,

and developing the tools to challenge the status quo in science (Diemer & Li, 2011).

Educators in all contexts can implement a justice-centered curriculum; however, out-of-

school science experiences are uniquely positioned to promote youth agency, leverage students’

current values, and challenge structural inequities (Archer et al., 2016). Justice-centered

education pushes science learning beyond academic success to include issues of social justice

and action-oriented experiences (Morales-Doyle, 2017). Hollander (2019) offers some

suggestions for how museum educators can support learners in recognizing that there is more

than one truth, beyond that of the white colonial. Hollander (2019) suggests five different

approaches: (1) Tap into the students’ senses by aligning the sensory experience with an integral

component of the story. This would mean triggering the emotions and values of the individual as

it relates to the curriculum; (2) Provide opportunities for students to explore multiple

perspectives; (3) Find a way to connect students with the stories through common ground; (4)

Establish moments for students to engage in a critical dialogue that acknowledges biases; (5)

108

Utilize Socratic Questioning (questioning designed to explore complex ideas and reveal

assumptions) to encourage students to continue conversations and considerations after class.

Yosso (2002) also offers suggestions for an approach to critical race curriculum, which is further

discussed in the Final Coda. These approaches offered by Hollander (2019) and Yosso (2002)

can support science museums in conveying multiple truths, while also being responsive to how

individuals learn.

Limitations

Though the study generated many positive findings, there are some limitations to my

work. First, this study is void of observations. Observations can be an excellent research strategy

in narrative inquiry (Creswell & Poth, 2019). Observations help to position the researcher in the

context and develop a greater understanding of the social, material, and emotional aspects of any

setting. Observations also provide a way for the researcher to further triangulate the data. While I

was able to implement other strategies for triangulation, I would have benefited from observing

how the students’ stories and perceptions represented the actual occurrence.

Additionally, a large portion of data was collected from past rememberings, where I

asked students to recount their experiences. However, I am of the mind of Bricker and Bell

(2013) when they said, “We care deeply about people’s emic perspectives relative to their lived

histories because these perspectives help surface the meanings that the participants themselves

make of their lives” (p. 267). Storytelling is a powerful tool to understand the life of an

individual and how they perceive the experiences throughout their life. Specifically, stories that

highlight the voice of students of color can play a role in “naming one’s own reality” and

changing the stories that are told (Delgado et al., 2017; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Lynn &

Parker, 2006; Zamudio et al., 2010)

109

Given that the responses to my request for participants were voluntary, it is also expected

that those who more closely identify with science opted to participate (Archer et al., 2015). That

said, the purpose of this study was not to create generalizations, but rather to give weight to

individual stories and their scientific experience.

Additionally, I needed to consider how my positionality may have affected the students

and their stories. Being that I was Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa’s teacher at one point, I aimed

to mediate feelings related to power dynamics (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Students were in the

comfort of their homes during our interviews. To some extent, they were able to control the

environment and manage what I saw and heard with Zoom features. In addition to the physical

space, it was also a goal of mine to empower the students as storytellers, which I did by

emphasizing the importance of their stories and engaging as an active listener.

Further, as a White woman, the students may not have felt as comfortable discussing

issues related to race as deeply with me. While my positionality may have limited the depth of

what the students shared with me, I do feel that the relationship I have with the students is

positive and allowed them to embrace our conversation to co-construct powerful narratives. I

also actively worked against my own potential biases by keeping a personal journal and staying

close to the data through the multiple stages of data analysis.

Recommendations and Conclusion

This work highlighted the narratives of three young science learners of diverse cultural

backgrounds, who identify as youth of color and graduated from an eight-year-long museum

science program. Their stories illuminated their orientations towards science and the

development of those orientations over time. The students’ experiences provide implications for

science education and lend themselves to opportunities for future research. There still exists a

110

dearth in the literature regarding the nature of out-of-school science learning experiences, which

require deep exploration, as an individual spends about 95 percent of their life out-of-school

(Falk & Dierking, 2010). The scarcity in the literature drops even further when referring to

understanding long-term programming at science museums (Rennie, 2014).

This study emphasized narratives that were presented by students after they engaged in

science learning experiences. It would be beneficial to explore a learner’s pathway

longitudinally. This would provide opportunities to observe students during moments of science

engagement and across multiple spaces with data collection across the timespan. Specifically,

one could explore how a child manages their stances and actions dependent upon their location.

Bricker and Bell (2013) implemented an ethnographic study over nearly two years. They

completed observations in students’ home, school, and community settings. They captured

student voice through interviews, surveys, and artifacts. This approach provided a more holistic

picture of how the variety of spaces within an individuals’ pathway can work together or against

one another in the development of a child’s science orientation (Rennie, 2014). Bricker and Bell

(2013) note the need to better understand “the learning-related affordances, constraints, and

practices of any situated event in which persons are engaged in sociomaterial activities” (p. 282).

It would also be fruitful to understand the continued science engagement of students who

complete The Museum Science Investigators Program. Not all students who graduate from the

MSIP continue learning in The Museum setting. It would be helpful to understand what

implications continued science learning in their homeplace, or outside of their homeplace, has on

their science orientations. There have been some studies completed at The Museum related to the

middle and high school programs, but none to my knowledge that follow students through the

MSIP and after.

111

Additionally, I recommend the continued use of Critical Race Theory and Cultural

Learning Pathways as unified frameworks. In this study, the use of both frameworks helped me

to critically understand each students’ science learning stories. More specifically, Cultural

Learning Pathways revealed the unique and dynamic science learning trajectories of each student

(Bell et al., 2013). Their varied and robust pathways contradict the dominant narrative that

expresses a more linear journey for students in science (Lyon et al., 2012). The Cultural Learning

Pathways and Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessas’ stories argue for close attention to the places,

positions, and actions to which students in science are exposed. This begins to move the

conversation related to youth of color in science away from a deficit-based perspective to “an

assets-based perspective, where STEM pathways are a continuum of opportunities…” (Habig et

al., 2020, p. 30).

Terms such as deficit and asset, however, remain relatively enigmatic without greater

description. This is where marrying Critical Race Theory with Cultural Learning Pathways

proves to be beneficial. CRT in education outlines clear boundaries which illustrate how the

social and historical underpinnings, as they relate to race, influence individual pathways (Dixon

& Rousseau, 2018). Take the students’ statements related to the idea, ‘anyone can be a scientist,

if they work hard enough,’ for example. If I had alone adopted the CLP framework, I might

interpret this statement to suggest the students have been empowered to work diligently and

strive for success. Overlaying CRT, however, I identified the meritocratic basis of this claim,

which is in line with the boundaries of CRT in education (Dixon & Rousseau, 2018). By rooting

interpretations of students’ pathways in the boundaries of CRT, we begin to deconstruct the

foundation of the issues of inequity in science education. Using Critical Race Theory and

112

Cultural Learning Pathways as theoretical frameworks together supports the potential for greater

progress towards more equitable education. As Willinsky (1998) notes:

To catch sight of our education working on us in [racialized ways] is to begin to change it, disabling some of the ready assumptions that form our idea of the world. If we cannot go back, perhaps we can go forward. (p. 87)

Further, Critical Race Theorists promote themselves not only as passive scholars but also

as critical activists, working towards the “elimination of all forms of domination and oppression”

(Parsons, 2014, p. 182). Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa all presented ideologies consistent with

the reproduction of inequality. I hope to work towards creating out-of-school curriculum and

environments that foster critical examination of science and science institutions. A closer

examination of literature developing in this field would be necessary, as well as the inclusion of

diverse perspectives and voices, such as Alejandro, Marco, and Vanessa’s. By bringing diverse

voices to the table, we can begin to “interrogate the assumptions of knowers, and consequently...

[reduce] knowledge that protects hegemony and inequality” (Banks, 1995, p. 24). As Arendt

(1951) notes this would require myself and collaborators to examine and bear “consciously the

burden that events have placed upon us - neither denying their existence nor submitting meekly

to their weight…” (p. xiv).

113

Final Coda

Tyack and Tobin (1994) tell the stories of two reform initiatives that attempted to

construct a school that drummed to a tune other than that of the traditional order. First presented

is the Dalton plan which was established in recognition that “the graded class and batch

processing of individuals who were intrinsically different were anything but functional - they

were irrational relics of the past that violated the best educational thought” (p. 464). To purge the

school of this violation, the Dalton school removed self-contained classes, whole class

recitations, the Carnegie unit, and promotions. Instead, teachers implemented student-teacher

contracts that gave students the freedom to determine their pace, peers with whom they would

work, and the opportunity to engage in supplementary study like the arts. Second presented is the

eight-year study, which analyzed schools that were, through mutual agreements, freed from

college requirements. As a result, the schools were given the choice of how to structure their

curriculum and what content to teach. Students were given more time to work on arts, participate

in community service, produce publications, and make decisions in the schooling processes. This

was all to rid schooling of departmental specialization, the Carnegie unit, and graded school, also

referred to by educational reformers as “straitjackets” (p. 466).

While teachers and students from both the Dalton plan and the eight-year study were

energized by the initiatives, the “strong breeze” (Tyack & Tobin, 1994, p. 469) of both

eventually faded. What followed the implementation of both initiatives was resistance from

school boards, parents, and educators. The new plans required tremendous time commitments

and diligence from the educators, from which they eventually burnt-out. Additionally, school

boards and parents questioned the purpose of schooling, falling back on the traditional rhetoric

that was in line with ruling discourse. In considering why this is, Cohen (1971) would say, “to

114

expect that a state will allow its schools to serve aims other than those of the national political

structure is to expect that a state will not behave like a state” (p. 41). Schwalbe (2008) would

agree and add that perhaps the school boards, parents, and educators did not understand the new

schools because “capitalism is the only game in town” (p. 56). Meaning, their familiarity and

comfort rested in the school systems founded in capitalism.

I mention these two stories because I make recommendations that push against the

common sense (Boggs, 1984) of what education should mean and look like. These stories,

however, reveal the challenge of educational change. They demonstrate the intimate

connectedness of institutionalized teaching and society (Dewey, 1900). As I argue for critical

science curricula and science learning that expands beyond school walls, I recognize the

importance of establishing greater alignment and synergized momentum towards a common

goal, which is in this case, the end of systemic oppression in science teaching and learning. This

is based on the idea that high-quality science teaching and learning is supported when all

members throughout a system exhibit well-aligned visions and goals (Lauffer & Lauffer, 2009).

What follows below are suggestions for how settings within the educational ecosystem

can shift to work in concert with one another toward equity in science education. This is not an

exhaustive list. Rather, I offer these recommendations to begin the conversation around

synergizing educational entities and reimagining the dominant narratives among them.

Educational Policy and Research

Ravitch (2000) refers to educational reforms as disruptors. She notes that initiatives

named reforms do not show progress, as they are not directed at solving the root of the problem.

In recent years, we have seen several disruptors appear in education: high-stakes testing,

accountability programming, charter schools, and more. These initiatives have failed because,

115

while they were launched under the guise of closing achievement gaps, they were designed to

address the needs and interests of White, middle to high class, monolingual American students

(Berry et al., 2013). The majority of past “reforms” have been harmful to Black, Brown,

Indigenous, and Students of Color. The disruptors expose the racism pervasive in education

policy, and reveal a need for policymakers to respond to the source of issues regarding inequity

in education (Yosso, 2005). Educational policy should be informed by the boundaries of Critical

Race Theory to address the historical influences on science teaching and learning today (Dixon

& Rousseau, 2018). Without addressing the understructures, we will only continue to disrupt the

system, rather than reform it (Ravitch, 2002).

One approach to increasing this potential is through research. What we have seen in the

past, however, is the “tension between using rigorous research evidence, on one hand, and

embracing policies that are popularly perceived – at least in policy circles – to be common-sense

solutions to persistent problems in public education” on the other hand (Lubienski et al., 2014, p.

137). Research studies that suit the needs of the dominant narrative have been over-resourced to

support a particular policy perspective and the illusion of reform. Further, the concept of

policymaking has broadened to incorporate private philanthropists and foundations (Lubienski et

al., 2014). These non-governmental bodies have gained authority over research centers, as well

as educational agendas, strategies, and funding. This results in an “echo chamber” in which the

researchers, policymakers, and private entities collaborate and control education under the

presiding ideology. This requires the mass, intentional, and strategic dissemination of quality

research (Lubienski et al., 2014). ‘If we have been gagged and disempowered by theories, we

can also be loosened and empowered by theories’ (Anzaldúa, 1990, p. xxvi).

116

Institutional Priorities

There are many scientific and cultural institutions, like the one in this study, that provide

educational opportunities to the community (Afterschool Alliance, 2016). Habig et al. (2020)

recommend that these institutions “elucidate and challenge the assumptions that we make around

program design and enactment, especially when programs are structured around goals of

broadening participation” (p. 34). As mentioned earlier, early exposure, long-term engagement,

the creation of homeplaces, and the implementation of a critically conscious curriculum can

support equitable science teaching and learning for youth of color.

To achieve this, cultural institutions need to invest in their educators. Tran et al. (2019)

speak to the value of Museum educators on organizational reach. Museum teachers promote

repeat visits and donations, and mold the institution’s “reputation, expertise, and leadership” (p.

136). Because the institutional context is where my research is situated, I prepared a briefing,

which can be viewed in Appendix J. This briefing further elaborates on ideas related to

programming design and museum teacher education.

Curricular Considerations

Within my earlier recommendations, I call for a commitment to a critically conscious

science education. El-Amin et al. (2017) explain that:

Critical consciousness — the ability to recognize and analyze systems of inequality and the commitment to take action against these systems — can be a gateway to academic motivation and achievement for marginalized students. (para. 1)

To support students in developing critical consciousness, Yosso (2002) suggests the

implementation of a critical race curriculum (CRC). CRC is an approach to developing and

teaching a curriculum that is informed by Critical Race Theory. The curriculum, in this case,

includes the content as well as the discourse, processes, and structures that facilitate student

117

learning. Yosso offers six steps towards applying CRC in practice: a) Centralize race and

intersectionality in curricular development; b) Identify and challenge dominant ideologies; (c)

Seek out, participate in, and promote consciousness; (d) Pull from interdisciplinary perspectives -

history, sociology, psychology, science, etc. – to analyze and articulate the relationships between

education and social inequity; and (e) Listen to, forefront, and learn from the experiences of

people of color. A critical race curriculum exposes the oppressive energy of educational

institutions and empowers teachers, students, and families to work towards social justice.

Historically, unfortunately, the implementation of a ‘radical’ curriculum in schools is

usually met with resistance and phases out (Yosso, 2002), as was seen in the stories told by

Tyack and Tobin (1994). Out-of-school settings, like museums, however, are better positioned to

adopt a more progressive curriculum. They are not constrained by standards, high-stakes testing,

or accountability-related funding. Nevertheless, any teacher who adopts a critical race

curriculum “attempts to turn the few weapons they can find in history and learning to ‘teach’

against the ideology, the system and the practices in which they are trapped. They are a kind of

hero” (Althusser, 1971, p. 157).

The Child and the Family

The lived experiences of students and families of color are often silenced, misinterpreted,

or devalued in educational settings (Delgado Bernal, 2002; Solozano & Yosso, 2002). In out-of-

school contexts, there exists an overwhelming deficit perspective related to Black, Brown,

Indigenous, and Students of Color (Habig et al., 2020). Institutions like museums are “often

positioned as having programming that fills a void that may exist in the lives of youth

participants” (p. 1). Such positioning perpetuates inequity and maintains dominant and

detrimental narratives.

118

Students of color should be recognized as “holders and creators of knowledge who…can

transform the world into a more just place” (Delgado Bernal, 2002, p. 108). The experiences,

language, and values students garner from their homes and communities should be celebrated,

and reveled as great strengths (Delgado Bernal, 2002; Habig et al., 2020; Yosso, 2002). Delgado

Bernal (2002) refers to the “pedagogies of the home” as the learning that stems from family and

community interactions. Pedagogies of the home influence the ways youth understand and

engage with the world, the sciences, and education. Communities can support their children in

discussing, critiquing, and finding opportunities for advocacy. Castillo (1995), however, explains

how the pedagogy of the home has its limits for people of color:

Today, we grapple with our need to thoroughly understand who we are…and to believe in our gifts, talents, our worthiness and beauty, while having to survive within the constructs of a world antithetical to our intuition and knowledge…(p. 149)

It is with Castillo’s words that we see the need for synergy across all contexts within the

education system. Of course, this is no small task.

If our aim is to produce a new stratum of intellectuals, including those capable of the highest degree of specialisation, from a social group which has not traditionally developed the appropriate attitudes, then we have unprecedented difficulties to overcome. (Gramsci, 1971, p. 43)

It does, however, offer hope in a time of faded reforms and bureaucracy. Greater equity in

science education and the end of systemic oppression is possible.

119

References

Abu El-Haj, T. R. (2015). Belonging in troubling times: Considerations from the vantage point of Arab American immigrant youth. Handbook of Children and Youth Studies, 433-445. 10.1007/978-981-4451-15-4_67

Adams, J. D., & Gupta, P. (2013). “I learn more here than I do in school. Honestly, I wouldn’t lie about that” Creating a space for agency and identity around science. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 4(2), 87-104.

Adams, J. D., Gupta, P., & Cotumaccio, A. (2014). Long-term participants: A museum

program enhances girl’s STEM interest, motivation, and persistence. Afterschool Matters,13-20.

Adams, J. D. (2007). The historical context of science and education at the American Museum of Natural History. Cultural Science Education, 2, 393-440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-007-9059-8

Adamuti-Trache, M., & Andres, L. (2008). Embarking on and persisting in scientific fields of

study: Cultural capital, gender, and curriculum along the science pipeline. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1557-1584. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701324208

Afterschool Alliance. (2016). The impact of afterschool STEM: Examples from the field.

Retrieved from http://afterschoolalliance.org/documents/AfterschoolSTEMImpacts2016.pdf

Aikenhead, G. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies

in Science Education, 27, 1-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269608560077 Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence based practice. Teachers

College Press. Aikenhead, G., & Ogawa, M. (2007). Indigenous knowledge and science revisited. Cultural

Studies of Science Education, 2(3), 539-620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-007-9067-8 Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In Lenin and philosophy and

other essays (pp. 127-186). New York: Monthly Review Press.

Anzaldúa, G. (1990). Making face, making soul: Creative and critical perspectives by women of color. Aunt Lute Press.

Archer, L. (2017). How do families from disadvantaged backgrounds experience a science

museum visit? Dimensions, Special Edition, 30-33. Archer, L., Dawson, E., Seakins, A., DeWitte, J., Godec, S., & Whitby, C. (2016). “I’m being a

120

man here”: Urban boy’s performances of masculinity and engagement with science during a science museum visit, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(3), 438-485, DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2016.1187147

Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J. (2015). Is science for us? Black students’ and parents’ views of science and science careers. Science Education, 99(2), 199-237. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21146

Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94, 617-639. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20399

Arendt, H. (1951). Preface to part one: Anti-Semitism. In The origins of totalitarianism (pp.

xii-xvi). Harvest Books.

Aschbacher, P., Li, E., & Roth, E. (2010). Is science me? High school students’ identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 564-582. 10.1002/tea.20353

Atwater, M. M. (2000). Females in science education: White is the norm and class, language,

lifestyle and religion are nonissues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 386 – 387. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200004)37:4<386::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-M

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H Freeman and Company. Banks, J. (1995). The historical reconstruction of knowledge about race: Implications for

transformative teaching. Educational Research, 24(2), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176421

Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C., Godron, E. M., Hayes, M. L.

(2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED598121.pdf

Barber, B. L., Stone, M. R., Hunt, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Benefits of activity

participation: The roles of identity affirmation and peer group norm sharing. In J.L. Mahoney, R.W. Larson, J. & S. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs (pp. 185-210). Erlbaum.

Bell, P., Bricker, L.A., Reeve, S., Zimmerman, H.T., & Tzou, C. (2012). Discovering and supporting successful learning pathways of youth in and out-of-school: Accounting for the development of everyday expertise across settings. In B. Bevan, P. Bell, R. Stevens, & A. Razfar (Eds.), LOST opportunities: Learning in out of school time (pp. 119–140). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4304-5_9

121

Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in informal

environments: People, places, and pursuits. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12190

Bell, P., Tzou, C., Bricker, L., & Baines, A. D. (2013). Learning in diversities of structures of

social practice: Accounting for how, why and where people learn science. Human Development, 55, 269-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159%2F000345315

Berg, A., & Mensah, F. M. (2014). De-marginalizing science in the elementary classroom by coaching teachers to address perceived dilemmas. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(57), 1-35. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n57.2014

Berry III, R. Q., Ellis, M., & Hughes, S. (2013). Examining a history of failed reforms and recent stories of success: Mathematics education and Black learners mathematics in the United States. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 17(4), 540-568. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2013.818534

Blue, J., & Gann, D. (2008). When do girls lose interest in math and science? Science Scope,

32(2), 44-47. Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. Sage. Boggs, C. (1984). The theory of ideological hegemony. In The two revolutions: Antonio

Gramsci and the dilemmas of western marxism (pp. 153-166). South End Press. Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2013). “What comes to mind when you think of science? The

perfumery!”: Documenting science-related cultural learning pathways across contexts and timescales. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 260-285. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21134

The Brookings Institution. (2018). 2018 Annual Report of The Brookings Institute.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018-annual-report.pdf Burns, C. (2019, April 6). What makes museums great? Money, morals and metrics. Retrieved

from https://www.artagencypartners.com/101-issue-cb-attendance/

Brown, D. K. (2001). The social sources of educational credentialism: Status cultures, labor markets and organizations. Sociology of Education, 74 (Extra Issue: Current of thought: Sociology of Education at the dawn of the 21st century), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673251

Butler, J. P. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge. Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful

122

women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187-1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237

Castillo, A. (1995). Massacre of the dreamers: Essays on Xicanisma. Plume.

Center for STEM Learning. (2016). Science Identity. Experiential Science Education Research Collaborative. Retrieved from http://www.xsci.org/research-2/science-identity/

Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test.

Science Education, 67(2), 255-265. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670213 Chetcuti, D. A. & Kioko, B. (2012). Girls’ attitudes towards science in Kenya. International

Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 1571-1589. 10.1080/09500693.2012.665196 Chi, B., Dorph, R., & Reisman, L. (2014). Evidence and impact: Museum-managed STEM

program in out-of-school settings. Committee on Successful Out-of-School STEM Learning. National Research Council.

Clandinin, D. J. (2013). Engaging in narrative inquiry. Left Coast Press. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in

Qualitative research. Jossey-Bass. Clifford, J. (1985). Objects and selves – an afterword. In G. W. Stocking Jr. (Ed.), Objects and

others: Essays on museums and material culture (pp. 236-246). University of Wisconsin Press.

Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2001). Defining “science” in a multicultural world:

Implications for science education. Science Education, 85, 50-67. https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1002%2F1098-237X(200101)85%3A1%253C50%3A%3AAID-SCE5%253E3.0.CO%3B2-G

Cohen, Y. (1971). The shaping of men’s minds: Adaptations to the imperatives of culture. In M.

L. Wax, S. Diamond & F. O. Gearing (Eds.), Anthropological perspectives on education (pp. 19-50). New York: Basics.

Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement

gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science, 313(5791), 1307-1310. 10.1126/science.1128317

Cole, S. (2012). The development of science identity: An evaluation of youth development

programs at The Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1338&context=luc_diss

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. P. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing

123

among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage. Crowley, K., & Jacobs, M. (2002). Building islands of expertise in everyday family activity. In G.

Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (p. 333–356). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Crozier, G. (2018). Race and education: Meritocracy as White middle class privilege. British

Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(8), 1239-1246. https://doi-org.tc.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/01425692.2018.1523354

Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. Sage. Daily, S.B., & Eugene, W. (2013). Preparing the future STEM workforce for diverse

environments. Urban Education, 48(5), 682-704. https://doi-org.tc.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0042085913490554

Delgado Bernal, D. (2001). Learning and living pedagogies of the home: The mestiza

consciousness of Chicana students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(5), 623-639. 10.1080/09518390110059838

Delgado Bernal, D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical raced-

gendered epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390110059838

Delgado, R., Stefancic, J., & Harris, A. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction (3rd

Ed.). New York University Press. Dewey, J. (1900). The school and society and the child and the curriculum. Teachers College

Press. DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Archer, L., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2013). Young children’s

aspirations in science: The unequivocal, the uncertain and the unthinkable. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 1037-1063. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.608197

Diemer, M. A., & Li, C. (2011). Critical consciousness development and political participation among marginalized youth. Child Development, 82(6), 1815-1833. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01650.x

Dixon, A. D., & Rousseau Anderson, C. (2018). Where are we? Critical race theory in education

20 years later. Peabody Journal of Education, 93(1), 121-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2017.1403194

Driessnack, M. (2005). Children’s drawings as facilitators of communication: A

124

meta-analysis. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 20(6), 415–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2005.03.011

Dreier, O. (2009). Persons in structure of social practice. Theory and Psychology, 19, 193-

212. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0959354309103539 Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and

teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11625

Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective

identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832368

El-Amin, A., Seider, S., Graves, D., Tamerate, J., Clark, S., Soutter, M., Johannsen, J., &

Malhotra, S. (2017). Critical consciousness: A key to student achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(5), 18-23.

Emdin C. (2009). Reality pedagogy: Hip hop culture and the urban classroom. In W.MM Roth

(Ed.), Science education from people to people (pp.70-77). New York, NY: Routledge. Esteban-Guitart, M., & Moll, L. C. (2014). Funds of identity: A new concept based on the

funds of knowledge approach. Culture & Psychology, 20(1), 31-48. DOI: 10.1177/1354067X13515934

Erikson, E.H. (1994). Identity and the life cycle. Norton & Company.

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the

making of meaning. AltaMira. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2010). The 95 percent solution. American Scientist, 98, 486–493.

doi:10.1511/2010.87.486 Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D., & Semmel, M. (2013). Museum experience revisited. Left Coast

Press. Falk, J. H., & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to understand

visitor learning from a science center exhibit. Wiley Periodicals. 10.1002/sce.20078

Falk, J. H., Osborne, J., Dierking, L., Dawson, E., Wenger, M., & Wong, B. (2012). Analysing the UK science education community: The contribution of informal providers. Welcome Trust.

Ferguson, D., & Martin-Dunlop, C. (2021). Uncovering stories of resiliency among successful

African American women in STEM. Cutlural Stuides of Science Education. 10.1007/s11422-020-10006-8

125

Fillindra, A., Blanding, D., & Coll, C. G. (2011). The power of context: State-level policies

and politics and the educational performance of the children of immigrants in the United States. Harvard Educational Review, 81(3), 407-438. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.3.n306607254h11281

Garcia, M.G. (2017). Creating a homeplace: Young Latinas constructing feminista identities in

the context of a single-sex catholic school. High School Journal, 101(1), 27+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A515382617/AONE?u=new30429&sid=AONE&xid=7281cea5

Garibay, C. (2009). Latinos, leisure values, and decisions: Implications for informal science learning and engagement. The Informal Learning Review, 94, 1-13.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research. Sociology Press. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare, & G.N. Smith, Eds.).

International Publishers. Graves-Brown, P. (2000). Introduction. In P. Graves-Brown (Ed.), Matter, materiality and

modern culture (pp. 1-9). Routledge. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and

emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 191-215). Sage Publications Ltd.

Habig, B., Gupta, P., & Adams, J. D. (2020). Disrupting deficit narratives in informal science education: applying community cultural wealth theory to youth learning and engagement. Cultural Studies of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-020-10014-8

Hanson, S. (2009). Swimming against the tide: African American girls and science education.

Temple University Press. Harackiewicz, J. M, Rozeck, C. S., Hulleman, C. S., & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Helping parents to

motivate adolescents in mathematics and science: An experimental test of a utility-value intervention. Psychologist Science, 23(8), 899-906. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797611435530

Harris, C. (1995). Whiteness as property. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K. Thomas (Eds.), Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement (pp. 276-291). The New Press.

126

Head, J. (1985). The personal response to science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hill, M. (1997). Participatory research with children. Child and Family Social Work, 2, 171-

183. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2206.1997.00056.x Hill, P. W., McQuillan, J., Spiegel, A. N., & Diamond, J. (2017). Discovery orientation,

cognitive schemas, and disparities in science identity in early adolescence. Sociological Perspectives, 61(1), 99-125. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0731121417724774

Holdsworth, C., & Morgan, D. (2007). Revisiting the generalized other: An exploration. Sociology, 41(3), 401-417. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0038038507076614

Hollander, A. (2019, December 16). Museums & truth: The truth is, there is more than one truth!

Retrived from https://www.museumnext.com/article/museums-truth-the-truth-is-there-is-more-than-one-truth/

Hooks, B. (1990). Homeplace: A site of resistance. In Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural

politics. South End Press. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy, performance.

Routledge. Jaffe-Walter, R. (2013). “Who would they talk about if we weren’t here?”: Muslim youth,

liberal schooling, and the politics of concern. Harvard Educational Review, 83(4), 613-635. https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.17763%2Fhaer.83.4.b41012p57h816154

Janesick, V.J. (2011). “Stretching” exercises for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

Jennings, G., & Jones-Rizzi, J. (2017). Museums, White privilege, and diversity: A systematic

perspective. Dimensions, Special Edition, 63-74. Johnston, J. (1997). Measuring attitudes in science: What exactly are we measuring and why?

Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association (BERA) Department of Primary Education, The Nottingham Trent University.

Johnston, A., Butler, M. B., Mensah, F. M., & Williams, B. (2011). Playing with science: Models for engaging communities. Special issue, designing environments to promote play-based science learning. Children, Youth and Environments, 21(2), 312-324. https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.7721%2Fchilyoutenvi.21.2.0312

Kahn, M. (1995). Heterotopic dissonance in The Museum representation of Pacific Island

127

cultures. American Anthropologist, New Series, 97, 324-338. https://www.jstor.org/stable/681965

Kane, J.M (201). Multiple identities and the science self: How a young African American boy

positions himself in multiple worlds. In M. Varelas & C. Ali-Khan (Eds.), Identity construction and science education research: Learning, teaching, and being in multiple contexts (pp. 27-42). Brill.

Kassim, S. (2019, July 26). The museum is the master’s house: An open letter to

tristram hunt. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@sumayakassim/the-museum-is-the-masters-house-an-open-letter-to-tristram-hunt-e72d75a891c8?

Kincheloe, J. (2001). Getting beyond the facts: Teaching social studies/social sciences in the

twenty-first century. Peter Lang. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers

College Record, 97(1), 47-68. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315709796-2 Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American

children. John Wily & Sons, Incorporated. Landivar, L. C. (2013). Disparities in STEM employment by sex, race, and Hispanic origin.

American Community Survey Reports, ACS-24, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Lauffer, H. B., & Lauffer, D. (2009). Building Professional Development Cadres. In Mundry, S.,

& Stiles, K. E (Eds.), Professional Learning Communities for Science Teaching: Lessons From Research and Practice (pp. 55-72). NSTApress.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge University Press. Lee, J. D. (2012). More than ability: Gender and personal relationships influence science and

technology involvement. Sociology of Education, 75(4), 349-373. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/3090283

Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2007). Science education and student diversity: Race/ethnicity,

language, culture, and socioeconomic status. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol I, pp. 171-199). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Leider, M. M., & Academy, L. (2017). Schools and principles often are not accountable for science, technology, and engineering learning [White paper]. Retrieved February 21, 2019 from 100kin10 Grand Challenges White Papers: https://grandchallenges.100kin10.org/assets/downloads/schools-and-principals-often-are-not-accountable-for-science-technology-and-engineering-learning/GrandChallengesWhitePapers_Leider.pdf

128

Leonard, M. (2006). Children’s drawings as a methodological tool: Reflections on the eleven

plus system in Northern Ireland. Irish Journal of Sociology, 15(2), 52-66. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F079160350601500204

Levin, M. (2002). Museums and the democratic order. The Wilson Quarterly, 26, 52-65.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40260571 Levy, A.R., & Mensah, F.M. (2021). Learning through the experience of water in elementary

school science. Water, 13(43), 1-31. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/w13010043 Lichtman, M. (2012). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Linzer, D., & Munley, M. (2015). Room to rise: The lasting impact of intensive teen

programs in art museums. http://whitney.org/file_columns/0009/7558/room-to-rise.pdf

Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray, E. The politics of research production, promotion, and utilization in educational policy. Educational Policy, 28(2), 131-144. 10.1177/0895904813515329.

Lynn, M., & Parker, L. (2006). Critical race studies in education: Examining a decade of

research on U.S. schools. The Urban Review, 38(4), 257-290. 10.1007/s11256-006-0035-5

Lyon, G. H., Jafri, J. & St Louis, K. (2012). Beyond the pipeline: STEM pathways for youth

development. Afterschool Matters, 16, 48-57. Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experience of school

science classes in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591-613. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500339621

Love, B.L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of

educational freedom. Beacon Press.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-969. Martin, A.J. (2012). Fear of failure in learning. In Seel N.M (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences

of Learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_266 Master, A., Markman, E. M., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Thinking in categories or along a

continuum: Consequences for children’s social judgements. Child Development, 83(4), 1145-1163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01774.x

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd. ed.).

Sage.

129

Mensah, F. M. (2010). Toward the mark of empowering policies in elementary school science programs and teacher professional development. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(4), 977- 983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-010-9279-1

Mensah, F. M. (2011). The DESTIN: Preservice teachers’ drawings of the ideal elementary science teacher. School Science and Mathematics, 111(8), 379-388.

Mensah, F. M. (2016). Positional identity as a framework to studying science teacher identity: Looking at the experiences of teachers of color (pp. 49-69). In L. Avraamidou (Ed.), Studying science teacher identity: Theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches and empirical findings. Sense Publishers. 10.1007/978-94-6300-379-7_3

Mensah, F.M. (2019). Finding voice and passion: Critical race theory methodology in science

teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 56(4), 1412-1456. doi:10.3102/0002831218818093

Mensah, F.M., & Jackson, I. (2018). Whiteness as property in science teacher education.

Teachers College Record, 128, 1-38.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Merriam, S. B., & Grenier, R. S. (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for

discussion and analysis (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Metz, M. H. (1990). Real school: A universal drama amid disparate experience. In D. Mitchell

and M.E. Goertz (Eds.), Educational politics or the new century: The twentieth anniversary yearbook of the Politics of Education Association. The Falmer Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093890040505

McKinley, E. (2005). Brown bodies, White coats: Postcolonialism, Maori women and science. Discourse: Studies in Cultural Politics of Education, 26(4), 481-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300500319761

McKinley, E., & Gan, M. J. S. (2014). Culturally responsive science education for indigenous

and ethnic minority students. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. II, pp. 284-300). Routledge.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: Chicago University of Chicago

Press. Mead, M., & Metraux, R. (1957). The image of the scientist among high school students: A

pilot study, Science, 126, 384-390. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.126.3270.384 Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of

130

new methods (3rd ed.). Sage. Moore, F. M. (2008). Positional identity and science teacher professional development.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 684-710. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20258

Morales-Doyle, D. (2017). Justice-centered science pedagogy: A catalyst for academic

achievement and social transformation. Science Education, 101(6), 1034-1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21305

Murphy, C., & Beggs, J. (2003). Children’s perceptions of school science. School Science

Review, 84(308), 109-116. National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,

Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.

National Research Council. (2015). Identifying and supporting productive STEM programs in

out-of-school settings. Committee on Successful Out-of-School STEM Learning. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21740

National Science Board. (2015). Revisiting the STEM workforce: A companion to science and

engineering indicators 2014. National Science Foundation, NSB-2015-10.

National Science Teachers Association. (2010). Learning science in informal environments [Position statement]. https://www.nsta.org/about/positions/informal.aspx

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. The

National Academies Press.

Oliver, K. (1958). The colonization of psychic space: A psychoanalytic social theory of oppression. University of Minnesota Press.

Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis

of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 172-207. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.17763/haer.81.2.t022245n7x4752v2

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500402447

Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman

131

& S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. II, pp. 579-599). Routledge.

Packard, B. W., & Nguyen, D. (2003). Science career-related possible selves of adolescent girls: A longitudinal study. Journal of Career Development, 29(4), 251-263. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022939512735

Parsons, E. C. (2007). Mary Monroe Atwater: A transformative force in science education,

Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 209-216. 10.1007/s11422-007-9078-5 Parsons, E. C. (2008). Learning contexts, Black cultural ethos, and the science achievement of

African American students in an urban middle school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 665 – 683. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20240

Parsons, E. C. (2014). Unpacking and critically synthesizing the literature on race and ethnicity in science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. II, pp. 167-185). Routledge.

Parsons, E. C., Rhodes, B., & Brown, C. (2011). Unpacking CRT in negotiating White science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 951-960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-011-9349-z

Pastor, J., McCormick, J., Fine, M., & Andolsen, R., Friedman, N., Richardson, N., Roach, T., &

Tavarez, M. (Collaborators). (2007). Makin' homes: An urban girl thing. In B. J. R. Leadbeater & N. Way (Eds.), Urban girls revisited: Building strengths (p. 75–96). New York University Press.

Pell, T., & Jarvis, T. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children of ages

from five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 847-862. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016111

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’

self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167-199. 10.3102/00346543063002167

Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L., & Cao, H. T. (1991). Students’ multiple worlds: Negotiating the boundaries of family, peer, and school cultures. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 22(3), 224-250. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3195764

Ravitch, D. (2000). A century of failed school reforms. Simon & Schuster.

132

Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Sage.

Reach Advisors. (2010). Museum audience insight.

https://www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Demographic-Change-and-the-Future-of-Museums.pdf

Reissman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rennie, L. J. (2007). Learning science outside of school. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman

(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. I, pp. 125-167). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rennie, L. J., (2014). Learning science outside of school. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. II, pp. 120-144). Routledge.

Rieber, L. P., Smith, L., & Noah, D. (1998). The value of serious play. Educational Technology, 38(6), 29-37.

Riedinger, K. (2012). Family connections: Family conversations in informal learning

environments. Childhood Education, 88(2), 125-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2012.662136

Rodman, M.C. (1992). Empowering place: Multilocality and mulivocality. American

Anthropologist, 94, 640–656. http://www.jstor.org/stable/680566?origin=JSTOR-pdf Royal Society, The. (2006). Taking a leading role. Author. Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative research. Sage. Sagan, C. (1995, January 30). Interview with Mary Hynes [Interview]. Tvo Archive.

https://www.tvo.org/video/archive/interview-carl-sagan Scantlebury, K. (2014). Gender matters: Building on the past, recognizing the present, and

looking toward the future. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. II, pp. 187-203). Routledge.

Science and Nature Program. (2018).

https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/children-and-families/the-science-and-nature-program

Schreiner, C. & Sjoberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE: Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (the relevance of science education) - a comparative study of students’ views of science and science education. Department of Teacher Education and School Development University of Oslo. https://roseproject.no/key-documents/key-docs/ad0404-sowing-rose.pdf

133

Schwalbe, M. (2008). Rigging the game. In Rigging the game: How inequality works in everyday

life (pp. 52-84). New York: Oxford University Press. Semken, S., & Freeman, C. B. (2007). Sense of place in the practice and assessment of place-

based science teaching. Science Education, 92(6), 1042-1057. 10.1002/sce.20279

Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, S. J. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude toward and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 74(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740102

Sjaastad, J. (2012). Sources of inspiration: The role of significant persons in young people’s

choices of science in higher education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1615-1636. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.590543

Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J., (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103

Sorge, C. (2007). What happens? Relationship of age and gender with science attitudes from elementary to middle school. Science Educator 16(2), 33–37.

Steinke, J. (2013). Portrayals of female scientists in the mass media: End times for a media

history paradigm. The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444361506.wbiems070

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage. Tan, E., Barton, A. C., Kang, H., & O’Neill, T. (2013). Desiring a career in STEM-related

fields: How middle school girls articulate and negotiate identities-in-practice in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1143-1179. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21123

Tai, R. H., Qi Liu, C., Maltese, A. V., Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143-1144. 10.1126/science.1128690

Tanenbaum, C. (2017). Communities often do not advocate for science, technology, or

engineering [White paper]. Retrieved February 21, 2019 from 100kin10 Grand Challenges White Papers: https://grandchallenges.100kin10.org/assets/downloads/communities-often-do-not-advocate-for-science-technology-or-engineering/GrandChallengesWhitePapers_Tanenbaum_20.pdf

Taylor, P. C. (2014). Qualitative research designs and approaches. In N. G. Lederman & S. K.

134

Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. II, pp. 18-54). Routledge.

Tracy, S. J. (2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,

communicating impact (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Tran, L. U., Gupta, P., & Bader, D. (2019). Redefining professional learning for museum

education. Journal of Museum Education, 44(2), 135-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2019.1586192

Tyack, D. and Tobin, W. (1994). The ‘grammar’ of schooling: Why has it been so hard to

change? American Educational Research Journal, 31, 453-479. Tytler, R. (2014). Attitudes, identity, and aspirations toward science. In N. G. Lederman & S.

K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. II, pp. 82-103). Routledge.

Wehner, K. & Sear, M. (2010). Engaging the material world: Object knowledge and Australian journeys. In S. Dudley (Ed.), Museum materialities: Objects, engagements, interpretations (pp. 143-161). Routledge.

Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers. Free Press. Willinsky, J. (1998). Learning to divide the world: Education at empire’s end. University of

Minnesota Press. Wolfe, K. L. (2017). Principles often do not advocate for science, technology, and engineering

[White paper]. Retrieved February 21, 2019 from 100kin10 Grand Challenges White Papers: https://grandchallenges.100kin10.org/assets/downloads/principals-often-do-not-advocate-for-science-technology-and-engineering/GrandChallengesWhitePapers_Wolfe_24.pdf

Wood, E. (2008). Reconceptualizing a pedagogy of play: International perspective from theory, policy and practice. In D. Kuschner (Ed.), From Children to Red Hatters: Diverse Images and Issues of Play (Vol. 8, pp. 166-191). University Press of America.

Worth, K. (2010). Science in early childhood classrooms: Content and process. Paper presented at the annual STEM in Early Education and Development (SEED) conference, Cedar Falls, Iowa, May.

Varelas, M., Martin, D.B., Kane, J.M. (2013). Content learning and identity construction (CLIC):

A framework to strengthen Arican American students’ mathematics and science learning in urban elementary schools. Human Development, 55 319-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000345324

Yosso, T. J. (2002). Toward a critical race curriculum. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(2),

135

93-107. 10.1080/713845283 Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community

cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91. 10.1080/1361332052000341006

Zamudio, M., Russell, C., Rios, F., & Bridgeman, J. L. (2011). Critical race theory matters:

Education and ideology. Routledge. Zimmerman, H. T. (2012). Participating in science at home: Recognition work and learning in

biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 597-630. 10.1002/tea.21014

136

Appendix A: Invitation to Participate Email

Dear parent and child name, My name is Jacqueline Horgan and I am a teacher in the Science Program, as well as a science education doctoral candidate. For my school studies, I plan to explore how youth engage and identify with science, especially in a museum context. I am inviting you and your child to participate in this research study that I am calling “Sixth Grade Museum Alumni: Out-of-School Science Program Graduates’ Orientations Towards Science.” I am reaching out to you because your child’s name recently graduated from the Science Program. Participation in this research includes both you and your child completing a questionnaire about orientations towards science and constructing a storyboard or visual representation of their time in The Museum program. Both of these activities together will take approximately 45-75 minutes. Once completed, I may ask you and your child to participate in follow-up interview(s). If you and your child are asked and agree to participate in the interviews, this will take approximately 45 minutes of your time on one day, and two to three hours of your child’s time over two to three days. If you and your child participate in the questionnaire, storyboard, and interviews, your total time commitment will be between one to two hours, and your child’s total time commitment will be between two hours and three hours and 30 minutes. It is important to note, that this is not a requirement of The Museum program, but rather an opportunity for me to learn from you and your child’s experiences and to potentially inform the world of science education about providing and improving science experiences for children. If would like to participate in the research or have any questions, I can be reached at 267-221-2544 or [email protected] . Thank you for your time! All the best, Jacqueline (Jacquie) Horgan

137

Appendix B: Student Interview Protocol

Objectives Questions

Welcome Thank you for taking the time to speak with my today. My name is Jacquie Horgan, and your name is __________________. The purpose of my project is to understand how people your age learn and think about science. I am going to record the interview just to make sure I have an accurate record of your answers. Is that okay with you? I am really interested to hear and learn about you, so there are no right or wrong answers. You should feel comfortable telling me what you really think and how you really feel. Do you have any questions for me before we start? RECORD

Personal Understanding

Can you describe yourself to me? PROBE: Tell me a little about yourself.

Behavior Personal Affect

Where do you go to school? Do you learn about science at your school? Can you tell me a little about your science class at your school? PROBE: How do you feel in your science class at school? Why or why not? What is your favorite part of your science class? What would you change about your science class at school? What have you learned about? How long have you been going to your science class at The Museum? Can you tell me a little bit about your science class at The Museum? REVIEW FULL STORYBOARD: Can you explain to me your storyboard? PROBE: How do you feel in your science class at The Museum? Why or why not? What was your favorite part? Why? What would you change? What types of things have you learned about? Who has gone with you to your science class? What was it like to learn with (name of adult) at The Museum? PROBE: Did you learn from (name of adult)? How did you feel when you were learning together? What did you do together after you left The Museum? Can you tell me about your favorite place in The Museum? PROBE: Why? How does it make you feel?

138

Can you tell me about your least favorite place in The Museum? PROBE: Why? How does it make you feel? Do you think The Museum is a good place to learn science? PROBE: Why? Would you change anything about The Museum to make it a better place for people to learn? PROBE: What would you change? Have you ever felt frustrated when doing science? IF YES: Can you tell me more about that time and what you did? IF NO: Why do you think that is? Have you ever felt proud or excited when doing science? IF YES: Can you tell me more about that time? IF NO: Why do you think that is? What do you think you might need in order to feel proud of excited when doing science? Do you like science? Why or why not? Do you do science anywhere else? PROBE: Do you do science at home? Do you visit other museums? Do you do science outside? What does that look like? Who do you do it with?

Personal Relevance Views of Science and Scientists Social Implications

How do you define science? Do you think you should have to learn about science? Why or why not? PROBE: Is science helpful or important to you, or to others? Why? How do you think science could help with everything going on in the world right now? PROBE: How could science help with COVID? How could science help with social justice movements? Who else should learn science? Why? Where can you do science? Who do you think can do science? Who do you think can be a scientist? PROBE: Can you tell if someone is a scientist? How? Have you seen or met a scientist that looks like you? PROBE: Why do you think that is?

139

Competence Recognition Behavior

Do you think you are a scientist, why or why not? PROBE: Are you good at science? Would you consider yourself a scientist? How do you feel when you don’t know the answer to a science question? What do you do? How do you think your teachers at school would describe you as a science learner? Does your teacher think you are good at science? Has your teacher told you this before? When? How do you think your teachers at The Museum would describe you as a science learner? How do you think your family would describe you as a science learner? Would you like to continue learning or doing science? PROBE: What do you want to be when you grow up? Would you be interested in continuing learning science at The Museum? What would you be interested in exploring?

Thank you Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I have no further questions, but is there anything else you would like to bring up, or ask about, before we finish the interview? (Answer questions) Okay, thank you again for your time.

140

Appendix C: Parent Interview Protocol

Objectives Questions

Welcome Thank you for taking the time to speak with my today. My name is Jacquie Horgan, and your name is __________________. The purpose of my project is to understand how young learners, like your child, identify with science and develop attitudes towards and about science over time. I am going to record the interview just to make sure I have an accurate record of your answers. Is that okay with you? I am really interested to hear and learn about you, so there are no right or wrong answers. You should feel comfortable telling me what you really think and how you really feel. Do you have any questions for me before we begin?

Personal Experiences

Can you tell me a little about your experience with your child at The Museum? REVIEW STORYBOARD What was it like helping your child to construct the storyboard? Why did you choose to enroll your child in The Museum program? What types of experiences do you think have been most meaningful for your child at The Museum? Why? What would you change about the science classes at The Museum? Have you noticed a difference between the way your child engage in science at school versus at The Museum? PROBE: How does your child respond, if he/she does not know the answer to something? What is the demeanor of your child when he/she speaks about or engages in science in these different settings? How would you describe your child in relation to science? PROBE: Is he/she good at science? Did you go to The Museum before the program? What is your favorite space in The Museum? Why? What is your least favorite space in The Museum? Why? How do you feel at The Museum?

141

How do you define science? Do you think you should have to learn about science? Why or why not? PROBE: Is science helpful or important to you, or to others? Why? Who else should learn science? Why? Where can you do science? Who do you think can do science? Who do you think can be a scientist? PROBE: Can you tell if someone is a scientist? How? Have you seen or met a scientist that looks like you? What other types of science learning experiences does your child or do you and your child engage in outside of school? What was your relationship with science when you were growing up?

Child Ideas What types of experiences do you think have been most meaningful for your child at The Museum? Why? What would you change about the science classes at The Museum? Have you noticed a difference between the way your child engage in science at school versus at The Museum? PROBE: How does your child respond, if he/she does not know the answer to something? What is the demeanor of your child when he/she speaks about or engages in science in these different settings? How would you describe your child in relation to science? PROBE: Is he/she good at science?

Cross-Checking

Utilize responses from child interview to elicit thoughts from parent

Thank you Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I have no further questions, but is there anything else you would like to bring up, or ask about, before we finish the interview? (Answer questions) Okay, thank you again for your time.

142

Appendix D: Student Questionnaire

Imagine you are working as a scientist and you are free to do the research, investigations, and/or experiments that you want to do. Write 2-3 sentences about what you would like to do and why.

Please circle how much you agree with the sentences below. Think about yourself in science. Please circle your answer. If you do not understand, leave the line blank.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly

Agree

1 I am good at science. 1 2 3 4 5

2 Science can help make our lives healthier, easier, and more comfortable. 1 2 3 4 5

3 Science is challenging. 1 2 3 4 5 4 Science looks the same all over the world. 1 2 3 4 5 5 I would like to pursue a job in science. 1 2 3 4 5

6 The things I learn in science at school are helpful in my everyday life. 1 2 3 4 5

7 My friends think I am good at science. 1 2 3 4 5

8 You can tell a scientist by their appearance. 1 2 3 4 5 9 My science class at The Museum is interesting. 1 2 3 4 5

10 I get angry when I do not know the answer to a scientific question. 1 2 3 4 5

11 The knowledge and skills I learn in science can help me with other subjects. 1 2 3 4 5

12 Everybody should learn about science. 1 2 3 4 5

13 I am a scientist. 1 2 3 4 5

14 I would like to continue learning science at The Museum. 1 2 3 4 5 15 My science teachers at school think I am good at science. 1 2 3 4 5 16 Science can help solve environmental issues. 1 2 3 4 5 17 Anyone can do science. 1 2 3 4 5

18 The things I learn in science at The Museum are helpful in my everyday life. 1 2 3 4 5

19 Learning something new makes me feel good. 1 2 3 4 5

20 My science teachers at The Museum think I am good at science. 1 2 3 4 5

21 I spend my free time trying to figure out more about science or scientific topics. 1 2 3 4 5

22 My science class at school is interesting. 1 2 3 4 5

143

Appendix E: Parent Questionnaire

Imagine you are working as a scientist and you are free to do the research, investigations, and/or experiments that you want to do. Write 2-3 sentences about what you would like to do and why.

Please circle how much you agree with the sentences below. Think about yourself in science. Please circle your answer. If you do not understand, leave the line blank.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly

Agree

1 I am good at science. 1 2 3 4 5

2 Science can help make our lives healthier, easier, and more comfortable. 1 2 3 4 5

3 Science is challenging. 1 2 3 4 5 4 Science looks the same all over the world. 1 2 3 4 5

5 I am in a career related to science. 1 2 3 4 5

6 The things I learned in science at school are helpful in my everyday life. 1 2 3 4 5

7 My friends think I am good at science. 1 2 3 4 5

8 You can tell a scientist by their appearance. 1 2 3 4 5

9 The science class at The Museum is interesting. 1 2 3 4 5

10 I get angry when I do not know the answer to a scientific question. 1 2 3 4 5

11 The knowledge and skills I learn in science can help me with other subjects. 1 2 3 4 5

12 Everybody should learn about science. 1 2 3 4 5

13 I am a scientist. 1 2 3 4 5

14 My child thinks I am good at science. 1 2 3 4 5

15 Science can help solve environmental issues. 1 2 3 4 5

16 Anyone can do science. 1 2 3 4 5

17 The things I learned in science at The Museum are helpful in my everyday life. 1 2 3 4 5

18 Learning something new makes me feel good. 1 2 3 4 5

19 I spend my free time trying to figure out more about science or scientific topics. 1 2 3 4 5

20 I am a good role model for my child in relation to science. 1 2 3 4 5

144

Appendix F: Storyboard

Your Science Program Journey

Work with your grown-up to tell the story of your time in the Science Program. Think about your

favorite experiences, times you felt challenged, moments you felt proud, and new things you

learned.

You may draw, write, use photographs or pictures from magazines, or incorporate other types of

media to document your experiences. You may use the provided template or create your own,

but remember to include at least one meaningful thing for each year you attended the Science

Program.

A copy of topics for each year is listed to remind you of what you did each year.

3-4 years old Invertebrates, Vertebrates, Plant life, Earth, Moon, and Stars

4-5 years old Arthropods, Vertebrates, Animal Interactions (Camouflage, Predator/Prey, Food Chains)

5-6 years old Microhabitats in Fall, Woods in Winter, Pond in Spring

6-7 years old Treasures of the Earth, Museum, and Sea

7-8 years old Astrophysics and Veterinary Medicine

8-9 years old Inside Planet Earth, Plate Tectonics and Landforms, Extreme Habitats and Animal Adaptations

9-10 years old

Pollution, Human Consumption, Habitat Degradation, and Invasive Species in the Topical, Temperate, and Polar Zones

10-12 years old

Museum Studies, Evolution of Life on Earth, Wildlife Conservation

145

Appendix G: Parent Informed Consent

Protocol Title: Sixth Grade Museum Alumni: Out-of-School Science Program Graduates’

Orientations Towards Science Principal Researcher: Jacqueline Horgan, NY, Teachers College

267-221-2544, [email protected]

INTRODUCTION You are invited to participate in this research study called “Sixth Grade Museum Alumni: Out-of-School Science Program Graduates’ Orientations Towards Science.” You may qualify to take part in this research study because you are a parent or guardian to a child that has participated in and graduated from a long-term out-of-school science program at Museum in New York City. Approximately 8 people will participate in this study and it will take about 2 hours of your time to complete over the course of two days. WHY IS THIS STUDY BEING DONE? This study is being done to understand how children who in engage in a museum science program identify with science and develop attitudes towards and about science. WHAT WILL I BE ASKED TO DO IF I AGREE TO TAKE PART IN THIS STUDY? If you decide to participate, the primary researcher will ask that you complete a brief questionnaire, work with your child to complete a storyboard, and engage in an individual interview with the primary researcher. You will be asked to complete a questionnaire that will take about 15 minutes. The questionnaire will ask you to identify your ideas and attitudes towards and about science You will also be asked to work with your child to complete a storyboard, or visual representation, of your child’s time in The Museum Program. This will take about thirty to sixty minutes. Storyboards will be completed on your own time and location of your choosing, but will need to be returned to the primary researcher by March 2020. During the individual interview, you will be asked to discuss your child’s science experiences, both in and out-of-school, with specific emphasis on their time in The Museum Program. This interview will be audio-recorded and sent to a professional transcriptionist to write down (transcribe) the audio. After the audio recording is transcribed, the audio recording will be deleted. If you do not wish to be audio-recorded, you will still be able to participate. The researcher will just take hand-notes. The interview will take approximately forty-five minutes. You will be given a pseudonym or false name in order to keep your identity confidential. Interviews will take place in your home. If you do not wish to be interviewed in your home, the interview will take place at a location of your choosing. Interviews will be at a time that is convenient for both you and the primary researcher between the months of March 2020 and May 2020. For participants who are more comfortable speaking a language other than English, a trained interpreter will join the interview. Interpreters will be required to sign a non-disclosure

146

agreement. Archived materials with The Museum Program related to you, such as applications and photographs may be accessed and utilized for analysis and during interviews. WHAT POSSIBLE RISKS OR DISCOMFORTS CAN I EXPECT FROM TAKING PART IN THIS STUDY? This is a minimal risk study, which means the harms or discomforts that you may experience are not greater than you would ordinarily encounter in daily life while taking routine physical or psychological examinations or tests. However, there are some risks to consider. You might feel embarrassed to discuss problems that you or your child experienced at The Museum science program or otherwise. You do not have to answer any questions or share anything you do not want to talk about. You can stop participating in the study at any time without penalty. You might feel concerned that things you say might get back to teachers or directors of The Museum Program. Your information will be kept confidential. The primary researcher is taking precautions to keep your information confidential and prevent anyone from discovering or guessing your identity, such as using a pseudonym of your name and keeping all information on a password protected computer and locked in a file drawer. WHAT POSSIBLE BENEFITS CAN I EXPECT FROM TAKING PART IN THIS STUDY? There is no direct benefit to you for participating in this study. Participation may benefit the field of science education to better understand how to support young children’s engagement in science. WILL I BE PAID FOR BEING IN THIS STUDY? You will not be paid to participate. However, any transportation costs incurred from participation in this study will be covered. There are no costs to you for taking part in this study. WHEN IS THE STUDY OVER? CAN I LEAVE THE STUDY BEFORE IT ENDS? The study is over when you have completed the storyboard and individual interview. However, you can leave the study at any time even if you have not finished. PROTECTION OF YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY Your completed questionnaire and storyboard, collected archived data, transcription, and this signed consent form will be stored for five years after the completion of this study. After five years, all data will be securely destroyed. The primary researcher will keep all written materials locked in a desk drawer in a locked office. Any electronic or digital information (including audio recordings) will be stored on a computer that is password protected. What is on the audio recording will be transcribed (written down) within one year of recording and the audio recording will then be destroyed. There will be no record matching your real name with your pseudonym. The interview will be audio-recorded, if you agree, and sent to a professional transcriptionist to

147

transcribe the audio. The transcriptionist will be required to complete a non-disclosure form, which requires their signature agreeing to maintain full confidentiality in regards to any audiotapes received. A copy of this agreement will be provided to you. Interviews requiring interpretation will include a trained interpreter. Interpreters will be required to complete a non-disclosure form, which required their signature agreeing to maintain full confidentiality in regards to an information they hear. A copy of this agreement will be provided to you. While transcriptionists and interpreters will need to sign non-disclosures to support this study, the primary researcher cannot guarantee they will adhere to the agreement. For quality assurance, the study team, the study sponsor (grant agency), and/or members of the Teachers College Institutional Review Board (IRB) may review the data collected from you as part of this study. Otherwise, all information obtained from your participation in this study will be held strictly confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by U.S. or State law. HOW WILL THE RESULTS BE USED? The results of this study will be published in journals and presented at academic conferences. Your identity will be removed from any data you provide before publication or use for educational purposes. Your name or any identifying information about you will not be published. This study is being conducted as part of the dissertation of the primary researcher. CONSENT FOR ACCESS AND USE OF ARCHIVED MATERIALS Collection and review of archived materials with The Museum Program, related to you, such as applications and photographs is part of this research study. You can choose whether to give permission for these materials to be accessed. If you decide that you do not want these materials utilized, you will still be able to participate. ______I give my consent for my archived materials to be accessed and reviewed

_____________________________________ Signature

______I do not give my consent for my archived materials to be accessed and reviewed _____________________________________

Signature CONSENT FOR AUDIO RECORDING Audio recording is part of this research study. You can choose whether to give permission to be recorded. If you decide that you don’t wish to be recorded, you will still be able to participate in this research study. ______I give my consent to be recorded

_____________________________________________________________

148

Signature ______I do not consent to be recorded

______________________________________________________________ Signature

WHO MAY VIEW MY PARTICIPATION IN THIS STUDY ___I consent to allow written and audio-recorded materials viewed at an educational setting or at a conference outside of Teachers College, Columbia University ___________________________________________________________________________

Signature ___I do not consent to allow written and audio-recorded materials viewed outside of Teachers College, Columbia University ___________________________________________________________________________

Signature OPTIONAL CONSENT FOR FUTURE CONTACT The primary researcher may wish to contact you in the future. Please initial below to indicate whether or not you give permission for future contact. The researcher may contact me in the future for information relating to this current study: Yes ________________________ No_______________________ Initial Initial WHO CAN ANSWER MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS STUDY? If you have any questions about taking part in this research study, you should contact the primary researcher, Jacqueline Horgan, at 267-221-2544 or at [email protected]. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research subject, you should contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) (the human research ethics committee) at 212-678-4105 or email [email protected] or you can write to the IRB at Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 W. 120th Street, New York, NY 10027, Box 151. The IRB is the committee that oversees human research protection for Teachers College, Columbia University. PARTICIPANT’S RIGHTS · I have read the Informed Consent Form and have been offered the opportunity to discuss the form with the researcher. · I have had ample opportunity to ask questions about the purposes, procedures, risks and benefits regarding this research study. · I understand that my participation is voluntary. I may refuse to participate or withdraw participation at any time without penalty. · The researcher may withdraw me from the research at their professional discretion.

149

· If, during the course of the study, significant new information that has been developed becomes available which may relate to my willingness to continue my participation, the researcher will provide this information to me. · Any information derived from the research study that personally identifies me will not be voluntarily released or disclosed without my separate consent, except as specifically required by law. · Your data will not be used in further research studies. · I should receive a copy of the Informed Consent Form document. My signature means that I agree to participate in this study: Print name: ____________________________________________________________________ Signature: _____________________________________________________________________

Date:_________________________________________________________________________

150

Appendix H: Parental Permission


Orientations Towards Science Principal Researcher: Jacqueline Horgan, NY, Teachers College

267-221-2544, [email protected]

INTRODUCTION Your child is invited to participate in this research study called “Sixth Grade Museum Alumni: Out-of-School Science Program Graduates’ Orientations Towards Science.” Your child may qualify to take part in this research study because they have participated in and graduated from a long-term out-of-school science program at a Museum in New York City. Approximately 8 children will participate in this study and it will take about 3 to 4 hours of your child’s time to complete over the course of three to four days. WHY IS THIS STUDY BEING DONE? This study is being done to understand how children who in engage in a museum science program identify with science and develop attitudes towards and about science. WHAT WILL MY CHILD BE ASKED TO DO IF I AGREE THAT MY CHILD CAN TAKE PART IN THIS STUDY? If you decide to allow your child to take part in this study, the primary researcher will ask that your child complete a questionnaire and story board. Additionally, the primary researcher will individually interview your child. Your child will be asked to complete a brief questionnaire that will take about 15 minutes. The questionnaire will ask your child to identify their ideas and attitudes towards and about science. Your child will also be asked to complete a storyboard, or visual representation, with your support, of experiences in The Museum Program. This will take about thirty to sixty minutes. Questionnaires and storyboards will be completed on you and your child’s own time and at a location of your choosing, but will need to be returned to the primary researcher by March 2020. During individual interviews, your child will be asked to discuss their experiences learning science both in school and out-of-school environments, with specific emphasis on their time in The Museum Program. This interview will be audio recorded and video recorded. Audio recordings will be sent to a professional transcriptionist to write down (transcribe) the audio. After the audio recording is transcribed, the audio recording will be deleted. Your child will choose whether or not they would like to be audio-recorded. If they choose to be audio-recorded (and you agree), the researcher will notify them when the audio-recorder is started and stopped. If you (or your child) do not want the interview audio-recorded, the researcher will not proceed with the interview. Your child will also choose whether or not they would like to be video-recorded. If they choose to be video-recorded (and you agree), the researcher will notify them when the video is started and stopped. After analysis of the video, the video will be deleted. If

151

you (or your child) do not want the interview to be video-recorded, your child will still be able to participate. The researcher will take hand written notes of behavior. Two to three interviews will take place over the course of two to three separate days. Each interview will take approximately 45 minutes. Your child will be given a pseudonym or false name to keep their identity confidential. Interviews will take place in your home. If you do not wish to be interviewed in your home, the interview will take place at a location of your choosing. Interviews will be at a time that is convenient for both you, your child, and the primary researcher between the months of March 2020 and May 2020. Archived materials with The Museum Program related to your child, such as applications, photographs, and class work may be accessed and utilized for analysis and during interviews. WHAT POSSIBLE RISKS OR DISCOMFORTS CAN MY CHILD EXPECT FROM TAKING PART IN THIS STUDY? This is a minimal risk study, which means the harms or discomforts that your child may experience are not greater than your child would ordinarily encounter in daily life while taking routine physical or psychological examinations or tests. Your child might feel embarrassed to discuss problems learning science. Your child does not have to answer any questions or share anything they do not want to talk about. Your child can stop participating in the study at any time without penalty. You or your child might feel concerned that things your child says might get back to Museum Program teachers or program directors. Your child’s information will be kept confidential. The primary researcher is taking precautions to keep your child’s information confidential and prevent anyone from discovering what they say or their identity, such as using a pseudonym instead of their name and keeping all information on a password protected computer and locked in a file drawer. WHAT POSSIBLE BENEFITS CAN MY CHILD EXPECT FROM TAKING PART IN THIS STUDY? There is no direct benefit to you or your child for participating in this study. Participation may benefit the field of science education to better understand how to support young children’s engagement in science. WILL MY CHILD BE PAID FOR BEING IN THIS STUDY? Your child will not be paid to participate. There are no costs to you for your child’s participation in this study. WHEN IS THE STUDY OVER? CAN MY CHILD LEAVE THE STUDY BEFORE IT ENDS? The study is over when your child has completed the questionnaire, storyboard, and two to three individual interviews. However, your child can leave the study at any time even if they have not finished without consequence. PROTECTION OF YOUR CHILD’S CONFIDENTIALITY

152

Your child’s completed questionnaire and storyboard, collected archived data, transcriptions, signed assent form and this signed permission form will be stored for five years after the completion of this study. After five years, all data will be securely destroyed. The primary researcher will keep all written materials locked in a desk drawer in a locked office. Any electronic or digital information (including audio and video recordings) will be stored on a computer that is password protected and only accessible by the researcher. What is on the audio-recording will be transcribed (written down) within one year of recording and the audio-recording will then be destroyed. Videos will be reviewed and analyzed within one year of recording and then destroyed. There will be no record matching your child’s real name with their pseudonym. The interview will be audio-recorded and sent to a professional transcriptionist to write down (transcribe) the audio. The transcriptionist will be required to complete a non-disclosure form, which requires their signature agreeing to maintain full confidentiality in regards to any audiotapes received. A copy of this agreement will be provided to you. For quality assurance, the study team, the study sponsor (grant agency), and/or members of the Teachers College Institutional Review Board (IRB) may review the data collected from you as part of this study. Otherwise, all information obtained from your participation in this study will be held strictly confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by U.S. or State law. HOW WILL THE RESULTS BE USED? The results of this study will be published in journals and presented at academic conferences. Your child’s identity will be removed from any data your child provides before publication or use for educational purposes. Your child’s name or any identifying information about your child will not be published. This study is being conducted as part of the dissertation. CONSENT FOR ACCESS AND USE OF ARCHIVED MATERIALS Collection and review of archived materials with The Museum Program, related to your child, such as applications, photographs, and class work, is part of this research study. You can choose whether to give permission for these materials to be accessed. If you decide that you do not want these materials utilized, your child will not be able to participate. ______I give my consent for my child’s archive materials to be accessed and reviewed

_______________________________________ Signature

______I do not give my consent for my child’s archive materials to be accessed and reviewed

_______________________________________ Signature

CONSENT FOR AUDIO AND OR VIDEO RECORDING

153

Audio recording and video recording is part of this research study. You can choose whether to give permission for your child to be recorded. If you decide that you do not wish your child be video recorded, they will still be able to participate. However, if you do not wish your child to be audio recorded, they will not be able to participate in this research study. ______I give my consent for my child to be audio recorded

_______________________________________ Signature

______I do not consent for my child to be audio recorded ________________________________________

Signature ______I give my consent for my child to be video recorded

_______________________________________ Signature

______I do not consent for my child to be video recorded ________________________________________

Signature WHO MAY VIEW MY CHILD’S PARTICIPATION IN THIS STUDY ___I consent to allow my child’s written, video and audio-recorded materials viewed at an educational setting or at a conference outside of Teachers College, Columbia University ______________________________________________________________________________

Signature ___I do not consent to allow my child’s written, video and audio-recorded materials viewed outside of Teachers College, Columbia University ______________________________________________________________________________

Signature OPTIONAL PERMISSION FOR FUTURE CONTACT The primary researcher may wish to contact you (or your child) in the future. Please initial below to indicate whether or not you give permission for future contact. The researcher may contact my child or me in the future for information relating to this current study: Yes ________________________ No_______________________

Initial Initial WHO CAN ANSWER MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS STUDY? If you have any questions about the study or your child’s taking part in this research study, you

154

should contact the primary researcher, Jacqueline Horgan, at 267-221-2544 or at [email protected]. If you have questions or concerns about your child’s rights as a research subject, you should contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) (the human research ethics committee) at 212-678-4105 or email [email protected] or you can write to the IRB at Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 W. 120th Street, New York, NY 10027, Box 151. The IRB is the committee that oversees human research protection at Teachers College, Columbia University. PARTICIPANT’S RIGHTS · I have read the (Guardian) Parental Permission Form and have been offered the opportunity to discuss the form with the researcher. · I have had ample opportunity to ask questions about the purposes, procedures, risks and benefits regarding this research study. · I understand that my child’s participation is voluntary. I may refuse to allow my child to participate or withdraw participation at any time without penalty. I understand that my child may refuse to participate without penalty. · The researcher may withdraw my child from the research at their professional discretion. · If, during the course of the study, significant new information that has been developed becomes available which may relate to my willingness to allow my child to continue participation, the researcher will provide this information to me. · Any information derived from the research study that personally identifies me or my child will not be voluntarily released or disclosed without my separate consent, except as specifically required by law. · Your child’s data will not be used in further research studies. · I should receive a copy of this (Guardian) Parental Permission Form document. My signature means that I agree to allow my child to participate in this study: Print Parent or guardian’s name: ______________________________________________________________________________ Parent or guardian’s signature: ______________________________________________________________________________ Child’s name: ______________________________________________________________________________ Date: ______________________________________________________________________________

155

Appendix I: Child Assent


Orientations Towards Science Principal Investigator: Jacqueline Horgan, NY, Teachers College

267-221-2544, [email protected] My name is Jacquie Horgan. I am trying to learn more about how people your age learn and feel about science because I think it is important to understand student perspectives, feelings, and ideas to help us make science education even better. I am asking you to be in this study because you have been involved in a museum science program in New York for several years and just graduated. I hope to have 8 of children like you in this research. If you are in the research, this is what will happen:

• I will ask you to complete a visual story, or storyboard, with your grown up that describes your experiences in The Museum program. You can use pictures, drawings, notes, magazine cut outs, and more to tell your story.

• I will also ask you to complete a questionnaire about how you feel about science. • I will interview you two to three different times to learn about your experiences learning

science both in school and out-of-school, like at The Museum. • I will audio record what you say to me, so that I can listen to what you said later to help

me remember. • I will also video record you, if you are comfortable with it, as a tool for me to use later as

well. You do not need to be on video, if you do not want. • I will collect and review some of the materials on file at The Museum, like your

application, pictures, and work. I might use some of those materials for us to look at together and discuss.

• The research will take about 3 to 4 hours of your time total. You will work on the storyboard and questionnaire without me, and then you and I will meet two to three times, on two or three separate days, for about 45 minutes. I do not think you will personally be helped by being in this study. But I could learn something that will help other children, teachers, and museum programs think about science education.

• You could feel uncomfortable or embarrassed during the interview. It is okay for you to stop the study at any time you want to.

• You do not need to answer any questions you do not want to. • Both you and your parent/guardian must agree to you being in the study. Even if your

parent or guardian says yes, you may still say no, and that is okay. • You do not have to be in this study if you do not want to. Nothing bad will happen to you

if you say no now or change your mind later after starting the study. You just need to tell me if you want to stop being in the study. I will ask you later if you want to stop or if you want to keep going. It’s okay to say yes or no.

• It will not cost you or your parent/guardian anything, but your time, to be in this study. • I will keep the information I collect for the study safe and secure. I will not share

156

information that has your name on it with people who are not part of the research team, unless we have to.

If you have questions, you can contact the researcher, me, Jacquie Horgan at 267-221-2544. You can also email me at [email protected] . If you want to talk to someone else besides the researcher, me, you may contact the Teachers College Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 212-678-4105 or by email at [email protected].

Assent Statement I__________________________________________________________________________ (child’s name) agree to be in this study, titled “Sixth Grade Museum Alumni: Out-of-School Science Program Graduates’ Orientations Towards Science. What I am being asked to do has been explained to me by the researcher, Jacquie Horgan. I understand what I am being asked to do and I know that if I have any questions, I can ask Jacquie Horgan at any time. I know that I can quit this study whenever I want to and it is perfectly OK to do so. It won’t be a problem for anyone if I decide to quit. Printed Name: ______________________________________________________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________________________________________________ Witness Name: ______________________________________________________________________________ Date:

157

Appendix J: Museum Brief

Critical Elementary Science Education at The Museum Summary This brief explores the potential for critical elementary science education at The Museum. Despite the nation becoming increasingly diverse, the field of science remains dominated by the White male figure and narrative. The way an individual identifies with science begins as early as their preschool years, making it critical to invest in science education for young people. Museum settings are particularly beneficial for youth’s science learning. Museum science education, however, can perpetuate inequities if they are not strategically addressed. It is recommended, therefore, that The Museum take actions to purposefully forefront social justice through science education in this unique setting. Actions include (a) Increasing access to early science learning programs; (b) Providing early and continued engagement in Museum programming; (c) Adopting critical race curriculum strategies; and (d) Investing in professional learning for Museum educators. Background Scientific values and understandings set the foundation for the development of critical skills and attitudes responsible for innovation, learning, and the development of science identities (Worth, 2010). Learning science, therefore, is critical for fostering adults’ abilities to contribute to an ever-evolving society. Additionally, science education is necessary to meet the demands of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers (Estrada et al., 2011), which are currently dominated by White males. About 71 percent of conferred STEM degrees are for White individuals, even though the US population is about 65 percent White (Landivar, 2013). Hispanic individuals, however, represent about 14 percent of the population, but only account for seven percent of STEM degrees awarded. Only six percent conferred STEM degrees are awarded to Black/African Americans, who make up about 15 percent of the population. African American and Hispanic individuals make up less than nine percent of the science and engineering workforce in the country (National Science Board, 2015). These numbers are further inflamed for women of color (Landivar, 2013). These are disturbing numbers, especially as we live in an increasingly diverse nation (The Brookings Institution, 2018) where diversity of ideas, perspectives, and backgrounds can contribute to greater innovation, creativity, and productive workforces (Daily & Eugene, 2013). Therefore, “we need to be concerned with the possible science selves children construct in their early years of schooling because these identities will support their continued interest in, and motivation for, learning science” (Kane, 2012, p. 28). Proposed Solution Out-of-school science learning contributes to students’ science motivation, creativity, self-efficacy, and interest (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007; NRC, 2015; NSTA, 2012). When youth participate in well-designed out-of-school programming, they become immersed in the process of science meaning-making and come to understand science as a valuable contribution to their lives (Adams et al., 2014). As a result, students who experience science in out-of-school contexts

158

are more likely to develop personal identifications with science (Bell et al., 2009; Rennie, 2017), thus increasing the likelihood of entering a science field (Ferguson & Martin-Dunlop, 2021). In a position of power, science museums are key players in modeling practices for all individuals to begin to see themselves in science museum spaces and align with a science identity (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). It is recommended, therefore, that The Museum take actions to purposefully forefront social justice through science education. Actions include (a) Increasing access to early science learning programs; (b) Providing early and continued engagement in Museum programming; (c) Adopting critical race curriculum strategies; and (d) Investing in professional learning for Museum educators. These recommendations directly support The Museum’s mission statement, “To discover, interpret, and disseminate—through scientific research and education—knowledge about human cultures, the natural world, and the universe.”

Recommended Actions Increase access to science learning programs The specific social experiences and engagement in science activities afforded by The Museum’s programming nurtures the development of a science identity (Bell et al., 2013). Two recent studies demonstrate the value of providing students with opportunities to engage in science learning at The Museum. Sixth-grade students of color who participated in the MSIP noted that The Museum program offered opportunities that spaces like their schools do not. The Museum engaged them in more exciting activities, scientific practices, and relevant content (Horgan, 2021). Habig et al., (2020) also found that engagement in a Museum science program affords participants the “opportunities to become practitioners of STEM…and expand their realm of possibilities” (p. 30). While experiences at The Museum open access to learning outcomes for students (Bell et al., 2013), only some students are admitted into such programs. Entrance into the MSIP and middle school programs is extremely competitive. This competitive and exclusive practice is the case for many extracurricular science learning experiences. Even in schools, science engagement opportunities are often provided only to academically higher-achieving students (Emdin, 2009). It is important then for more students to have access and exposure to science experiences like The MSIP. Provide early and continued engagement in Museum programming “Learning from any science-related experience is most likely when young people’s engagement is purposeful and prolonged or revisited” (Rennie, 2014, p. 138). Adams et al., (2004) found that students who participated in the Lang Science Program developed “a sense of belonging to the museum” as “a physical facility and as a community…” (p. 17). Similarly, students who graduated from the MSIP associated The Museum with being a second home and their museum teachers with being close friends or even family. The Museum evokes feelings of comfort, relaxation, and belonging, which enhances science learning and science identity development (Horgan, 2021). It is observed, however, that students who participate in long-term programming do not always receive the benefits of continuing in Museum experiences. For example, after students graduate from The MSIP, after eight years of engagement, they are invited to apply to one of the two middle school programs offered. However, not all students from The MSIP are accepted. While The MSIP opens science possibilities for young students, being rejected from

159

the middle school programs may have serious consequences on a child’s science identity. This is supported by the idea that “a sense of self is constructed as much through a sense of what/who one is not, as much as through the sense of who/what one is” (Archer et al, 2010, p. 619). It is recommended that The Museum “elucidate and challenge the assumptions that we make around program design and enactment, especially when programs are structured around goals of broadening participation” (Habig et al., 2020, p. 34). The Museum should consider approaches that would support the science learning continuum for students from early childhood through adulthood. Adopt critical race curriculum strategies

Out-of-school science experiences are uniquely positioned to promote youth agency, leverage students’ current values, and challenge structural inequities (Archer et al., 2016). Yet, students who participate in Museum programs are still expressing certain ideologies related to the pursuit of scientific knowledge that is rooted in the divisional processes of colonization (Zamudio et al., 2010). Black and Brown students who graduated from the MSIP made statements that are situated in concepts related to credentialing theory, meritocracy, and elitism (Horgan, 2021). These ideas are pervasive in science education. This is particularly important, as the process of “becoming” is closely linked to social perceptions about who can and cannot participate in a particular role (Bell et al., 2012). To begin addressing inequitable notions that are omnipresent in science, The Museum can adopt a critical race approach to curriculum. Yosso (2002) offers six steps towards applying CRC in practice: a) Centralize race and intersectionality in curricular development; b) Identify and challenge dominant ideologies; (c) Seek out, participate in, and promote consciousness; (d) Pull from interdisciplinary perspectives - history, sociology, psychology, science, etc. – to analyze and articulate the relationships between education and social inequity; and (e) Listen to, forefront, and learn from the experiences of people of color. As a cultural institution, The Museum has an “obligation to preserve and enforce those aspects of heritage that are tolerant, compassionate, and respectful of difference, and to work against, in an open way, traditions of White privilege, racism, inequality, and oppression” (Jennings & Jones-Rizzi, 2017, p. 64). The utilization of a critical race curriculum can support this responsibility. Continue investing in professional learning for Museum educators It is through [the] collective work [of Museum educators] that the organization grows its

social capital in its local community and beyond its physical footprint. This social capital garners tangible returns, such as continued visits, sponsorships, and donations, as well as intangible yield, such as reputation, respect, expertise, and leadership (Tran et al., 2019, p. 136).

Designing educational programming that results in developed science identities and critically conscious minds takes time, knowledge, and dedication to practice. The Museum can support teachers in these endeavors by providing professional learning for all teachers to develop a shared language and approach to their work. At the same time, museum educators would benefit from experiencing professional development that centers their growth as educators (Moore, 2008).

“I'm Ready for Scientifical Duty!” Young Museum Program ...

Documents

Transcript of “I'm Ready for Scientifical Duty!” Young Museum Program ...