. 64444.4 . . . . . . .. .6 ..6 . t. ...-64.4 6464 .1. 4464‘. 4 . . . .. . . 64 444.."646 ......I v 46...“. 6. 4.6.4. 44 “..444366: ’hu. 6 46666 $446.! .. 64.4 6. . . 'V-V 4 6 6 4 4 4 6.4 . . 4‘!"- D‘. ’4 I 64 4.4.4 .4474. .66w64.‘ ~64. 66.. 614.6.4'4. ..u i... 4 4 4 . 046 -' 4.... .'.6 46.6 644 .6 I 6 ..6 .4.6.44.666 4. ...644. 4 6. .01.... .64 4 . 44441-446464, 44. 4 64 6. ....‘464 . 4 6.644. 64!. 6.44 4 ...4. . . , 6644. . . . . .. . 6. 6.0664... ..466. 64644466. 6 . 6 . . . .4 646 44 .44.. 44.93‘u4464.... 4464",}: . . . . 4.6464644461443642 r6! 664I744 46 46.. 40’446. 46.44 . . 4 . . '046 .46 466."."64664. . :34. ...! .... . .....>....4. .. 4.44: I. . ._ _ . . . 4? .... ....H........4..n.!4..4»..2.4. .. H 1.. . 6464446436464. 466464«41.4.6\..4646.64 .. . . . . . . .4.46.4 4 .646 .‘944444 4 4464.64 604 . . . . . . .6.- 44... . . 4 . 1C . . . . . ..446 4' 444.6 2.4.1.4.: "644444.60 . . . 4664604.. . .. . . .. ... . . ..4.4.4.646 r". .4....4 l4...444.4.l. 4 1.4.4.6.... 66. . . .. _ 4:14... 6 : . . . . . . 64449046,».v . . . ..4.4 3446.4 4.6... . . . . . . . 4.4461641... . . . . . . .I.:...4.. .. c.6444 . .. 6 44. 6 6. 6 ‘ 6‘ . ..u4. 2.6.... .91.... .. . 4 .4 l 6' 466 ... . . .. . .6”.64..6l46 .064 .6. 60640.64 44...: 69‘ . 6..64..6666...64.r4v4.6u~ .. .. . 641444640444...‘ 606.6644. . . 4 . . . PO Otfl 6.. .6. 06V. .646. 4.46 . 64. 6 6 44.444 4 469.666.? 6676 6 6 444.1446... A.‘ 4.4. ..6. 6 446.4464 6 . '6 6 . «2.6.6.... . .. . 4.46 64.644. 46.444 6.446 246.44 .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . “”4614. 4. 4... 4.“ ...v..44.,..4uu46.6.446.4w4\r..6 .444“ . 4. 4 . .. . . .2654. . . ......w..,446.. .. O 4”" O 6 . 64.64... 644 46.46.643.4476 I .4 4.4 6‘ 6 6 .46 .4 4O 4 . . . . 44 666 6! r .4464 .. .64, 4”... Li...“ J 4... . . . . .44 .4. .04. 4-6 66.6. 6646 .66 66 6'1. 4&4. 9.464664.- . . . . . 6'644 6644.43.41; 6 6 4" ,4.4II‘46"41§‘ ‘1 . . 66 6&46‘4 664 .. 4.4 664 .66.,6 4‘ . . I. 464444 44 . , . . .6..4.....64.. ”4. . 9.646.244.4344... . . . . .6464464 4 . . 4 6. 4.414.646; 6. 4444'. 4466.46 .4 .0. . . 46‘ 443‘46646666‘66r444‘9’6 . 0.96646. . .. 6 ..6 646. 6 4' .64 '6. . 6 4.6.4.4 . . . . 64.4“! 664.6. ..44406‘. 64 . . . . 6.44 5.. . . . ... . . '6‘. ' . . 4 4 . .. 4 4 . 6. D ...666 6664 6 .. 4 4 26644544 ’644464 .9‘06.’6.46.4. 34"! Oil. - . 0’4 644 .(‘6 4..4l.. 466. 646446 4‘16414545 4444 “4.96.443! A I.....4’. 4 66.64 .6 4460.46. . $6.1444464 6644.66 ‘6466 I..." .64.v4 4 6 666444 .046. 4.640 . .6 0.," 4.46464tu6W44v4'mu46flo... I6 .404... . . . . .. . .. . '6‘. . . . . 6 C O 66 . . . . . . . 4 “6.... 2644.444. . . 444644. 644 4.4. . , . 16.6. 4. 4 4. .. t4. 4... . . . . .. ._ . . 44 .“494 ..."...u ..4..... .46... . . 44646434. 44 44.. 4 44644 . . .. .. . . . . . 4664 6 46144.640446 4466 ..4 ...6 0.6. 6 6 6.4. .466 4..I6 . . . 4 .6: 6O '1‘6.6466.66.4 .4464. 4.6436466 . 64 . {'44004 .66. 6. 4 94.36.-..43 4446.6 . 44.46.46- 4 6.6.446 P 6444666 ‘6 6. .4“:C64'. . . . . 44464—6666 .4 604!‘4. 446 64444 .6631 ‘466660640 46 64..4464'D\.6 6 . 644 4 064 4 . 4‘ 44. 4. .61'6. 4". . . . I. (4.64.".664. 6..., 4 ... . . . . . . . . . 403.46.. 4' .n....64.u694 .64... 4 4 . (414.44.340.4kfi: ‘14 0*- f. . . .46., .4’6 ‘ 6 64'. 444! 66 “1.... 4 4466‘. . . . “0666467. 666.44'm‘46'04: 4.‘.6 ‘1606.61P44.6l.6 4666. ‘ 6 4 . 44‘; I 46646. . . . . . . ... 4.00..” 4.04 .4 1.4.46.4- . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . , . _ . ..6I6.64444646.6M\f. . . . . . . . .. .. 6.64 44446.64? 6 “.3461"40446 I . ‘4. 6. 4 ‘0 6“... . . 4 . . . . 6' 64. .4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 646 I 4r.46.l.64.§.. 6 ..’D.6. O I’P‘6044t’646 . . . . .4 4.6“!64. . . . . . . . . 4 364414406440... 04.6“ 446 6 6 44 . . . . . . . gnoggfiq-q-g $09 $4.... 6.44.36.04.4446640..6. 4 ’0‘.". 4 . 4 4. 4. 4 46466446646. .14."...4 . . . . . . . . .. . . , . . 4'46". II. 666 14.64-44-646...- . . . . .. . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . 4 0,446 44 .l6...4. . . . . . .. . . . . . .3.646...4.4‘6 . .0206 6 4 .44.; . . . . .464 . .4 6. 644 66 . . . . 4 4464 6 6 6 .6 6.. 4 4. 66C 666 . . . . . . .. . . . . . 4 4 O. .YJ4V r."(4 66464.... '4 .16‘11‘444 . . . . . . . . 960‘ 664 OCC‘OC-b“ 16 D 6 64.446 44.4.4.6 664 . 4466.4 964.6 646. 6466 C Q . fl 6‘ ”I 4:66.. 4 4 .1646...6 44. 4 6 4 4 . .. . ...4 . 64 4. 4. 4 .464‘I": ..4'. 64 4544.444?“ 5'46‘4 46. 46346.4 40 .64. 4644’. .. 6. ... 6414-. ...‘l. I. . 64449 .. . 3.6 4444 044.4 .4 .44 I.., . . 46‘. ‘4 J‘444'6I.‘ 44 6 s. . . 4‘ .;...q «'1’»va 4.4. '04. 3‘4. Ov‘lvv I.. 60.4.4496... .ULPI.6 £66.46 6. . ..64646.6 44. 1444.64.64.44? 56.44.444.464 4 4 6’6 4' COI’I ‘4”.75'9'. 0:4 6. 6416!. .4 4- I6! . .66 44 4 . .. . .’6 ....6 .4 6,064 . . . ...444\44.‘4.94664.64.4. 4 In" . . 144646.. 446. . 4.644444444444r6 44‘?’4444 6 64.6 . I 44 .44 6 6. 6 .64646... .. 66 [466406 :0. 6 4 44446 464.4 I.. . 6.0.446. ‘3’ ... .r.‘ 0‘..."v.‘4.4.fl. .64-4 44.4. ...-4.444. . . . . . . . . .. .. ...... . ....v. .4. 44.44.44.446... .. . . . . . .. . _ . . . . . . . . . 446....447.I4 .44444.946a.’.646.. . . , . . . . , ... . . . . . . . . . .. 6 . .. b 4.4.'4§\. 4.. . . 4. . .... . 4 .. . . . . . . . ... .66“ 4 6 4.. ,. 4. u 4. 46,41... 64064. . . , .. . . . .64._.I._.6..’ .6... 6.4466. .6‘6 4 44.16.’.4. . 464660666464 464 . . . . . . I 4.24! 4 .646. ...6’4 666.... . . . . . ... 4 I. 6.4.44 . . . . 21.46664. 46:46. 4 6.4.4646. ' .6444 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4 44 44 4.6444'h4.....464.. ... 1.4:}... . 4.1.4 66.40.... . . .. . . 1:34.42. 41.4? 44. . .. ._ . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . .. .7?.46.6.6.6. an . .. 1. . . 4h . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4...24'2. . .4 : . ..6646 4,4“. .. . 4 4.6. 6. . . 4. 6. 444.46.}... 6. 44...} 48 63.6 46.6 6444 3.6.4 I. I 4 ."Q. 44694.06! . 6 . U .4 . I . . 4 .14 44' .. . . ..9‘64 0 in 4. 4.1.4.9444}... . .6 4 ..6 . ...-44.476 4'4. 0 .. . . . I .6 U .4. 4 4 . J .6. ..M4VI644. 4. 44 .' 4 . u. 4 .6466- 046......“ 1 4|. 4 94466046464644! ' ' 2'? 6 6. 4 .“ '.l 4 :14 4 -..6‘. 66416 V .444 0....6bol“,. :‘.o 4 4 44' .4 b. 46.64.. 4! 61.466 1..- 46.66 44466.6 66. 41646.4 44.. 4'4 ..66..!. 4. 4 ..6464. .414. 1.466646. 46u34l. 4 o. 6. . 4.4.44...) ...!66....4.4.44.6... 44. .4. .. .4I4.6..' .ll6444. 46. 4644 V... , . ‘5f;¢;‘:'3"*' Puphn‘vm~§vm;m-gflqyg2;-_--L~;. -JV;O;Ib-q~fiflw'-r.f.€‘ffiCan-.v-ad -.-. . , u "14“” . , . -. ~ . - . . . , MICHIG ANSTATE UN lVE ll (3 HHH HI I HHHHHHHH 301411 2928 r UQRARY “gs ‘1t1ichigan 3““ J Universll V This is to certify that the dissertation entitled FAMILY SCIENCE: COLLABORATION, PEER INTERACTION, AND PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT TO BUILD HISPANIC CHILDREN'S INTEREST IN LEARNING SCIENCE presented by Sunethra Karunaratne has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Curriculum, Teaching, Ph°D' degree m and—Eéuea-Eienal Policy QW//¢ar fiajor prolessol/ Date 6/26/95 MSU i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 PLACE ll RETURN BOXto man We Moat {tom your «cord. to AVOID FINES Mum on or baton dd. duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE USU lsAn Affirmative Action/Emil Opportunly Institution Wan-m FAMILY SCIENCE: COLLABORATION, PEER INTERACTION, AND PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT TO BUILD HISPANIC CHILDREN'S INTEREST IN LEARNING SCIENCE VOLUME I BY Sunethra Karunaratne A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1995 ABSTRACT FAMILY SCIENCE: COLLABORATION, PEER INTERACTION, AND PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT TO BUILD HISPANIC CHILDREN'S INTEREST IN LEARNING SCIENCE BY Sunethra Karunaratne The Project under study was a version of the national Family Science Program, modified to generate the interest, skills, and self-confidence of Hispanic students' in learning science. The purpose of this study was to answer, "How did the Lansing Family Science Project help disadvantaged children and parents build an interest in learning science?" Two hour sessions were held in an after—school setting for about six to eight weeks during a semester. An innovation and a modification of the national Family Science Project was the use of “at—risk" middle-school students as "JUnior Scientists" to assist the elementary children in doing the science activities. On Tuesday afternoons they practiced doing the science activities to be done on Thursdays with the children. Qualitative research methods were used to study the interaction among participants. Participant attendance was a major criterion for selecting subjects for the study. All people who had more than 60 percent attendance in the two years of the study were selected to be study subjects. Thus, the population included twenty children, fifteen junior scientists, and six parents. All the subjects were interviewed two times, once at the beginning and again at the end of each year. Detailed analysis of the audio-taped interviews, participant observations and the children's documented work found that all three groups--elementary, and mdddle-school students, and the parents--enjoyed doing hands—on science activities and developed many academic and social skills. They were able to develop higher self-esteem and positive attitudes toward science and scientists. In addition, the children and junior scientists learned the science concepts underlying the activities. Parents were pleased that they were now learning science that they had studied, but not been able to learn, many years ago. They also demonstrated that they had many skills to impart to their children in education. Obtaining parents' participation was a restraining factor for the success of the Project. Dedication I dedicate this dissertation to my beloved parents who always considered their children's education be their top priority. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was possible due to the support given in many ways by several people. Although it is a hard task to mention how and by whom I was helped, I know I want to express my sincere gratitude to my dissertation research guidance committee members. Untiring support was given by my dissertation director, James Gallagher, who conducted long sessions with me, and encouraged me throughout this arduous process. Jim, above all, I value the moral support given by you and your wife, Barbara. Joseph Levine, from the Agricultural Extension Department, served as the committee member, outside my department. Joe, The Nonformal Institute, in which I participated with you, gave me a lot of insight to see with an open eye the overall picture of my dissertation. In addition, I value your support in all other instances, even when I stopped by without having an appointment. My special thanks go to Diana Marinez, by letting me use her project for my dissertation research, for the financial support, and for her treatment of me as a colleague. Diana, you provided a role model not only for your project participants, but also for me. V I am.grateful to Richard Navarro in many respects. I was here at Michigan State University because I worked with him even when I was still in Sri Lanka. Richard, you and Emerald, and your children, Narcisa, Dominica, and Ricky, always considered me part of your family. Immense thanks goes to you! Besides his work as the Assistant Dean for International Studies in the college, John Schwille spent his time having regular meetings with me, both professionally and personally, directing, guiding, and encouraging me in my work. Thank you Jack, for all of that and also for the financial support given to me so I could participate in international conferences. Among the other people, I want to thank the principal of the elementary school, the children, the middle-school junior scientists, and the parents for their cooperative behavior when conducted my research. Special thanks should also go to Margie Gallego, Sandra Hollingsworth, Anne Schneller and Graciela Walker. During my stay at Michigan State University, I received awards from.the AAUW (American Association of University Women), the P.E.O.(Philanthropic Educational Organization) sisterhood, a Thoman fellowship, and a Global Young Scholars Pan-Disciplinary Conclave. Support from these institutions helped me not only financially, but also by giving me mOral support and experience. . vi This study would not have been possible without the support given by the Julian Samora Research Institute. My thanks for the many and diverse forms of support cannot be expressed in only a few words. Many thanks to Refugio Rochin, Rosemary Aponte, Maria Moon, Eva Rodriguez, Jeanie Limon, and Lucinda Briones. Last, but not least, my thanks go to Sue Ashcraft, doing a skillful job of proof reading in a very short time. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIAT OF FIGURES CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION Rationale for the Study Research Questions Main Research Question Specific Research Questions Summary Organization of the Dissertation II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Minorities and the Disadvantaged Forces that Contribute to Being Disadvantaged Hispanics as a Minority Group Cultural and Experiential Background Economic Status The Disadvantaged and Science Disadvantages and Gender Factors that Help Alleviate Being Disadvantaged Parental Involvement Peer Interaction Nonformal Environment Pedagogy Collaborative Groupwork Self-Esteem Programs California Bilingual Programs KIDS (Kids Investigating and Discovering Science) La Clase Magica: A Computer Assisted Literacy Program for Neighborhood Children PLAN Program (Program: Learning According to Needs) National Urban Coalition's Say YES Schools Project New Haven Parental Involvement Program I Have a Dream Program Latino Parental Involvement in the Boston Public Schools National Family Science Program viii Page xiii xiv WWU'IU'IU'IUJH Hi4 20 22 24 25 29 30 33 34 35 36 38 39 4O 43 44 45 46 46 48 48 49 50 50 51 III. METHODS OF STUDY 53 Rationale for Methodology 54 Selection of the Site 54 Access to the Site 55 Field Techniques 56 Subjects of the Study 59 Data collection 60 Participant observations ’ 60 Interviews 62 Documents 64 Data Analysis 65 IV. FAMILY SCIENCE PROJECT 67 Family Science Program 67 Family Science Program Goals 68 Structure of Sessions 71 Who trains Family Science Instructors 73 Lansing Family Science Project 74 Objectives of the Lansing Family Science Project 74 Evolution of the Lansing Family Science Project 74 Pilot Year A 76 Afternoon session _ 77 Evening session 78 First Year . 79 Second Year 80 Training Sessions of Junior Scientists 81 Family Science Sessions 85 What Did a Regular Family Science Session Looks like? 85 Venn Diagram 85 Estimation 87 Snack Time 87 Session Introduction 88 Activity Time 88 Wrap-Up Time 93 Summary 94 V. WHAT DID THE CHILDREN GAIN FROM THEIR IN THE PARTICIPATION IN THE FAMILY SCIENCE PROJECT 96 Assertion 1 97 Discussion 102 Assertion 2 105 1. Sarah 107 2. Luz 108 3. Julia 112 4. Rita 116 5. Kate 121 Discussion 124 Assertion 3 126 Discussion 137 Assertion 4 140 Manipulative skills 145 Discussion 147 ix Observation skills 148 Discussion 153 Prediction skills 155 Discussion 158 Estimation skills 158 Discussion 161 Classification skills 163 Discussion 164 Discovery skills ’ 166 Discussion 167 Data recording skills 168 Discussion 169 Communication skills 169 Discussion 170 Assertion 5 172 Discussion 180 Analysis 180 VI. WHAT DID JUNIOR SCIENTISTS LEARN FROM THE FAMILY SCIENCE PROJECT 183 Who Were Junior Scientists? 184 Assertion 1 188 a) Perceptions of Scientists 190 b) Likes/Dislikes about Science 193 Discussion 201 Assertion 2 208 Discussion 220 Assertion 3 221 Discussion 231 Assertion 4 232 Discussion 242 Summary 243 VII. WHAT WERE THE PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTS ABOUT THE FAMILY SCIENCE PROJECT? 246 Assertion 1 247 Work 254 Rotating shifts in work 255 Child care 255 Taking classes 255 Sickness 257 Discussion 258 Assertion 2 261 1. Mr. Parker 264 2. Mrs. Briones 266 3. Mrs. Arizmendi 269 4. Mrs. Velasquez 271 Discussion 273 Assertion 3 277 Mrs. Martinez 278 Mrs. Briones 280 Discussion 281 Summary 286 VIII. HOW DID LEADERSHIP AFFECT THE FAMILY SCIENCE PROJECT? 288 The Family SCjance Project Director's Involvement in Outreach Activities 288 a) Kindngaten Scientist in Residence Project 289 b) playtime Is Science 289 C) Fifth Grade Science with Friends Project 290 d) La C1656 Magica: A Computer Assisted Literacy Program for Neighborhood Children 290 e) Community Lecture Series 291 f) Kelogg Biological Station Summer Camp for Migrant Children 292 Background of the Family Science Project Director 292 What Motivated Dr. Rodriguez to Become Active in Women and Minority Issues? 295 Why did the Project Director Start the Family Sc1ence Project? 299 How Did Dr. Rodriguez's Teaching Affect Behaviors? 304 What Kind of a Culture Is Needed to Bring About Successful Changes? 308 IX. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 318 Summary of the Study 318 Children 321 Junior Scientists 322 Parents 324 Leadership and Institutionalizatio 325 Conclusions 326 1. Context for Learning 326 2. Engagement 328 3. Enjoyment 331 4. Building Confidence 333 5. Social Norms 336 6. Junior Scientists 336 7. Parental Involvement 337 8. Learning Community 338 Recommendations for Further Research 339 Implications for Practice 341 Bibliography 344 Appendix I 356 Postscript 356 Appendix II, III, IV 361 Steps in Making Hot Air Balloons 361 Appendix V 364 Original Letter 364 Appendix VI 365 Pretest 365 Appendix VII 367 Survey Instrument 367 Appendix VIII 369 Pre Interview for students 369 Appendix IX 371 Pre Interview for Junior Scientits 371 xi Appendix X Pre Interview for Parents Appendix XI Post Interview for Students Appendix XII Post Interview for Junior Scientists Appendix XIII Post Interview for Parents of Students Appendix XIV Post Interview for Parents of Junior Scientists Appendix XV Interview Guide for the Principal Appendix XVI Consent Foams xii 373 373 375 375 377 377 380 380 383 383 385 386 387 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Subjects of the study 2 Distribution of Family Science sites 3 Group distribution 4 Activity/skills 5 Predictions vs observations 6 Estimations 7 Sinking and floating 8 Time (in secs.) taken to move a bubble of water through a maze 9 Background of first year junior scientists 10 Background of second year junior scientists 11 Likes/dislikes about science expressed by the second year junior scientists 12 Attendance of parents xiii Page 58 69 129 142 146 160 162 167 186 187 191 253 LIST OF FIGURES Page 1 '10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Who's most likely to become a scientist or engineer? Historical perspective in defining equality of educational opportunity Strategies of Professional Development Schools to.overcome failures in attaining equality of educational opportunity Conceptual framework Venn diagram Steps in making hot air balloons Julia's scientist Rita's scientist Group distribution Towers Filter paper strip Drops of food color on milk A scientist A scientist A scientist Kasey's scientist At-risk model Ramiro's scientist steps in making race cars Families attended the Family Science Project A scientist xiv Page 12 19 86 92 114 119 128 132 151 156 177 178 178 192 207 230 234 287 309 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This experience so enraged me that I have continued to remain enraged at the fact that if this was happening to my kid, and I had the education and the money to intervene, what was happening to poor children whose parents were not educated and didn't have the money to intervene! I was already committed to assuring equal educational opportunities for women and minorities in science. But this experience strengthened.my resolve and.made.me refocus at the early grade levels so that we could intervene prior to children falling behind (10/28/93). The Family Science Project Director, Dr. Maria Rodriguez, made the above quote when she was interviewed as to how she became involved in the Project. She had two daughters. During her oldest daughter's kindergarten experience, the family was called in for a conference because their daughter was not learning to read and also could not sit still for long periods of time. While they realized that she was not academically successful, they knew that she was bright and verbal, and had social skills beyond her years. They were also concerned with identifying what was interfering with her learning. Since they lived in a high-income community with many educated individuals, they did not expect to 2 find that the explanation for her inability to learn to read was based on her being the child of a working mother and language minority parents. Although the teachers couched their questions in assuring the parents that they were looking at all possibilities, it was evident that even though the teachers knew who the parents were and where they worked, they believed that speaking a language other than English interfered with her learning to read English. However, their daughter did not even speak Spanish. The teachers knew from their interactions with the daughter that she was English dominant and very verbal, with an extensive vocabulary. Then it was interpreted that having a working mother meant that she spent less time with her children than a non-working mother. What they did not know was that she was the first grandchild in a family of eleven children (her father was the oldest), and she not only had attention from her parents, but also from the extended family. This first, but not the last, experience in attempting to discover why their very bright and verbal daughter was not learning to read revealed to Dr. Rodriguez in a very personal way that in spite of their progress, Hispanics were still viewed as being second- class citizens whose language got in the way of learning. Dr. Rodriguez realized that without skills and money their daughter's future was doomed to go along 3 the same path as that of a good majority of other minority children. Rationale_for_the_fitnd¥ The opening quote shows an example of how a Hispanic girl was discriminated against. Research shows that American schools are being blamed for not providing equal opportunities to all students (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Goodlad, 1984; Cakes, 1985). Minority groups, especially Hispanics, do not receive the same treatment as the dominant group of society, that is, whites, in the public schools (Kozol,1991). The possibility of becoming a scientist is very low for Hispanics, especially Hispanic girls (Figure 1). "l 2.7 1 24 OJ 'flurmmbusammueamhgumdsnpnanuumnumxmemg- tuumudammumflndmunmmnzwkhmnqmuuqunuuhe adultpopulationasawhole. Formletherearenarlyduee times (2.7) asrnany white male engineetsandsciemistsandody amanomumnmuilnanmuwmhhefinnkmnfinamnmdawup daflndmwukbmzaeqnuehmnnamhgawkumnumudmt indaeadukpopuhdon. Figure 1 Who's most likely to become a scientist or engineer? (Source: National Research Council, Washington DC., 1989) 4 Many elementary teachers do not have the necessary credentials to teach science (Mullis & Jenkins, 1988). More importantly, many are both academically and psychologically unprepared to teach this subject. This keeps them from effectively teaching science at the elementary level. To adapt to modern society and to lead a better life, all students need a background in science and technology. Interest in science needs to be developed in the very early stages of childhood. If it started very early, even before the children come to school, they start making successful connections between their everyday life activities and what they encounter in the daily science activities. These connections help children to approach scientific discoveries with an open mind. As Linn (1994) suggests, we need a culturally relevant, hands-on inquiry method of science for all students, so that the minority and low SES (Socio Economic Status) students get the opportunities to make connections between their experiences and what they learn in school. The Family Science Project in Lansing was an innovative program designed to alleviate the disadvantages experienced by Hispanics, especially Hispanic girls, in learning science. Family Science was presented as an after-school program for elementary students and their parents by a Hispanic female professor. The students would work in small groups 5 doing hands—on science activities. A group of Hispanic middle school children called "junior scientists," assisted them in the activities. Research Questions Ma' R e The primary research question which guided this research was: How did the Family Science Project help disadvantaged children and parents build an interest in learning science? To help answer this general question, three specific questions were asked. S. ' ' a i 1. What did elementary school Children gain from participation in the Family Science Project? 2. What did middle school "junior scientists," who assisted with the program's implementation, gain from the Family Science Project? 3. What were the perceptions of the parents about learning science and the Family Science Project? The main research question guiding this study is imbedded in the big issue of attaining educational equality. Hence, an overview of the historical analysis of "equality of educational opportunity" is provided to 6 present the theory that the definition of equality of educational opportunity has changed from a narrow to a broader definition as society has changed (see Figure 2), and that the goal of achieving equal education opportunities has not been met, exCept on a limited basis. When considering American schools, it is very clear that the definition of equality of educational opportunity has been understood and used in different ways by different people during different historical periods. Figure 2 shows how different categories were added on in order to better define equality of educational opportunity. Narrow 1800 a = white, middle-class, male students 18405 a+b = providing a school for all Children 1870-19205 a+b+c = Americanizing the immigrants 19305 a+b+c+d = providing opportunities for female students 19505 a+b+c+d+e = providing opportunities for different races and cultures 19705 a+b+c+d+e+£ = providing opportunities for handicapped students 19805 a+b+c+d+e+f+g = students of different backgrounds Broad 19905 providing opportunities for students from different ethnic, racial, religious, cultural, ability, socio-economic status, gender, geographical locations, and urban/rural backgrounds. Figure 2 Historical perspective in defining equality of educational opportunity 7 In the early 18005, American schools were more or less homogeneous, with a population of white, middle- class male students (Katz, 1978). The people who were involved in making changes in schools were from.the middle class, and their definition of equality of educational opportunities was meant to provide benefits for white middle-class students. Although there were a variety of culturally different American Indian tribes and African slaves in the country, they were not considered to be part of society. In addition to this, female Children and children from lower socio-economic classes were also excluded. During this period, "all" meant only white, male, middle-Class children (Katz, 1978). When the common schools were established in 1840 by the efforts of Horace Mann and other crusaders for the common school, their objective was to provide free education at the elementary level. Education was seen by them as the great political and intellectual equalizer. The purpose of providing equal educational opportunity was meant to provide schools for everybody (Church & Sedlak, 1976), thereby helping the success of democracy (Labaree, 1987). Merely providing a school does not provide equality of educational opportunities, because within the same school structure students may receive different treatment, and hence, the education they receive is not "common" or equal (Cohen, 1984). 8 When the massive immigration to America occurred from 1840 to 1920, thirty to forty million people entered the country. Hence, there was an urgent need to overcome the problems of overcrowded urban ghettos, increased crime, and political corruption. At that time, the authoritative group believed that Americanizing immigrants would help solve most of the problems. The need was to produce "good" citizens, and achieving equality of educational opportunities meant socializing the immigrants to the dominant culture. Schools served this socialization function. During this period, the purpose was to bring about morality (Kaestle, 1983), which promised many benefits, such as good work habits, deference to adults, restraint from bad habits, and reduction of crime. Although female students were considered to need an education, this education to that needed was to be limited, to serve as "good mothers and house wives” in the future. The opportunity for female students to achieve an education has increased since the 19305, but studies over the years have indicated that minority and women are underrepresented in specialized talent fields, which training begins early in the educational process (Gorneck, 1983; Linn, 1994). In the 19505, with the initiation of desegregation, the definition of educational opportunity was further 9 expanded to consider students of different racial and cultural backgrounds. In the 19605 there was a great concern about improving science education. At this time, equality of educational opportunity was defined in terms of subject matter. Today, American schools have to serve the needs of children from different ethnic, racial, religious, ability (both mental and physical), socio-economic status, gender, geographical, urban/rural, and cultural groups. Contemporary research shows that the internal practices of public schools do not provide equal opportunities for all students (Labaree, 1987; Oakes, 1985; Bowles & Gintis, 1976). They argue that American public schools paradoxically promote both equality and inequality. All students should have access to the same kind of knowledge, skills, and attitudes through a common curriculum, and they also should be exposed to equal opportunities to receive any kind of job in society. As Bowles and Gintis (1976) say, schools themselves are instrumental in the failure to achieve equality of educational opportunities due to social reproduction. Public schools reflect the structure of the wider society. When the wider society has a system of stratifying social classes, it is very difficult to 10 bring about equal opportunity for all students in the public schools. Sorting children according to some criteria or standard begins early in the students' lives, legitimated by subtle and overt interpretations of the students' abilities. Ogbu (1974) discusses how the same remarks in the report cards of students were carried through for five years. Sorting children according to their performance on standardized tests is a way to legitimate inequalities in the education system. Fairness of this kind of testing depends on how it measures the true aptitude or achievement of students. If the tests are constructed favoring a particular societal group, then there is no fairness in using these tests to establish the sorting criteria. Tracking is another way to legitimate the inequalities of students. Students are labeled at the very beginning as ”fast" or "slow" learners. Fast learners are given gifted and talented programs which continue in the college-preparatory academic track in high school. Slow learners are given watered-down content, drillwork on disconnected reading passages, and fill-in-the-blank exercises. “Giftedness” is a label given by the school to legitimate what the school does with a politically and socially constructed notion. Oakes (1985) and Goodlad (1984) emphasize that the low aptitude of students in 11 the low track is not because of intellectual weakness, but rather is the result of poor quality instruction, as well as less actual instruction time. The low track students have low aspirations and feel more negative about themselves (Oakes, 1985; Rist, 1970). This method of categorizing students helps maintain the society's class structure by offering white collar jobs only to those students who have the right credentials. Having a common curriculum does not guarantee provision of equal educational opportunities. Anyon's (1981) study provided an example of how students from different social classes are treated differently, and thus receive different kinds of knowledge, despite having the same curriculum. Students from lower—class backgrounds are regularly denied access to middle—class knowledge that would encourage them to think critically about the world around them and empower them to act in their best interests. "Middle-class knowledge" emphasizes the abstract and the theoretical instead of the concrete and practical, thus maintaining the status quo of "cultural capital" of the society. Thus, schools mirror the social stratification of the wider society without promoting education equality. Even today, the majority of public school teachers are whites. Most of them are not trained to handle a group of diverse learners (Kennedy, 1992). They are not aware of minority and working class group cultures, or 12 the problems encountered by minority and working class children. Ogbu (1991) suggests that the persistent failure of minority groups is not due to teaching or uncooperative students, but is instead related to the ways in which majority groups have treated them and how the minorities have responded to that treatment. FAILURE Standardized tests Tracking Labels, categories, predictions of students' ability Different knowledge groups for different social classes Different treatment of different racial groups Credential selling Bureaucratic administrative structure Bureaucratic physical structure Poor teacher attitudes STRATEGIES TO COMBAT FAILURES Ongoing assessments, portfolios, mastery learning All students work together with adults All students work as equals, respecting others' ideas during “conversation/dialogue” Knowledge developed through dialogue Developing shared conceptions Promoting inquiry Teacher’s authority not visible All work together in groups Giving courses about diversity, working with university professors, community members and business people Figure 3 Strategies of Professional Development Schools to overcome failures in attaining equality of educational opportunity 13 The Holmes Group created Professional_peyelgpment Schools (PBS) to implement the principles of partnership. Of the six principles of PDS, in this study I refer to the principle that focuses on teaching and learning for understanding for every child. I summarize in Figure 3, the strategies suggested by the Holmes Group for overcoming existing failures in American educational system so as to achieve equality of educational opportunity. SEEEQEY Providing equal opportunities for all groups of children has never happened in multicultural American society. History provides evidence of expanding education's focus in order to achieve educational equality. Even today minority groups are subject to inequalities in educational opportunities due to the large institutional structure of schools, and the treatment schools afford minority groups. Attempts have been made to overcome the inequalities experienced by minority groups. r . . '55 In this chapter, a background was provided to state the problem of disadvantaged groups not receiving equal 14 educational opportunities. An overview is given below of how the other chapters are organized. Ch : v' i . In this chapter, literature is reviewed in that area of research which discusses the place of minority groups in American society due to the career opportunities received so far, and the minorities' socio-economic status. A description is given of how minorities were discriminated as a race. Gender in the American schools, and Hispanics as a disadvantaged group, are also discussed. The programs or educational reforms that have taken place to overcome these disadvantages, and those Characteristics considered to be nonadvantageous are presented. In the final section of this Chapter I discuss the successes or failures of these programs, and how successful it would be to have a program like Family Science in order to build interest in science. ha er - . This chapter describes the methodology used to study the perceptions of the Family Science Project participants. First the selection of the site, and then access to the site, are described. Second, the subjects of the study are described. Subjects were three types; namely, the elementary 15 children who participated in the Project (20), the junior scientists from the middle school (15), and the parents (5). Third, the data sources and collection methods are described. As it is necessary to use multiple methods and sources of data in order to get a clear understanding of what is happening in a particular setting, data sources included the participants' observations, pre-and post-interviews with the children, junior scientists and parents, responses to a survey instrument, and documents. Some of the changes occurring during the growth of the Family Science Project since the pilot study are described. Fourth, data analysis and the organization for data analysis are described. Data collected by different sources may have different meanings; hence, data from all sources were triangulated in order to minimize biases and produce an integrated whole, so as to understand what happened-in the sessions. ha te 4- i ' ' . This chapter describes the history, goals, structure, and distribution of the national Family Science Program. Then the Family Science Project in Lansing and its evolution during a three-year period are described. Modifications from the National Family Science Program in the Lansing Project, its objectives, clientele, 16 session structure, andxconducting a typical Family Science session are also presented. ha - i 1 n a c ' 'n E E . . . . 1 E 'J 5.. E . a In this chapter how children developed skills, understanding, and positive attitudes toward science, and how they also realized their potential to do science and be scientists by engaging in hands-on science activities in the Family Science sessions are discussed under five assertions. W In this chapter the roles that the junior scientists played, their interactions with the children and their parents, what qualities and skills they developed in performing their role, and perception of the parents about their child's contribution to their school work due to their participation in the Project are discussed under four assertions. a9 -. 7- 1" -r- :- '-- -9 '-o_ . '-_-9 _ :30 Leernieg Seience end the Family Seiegee Prejeet? In this chapter how parents of Family Science session attendees perceived their children's participation in 17 the Project and the changes in themselves, and how much of their expectations were achieved are discussed under three assertions. Seience Ezejeet? This chapter provides a brief biography of the Project Director, describes the leadership provided by her in implementing the Family Science Project, and discusses the importance of having strong leadership when implementing such a programi h - c 'ons R c ' h lmplieeeiene. In the first part of this chapter a summary of the study, and conclusions drawn from.the study, are presented. Then recommendations for further research, and research implications of the study are discussed. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This chapter discusses the research literature pertaining to the study's question, “How did the Family Science Project help disadvantaged groups build interest in learning science?" When I stated the problem to be examined in this paper in Chapter 1, I gave some background information showing that minority groups do not receive the same equal educational opportunities as the dominant society, that is Anglo—Americans. In this chapter, I first discuss the relationship between being a minority and being disadvantaged, then I examine the forces that contribute to being disadvantaged. In seeking evidence to answer the research question guiding this study, I organized the factors that help alleviate being disadvantaged under several subheadings, such as collaborative group work, parental involvement, peer interaction, pedagogy, and nonformal environment, as indicated in the conceptual framework (Figure 4). The final section of this chapter describes programs that attempt to alleviate some of the disadvantages experienced by minority children. 18 19 Junior Scientists [ Parents J [ Children [ \\\\s {f z///// Collaborative Group Work Parent Interpersonal Peer Involvement Relationships Interaction onforma 1f- ( Pedagogy‘::>__§ [Sel esteem ’ Environmen::) Motivation in Learning I ...l Figure 4 Conceptual framework 20 Minorities end the Disadvantaged Research shows that children of different minority groups are considered to be members of a disadvantaged group (Burris, 1990; Chapa & Valencia, 1993; Samora, 1966; Treuba, 1989; Valencia, 1991). Many disadvantaged children can be considered culturally or experientially "deprived" only when measured by standards set by the dominant society. Sometimes the terms “culturally deprived", "underprivileged", "disadvantaged", "lower Class", and "lower socio-economic group" are used synonymously. Fantini and Weinstein (1968) extend this synonymity to such terms as "culturally different", "working class", "slum culture", "inner-city dwellers", "culturally impoverished", "experientially deprived", "culturally handicapped", “educationally disadvantaged", "children of the poor", and many more. It appears that the definition of "disadvantaged“ is very complex. While there is a considerable overlap between minority and disadvantaged populations, the two are not synonymous (Burris, 1990.) According to Passow (1986), the term "disadvantaged" has two aspects with respect to compensatory education efforts: eeeeemie_§iee§yeetegedt which is operationally defined in terms of poverty, and edeeetieeel_dieedyeetegedt which is operationally defined in terms of below-average academic achievement. There are minority children who achieve academically, whose families do not live below the poverty level, and 21 who are neither economically nor educationally disadvantaged. According to Ogbu (1978) they are the disadvantaged gifted. This study does not focus on disadvantaged gifted students. Ogbu (1986 & 1991) suggests that the persistent failure of minority groups in education is not due to bad teaching or uncooperative students, but rather is related to ways in which majority groups treat specific minorities. He distinguishes between three types of minorities: a) autonomous, "those who possess distinct group identity or sense of peoplehood, based on cultural, language, racial or religious differences with the dominant group" e.g., Amish, Jews; b) immigrants, "people who have recently moved more or less voluntarily to their host society;" and c) castelike or subordinate minorities "who have been incorporated to the society where they are found more or less involuntarily and permanently through slavery, conquest, colonization, e.g., Mexican Americans, native Americans, and American blacks.“ According to Ogbu (1985), both the autonomous and immigrant minority groups comprise the disadvantaged gifted group. -The autonomous group generally achieves at very high levels in school and in society as a whole, because they actualize a conscious choice to be different. They often consider themselves to be superior in some way to the surrounding majority 22 population. Immigrants generally do very well in schools and society as a whole for several reasons. They usually compare their standard of living, their overall wealth, or increased political freedom with what was the norm in their country of origin, and realize how much more opportunity is to be found here. These motivating factors continue to exert an influence on immigrants' adaptive strategies in their new host country and enable them to succeed. They are not threatened by learning the culture, language, or life style of the host nation since they can successfully accommodate to the new while retaining the best of their own cultural heritage, for example, Chinese and other Asian populations. Involuntary minorities, on the other hand, have been forced to drop their language, culture and lifestyle in order to work in America. According to Ogbu (1985), they have been forced to live in the U.S., and so they resist their masters in subtle and indirect ways by creating and using a language of their own, "substandard" English; deliberately failing in the educational system; and creating alternative economic systems with the resources at hand. 0 h nt ' ' 1 Different authors have given different definitions for "disadvantaged." According to Fantini and 23 Weinstein, (1968), any child who receives an inadequate, irrelevant, or out-dated curriculum is disadvantaged. In stating the problem to be examined in Chapter 1, I described how minority groups do not receive equality of educational opportunities; hence they could be considered disadvantaged. Based on research findings, I also provided the factors such as the existing curriculum, tracking procedures, and the organization and structure of schools that help perpetuate an unjust social order for minority groups. One theme often expressed in the literature concerned with the education of disadvantaged minorities is that their poor academic performance reflects the low value they have learned to associate with academic tasks. In the case of blacks, a significant proportion of whom can be categorized as economically disadvantaged, genetic factors have been advanced to account for this underachievement (Jensen, 1969). Others have attempted to isolate cultural or social- situational determinants of underachievement among minorities (Bond, 1972). The economic status, cultural and experiential background, family stability, race and ethnicity are all forces which help shape one's advantage or disadvantage. One may be deprived due to one or a combination of theses forces, and the degree of being disadvantaged varies depending on the number of forces interacting on 24 an individual. In the following section I discuss how the tendency to be "disadvantaged“ is higher when one is in a minority group. The subheadings Hispanics as a minority group, cultural and experiential background, economic status, and disadvantages in science and gender will be utilized to further delineate the topic. Hiepeniee_e§_e_Mieetity_§;eup. Although Hispanics use Spanish as their vernacular and share such important characteristics as strong family ties and a strong Catholic tradition, they are not a homogeneous group (Pena, 1989). They constitute about 60 percent Mexican Americans, 14 percent Puerto Rican Americans, 6 percent Cuban Americans, and 20 percent other Hispanics of South American origin (Pena, 1989). Pe'rez and Dela Rosa Salazar (1993) suggest that by the year 2000, the Chicano/Latino student population will account for the majority of the overall national youth growth, due to their rapid population grwth. Lambourne and Baca Zinn (1993) report that the Latino population is growing five times faster than the rate for the rest of the population, due to the young age structure, high birth rate, and continued immigration. Riche (1991) predicts that there will be a demographic transition from an Anglo-white society rooted in western culture to a world society characterized by three large racial/ethnic minorities. This indicates that the 25 majority of students in the 215t century are going to be minorities. By the year 2000, Hispanics will constitute a greater share of American school children--about sixteen percent (Valdivieso & Davis, 1988). It is also reported that this group of the student population has the highest rate of high school dropouts (Valencia, 1991). Based on 1990 census data, Chapa and Valencia (1993) report that, compared to non-Hispanics (79.6% completing high school), the high school completion rate of Hispanics is low (50.8%). Of the various Hispanic groups, the Mexican—origin subgroup has the lowest high school completion rate (44%). u r' 'a a k . Compared to many countries in the world, America is a land of immigrants. Historically speaking, American Indian tribes were the early settlers, who even today are not culturally integrated into modern American life. According to Burris (1990,) after the settlement of the European immigrants, African Negroes were imported to America by these settlers. These Africans brought with them not only their African culture, but they also developed their own distinct cultural system in the midst of the dominant European culture. Later immigrant groups were composed of Asians, Germans, Swedes, Italians, Irish, European Jews, Puerto Ricans, and 26 Mexicans. Each of these diverse cultural groups had their own ways of doing, and looking at things. Within a given urban neighborhood several distinct cultures often exist side-by-side, that is, Negro (black), Mexican, Puerto Rican, Irish, Italian and so forth have different cultures. Rakow (1985) describes that the cultural disadvantaged in the United States generally live in geographical patterns. In the South, and in the most of the urban areas of the North, the culturally disadvantaged center primarily on African Americans. Mexican Americans along the border states in Texas and California, the Puerto Ricans in New York, and the American Indians in the Southwest are also culturally different from the mainstream culture. These different groups celebrate their cultural activities either separately, or, in some cities Detroit, as a group effort as part of "Cultural week," where each day of the week one cultural group celebrates their culture by presenting different equipment, clothes and food, and performing cultural activities suCh as dances and plays. Considering vygotsky's (1986) premise regarding the impact of culture on a child's development, he felt that culture plays a very important role in a child's education. Cultural differences are important determinants of what is taught and learned in educational settings. All groups of people have a culture of some sort. For vygotsky and his followers 27 human development is intrinsically social and educational. It is the acquisition of one's culture, including the practices and the symbol systems of the culture, that makes possible creative thought and activity (Edwards & Mercer, 1987)., Every child learns her/his culture; if s/he happens to belong to a subculture, this is what s/he learns, that is what s/he experiences. A child's experiences are many and varied, but these are not necessarily the experiences which the formal educational process recognizes, or are valued by the dominant culture. As with Anyon (1981), what minorities learn in school does not challenge their experiences and prior knowledge so they can make connections from.what they learn to what they know so as to build up new knowledge. Each child brings her/his individual set of abilities, and prior knowledge and experiences to the classroom. But for children who do not belong to the mainstream Anglo culture, they find it difficult to make any connections to the things they are doing in the classroom because of the differences in their home and school culture. Some authors have found that, due to the differences between the culture of the school and that found in the home, schooling becomes a discontinuous process for most children who do not belong to the mainstream.Anglo group (Delgado-Gaitan, 1991). Lareau (1989) points out that the families living in poor 28 socio—economic conditions often face sustained isolation from the school culture, which might lead to miscommunications between the school and the parents. This miscommunication affects the children's education through the parents' resentment and apathy. Since schools require the participation of parents for activities which need a specific, culturally—based knowledge, it closes the door for minorities and disadvantaged groups. Treuba (1989) points out that culturally different students who are not successful in cultural adjustment face obstacles to their success in school. Although there is an incongruency of minority culture and school culture, all minority groups, no matter what their .origin, also possess rich and complex cultures of their own. But these cultures serve to set them further apart from middle-class American life. The American education system has not taken into account the benefit of integrating different groups' cultural values into its curricula. As Cheek (1989) points out, the tendency to view the dominant culture as positive and other cultures as negative hypothesizes that, by transforming the latter into the former, the whole problem of the disadvantaged will disappear. Looking back at American history, this was the vision that was held by American educators in the early 19005, who thought that 29 Americanizing immigrants would help produce democratic citizens. c o ' t . Glick (1971) says that in the United States, two ethnic or racial groups, blacks and Hispanics, are distinguished by their inferior economic status when compared to the nation as a whole. Considering the economic standards, the probability of getting a good job is very limited for one in a minority group. He further says that Hispanics are underrepresented in federal employment in some states; Hispanics and blacks dominate low-skill jobs. If a person does not hold a good job, his level of income is very low, thus leading to economic hardship to have the basic items for living, such as buying adequate food, shelter or clothing, which apparently forces them to ignore the education of their children. It also prevents them from being involved in social and enrichment activities, which does not help them to experience a social life. Poverty and poor education are interrelated. Hence, the affluent get the best that an inadequate education system can offer while the poor get the very worst. By and large schools are not ready for the disadvantaged poor, and they are also not ready for the schools (Scarpitti & Andersen, 1992). Unlike a child from the middle-class, when a minority child enters 30 school, s/he moves into a different world, one which mirrors the society from which s/he is cut off, and which evaluates her/him in the same degrading terms as the society to which they belong. For the first time the child feels that s/he is not a part of that community, and so develops an alienated feeling. This causes Children of minority and lower economic groups to have low self-esteem. Ihe_Qieedyegteged_eeg_§eienee. The National Science Foundation's studies (1980, 1982) on degrees granted to women and other minority students in such fields as engineering, computer science, mathematics, physical science, biological science, psychology, and social science, clearly indicate that there is a continuing underrepresentation of most of these groups in most areas, especially at advanced levels. Only Asian Americans were represented at least in proportion to their numbers in the population as a whole, and were, in fact, overrepresented in some areas. However, Crowley and Melissa (1986) argue that minorities are better represented today in science and technological fields than in the past. Fewer than 1 percent of all practicing scientists are Hispanics. In engineering, Hispanics represent only 3.2 percent of all full—time undergraduate students, 1.2 percent of all masters students, and only .7 percent of doctoral 31 students (ERIC, 1981). Hispanics comprise 9 percent, and blacks 12.1 percent of the total US. population (URL, 1995). Of the U.S. doctoral students in the sciences, there are only 1.3 percent blacks, while Asians, by contrast, are 7.7 percent of the science doctoral students, yet represent only 1.5 percent of the U.S. population (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1986). A study conducted by the Research Triangle Institute (1988) on the pre—college science achievement of American youths versus their counterparts in sixteen other countries (Australia, Canada, Great Britain,’ Finland, Hong Kong, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Sweden, and Thailand) shows that U.S. fourth and fifth graders ranked below half the other nations in science achievement. Results in the upper grades were even worse. They concluded that a majority of students at all levels within the American education system take the absolute minimum number of science and math courses required for graduation from that particular level of the system. Considering American students as a whole, it appears that in the midst of an increasingly scientific and technologically-oriented culture, Americans are losing their understanding of the very technological and scientific principles and processes exemplified in artifacts of everyday life. Along this same line of 32 argument, although we do not see it, the middle class is also disadvantaged in learning science and technology. If it is happening to middle—class children, then the question is, "What kind of disadvantages are experienced by minority children?" Historically speaking, science was considered a subject for the dominant culture and the elite group. Cheek (1989) reports that a study done by the Minnesota Science Assessment and Research Project (1985) reveals that at age 9, whites scored approximately 12 percent higher than blacks or Hispanics in science. Sixty two percent of whites reported experiences with science apparatus or science activities in their classes, while only 57.6 percent of the blacks and 57.6 percent of the Hispanics reported such experiences. He points out that in a school with more than 50 percent Hispanic and black population, not a single Hispanic or black was enrolled in physics. In a study conducted by Stanley and Greenwood (1983), in Title I and non-Title I (31% Black & 69% Caucasian) it was found that instruction in both school groups provided relatively infrequent amounts of academic response time and that this time was significantly lower among minority students in the Title I schools (all black students). It is a meritocratic belief that students are free to choose whatever electives they wish from a wide variety of curricular options (Cusick, 1983). The competencies are organized 33 hierarchically, and low track students are provided with a qualitatively different type of instruction which never enables them to achieve the same goals set for the higher track students, basically white, middle-Class students (Oakes, 1985; Anyon, 1981). v G r. Studies over the years have indicated that minority and female underrepresentation in fields requiring specialized talent begins early in the educational process--courses pursued in secondary schools tend not to be college-preparatory, minorities and women are less likely to be identified for programs for the gifted, and the dropout rate is substantially higher for most minorities. According to the National Research Council (1989) study, in 1981 there were only 4,809 minority women who held doctorates in the science and engineering. Although this is a larger percentage of doctorates in science and engineering fields than in any of the other fields of existing U.S. doctoral students in 1981, the employment rate of science and engineering Ph.D.'s showed that there were lower full- time employment rates and higher rates of unemployment for all minority groups when compared with Anglo- American male scientists. Grew (1986) reports that gains made by women and other minority doctoral students in recent years have been due in large part to federal funding that has 34 fueled efforts to attract and retain minorities in higher education in the sciences and engineering. He further states that money alone will not solve the problems, because deeply embedded social and cultural factors cannot easily be addressed by "throwing" money at the problem. Major impediments for increased participation by minority women, for example, include not only the gender stereotyped differential treatment women receive, but also the differential treatment received due to being a member of minority group in America (Grew, 1986). F h 'a There are three key agents of socialization-—the family, the neighborhood, and the sibling and peer groups. In schools there is a formal curriculum.which is divided into classroom units. Although there is a hidden curriculum in the schools, the hidden curriculum at home is divided into family units. Just as the school curriculum produces a student culture, the hidden curriculum at home and in the neighborhood produces a sibling and peer culture. Further, just as the formal curriculum has a key teaching agent, the teacher, the hidden curriculum at home also has a key agent, the parent. 35 Parental Involvement. Iverson and Walberg (1982) state that ability and achievement are more closely linked to the socio-psychological environment and intellectual stimulation found in the home than they are to parental socio-economic status indicators such as occupation and amount of education. Because of the obvious importance of the parent to the shaping of a child's development, it is very necessary to link the continuous support given to the child in her/his school work and to the teacher. Baker and Stevenson (1986) note that better educated mothers tend to be better managers of their child's school career. While mothers provide security, understanding, and patterns for the child's speech, fathers provide opportunities for their children to socialize through games, conversation, and other, often more physical, activities in which male interests and feelings are projected. Baker and Stevenson (1986) also note that the effective influence of parents is cumulative and cannot be measured or at only one evaluated point in the Child's academic career. Bronfenbrenner (1986) warns about the erosion of the essential institutions for human development, one of which is the family, and the other is the increasing number of single parent families. Both the formal curriculum and the larger hidden curriculum serve to teach and socialize the child, and equip her/him with the skills, knowledge, and attitudes 36 which will underlie her/his adult functioning in the society. An important thing to note is that if the formal curriculum is to achieve its purpose, it must be consistent with, or at least accommodating of, the learning imparted by the hidden curriculum, and how it is taught. Contemporary research has revealed the need for parental involvement in order to promote children's success in school (Beane, 1990; Delgado-Gaitan & Treuba, 1991; Fehrmann et al., 1987; Henderson, 1987; Rich, 1987). Parents of ethnically and linguistically diverse students, however, often fail to participate in the schools in numbers comparable to the majority group parents (Delgado—Gaitan, 1990). McCaleb (1994) states that although many schools encourage community input, many minority parents are intimidated by the large institutional structure of the school and schooling itself, and which prevents them from participating in school activities. EEEILIELELEQLLQE- Peer participation can be both a positive and a negative force in a child's academic achievement. Beane and Lipka (1986) discuss three types of peer interaction in the success of schools: positive, neutral and negative. If the peers value school success, then the interaction leads to positive self— esteem. If some members of the peer group value school 37 success and some value social success, then that kind of interaction leads to neutral effects on one's self— esteem. If the peers devalue school success then it results in negative self-esteem. Harris and Aldridge (1983a) present a model for peer tutoring, with three members in each group. They discuss (1983b) reasons given by teachers why peer tutoring did not work in their classrooms. Some of the reasons were: Teachers felt threatened when pupils taught; thinking that the peer tutors might teach something wrong; brighter students could get held back; "blind leading the blind"; behavior problems; and the parents might object. Harris and Aldridge (1983b), suggest that teachers need to believe that their students will follow them.(the teachers) as the role model for their teaching. Also, students can share their frustrations better with their peers than with a teacher. Furthermore, they say that if a more capable peer helps less capable ones, then s/he develops more understanding of the subject matter when they try to explain things to less capable students. Okawa (1988) says that, compared to other settings, peer tutoring works best in environments that have culturally diverse members. 38 Nonfermal Environment. In a regular school, the classroom environment the teacher has the power and authority and students tend to be passive learners (Freire, 1970). Compared to this formal environment, nonformal environments allow students to be active participants by doing things, carrying on discussions, and so forth. An adult or an older student facilitates the activities. In informal settings the learners do not receive assistance, they learn through their experiences. The after—school environment, where children can learn by doing things with their parents, is a nonformal environment. This kind of an environment helps children by doing hands-on science activities to develop science process skills. In addition to the science process skills that the children develop, they also develop communication skills by reporting findings and sharing ideas among group members and other groups. The interactions that occur in a nonformal setting with peers help develop good attitudes toward science (Sheriff et al., 1965). From her/his birth, the child's environment has a strong effect upon her/his development. As an infant, of course, the child sees little of this environment and is probably aware of it even less. S/he is affected by it nonetheless, if only through its effects on her/his parents. As the child grows, the neighborhood begins to 39 affect her/him more directly. The adults the child sees, the child's relationship with parents of other children, and their roles in the neighborhood all serve to shape her/his developing view of the world, and to comprise a substantial part of her7his hidden curriculum. The setting of the hidden curriculum may vary, especially for the disadvantaged Child. Because of the similarities in the home backgrounds and culture, and the language they speak at home (Bernstein, 1971; Edwards, 1976), peer participation is high in nonformal environments. Mutual understanding and cooperation can overcome the obstacles that might discourage peer participation, as discussed by Harris and Aldridge (1983). Developing a good self-concept, confidence, high self—esteem, good attitudes, and science process and communication skills enable minority children to overcome some of their disadvantages in learning science. Pedagegy. In intervention models, the power and authority that a teacher exercises in a regular Classroom should be minimized. As mentioned earlier, the parents of disadvantaged groups are especially intimidated by the infrastructure of the school environment. To get more parental involvement, programs should provide a sound environment where parents' ideas are welcomed and appreciated. Family Science sessions 40 are generally conducted by personnel who have a background in working with parents. These personnel provide a good context for learning in the Family Science sessions, where parents can work with children in a relaxed environment. Instruction in these sessions are participant oriented. The children begin to understand scientific concepts through their experiences of doing hands-on science activities and engaging in discussion where the interaction of ideas enables them to come to a consensus. Cellebn;etiye_gtenp_nnnk. Slavin (1990) discusses how cooperative learning affects the development of a learner's self-esteem. In cooperative learning, all the members of the group do not necessarily work to achieve the same outcome. Johnson and his colleagues (1994) distinguished three kinds of cooperative groups: formal, informal, and cooperative base groups. In formal cooperative learning groups, students work together to achieve shared learning goals by ensuring that they and their group mates successfully complete the assigned learning task. These groups last from one class period to several weeks. Informal cooperative groups are ad—hoc groups which last from a few minutes to one class period. In these groups, students do the intellectual work of organizing, explaining, summarizing and integrating material into existing conceptual 41 structures during direct teaching. Cooperative base groups are long—term, heterogeneous learning groups with a stable membership whose primary purpose is to allow members to give each other the support, help, encouragement, and assistance each needs to succeed academically. In group work, the seating arrangement in a classroom is very important in order to encourage children to speak with each other. Galton and Williamson (1992) describe the importance of seating in groups. According to them, in the schools in the United Kingdom and overseas, elementary children sit in groups either around a table or at desks pushed together to make a square. They believe that when children are seated together they have a commitment to work together for a common goal. They distinguish four kinds of groups. First, in seating groups, each child has a separate task and intended different outcomes. Second, in working groups, each child has the same task and the same outcome. Third, in cooperative groups, each child has a separate but related task leading to a joint outcome. Fourth, in collaborative groups, each child has same task leading to a joint outcome. They conclude that when children are seated in groups, they are likely to achieve more, have increased motivation, and develop higher self-esteem than when they are seated in rows. 42 Katzenbach and Smith (1993) discuss how numerous interpersonal and group work skills affect the success of cooperative efforts. They suggest that in order to coordinate efforts to achieve mutual goals, students need to a) get to know and trust each other, b) communicate accurately and unambiguously, c) accept and support each other, and d) constructively resolve conflicts. These goals are especially important in the long term success of learning groups. McCaleb (1994) states that cooperative learning helps marginalized students attain higher achievement levels, but individualistic or competitive settings often mean that these students are not motivated. She further says that in those settings, males from the dominant culture are more likely to succeed, white females and students from lower status groups do poorly. Eichinger, Anderson, Palincsar and David (1991) report that the tension between the norms that facilitate academic discourse and colloquial discourse affects successful collaborative activities. They suggest setting norms at the beginning to help the children understand the task. In Palincsar's, Anderson's and David's study (1993), they used four social norms, namely: 1) to contribute to the group's efforts and help others contribute, 2) to support one's ideas by giving reasons, 3) to work to understand others' ideas, and 4) to build on one another's ideas. 43 When students learn to work collaboratively to solve problems and generate new forms of knowledge, they are also creating bonds across cultures and languages. Galton and Williamson (1992) suggest that a student's achievement is high when the group is composed of children with mixed ability levels. The students learn to listen to different points of view and collaborate toward a common learning and discovery goal. They begin to appreciate the knowledge and effort that each member of the group brings to a task, and they discover that despite their differences, they have shared experiences: the school environment, more importantly, as human beings. As with Slavin (1990), cooperative learning affects a student's self-esteem. Collaborative efforts in group activities help develop self-confidence, which results in the development of high self-esteem in group members. Self;Esteem. Kunjufu (1984) distinguishes between self-esteem and self-image by giving two definitions for each. According to Kunjufu, self—esteem is the possession of a favorable opinion of oneself, and should be viewed as more than an end result. The development of a self-image is a process or a catalyst affecting self-esteem. Self-esteem is defined as a likeness symbol, a mental picture, or the reliving of a sensation in the absence of the original stimulus. By improving 44 one's self-image, self-esteem could be enhanced. Kunjufu also states that the home, peer group, television, school, and Church are five institutions which affect self-image and self-esteem. Beane and Lipka (1986) distinguish between self- concept and self-esteem. To them, self-concept is a description one attaches to one's self. Self-esteem is a value judgment based on attitudes, beliefs and interests. For example, they explain that an adolescent who describes her/himself as a good student, describes her/himself as a bad student to peers who do not value education. The former label is an example of self— concept, and the latter is an example of self-esteem. They suggest that "enhancing self-perception" covers both terms self-concept and self—esteem, and that this is needed in academic development. W Successful programs designed for disadvantaged groups have the characteristics of being culturally pluralistic, multicultural in focus, and seek to encourage creative, divergent approaches to study and learning, small group strategies, and mentoring situations. Disciplines are taught and learned in divergent as well as convergent ways (Stanley & Greenwood, 1985). Scope and sequence, focus and emphasis may be culturally imbedded. All aspects of a 45 racial or ethnic group's experience can be studied in an intellectually honest, scholarly manner which enhances an individual's valuing of her/his culture, teaches the process at the same time, and develops an understanding of the disciplines involved. 1' o ' B' ' a ram . Delgado-Gaitan (1991) discusses two major California state-funded programs for Spanish-speaking children. Oneis a bilingual preschool program and the other is a migrant program, Both those programs have a component of parental involvement for designing, implementing and evaluating the programs. The underlying concept of these two programs is that learning occurs through social interaction between the adult and the child. There were three models which required three different kinds of activities in these programs, namely, conventional, nonconventional, and autonomous. In the conventional activities, teachers and parents worked together to identify target areas, with the parents having some control in the decision- making process. The non—conventional activities required parent participation to help their children succeed in school. These parents had no participation in the decision—making process, but their participation allowed them to feel they were a part of their children's education. In the autonomous group, parents set the agendas and design, a context which invited 46 school personnel to share the decision making about the programs and policies. KIDS-11W. KIDS was a bilingual science program founded by Dr. Eloy Rodriguez in 1990 for Latino children (K-6) at the University of California, Irvine, with funding from Honda Corporation and Chevron. For this program he developed curricular materials for the grade levels to consider undergraduate science courses, to encourage young minorities to critically think through investigation and discovery. Two elementary Latino teachers, two student assistants, and a surrogate parent were assigned to each of the grade levels. The children explored the university arboretum and marshes to observe flora and fauna, which raised their curiosity and interest in science. The goal of this program.was to cultivate younger children as future scientists. L M ' : A m u Ne' ' dre . La Clase Magica (LCM) was a part of the Distributed Literacy Consortium organized by Michael Cole, and practiced in a few sites affiliated with the University of California, San Diego (Cole, 1990). The Lansing LCM project was headed by a professor from Michigan State University, and was designed as a partnership between Julian Samora Research 47 Institute and the community center. Sessions were conducted as an after school program in the community center. The program objective was to improve literacy through the use of computer games. La Clase Magica provided an alternative learning environment to blend computer "adventure games” and education to learn more about math, reading, writing, social studies, science and geography. Activities were organized in a twenty room maze, and task cards were completed by using the computers. Children learned together with their peers, wizard assistants (LCM staff.) MSU amigos (teacher education students), and an omnipotent and omniscient being, the wizard. Literacy and computer and communication skills were developed in the children through problem solving interactions between the children and the computers. The ultimate goal for the students was to progress through the maze and become a wizard assistant. Children who succeeded up to this point were congratulated after taking an oath to work successfully as a wizard assistant. This motivated the children to be in the program and to finish games. All of the games had three levels--beginner, good, and expert. To become a wizard assistant, they had to complete all the rooms in the maze, and complete ten expert level games. 48 PLAN r r Pr ram: Learnin A cordin to Needs . Abi-Nader (1991), who reports on the study, has participated in the program for six months as a participant observer. The program objective was to motivate students to continue their education to the college level. The program has three major strategies to motivate students; namely, 1) include a mentor program, 2) the oral tradition of PLAN, and 3) future oriented classroom talk. It is reported that the program.is successful in obtaining an increased number of college acceptances and scholarships throughout the program's history. National Urnen anlition's Say YES Schenls Ezgject. This program provides an effective intervention model for linking the home, school and community. The program}s objectives were to improve the confidence of teachers and students in mathematics and science, to increase the interests and skills of colored elementary students, and to increase the number of colored children who were prepared for the advanced level of mathematics and science at the secondary level. Beane (1990) reports that the pilot "Say YES" program was conducted in the school year 1987-88, and was implemented in nine public elementary schools in two school districts whose enrollment was at least 75 percent African American 49 and/or Hispanic students. An essential component of the program was family activities. It is reported that project classrooms indicated a significant improvement in math and science than the non-project classrooms. In addition, the project seemed to confirm the potential of activity-based instruction as a tool to increase student interest and achievement in mathematics, science, and reading. New H v a nt nvo m . This program was implemented in 1968 as a partnership between the Yale Child Study Center and two public schools in New Haven, Connecticut. An important component of the program was parental involvement in the governance and management of the schools. The original concept for this program evolved out of Comer's (1980) childhood, who was the founder of the program. He connected what he had received from his parents, that is, social skills and confidence, with his educational successes. He feels that most of the students who go to school do not have that kind of parental support. The current educational reforms do not place enough emphasis on interpersonal factors, and tend to assume that all children come to school equally prepared to participate. Because of this assumption, many disadvantaged students fail in their schooling. To avoid this the program used parental assistance in the classrooms. 50 It is reported that implementation of the program resulted in an improvement in academic achievement, and also helped to decrease behavior problems. When students observed parents interacting with school teachers in a cooperative way, students responded in a positive way to both academic and behavioral expectations of school personnel (Comer, 1986). I_Heye_e_p;eem_£teg;em. This is a nationwide program started by Eugene Lang. The structure of the program is flexible. The program's staff provides assistance to "dreamers," at-risk students, and their families by providing a sponsor to coordinate social, financial and academic services to help prevent school dropouts. Lacey (1991) points out that the potential weakness of the program was consideration of paying college tuition as an incentive to keep at-risk students in school through graduation. Success also depended on how lucky a dreamer was to get a sponsor. Those who were lucky enough to have a sponsor succeeded academically and socially. Furthermore, the program does not have an impact on the quality of teaching or learning in the schools. 0 m n SQEQQIS. Three models of parental involvement have been used in the Boston public schools: 1) Helping parents 51 to help children learn, 2) Parents' activity center and training program, and 3) "Good beginnings/Un Buen Comienz." The objective of the first model was to decrease the amount of time the children spent watching television, and to find ways that parents could help their children do their homework. This model was implemented in a Spanish, bilingual, kindergarten class. For the second model, activity centers were created in a number of classrooms to develop the parents' ability to assist their children in academics. The third model was designed to get Latino parents to help their children succeed academically. In all three models, the important component was to make connections between home and school. Rivera (1988) notes that greater parental involvement results in a higher probability of graduation, due to four factors which contribute to a low level of Latino parental involvement: 1) institutional, 2) cultural, 3) socio-demographic, and 4) socio—economic. He reports that an effective partnership between parents and school can make a positive impact on the educational performance of Hispanic students. Na ' n 11 i c r ram. The Family Science program attempts to build a friendly and nonthreatening learning environment by allowing the child to work with the parent and teacher. Many scholars in the family 52 science field also have training in human development and specifically, cognitive development. Understanding how students think and learn should provide a strong foundation for family scientists to develop appropriate teaching methods. Applying knowledge about family communication skills to the Classroom should also be helpful, and could provide a good model for students. The above-mentioned programs have a common element for their success; that is, the connection between the home, school and community. Except for La Clase Magica and Family Science Program, parental involvement is requested in classroom situations in all other programs. Parental participation might be higher in a nonformal situation after school, where parents could have some authority. We need to understand the various explanatory models and theories regarding the concept of being disadvantaged as these provide the bases for designing programs. It is also necessary to be sensitive to the characteristics and behaviors of different racial and ethnic minorities which represent unusual potential. Being disadvantaged can be viewed from socio—political, economical, environmental, cultural, and psychological perspectives. CHAPTER III METHODS OF STUDY The research question guiding this study was: How did the Family Science Project help disadvantaged Children and parents build an interest in learning science? This question was addressed by examining the participants' perceptions about science. Specifically, the following questions were addressed: 1. How did children participate in the Family Science Project? 2. What did Junior Scientists learn from the Family Science Project? 3. What were the parents' perceptions about the Family Science? This chapter describes the rationale for the methodology, the selection of the site, access to the site, field experiences, subjects of study, data collection, and the procedures undertaken in data analysis. 53 54 Retionele for Methedelogy To answer the above—mentioned questions I needed in-depth evidence of the ongoing process, which could only be answered by qualitative research. Bogdan and Biklen (1982) explained that qualitative researchers proceed on the theoretical assumptions that meaning and process are crucial to understanding human behavior, that descriptive data is important to collect, and that analysis is best done inductively. This whole study was designed to understand the changes that occurred in three groups of subjects; namely, elementary children, middle school children, and parents. The data analysis gives a detailed description of the events that occurred among these three groups. S c io the ' e The early negotiations were made by the Project Director. According to her, the present site was not the first site selected. Since the Project Director had no experience with elementary children, she had decided to work with an experienced member of the Program for Educational Opportunity in Ann Arbor, who conducted training programs for teachers and people so they could conduct programs that dealt with equity or that would ensure equity. There was a field tested Family Science site in Ann Arbor, and there was only one other site which was field tested, in Austin, Texas. As both sites 55 were not located where information could be gathered about minorities or Hispanic children, Dr. Rodriguez wanted to consider a site where she could work in a setting that would deal with the needs of minority groups. She started working in a school in Detroit with a bilingual teacher, and conducted the programs in both English and Spanish. While working there, she started working in the community-based education programs of the Julian Samora Research Institute (JSRI) at Michigan State University (MSU). This involvement, as well as her involvement in the YES (Youth Empowered for Success) program, boosted ‘her confidence to start a project in Lansing, Michigan. She selected the Highland Elementary School, since the school was located in a low socio— economic status neighborhood with Hispanic and black minority groups. Dr. Rodriguez went to see the principal to talk about the program and make early negotiations. The community liaison of JSRI made flyers to advertise the Project, and were delivered to the school office to be disseminated to parents through their children. In addition to that, she made phone calls to parents, and also visited them. Access tn the Site I started working in the Project at its pilot stage. I went to the site on a Thursday afternoon to work in the Project. Dr. Rodriguez asked all the 56 participants to introduce themselves, saying their name, interests, and what they wanted to be or what kind of work they were doing. It helped me get an understanding of the group and their future plans. I also introduced myself as a student at Michigan State University, and said that I was glad to work with them. Dr. Rodriguez introduced me to the group as a researcher who came from Sri Lanka to study the Project. Many people did not know where Sri Lanka was, and I had to show it to them in the world map. Even on the first day that I went to the site I was happy to see the people doing science activities, and I talked to almost all the people.. I became friendly with them and helped them.by working in the groups. Even at the pilot stage, I received permission to conduct any interviews necessary and to observe them.working. Because the third and fourth graders were minors, parental permission was received. Data that I used in this study was mostly from the first and second years of the Project. Field Iechnignes I went to the site every Thursday and worked in the small groups. Every day I wrote down my observations while I worked, and as immediately as possible included remembered details. The informal interviews I had with the participants during the pilot year helped me develop the research instruments. During the first and second 57 year of the Project, I received permission to interview participants whenever they joined the Project. I also received UCHRIS approval, after their careful and thorough reading of my proposal and instruments (interview guides for children, junior scientists, parents, teachers, principal, and the Project Director). Unlike the pilot year, during the first two years of the actual Project we conducted an additional session on Tuesdays to train junior scientists. It was an effective way to use them, because then they were ready for the sessions and had a better understanding of what they had to do. The activities they had to do were new to them, so they had problems in doing those. During the Tuesday training session they learned about the scientific concept before they worked with the children, which helped them assist the children better than if they had done the sessions without prior training. All subjects' identities were kept confidential in the field notes, interview transcripts, and this study by not using participants' actual names. The name of the school was also disguised. All participants were informed that the field notes and the tapes were protected by the researcher. Even if by any chance someone got access to a tape, no one could identify the speakers because of the use of pseudonyms. 58 Mrs. Knapp (Evening) Mr. Parker (Evening) Mrs. Briones Mrs. Smith (Evening) Mrs. Briones Mrs. Smith Table 1 Subjects of the Study CHILDREN YEAR ONE YEAR TWO Name Grade Age in Name Grade Age in years years Henry (Evening) 4 10 Andrew 4 9 Julia 4 10 Anthony 4 9 Kate (Evening) 4 10 Hilary Kindergarten 6 Lucinda 1 6 Jaime 3 9 Luz 4 9 Jean 3 9 Reyena 5 ll Karena 3 9 Rita 4 10 Pat 4 10 Ofelia 4 9 Sylvia 3 9 Pamela (Evening) 2 8 Pamela 3 9 Sarah 3 8 Sarah 4 9 Solomon (Evening) 3 9 Solomon 4 10 Steve 2 8 Steve 3 9 JUNIOR SCIENTISTS _ Andrea 7 12 Alberto 7 l2 Belinda 7 12 Christina 7 l3 Myra 7 11 Kasey 7 l3 Otila 8 13 Nora 7 12 Rafael 7 12 Rene' 7 12 Ramiro 7 12 Ricardo 7 12 Sarita 7 12 Rumaldo 7 12 Dorothy 6 12 Dorothy 7 13 PARENTS Mrs. An'zmendi Mrs. Martinez 59 Subjects of the Study The Family Science Project was for the third and fourth graders and their parents. As I mentioned earlier, we had seventh and eighth graders from a neighboring middle school help the children in doing the hands-on science activities. All children, parents and junior scientists who attended on a consistent basis (60% attendance) were subjects for this study. This included eight elementary children from the first year, eight from the second year, and four who attended both years (20 children). As we selected different junior scientists, seven from each year were chosen. The one who participated in the Project in the first year was allowed to be in the Project because she was a sixth grader in the frst—year of the Project (15 junior scientists). These junior scientists consistently attended both the training and regular sessions. Six parents of children were chosen, based again on attendance. Six parents of junior scientists were also interviewed to get their perceptions of their children's participation in the Project. Data was also collected by interviewing the Principal of Highland Elementary School, a teacher from the middle school, and two teachers from the elementary school who had many children who attended the after-school programs. (As mentioned earlier, there was another program—-La Clase Magica conducted by the JSRI of MSU at the community 6O center--to develop literacy skills through the use of the computers.) Dat 1 ion Be;tieipent_gbeeryetien. Every Tuesday and Thursday I went to the site when there were Family Science sessions. The sessions on Tuesdays were different from those on Thursdays, as they were held to train junior scientists. While they were doing the hands—on science activities, they talked about what was happening in school, and some gossiped about their boyfriends or girlfriends and the things that happened at home. They were not as task oriented as on Thursdays, and the session felt more relaxing, because there were no children on Tuesdays. They also talked about their problems with Dr. Rodriguez as if she were an older friend. These conversations helped me understand a little bit about their background and culture. At the beginning they controlled their conversations when they saw that the tape recorder was on. But later on they got used to it, and talked whenever they wanted to whether the recorder was on or not. I had my notebook with me all the time, and I never forgot to write down the important events. The sessions on Thursdays were for all participants. I usually sat in a group and observed the 61 things that happened, paying special attention to how they started the activity, who initiated the discussion, what problems they had on proceeding with the activity, and what kind of dialogue took place among them to solve the problems. Some children were very talkative, while some were very silent and responded only by non-verbal cues. Because of these differences I had to be very careful in my observations of them and consider all their behaviors. Usually I used a tape recorder to get all the verbal interactions. It was helpful, because there were times they used some words and phrases which were foreign to me, such as "yummy," "yak,“ "nark," and "wow." Field notes were narrative descriptions, recording the content and process of how the group handle the task. I typed the field notes taken during the sessions immediately following the observations. Details were added while typing, based on my memory of the session's experiences. Pseudonyms were used for all participants and also for the name of the school. When new children came to sessions, they were curious to know why there was a tape recorder. They always wanted to know why I used a sound grabber. Responses such as, "to receive all the sounds clearly," did not convince them. I had to explain a little more about the purpose of using the sound grabber, telling them the importance of recording while they were doing the activities. 62 IQLELYIEES- I conducted interviews at two different stages, one at the beginning of the fall semester, and the other at the end of the spring semester. All the interviews with the children, junior scientists, and the parents were carried in their homes, except the very last two junior scientist interviews. Interviews with the principal and teachers were held in the school. I interviewed the Project Director when she was in the Julian Samora Research Institute. In the first year, I went with the community liaison person from the Julian Samora Research Institute. She volunteered to help me in this way because she knew the community and she could talk to the parents in Spanish, something I could not do. She interpreted all the Spanish interviews to me without any hesitation. By the second year I was very familiar with the neighborhood, and I visited the participants of the Project at their homes to carry out the interviews. I visited some parents more than the others, e.g., Mrs. Briones, to get more information that I needed from them as they had been in the Project for a long time. I made myself known to as many people as possible by involving myself in such community activities as "Cinco de Mayo" and the Thanksgiving dinner. Most of the community activities were held in the community center where I worked as a volunteer. This involvement enhanced my 63 interactions with not only the parents, but also with other community members and well-wishers who worked for the community. I interviewed almost all the parents of the children who attended on a regular basis. Although my interviews were structured (Appendix 10) so as to get information about their background, interests, and attitudes toward science, sometimes they took different directions depending on the responses given by the parents. Although at first they responded to me just by giving very brief answers, they later provided me with detailed descriptions about their past, their grievances, and their successes, if they had any, during their schooling. I interviewed the children on the same day that I interviewed their parents. Some parents listened to our conversations. Some children preferred not to have their parents in the room when they talked to me. To show that I appreciated their voluntary participation, I acquiesced to their preference. The purpose of the children's interviews was to gather what they did in school, their attitudes toward science and scientists, and their perceptions about the Project. They were also asked to discuss the similarities and differences between how they learned science in school and in the Project. During the post interviews I asked the same questions as before (Appendix 13), and also added some 64 questions to get an idea of how they had felt when working in small groups. Except for the last two interviews, all other interviews of the junior scientists were carried out in their homes. At the same time I interviewed their parents. Unlike the parents of the children whom I had met in the Project or in the school, I met these parents only during the interview time. I called and set up appointments with them for the interviews, so as to not disturb their routine plans. I interviewed the principal of the school, two teachers from the elementary school, and also the middle school teacher who brought the junior scientists for the sessions to receive their perceptions about the Project. Prior to each interview, participants were reminded that their participation was voluntary, and that at any stage they would be permitted to discontinue their participation without any penalty. They were also reminded that pseudonyms were used for all participants and the school. Doeumente. At the first session all Project participants were asked to draw scientists and write what their scientists were doing. They drew scientists again at the last session. Some drew the scientists at the time the interviews were conducted. These drawings were powerful evidence for me to see their change in 65 attitudes about scientists. During the time that they had to do activities, they were given papers to do scratch work and to write their predictions and results. All of this work was collected as documents for the study. In addition to these, collected information about the participants' background was derived from giving them a survey instrument (Appendix 7), and from school records. The principal of the elementary school provided me with some demographics of the school and neighborhood. W Field notes were read very carefully to understand what events and patterns of events occurred during the sessions. Assertions were developed considering the events that had occurred and the overall patterns of behavior. I tried to collect enough evidence to test my assertions, and at the same time explored the data for any evidence. Transcriptions of the interviews were read several times with the following questions in mind: How did Family Science help these people to learn science? Were there any observed changes regarding what they talked about? Patterns of consistent and inconsistent responses were noted and included in the interview analysis. At the first stages of the preliminary analysis, I developed some assertions, searched for more assertions, 66 and tested assertions to find linkages among the different data gathered from the observations, documents and interviews. I used the responses from the teachers and principal to supplement some of the issues brought about by the children. At the same time, I tried to organize and reduce my data. It was a difficult task to decide what to include and what to leave out. But finally I decided to stick to the subsidiary research questions, and searched for the data for which I could find answers to my questions. I had to re-read transcriptions of the audio tapes in order to get an understanding of some of the interactions. CHAPTER IV FAMILY SCIENCE PROJECT This chapter describes the project that I studied. First I will describe the national Family Science Program, and then the Family Science Project in Lansing, Michigan, and then I will discuss modifications of the national program. Family S cienca Program Family Science is a national education program for children and parents to learn science by means of hands- on science activities. The program is specifically aimed to build interest in science among females and minority groups. The Scientific Manpower Commission (1988) reports that females constitute 52 percent of the U.S. population, but only 5 percent of the scientists are women. Entry into scientific careers is also very limited for children from minority groups. Taken together, the minority groups comprise 20.4 percent of the population, whereas only 5 percent of these members occupy the professional scientific workforce. Family Science is an outgrowth of the successful Family Math Program developed by EQUALS, Lawrence Hall 67 68 of Science, University of California, Berkeley. Northwest EQUALS of Portland State University developed the Family Science curriculum and the science activities book with funding from a three year grant from Chevron, and support from the National Urban Coalition, Washington, DC. In 1994, Family Science was distributed in about half of the states the United States (Table 2). Family Science programs are also found in Australia, Costa Rica, and Sweden. F' S'n GO The Family Science book developed by Northwest EQUALS (1994) states the goals of the prOgram under three headings: 1. To provide an opportunity for families to have enjoyable science experiences by presenting: *a non—threatening, hands-on approach to learning about scientific processes, concepts and topics; *cooperative learning activities which develop problem-solving abilities, questioning strategies, and communication skills; *strategies for providing encouragement to all students, especially young women, and ethnic and racial minorities in science, mathematics, and technology-based studies; and 69 Table 2 Distribution of Family Science sites State Alaska Arizona California Colorado Connecticut DC Washington Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Louisiana Massachusetts Maryland Michigan City Kenai Flagstaff Phoenix Tucson Anaheim Berkeley Camarillo Hayword Longbeach Modesto Morena Valley Oakland Palo Alto Richmond Salinas San Bruno San Francisco San Leandro Santa Ana Ventura Woodacre Denver Greeley Hartford Wilmington Melbourne Atlanta Honolulu Mililani Worley Decatur Gretna Harvey Metairie New Orleans Springfield Baltimore Chevy Chase Silver Spring Takoma Park Washington Ann Arbor Detroit Lansing Number of sites HNWHHWNNWNl—‘NI—‘WHNNWNNbWUWHNNNIfiWNWHLflHNI-‘IQNUJHNQl-‘UJ Minnesota Montana North Carolina New Jersey New York Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Washington wyoming Australia Costa Rica Sweden 70 Table 2 (Cont'd). Minneapolis Richfield Shoreview' St. Paul Hays Charlotte Durham Huntersville Mt. Holly Englewood Bronx Hastings—on-Hudson New York Alsea Beaverton Carlton Corvallis Dayton Grand Ronde Milwaukee Portland Salem Sweet Home Tygh Valley Woodburn Philadelphia Corryton Erwin Knoxville Port Arthur San Antonio Milwaukee Ethete Lander International Sites NHIhNWNNI—‘NHNWNWNNHHHHNHHHWHHWQNQHD—l11> 71 *community classes that allow time for families to test, tinker, and talk about science with other families. 2. To relate the learning of science to future studies and work by presenting: *information about science curriculum, college requirements, science-based, and other occupations *opportunities to meet and talk with career guests in family classes *activities which highlight the relevance of science to daily life, and the work force, as well as across cultures 3. To involve parents in their child's science education by supporting: *informal learning activities which compliment their child's school experiences; *parental interest in school science and mathematics programs; *learning experiences which use inexpensive and readily available materials; and *opportunities for adults and children to be partners in learning Struct ' n The sessions are structured so as to build interest in science, and are usually offered in a series of three 72 to eight one-to—two-hour sessions for parents and children. Each session consists of activities to stimulate interaction among the participants. A resource table holds the items necessary for the day's session. A welcome table is used for name tags and sign-in sheets. The name tags help the participants to talk to each other by using their names. The day's activities are started with an opener--an initial activity for the participants. The participants are provided with directions and steps to be taken. These opening activities help participants communicate with each other, and broaden their awareness of the many "openers” found in their daily lives, such as problem solving in the kitchen. various openers are grouped together around similar topics so as to be more effective. An example of an opener might be to have participants make air craft from a given piece of paper. The first task would be to find out how fast a rectangular piece of paper can move in the air, and then how fast it can drop. The observations from this activity open the discussion about the participants' experiences, as well as raising many "why" questions. Involvement in these openers help test ideas, discuss similarities, and extend the investigation. Openers also establish a friendly, positive climate of exploration, discussion, and questioning. 73 Since the sessions are planned around the parents' convenience, they may do two or three activities depending on the time each requires. Each day before leaving the room.participants clean their work areas and then do a wrap-up activity where they get a chance to talk about what they have learned and the problems they had in doing the activity. This is the time when they can share their experiences and culture as well as discuss the scientific concept presented. Wh r ' ' S ' n e ? Family Science instructors are trained by "Programs for Educational Opportunity“ (P.E.O.), an organization which has education program specialists loced in regional central offices. In Michigan, the central office is located at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Specialists from Programs for Educational Opportunity conduct workshops for those teachers and educators who are interested in starting sessions for children and adults in their own areas. At these workshops they are given guidance on how to start their own Family Science Program. As family involvement is the key to program effectiveness, the workshop participants are given different methods for contacting parents. The training also includes how to make flyers to advertise the program. During the workshop trainees perform all the activities that they must do to set up a 74- Family Science session, such as setting up the resource and welcome tables, and doing the openers, activities, and wrap up. Lansing Family Science Project :1. l' E I] E .1 S . E . I . I . The Family Science Project in Lansing has the same goals and objectives as the national program, but there were some modifications. Because of those modifications, I asked the Project Director to state her new objectives. Her response was: The objective was really to get kids and parents doing something in science. The idea is not to have parents teach their kids science, but to give them experiences that would increase their skills so that then what they did in school made more sense when it was reinforced at home, that it was important. (10/28/93) The Family Science Project that I studied in Lansing was part of the North Lansing initiative, developed through a partnership between the Julian Samora Research Institute at Michigan State University and the Cristo Rey Community Center. A series of three to eight Family Science sessions were offered at various sites for both parents and children. These sessions were one to two hours long. But, the sessions of the Lansing Family Science Project were offered in a series 75 of six to eight, one—and-a-half—to two-hour sessions during a school semester. This schedule was used because of the assumption that less than five weeks was insufficient for the development of an awareness of the importance of learning science. The same roster of participants participated the entire school year (fall and spring semesters). The Lansing Family Science Project was modified from the national Family Science Program in that it used the assistance of middle school students, called "Junior Scientists,” to help the children and parents. This idea was due to the Project Director's past experiences with parents in different programs. During an interview she said: One of the problems is that the parents won't come and so we need to provide surrogate parents and so that's when I got the idea of connecting junior scientists (10/28/93). She further said that it was necessary to have an adult-child ratio that was reasonable to work with. According to her, the parents in that school neighborhood dealt with so many different situations from those of middle-class families, that it was often difficult for them to attend regularly. Also, many had not had positive experiences of their own in school. Consequently, they would not necessarily respond to a flyer sent home from school. Because of these restraining factors, she decided to make other connections between the school and the community, and to 76 establish the reputation of the program through middle school students. Pilgt lee: The Lansing Family Science Project was presented in two sessions, one in the afternoon and the other in the evening on the same day of the week (Thursday) for the convenience of the parents and children. All sessions were held in a kindergarten classroom at Highland Elementary School. Most of the students at this school come from low socio—economic status families. According to the principal of the elementary school, 93 percent of her students receive free or reduced-price lunch. Another modification of the Lansing Family Science Project from.the National Program was to not have "openers," since the openers had not been designed for non-English speaking parents. All the parents who participated in the Lansing Project had been literate. In addition to that, the Project Director thought that doing openers was not an activity that these parents could perform independently. Explanations for most of the activities demanded more scientific knowledge than many parents possessed. After negotiating with the school principal and the community, the pilot program conducted sessions at the same site on Thursdays from 3:00 to 5:00 P.M., and from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M. Before the pilot program started, it 77 was advertised by sending flyers home with the children, and announcing the program at parent teacher conferences. Aftetneen_eeeeien: In afternoon sessions, middle school students--seventh and eighth graders--worked with the younger children from Highland Elementary School. The middle school students were called "Junior Scientists.“ They wore white lab coats just like scientists working in a laboratory. Each junior scientist assisted one or two children- During normal day, the people worked in four groups. Each group had a junior scientist and a parent to help three or four children. For the pilot program, assistance from the middle school students was received through the YES (Youth Empowered for Success) program. The teacher who was in charge of the YES program at the middle school brought the junior scientists to the elementary school, while others walked from their school, which took them about fifteen minutes. The Project Director brought snacks and drinks for all the sessions, and set these on a table by the junior scientists. According to the structure of YES, only two training sessions were allowed because these students were also involved in another leadership improvement program in the community. Two training sessions 78 provided about four hours of training, which was not enough for the middle school students to adequately understand the concepts underlying the hands-on science activities. This was a limiting factor in the success of the Family Science Project. Most of the hands-on science activities were new to the junior scientists. Often the junior scientists were more engaged in doing the activities than in helping the elementary school children. Moreover, it was difficult to work with two unknown groups. In most of the sessions the activities did not go the way they had been planned. Eyening_eeeeien: In the evening sessions, the parents worked with the children without the assistance of the junior scientists. Evening sessions were offered for those parents who could not attend the afternoon sessions. For these sessions, Dr. Rodriguez received assistance from an Anglo American female scientist at Michigan State University. She volunteered to help the Project Director because of her interest in working with minority groups in science-related projects. The hands—on science activities were the same for both the afternoon and evening sessions. The only difference was that there were no junior scientists to assist children at the night time sessions. Both the afternoon and evening sessions had a very informal atmosphere, and enabled me to see 79 characteristic features of the Hispanic culture. Parents gave hugs all the time for good work that the children had done, and in turn, children accepted those with a motivation to engage in more science activities. firemen: The major change in the first year following the Pilot project was to hold a training session for the junior scientists every Tuesday so that they could prepare for the session on the following Thursday. This facilitated the children, and aided the junior scientists' understanding of the scientific concepts underlying the hands-on science activities. There were also some modifications made in the teaching style and presentation. Since the junior scientists had practiced the activities on the previous Tuesday, instruction sheets were abandoned because neither the junior scientists nor the children read them. Also, the children were given time to play and talk with the junior scientists and parents during the snack time. During the evening sessions, an undergraduate education student from the Teacher Education Department at Michigan State University also provided assistance. She earned independent study credit for her participation in the Family Science Project. The attendance in the evening sessions was not consistent. 80 Sometimes there were twelve students and fourteen parents, while sometimes there were only two parents present. But on an average, there were about eight people in attendance. Two parents came with their children consistently. moniker The training given to the junior scientists on Tuesdays facilitated them helping the children with hands-on science activities. From the experience gained during the first year, the hands—on science activities were reorganized under scientific concepts related to air pressure, heat, light, and so forth. It was also realized that some of the activities took longer than others. Most of the children did not have experience with some manipulative skills, for example using an eye dropper, which the Project Director had assumed would be very simple. Children also become bored with some activities, such as waiting for glue to dry. To keep the children involved, other activities were planned for these times. Such difficulties were easily resolved by the Project Director, a research scientist, as she gained more experience with elementary and middle school children. The evening Family Science sessions were not offered in the second year of the Project, due to the inconsistent attendance by the parents, as well as the 81 loss of the evening coordinator, who moved to another state to accept other employment. T ' ' S ' ' r Training sessions conducted for the junior scientists occurred each Tuesday after school for about one-and-one-half—hours. Except for two sessions held at the middle school, all other sessions were held at Highland Elementary School. At the first session, the junior scientists were instructed about the routine activities done at the regular Family Science sessions with the Children. Without assigning different jobs to people herself, the Project Director gave the junior scientists the opportunity to decide which task each would be responsible for during the session time. One task was to set up the resource table. From the experience they had on Tuesdays, they knew what things were needed for the activities on Thursdays. In addition, Dr. Rodriguez brought everything packed separately so that they could set up items quickly. Dr. Rodriguez described two other tasks needed for every session. One was to tape down a plastic sheet on which Venn diagram was drawn. As the junior scientists were unaware of what a Venn diagram was, she had to explain while drawing a Venn diagram: venn is the mathematiCian who developed it. we usually make two circles using a permanent marker. Doesn't have to be perfect. They”11 be overlapping. On each circle I write something. On 82 one I put something on science, say "I like science." This one I put, "I like Fall." The rule is that you can sign your name only once. If you don't like them, where do you sign? ... "outside” If you like science you have to sign in this circle. What circle do you use if you like both?...(middle) (10/6/92). Although she asked the junior scientists to draw the two circles for the Venn diagram and write two sentences in the Circles, she was the one who prepared the Venn diagrams for all the sessions. It was a very rare occasion that a child signed outside the circles. Some children told the Project Director that they did not like to write their names outside the circles. Taking that response under consideration, the questions were then structured so that more children could sign inside. Another job that the junior scientists had to do was put some object like candy in a glass jar while counting, and ask the participants to estimate how many were inside. The participants were given yellow stickers so that they could write their name on the back and the number on the front, and put it on a line plot hung on the chalk board. Dr. Rodriguez said: Estimation is a life skill. But this is something that you can do with practicing. I always put the number here (back of the lid). .Nbbody knows what .you estimate. This is a contest of yourself. Number of almonds here is 28. Goal here is not to guess 28, but close to 28 (10/6/92). Both signing the Venn diagram and estimating were two things that all the participants did in all the 83 sessions. These help in developing life skills, such as categorization, separating sets, and estimating in everyday life. One parent said that the estimations she had done in the sessions helped her buy groceries for her parties. The first science related-activity that the junior scientists performed focused on surface tension, a property of water--"Water drops on a penny." For the first activity the students worked individually, but in the training sessions they often worked in groups. The task that they had to accomplish was to discover how many drops of water could be placed on a penny before it spilled over onto the table top. Water was added using droppers. As the junior scientists did not have experience in using droppers, they had to practice first. Then they started the activity by adding drops of water. Some were able to add 45 drops and some only 25. They were surprised to see how wrong they were when they compared their predictions and their actual observations. Dr. Rodriguez asked the junior scientists to describe the "filled pennies.“ The junior scientists observed the curvature on top and how the water held to the sides. This led to the discussion that molecules in a water drop are pulled in many directions by weak bonds, they pull the surface molecules back into the drop and behave like "stretchy skin," and that this 84 property of water is called the surface tension or "water's secret skin." Then came discussions regarding the techniques to be used to add more drops. At the same time students had a question which side of the penny to be used. When they were looking for the side of the penny, Christina said, "Oh, look I can read these letters very well now;“ Then it came the discussion of the magnifying power of water when it is shaped like a lens. The activities that they performed in these sessions opened up discussions, which led to an understanding of the scientific concepts underlying the activities. Generally, Dr. Rodriguez discussed what had happened in the previous Session with the children, and asked the junior scientists if they had any suggestions for performing the activity differently. There were times during earlier sessions of the semester that the junior scientists complained about the children's behavior. Sometimes the junior scientists did most of the work for the children. Whenever Dr. Rodriguez noticed such behavior, she insisted that, "your job is to help them learn, not to do things for them." Towards the end of the semester, discussions always focused only on the activities. Little time was needed to talk about the behavior of the elementary school children. By that time they had developed some necessary skills for working with the children. 85 Family Scienee Sessions As mentioned previously, all Family Science sessions were held in one of the kindergarten classrooms at Highland Elementary School. This particular classroom.was chosen because of its accessibility to disabled people, and because it was the only classroom with movable desks and chairs. Dr. Rodriguez believed that neatly arranged rows of desks and chairs did not help engender the relaxed and interactive atmosphere required for the group activities. What Did a Regnlar Fami;y Science Session Leek Like? Generally the middle school students from Paterson Middle School came to the elementary school before it closed for the day. The elementary children came to the sessions right after school. They waited at the door in a line if the door was not fully opened, which meant that the room was not yet ready. Venn Diagram. As soon as they walked in, they put on their~name tags which were on the welcome table, and then signed the Venn diagram. All participants had to sign the Venn diagram. One day (2/11/93) the statements in the two circles of the Venn diagram.were, "Cold air is heavier than hot air" and "Hot air balloons go up" (Figure 5). On this particular day, three signed in the Circle stated that cold air is heavier than hot air. 86 Emummflo cco> m ousowh 87 One signed in the "Hot air balloons go up" circle. Seven signed in the middle for both the circles. One junior scientist signed outside the Circles. I observed that there were times when children forgot to sign in when there were too many children at the table. But when they remembered it later, they went to sign in, even while they were having snacks. These routines helped the children behave as members of a learning community. Estimatign. The second activity was estimation, which was on the resource table. Children, parents and junior scientists had to do estimation. One day (12/10/92) there were 76 mints in a closed glass jar to estimate. Their estimates ranged from 25-89 (25, 32, 33, 35, 36, 43, 45, 50, 50, 52, 60, 60, 65, 70, 70, 73, 89.) The children knew that the actual number was written underneath the cover of the jar. Except for two or three times, they did not cheat by looking at the underside of the cover. Snaek_1ime. After signing the Venn diagram.and doing the estimation activity, the students hung up their coats and sat in their groups. The junior scientists had arranged the desks and chairs into four groups. When there were more people than expected, they arranged an extra table. They also organized the snack table and served the drinks. While having snacks, the members of 88 the groups socialized themselves by talking about the things that had happened at home and school. This took about ten to fifteen minutes. Everybody had their name tags on, and addressed group members by their names, even on the first day. Sessign_Int;gdngtign. The majority of the Family Science sessions were introduced by means of a problem or a content exposition by the Family Science Project Director, to involve the participants in a discussion. In most cases, her exposition was interspersed with a series of questions that required short answers from.the children. These served to maintain the children's attention and advance the lesson in regular short steps. Children were told what they had to do in order to satisfactorily complete their task. Often this was coupled with a series of instructions and resources to be used. Aetiyity Time. As there was no standard curriculum for Family Science, hands-on activities were selected based on the interest that could be developed in the participants. The resource book for Family Science, developed by Northwest EQUALS in 1994, gives a compilation of science activities which could be used in the sessions. It served as the curriculum for the Family Science Project. Since the Family Science 89 instructors could Choose their own activities, Dr. Rodriguez chose the activities that she felt both the children and parents would like. Most of the children told me that they liked the activity of making hot air balloons; hence the following description of this activity so one can get a picture of how the science-related activities were done in the sessions. It took two sessions to finish this activity. On the first day Dr. Rodriguez asked questions referring to the Venn diagram responses: Today we are going to learn about hot and cold. we are going to study about hot air and cold air. Let's see how'many people have signed, "Cold air is heavier than hot air?" Three, and one signed hot air balloons go up. Why do you think the hot air balloons go up? (2/11/93) After this discussion, while holding the balloon that had been made by the junior scientists on Tuesday, Dr. Rodriguez said: Today we are going to make hot air balloons, so that we can discover things about hot air and cold air, and we are going to work in two big groups. HOt air balloons are as large as this. YOU are making green and white Michigan State balloons (2/11/93). The participants said, "Wow." One asked Dr. Rodriguez, "Does it really go up?" She replied that this was what they were going to discover. She said that each group would get green and white tissue paper to make balloons. Without even waiting to receive the paper the children stood up to start the activity. The 90 children were very excited about making hot air balloons, and they were also happy because they knew that they could take the balloon home to show their friends and family members. The first task was to make panels. Dr. Rodriguez said: YOU will need to glue five of these sheets together. Ybu may decide where to put green. Ybu have to make ten panels. Once you.make the panels .you have to cut up the patterns (2/11/93). The junior scientists had practiced making balloons and inflating them before they came to the session with the children. Rafael worked in a group with another junior scientist, Sarita, a parent, and three children. They decided to work in pairs to glue the sheets. Rafael worked with Steve. Sarita worked with Steve's sister, Sarah, and Steve's mother worked with another girl, Amy. Steve was impatient to make the balloon and repeatedly asked Rafael when they could finish making it. He did not like to wait until the glue dried. Rafael had to remind him.that it was necessary to be patient to use the dried sheets to cut the patterns. He further said that, "If the glue doesn't get dry enough, sheets might get torn." Steve's mother noticed Steve's impatience and involved him in a conversation: Mem: Steve, would you please bring us your glue. Steve: We need it. Mom: That's O.K. (Steve brought the glue can to her) Mem: we are on our next. Go help Rafael to speed up. 91 Steve went back and told Rafael: I want to select colors. Mom: HOW do you want the green? we have white, green, white, green, white. Steve: White, green, white, green, white. Rafael: Do you want it as the first one? Steve: Yeah (2/11/93). After making the panels, they were ready to cut the patterns (see Figure 6). They used the master pattern made by the junior scientists from brown butcher paper in order to cut the ten patterns. Rafael and Sarita held five panels together and asked the others to cut around the master pattern. As one panel was about ten feet long, it was difficult to cut alone without support from the rest. They took about ten minutes to cut the pattern. When they finished cutting all the panels, they started gluing (Appendix 2). They again worked in pairs to glue the edges of the ten patterns. Steve was a boy who wanted to finish everything at once. Because of his impatience to finish, he just dragged the paper and tore it. Rafael did not worry. He said, "That's O.K. we can paste it." The others finished the rest of the panels and waited for Rafael and Steve. It was a difficult task for Rafael to keep Steve working. (During a conversation with Steve's mother, it was brought to my attention that Steve was mentally impaired.) Steve's mother always kept an eye on what Steve did, which was helpful for the junior scientists. The following example shows how Steve was motivated by his mother and Rafael: 92 Step 1 - 'te . ' l One Panel (5 sheets of tissue paper Step 2 3 Step 3 0 r1 .. -- r 1? ages Edges ¢ 4 j glued e to be glued Av S l 1 Figure 6 Steps in making hot air balloons 93 Rafael: Steve, come on Steve, you need to help us. .MOm: This is going to be Rafael and.my'balloon. we are doing all the work. Steve: I think it is mine. Mem: Look, I like the way Sarah was doing. Rafael: I like what Sarah is doing too. Mem: Steve, Rafael and I are doing all the work. The balloon is ours. , Rafael: He is a kid (very softly). Steve, let's do some gluing together. .MOm: O.KL, you get the glue. Steve brought the glue to Rafael, but he noticed that Steve was squeezing it. Rafael: Don't squeeze glue, don't squeeze anymore. Steve: I can do it by myself mom. Steve: we need.more green (2/11/93). Steve was back to work. Both big groups could not finish gluing all the panels together in one session. Because the children were disappointed that they had not finished, and were also impatient to see the balloon go up, Dr. Rodriguez took the children to the gymnasium of the school to inflate the balloon made by the junior scientists. They used two hair dryers and a hot air popcorn popper to blow hot air into the balloon (Appendix 3). In about seven minutes the balloon got inflated, and all said, "One, two three," and let the balloon to go up. It went up to the ceiling and it swayed around for a minute before returning to ground level (Appendix 4). People clapped with joy. Wren—Up Time. After deflating the balloon, it was folded with everybody's help. Everyone came back to the 94 classroom, Cleaned up the areas, and started the discussion: R: Does the hot air balloon go up? Group: Yes R: O.K;, why did the balloon go up? Group: It has hot air. It is,light. R: What happens when you blow.hot air into the balloon? Group: HOt air goes up. R: What happens to the air already in the balloon? (No answer) R: was it hot or cold? Group: Cold R: Cold, why was it cold? One child: Because hot air went up (2/18/93). Then Dr. Rodriguez explained to the group that air is made up of molecules and heat makes molecules move fast. She also said that when the molecules were far apart, the air inside the balloon was less dense than the air outside the balloon, which made the balloon float in the air. Rafael had a question. "Why do helium balloons go up?" Dr. Rodriguez asked the group the question. When there was no response, she asked again, "Which is heavier, cold air or hot air? Helium is a gas. Which do .you think is heavier, helium or air?" She was able to get the answer that air is heavier than helium. Steve, his sister and mother missed this discussion because they went home after Steve started a fight with his sister. §EEEQE¥ The Family Science Project in Lansing followed the same structure as the national Family Science Program 95 and had the same objectives. All Family Science sessions were held on Thursday afternoons from 3:00 to 5:00, in a kindergarten classroom at Highland Elementary School, for third and fourth graders and their parents. In the pilot year and first year of the Project, there was an evening Family Science session from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M. on Thursdays for those people who could not attend the afternoon session. Junior scientists from Paterson Middle School helped the children in doing hands-on science activities. Every day they signed a Venn diagram.and did an estimation activity. The number of activities that they completed in a session varied, depending on the time it took to finish each one. Generally during each session they did two or three activities, but some activities continued over two or three sessions. After doing the activities they cleaned up the work area, and then they discussed their experiences, which led to an understanding of the scientific concept. At the beginning and close of each session, there were warm greetings with hugs, as is common in the Hispanic culture. CHAPTER V WHAT DID THE CHILDREN GAIN FROM THEIR PARTICIPATION IN 'THE FAMILY SCIENCE PROJECT? The results of the study are given in Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8. This chapter (Chapter 5) discusses the impact of Family Science on the children in grades 3 and 4. Chapters 6 and 7 discuss what the junior scientists and parents learned from the Project. Chapter 8 discusses the unique features of the Project, such as the positive impact on the Project that the qualities of the leadership had. i To discuss what the children learned from the Project, an overview of a regular Family Science session is provided in this chapter. Family Science sessions were conducted at Highland Elementary School after the regular school sessions, from 3:00 to 5:00 P.M. on Thursdays. The third and fourth graders who participated in the Project attended sessions with or without their parents. These children worked with parents (not necessarily with their own parents) and middle school students (junior scientists) in small groups to do hands-on science activities. Most of the time those activities could also be done at home from 96 97 items available in the kitchen. There were about six to eight sessions in a semester. The results of Chapter 5 are presented under five assertions; namely: 1. The hands-on science activities engaged the children in learning science. 2. Children liked doing science in the Family Science sessions better than reading science in school. 3. Interpersonal relationships developed in the group activities promoted better understanding of the concepts underlying the hands-on science activities. 4. The elementary grade students acquired a variety of skills from.the Family Science Project. 5. The Family Science Project helped the children envision new possibilities for their future. Assertion 1 The hands-on science activities engaged the children. in. learning' science. The activity on microorganisms was selected to describe in this section due to three reasons: a) its high involvement, b) participants had to ask questions to get more information, and c) the session could not finish on time due to continued discussion. This activity on microorganisms took two sessions (10/22 & 98 10/29/92), but the participants were surprised to learn the number of microorganisms that live all around us. The given problem in the activity was to discover where microorganisms could be found. On the first session on microorganisms (10/22/92), one of the statements on the Venn diagram was, WMicroorganisms live everywhere." After the snack time (evening session), Dr. Rodriguez started the session by asking, "What are .microorganisms?” Most of the people answered, "bacteria". One said, "bugs." When there were no more responses from children, Mr. Parker said, "Micro is very small, you cannot see and the organisms are anything that lives. So, microorganisms are small living organisms you cannot see." This was the same kind of explanation given by Dr. Rodriguez in the afternoon session. The groups were given the question, "HOW would .you show somebody that microorganisms are everywhere?" Each person was given four petri—dishes in which to culture their samples. They were asked to use cotton swabs to take the samples. Dr. Rodriguez brought sterilized petri-dishes with agar from her laboratory. Agar is a solid medium used to grow microorganisms. Dr. Rodriguez demonstrated how the samples could be taken: Take a cotton swab. Touch it at the middle. I want to know whether there are microorganisms growing on the table. So I touch the table like this, and then touch agar. I have to cover.my petri—dish like this. Now I take another petri- dish. Let's make a line. I do listerine here, and on this side the cotton swab that touched the table (10/22/92). 99 People did not have any idea about using controls in experiments. It was difficult for Dr. Rodriguez to explain why she used a cotton swab touched in listerine in half of the petri-dish and without listerine in the other half. After her demonstration, people took samples from different parts of their body, such as their hair, arm.pit, finger nails, toes, and tongue. They also took samples from different places in the room, such as the desk top, toilet seat, door knob, window sill, and carpet. Each one had to record what they did (i.e., from.where they got their sample), and what they expected to see. A week after (the October 29th session), they observed what had happened to their cultures under the microscopes. The children, as well as the parents, were very excited to use microscopes. To give them an awareness of infection, and as a safety measure, they were asked to not open the petri-dishes, or touch the growths, or put their hands in their mouth. Some of their observations are given below: R: When you describe, you have to say from where did you get your sample, the color of your colonies, and whether they look shiny, smooth, or fluffy. Henry: I did.my foot and the snacks. I think it is a mold. R: What color is it? Henry: One is black, the other one is green. Mr. Parker: I took this sample from under my arm. I used listerine on one side. But it seems to have had an effect on it. It is creamy in color. It is fairly'smooth....I had antibiotic on this side. It seems like that there isn't 100 any growth....This one came out of.my ear. See the things I got. Group: Yuk, ugh, ugh (10/29/92). When this activity was done (afternoon session), Jose had a cough. He wanted to take a sample when he coughed. During the discussion time he explained to the group what he got in his culture medium, The others also described their colonies: JOse: I did cough. They are green and white, smooth and shiny; Solomon: I did the toilet seat. Green and white spots. They are fluffy. R: Does it smell? Solomon: .No Anthony: I did my mouth. I put listerine on this side. It really doesn't help. They are brown, cream and white. R: Browns are very rare. Pat: I did the waste basket. It is red and it smells. Myra: I did the sink. I got yellow shiny spots over it. There is a cream one with a yellow dot inside. R: It could be two kinds of organisms growing, one over the other. That's a good observation. Steve: I did the toilet seat. I got green with a white border and dark green with a white border. Shiny, very light yellow. Sarah: I did.my dirty mouth. I got white small colonies. Jean: I got a fuzzy green thing here. I did the WindOW’Sill. Julia: I did the drinking fountain. I got yellow growths everywhere. It smells. Solomon: It smells like my dad's feet. R: Some organisms like moisture. What happens when you wear nylons? .Moisture gets collected, and organisms love that moisture and grow. Andrew: I did the floor. 'I got creamy colored ones, fuzzy ones, and some yellow. Some shiny ones. R: Babies put everything in their mouth. HOW can they survive?...iMicroorganisms are everywhere. ....If you know science, how can science help us? (10/29/92) 101 When everyone had shared their observations with the whole group, the discussion focused on different kind of microorganisms-—virus, bacteria and fungus. They were amazed to see that everywhere they tested had microorganisms, which were not visible to the naked eye. Dr. Rodriguez showed them a picture of a virus and different shapes of bacteria, and described how small these organisms are. People talked about their warts on their hands, cavities in their teeth, how they got chicken-pox and the flu, and how doctors gave them antibiotics, and so forth. Almost everyone had a question to ask during the discussion time, which had not been a common thing in the previous sessions. All the questions were something related to a disease. The type of questions and the way they asked them (Do we get sick when we happened to touch.microorganisms?) impressed on me that they were afraid that they might get infected very easily. As everyone in the group was so focused about knowing the diseases caused by microorganisms and bad things such as food spoiling or rotting, Dr. Rodriguez asked the group, "Are there useful microorganisms?" Not a single child was able to say anything good about microorganisms. A mother said, "Injections like penicillin." Dr. Rodriguez had to develop on what the mother had said to explain how immunity develops, and that there are beneficial microorganisms like 102 penicillium.and soil bacteria which decompose organic matter, to get the students to know something more than what they had learned only by doing the activity. When Dr. Rodriguez started wrapping up, because it was almost ten minutes past the usual closing time, a boy asked, "How do you get AIDS?" This was the time when people talked about their basketball fan, Magic Johnson, and AIDS . Children, as well as the parents were surprised to see how many microorganisms live all around us, and they wanted to know about them. Mr. Parker was Henry's father, and they had attended all Family Science sessions from the pilot year until the end of the first year. In the summer of 1993, they moved to South Carolina. When he was interviewed in the spring of 1993, a question was asked regarding which activity he had liked the most. He said: I will never forget what we saw and learned about microorganisms. I have a physics background. It was amazing for me to see all those growths from different places. I think even the kids loved the activity and were surprised to see how'many' organisms are around us (6/1/93). I' c . By doing the activity on microorganisms, the children as well as the parents developed an understanding of microorganisms as well as many skills which they did not have before, for example, the use of a control in experiments. After Mr. Parker's 103 description of his growth with listerine, Anthony described his colony in the same way. Although it seems that AnthOny imitated Mr. Parker's style in his response, this too is a type of learning. Children develop concepts from the things around them, and what they see and hear (Heath, 1983). Mr. Parker: I used listerine on one side. But it seems to have an effect on it. Anthony: I put listerine on this side. It really doesn't help (10/29/92). The activity on microorganisms required different skills. The participants had to use a petri-dish to culture the microorganisms. It was the first time they had used this piece of equipment when doing an activity. Holding the petri-dish, infecting the medium with a cotton swab, and covering it were all new skills that they had to develop. Each child took several samples, about five. On the first day of the experiment they enjoyed the activity of taking samples from different places. They were debating whether or not this was science that they were doing. One said that he never knew a toilet seat cover was something for a scientific experiment. Children also loved to work with new things, such as petri-dishes. On the second day, they were able to describe their colonies using the shape, color, smell, and appearance. In order to do this description, they needed to carefully and compare the samples. They had to share 104 their observations with others by reporting them to the whole group. The discussion in the whole group helped the children to understand some features of microorganisms. They were able to report what they had observed, because they carried out a methodical procedure which required a variety of manipulative and science process skills. To describe their findings to the group, first they had to carefully observe what type of colonies they had grown. By reporting these observations to the group, they developed communicating skills. In addition to the development of skills, they also learned about microorganisms, developed an understanding of where microorganisms live, and how beneficial and harmful they were. An interesting feature to note from this activity is what made them be so engaged? They did an activity that was closely related to day-to—day life. All had had the experience of sickness, getting the flu, sore throat, and so forth so they could articulate this in their discussion. It made them interested in doing the activity. 105 Assertion 2 Children liked doing science activities in the Family Science sessions than reading science in textbooks in school. As revealed by the children, they wanted to learn science by doing hands-on activities. They did not like to sit in one place and listen to the teacher, or read about science in books, which they referred to as "reading science." Some children did not have science in the school, and even if they did they read things in the book and had demonstrations of some other things. But the children liked to do things rather than listening and reading. Anthony was motivated to attend Family Science when he came to know that they could do fun activities. The following excerpt reveals that Anthony wanted to do something other than reading, and decided to come to the Family Science sessions: Me: Who asked you to come to Family Science? Anthony: .Myself Me: Ybu selected it? Why did you select it? Anthony: Because I like science, because you do fun stuff. Me: Who told you that we are doing fun stuff? Anthony? My friends Me: O.KI, what do you mean by "fun stuff?" Anthony: Don't you know, the stuff that we do. Me: we do lot of things. Tell me what do you really mean as fun stuff? Anthony: we do more stuff here than in our classroom. we do reading sometimes, we never do projects, nothing.~ Me: What do you do for science in school? Anthony: Nothing in science. Me: Ybu are in the fourth grade, and you don't do science? 106 Anthony: we don't do science. Me: I am sure your teacher would have shown you something, some experiments for science. Anthony: You mean here? .Me: .No, not here, in the classroom. Anthony: .No, no, never (ll/12/92). Luz, Rita and Julia who were fourth graders, perceived science in school the same way as Anthony did. They said that they never had science in school. Luz said that she had a good teacher who used to show some fun things for science, when she was in the third grade, but that the fourth grade teacher did not teach science. It appears to me, from what they told me, that they did not have science experiences in school. The perception of the junior scientists about science was the same. They did not have experience in using most of the basic science equipment, like pipettes, droppers, and measuring cylinders. One junior scientist said, ”Science in school is mainly what teacher does. He'll explain to us." Even the skills like cutting and pasting were improved at the sessions, which was observed very visibly when they made hot air balloons. To give an overview of how children felt about science in school, and how they perceived what they learned about science at the Family Science Project, five profiles of children are presented; namely, Sarah, Luz, Julia, Rita, and Kate. 107 1. Sarah Sarah joined the Family Science Project at the pilot level, when she was in the third grade. She used to come with her brother and mother, and she never missed the sessions. She said that she liked science and wanted to be in the Family Science Project to study science. As she was in the Project since it started, I couldn't get her perceptions about scientists and science before she joined the Project. She was the only one who drew a female scientist at the pre-interview stage. Not only that, after she had drawn a female scientist, she showed her scientist to Dr. Rodriguez and said, "I don't like my picture. This is you (Dr. Rodriguez.)” It seemed to me that Dr. Rodriguez had become a role model for Sarah to have high aspirations. She wanted to be a scientist. Her perception about scientists was also different from the other children's perceptions. To her scientists were females, but they could be anyone, "Scientists are younger women. They can be anybody. They are nice. They help people with stuff like (Dr. Rodriguez.)" Sarah did not work with her mother in the same group. She liked to work in a different group, but I noticed that whatever she did, she showed it to her mother. ’Most of the time she worked with the junior scientist, Myra. When I asked her whether she had any preference about working with a particular junior 108 scientist, she said that it did not matter, but that she preferred to work with a female. She said that she liked the way Myra helped in her in the group activities. Myra helped her hold things together when it was hard to put the three mirrors together, and she had given Myra some tricks required in the experiments. She believed that working in a group helped her do the science activities. "It is easier to work with someone. we can use all of our ideas.“ Sarah was planning to work as a junior scientist in the future when she goes into the seventh grade. 2- Luz Luz was a fourth grader who was in the Project in the first year. She came to sessions with her younger sister, Lucinda, and her mother. She missed some of the sessions because she suffered from bronchitis. At the time she joined the Project, her interest was in doing some science activities. As the following interview transcript shows, Luz enjoyed what her third grade teacher did, and appreciated the teacher's suggestion that she join the Family Science Project. She felt that she had missed science in her fourth grade class, and wanted to be in a program that dealt with science. The behavior of Luz's fourth grade teacher was a bad reflection on her, because she did not teach science: 109 When I was in the third grade, I learned all the planets and everything: And we did a play on the planets. But then when I went to the fourth grade I really didn't know science that much. we didn't do science at all. My'third grade teacher asked me to join Family Science. When we did science, we would do it like at the end of the year. We did like papers of rain and stuff. But we didn’t do it like she (Dr. Rodriguez) taught us. She (regular teacher) just gave us a piece of paper. And we read it out loud. But it was also only a few times. She doesn't teach that much. Her favorite subject is social science. ' Family Science helped me to learn science a little better (5/3/93). When Luz was promoted to the fifth grade, she had a teacher who taught science, sometimes with help from a Michigan State University graduate student. She was happy with the fifth grade teacher and the projects that she asked them to do. Because Luz talked about the teachers, I asked her how would have she felt if her fourth grade teacher had come to the Family Science sessions. Her response implies that Luz considered that her fourth grade teacher had not learned science, and that prevented her from teaching science: I wouldn't care if she was there. I think she'd think we were learning, and we were. I mean I think that we were learning, but at the same time we got to play. I don’t think she really learned science. But I think if she went to them then she'll learn, and teach them in her class. I think (Dr. Rodriguez) knows more than her. (Dr. Rodriguez) teaches at a higher level, but she tells us what that, meaning of that word. So it's like she teaches at a higher level, but you really don’t notice it because she guides you (5/13/94). 110 What Luz described about the teacher was told by her mother and some of the other fourth graders, too. Luz liked Family Science, and came to most of the sessions with her six—year-old, first-grade sister, Lucinda. She said, "I like it because we don't have to sit there and listen to people talk." According to Luz's fifth grade teacher, Luz developed her ability to ask questions from Family Science. She was very pleased with Luz's behavior. (This was in the second year of the Project.) She said: (Luz) has developed a very good sense of questioning, I think. She's the one I've really noticed.more than any one else. And....well, just think...I don't know what she was like last year. But the development and the types of questions she asks are really, really good. I don't know whether her.mother has participated with her. I think that has a lot to do with it, when there is a parent there on a consistent basis. The kids that come are kind of hit-andemiss, and you know,.might not have somebody (5/27/94). When I compared what Luz was like when she started Family Science to what her fifth-grade teacher told me, I could see a tremendous growth in her. At the time Luz joined the Family Science Project, she could not even tell her name in front of the group. Dr. Rodriguez tried to make her talk by giving her some clues to which to respond. Failing that, Dr. Rodriguez gave Luz another chance, after all the other children had introduced themselves. Luz still kept quiet. When I interviewed Luz during the pre-interview, she did not tell me what she wanted to be, but at the post—interview 111 she said that she wanted to be a brain surgeon. The way she responded at the post-interview stage compelled me to ask why she had been so shy at the beginning. She said: I was shy; because I didn't know nobody. I.mean I knew people who were in my class, but Iflm saying I didn't know any junior scientists. After a while I got comfortable in being there, because they could help me and stuff (5/13/94). Luz's case provides many ideas about the role of a teacher. She made all the comparisOns of the teachers when she was only in the fourth grade. She compared her negative attitudes toward the fourth-grade teacher by comparing her with the third-grade teacher, fifth-grade teacher, and Dr. Rodriguez. The main idea from Luz's statement that the teacher educators should consider is that a teacher needs to build a good rapport with the students. From what Luz told me, her fourth-grade teacher taught social studies most of the time, which made the children think that that was the teacher's favorite subject. And, at the same time, the children assumed that the teacher did not know science because she did not teach science. This is a good example to .show that it is not only teachers who label the students, but students, too, put labels on the teachers according to their behavior. Teachers need to recognize what students bring with them to the class, and to 112 integrate that rich source of information in their teaching. 3- Qulia Julia was a fourth grader who joined the Project during the first year of the Project because of Luz's interest. Luz and Julia lived very close to each other, and visited each other very often. Luz told me that Julia was not only a friend, but also like her own sister. They were also classmates. The neighborhood where they lived was composed of different ethnic groups. Julia said, "I am black, white and Indian." Her answer surprised me, and prompted me to reply "What?" She repeated the same answer. Although I wanted to pursue why she had said that she was a member of three different ethnic groups, I did not ask the same question again. I was uncertain why Julia had said that she belonged to three ethnic identities. Her mother was a white. I did not see her father, but her hair made me think that her father was black. I interviewed Luz before my interview with Julia. Luz very proudly said, "I am Mexican. I speak Spanish, and I can understand it well, but I can't write." Of all the children who wanted to be junior scientists, Julia was one of them. To her the most interesting thing about the Family Science sessions was making things. To her, "making things" meant doing the 113 activity and having a product like the periscope, kaleidoscope, tower, tee-shirt with chromatography design, and so forth. The following narrative shows how much she enjoyed making things: I like Family Science, because the way we make things, like what I made last week (race car)..wa I can make things that I didn't make before. Junior scientists know.how to make those better. I want to be a junior scientist, and one day a real scientist to make things. we don't do science. We do math, not science at all. I don‘t think she (teacher) knows science (5/25/93). Even the scientist that she drew was holding something (Figure 7). The scientist had a table in front of her with labeled bottles on it, and written on the table was "Do not remove." I asked what she meant by writing that. Her response was, "Scientists are busy ‘people. This one, she is doing a workshop and went to the bathroom, leaving her stuff ready for the workshop." It gave me the impression that she had drawn Dr. Rodriguez. But as Sarah told me, she did not tell me that it was Dr. Rodriguez. There was a caption saying, "She is getting ready to do an experiment on.making a play horse." I had to ask the meaning of the caption to understand what she thought. Then she said, "That is what she is going to do in the workshop." When Julia was telling me about the lack of science in fourth-grade class she was angry. That was the first time her mother had heard that Julia did not have science in school. When I interviewed the mother, she 9,6 ,3 at; ”5:an *0 Jo a/i “Nutmeg. on 0291/74} 3 fl/ofiu \J Range . Figure 7 Julia's scientist 115 tried to control her anger by not finishing what she wanted to say about the teacher: I think that is something that she could go to. She might learn something at the same time. She signed up for a couple of things which didn't work. I think she enjoys it. The way she talks about it. I wish it would last long. Each week she tells me the different things that she does. This is a thing that she can learn science and help her. I didn't know until she told you now that she hasn't had science in school, which I think she needs. I don't understand why she (teacher) is doing that. Last year she had a very good teacher. He asked us to come and watch them in class. This woman.... (5/25/93). Julia's mother was a college student. Although she said that she looked at Julia's homework, it appeared to me that she could not have done it regularly, or spent time with her, because she did not know that her daughter did not have science for a whole year. Julia's interests matched the Project's activities, which led her to have high aspirations. At the time that Julia passed on to the fifth grade in the spring of 1994, Dr. Rodriguez taught science for her regular class in the school. Another professor from MSU, who was the director of the "La Clase Magica" Project, also taught some reading classes, which I videotaped. I wanted to get Julia's perception about the teaching they had in the classroom.compared to other teachers to understand how the nonformal environment worked for them. Her reaction was: 116 It was different. With (Dr. Rodriguez) we did experiments and with (Dr. Vallejo) we wrote autobiographies. With other classes that I was in ,you do work out of the book. I like it better with them. When we do experiments you put more work into it. And I like...And I like making things better than I like to write. Like in Family Science, it helps me to do team work. Like the way with (Dr. Vallejo), the other teachers don't ask .you to write autobiographies, or about what we like, or about our childhood (5/10/94). This gave me the impression that Julia thought regular teachers in the school did not ask questions regarding the children's background, but that children would have liked it if they could have shared these things with other students. Julia's statement, "The other teachers don't ask you to write autobiographies, or about what we like, or about our childhood," says a lot about how children feel when they are asked about their lives. By asking children about their experiences, teachers can help keep children engaged and interested in classroom activities. 4.3m Rita also joined the Project during its first year, when she was a fourth grader. Her mother came to the sessions late, a little after they had started, because she had to come after work. Rita lived with her mother and brother. Her father had left them, and they moved to the house, where I interviewed them (10/12/92). It was very close to the school, about a five-minute walk. At the time I did the pre-interview, they had just moved 117 in and were remodeling the house. When I talked to Rita, her brother, who was in high school, also joined us. According to her brother and mother, "Rita was a baby." I had to repeat each question that I asked of Rita. I was not sure whether it was due to my accent or because she needed time to think. But the questions that I asked were very simple, just so I could get some information about her (Appendix 8). To her, scientist was a person who worked with fossils. When I asked, "What are fossils?" she could not tell me. Her response linked the word "science" with the word "fossil" that she had heard somewhere, without having any real meaning for her. For most of the questions her response was, ”I don't know." Even if she said something, it was just a one-or-two word answer. At the post-interview stage (5/3/93), she answered me without any hesitation in complete sentences. "I like Family Science, because I got to do a lot of fun experiments. I didn't like it when I had to wait." To her, "fun" meant doing a lot of things. The image of a scientist was also changed at this stage. She said, “Scientists discover things. They discover things like cures for illnesses. They can be males, females, anybody. But you have to work hard." Her drawing of a scientist was a female with long hair holding a conical flask with the caption, "She is trying to figure out a medicine for an illness." (Rita had long hair.) On the 118 desk of the scientist there were test tubes, a flask with fumes and a microscope (Figure 8). Rita was the only child who attended both the Family Science sessions and the La Clase Magica (LCM) sessions for one year. She attended Family Science when she was in the fourth grade, and LCM in the fifth grade. When she was in the fifth grade, Dr. Rodriguez taught science to her class during the spring term, and Dr. Vallejo, who was the director of LCM, taught reading. I interviewed Rita toward the end of the spring term (5/10/94), to find out her perceptions about their teaching compared to the regular teachers in the school, and to see whether she had made any connections between the nonformal, after-school programs with her formal school work. She said she liked the science that she had in Family Science better: Doing science in the classroom is different, because we don't get to do a lot of stuff. I like Family Science better. we get to know people and do science experiments (5/10/94). Rita felt that she had developed her thinking skills by participating in both the Family Science and La Clase Magica programs. In the classroom, they had the opportunity to talk with friends at a site in Texas through electronic mail. This program, called "Science with Friends," was also directed by Dr. Rodriguez. .The use of computers in the classroom and in LCM helped her 119 Figure 8 Rita's scientist 120 use the computer at home to write letters and to stories. I like both. In Family Science you do interesting stuff. But you have to figure out a problem or something. You have to think in LCM, too. If you are playing a math game on the computers, you have to think of the answer. I like working on computers and playing games. .Now that I have a computer at home, I write letters. Sometimes my autobiography'and stories (5/10/94). Rita believed that she had improved her reading, writing, and speech (especially Spanish) because both the project directors talked to her in Spanish. She said: I can only speak Spanish, understand it. I don't knOW'hOW to write it. (Dr. Vallejo and Dr. Rodriguez) speak to me in Spanish. Some amigos (people who helped them) spoke Spanish too (5/10/94). Rita's classroom teacher, Mr. Blake, had worked as an amigo when he was an undergraduate at MSU, and continued to work in LCM even after he had joined the staff of Highland Elementary School. I wanted to know from Rita how she had felt when Mr. Blake was in the school and in LCM. She liked it when he was in LCM. "I like when he is over there, because he doesn't give us wor ." It is evident that the children did not like to do writing, and the other work that they had to do, seated at one place. They were always motivated when they could talk and do something. The only thing that Rita could remember (pre-interview stage) about science in 121 her school was a dissection that she had done when she was in the third grade "we dissected worms. we saw little things like eggs. They looked like eggs, but that was part of its body.” This indicates children like to do hands-on science projects. 5. EQLS Kate attended the evening Family Science Project sessions for two years with her mother. They did not miss any of the sessions, and they used to be there on time, also. In the first year, she was in the third grade and was eight years old. She was the only child in the family. As I had seen her mother in the sessions, when she was in the fifth grade I asked her about her father. She said: He doesn’t live with us. .He lives very close on (Hamilton). I usually go to my dad's or he will come and pick me up. Sometimes my'mom will take me over there (5/13/94). ‘ Kate had come to Family Science upon her mother's request; "Because my mom thought it would be fun for me and her to do, and she thought it would be a good thing for a family thing." She repeatedly told me several times for different questions that she enjoyed the Project. I wanted to know why she enjoyed it. To her, Family Science sessions were interesting because she felt more comfortable there with her mother, and it was a very relaxed atmosphere compared to the classroom. 122 Further inquiry on what she learned in school for science versus what she learned in the Project, brought the following reply: I learned a lot more stuff than I learned in school because we hardly'don't, we didn't hardly have science in our class. It was more fUn to be there than in the school. we just read a book and talked about it. That's science (5/13/94). I asked Kate what she thought about science. Her response was, "You get to do experiments and you get to learn more stuff." Her response impressed on me the fact that she considered science to be the only benefit that she received from her Family Science participation. I asked her how she would have felt if her teacher was in the Family Science sessions. She said, "I won't behave differently, because I know that like.my teacher is going to be learning more science with me and my friends.“ I felt that those children had been led to think that their teachers did not know science because they did not teach science. Kate had gone to LCM twice. I wanted to know what she liked and disliked about the programs. She said that she had always wanted to be in the Family Science Project, because she went to it with her mother. Her mother was not home in the afternoons, because she had to be at work. Kate used to go to another program in the community center. When I was there for some volunteer work, I saw Kate in another person's program. 123 I asked her about that when I interviewed her. She said: Oh, it's on every day from three to six. I never did my homework over there. I did my homework when I got home from there. we color. we, the junior leaders, had to do work...and,stuff. They have to do work for like errands and stuff. Ybu do fUn things. It keeps kids from being bored at home (5/13/94). According to Kate, she had gone to that program because her mother asked her to go, telling her that it was illegal for a minor to stay home alone without an adult. She spoke about the other two programs--Family Science and LCM--as being programs that would enhance her learning in school. She said that she had developed an interest in learning Spanish because of attending the two programs. I was curious to know whether she could speak Spanish, or what had motivated her to learn Spanish. She said: A girl in our class Maria, she speaks Spanish, and the girl behind her speaks Spanish to her. When I was in Family Science, (Dr. Rodriguez) always said things in Spanish, too. When I hear it, I feel like I should know it. I thought it is better if I can understand another language. .My father is an Indian, and Iflm Indian too. My mother is white (5/13/94). The interaction with students of different races might have developed into an interest to appreciate other cultures. 124 Discussion Research evidence (Millar, 1989; Lemke, 1990; Driver, 1989) discusses the importance of incorporating children's ideas into teaching situations. Furthermore,- they say that children's ideas are built on their experiences. Integrating these experiences helps increase children's curiosity about what they do. As presented under this assertion, the children loved to do the science activities. This was mainly because of the nonformal setting, and because they were not have a afraid of being criticized for a wrong answer. In the group discussions to solve the problem they did in the activity, they were able to easily communicate with the others because all of them had a similar vocabulary. These conversations, or the dialogue that they had, helped them think and understand the scientific concept. To me, it's not unusual that elementary teachers have a fear of teaching science. Because of the experience I had.with the elementary teachers in Sri Lanka, I was able to understand the teachers' fears about science. Since most of the teachers did not have a background in science, they neither considered themselves to be experts in the field, nor had the confidence to teach science, and so tried their best to avoid teaching the subject. As Luz and other students mentioned, it appeared to them that their fourth-grade teacher did not know science. They made this assumption 125 because of their experiences in learning, and because of her excessive teaching of other subjects such as social studies instead of teaching science. From what Luz, Julia, and Rita said, they wanted to learn science, but their teacher did not provide themfithat opportunity. As Julia said, children love to share their experiences with their teacher and class. We should not forget the rich source of information that children bring to the classroom.that we can articulate in our teaching (Duckworth, 1990). Only then will teachers be able to help children discard their misconceptions (Roth, 1990). Science helps children think critically. An important thing to consider from these findings is that, as we try to make children realize their potential to learn science, elementary teachers should also be convinced that they could teach science without a strong background in science, if they have the interest and commitment, because learning science is a social process. An important requirement of effective science teaching is an environment in which children can interact verbally and nonverbally and engage in some kind of science activity. 126 Assertion 3 Interpersonal relationships developed. in ‘the group activities promoted better understanding of the concepts underlying the hands-on science activities. The participants of the Family Science Project did hands-on science activities in small groups except when they made hot air balloons and during individual activities. In a small group there were generally two to three children, a parent and one or two junior scientists. In a regular day there were about four small groups. All the junior scientists said that they liked the program and learned science. Some especially mentioned working in groups with the children. Rafael said: I learned to work in groups. I want to learn ideas from everybody. It was pretty fun to work with .younger kids. They had their own decisions. I had mine. we discussed and worked together to see which ones were better (5/25/93). In the regular sessions, the Project Director, Dr. Rodriguez, gave the students a problem to solve by assigning them to engage in an activity. During the activity time, each one in the group had the right to bring out any idea that s/he wanted. The others had to listen to each member. If they agreed with the speaker, they could add to or clarify any of the things, and if 127 one did not agree, then s/he had to give an explanation as to why s/he disagreed and make suggestions for better solutions. As Lemke (1990) suggests, these discussions, "talking science," helped them develop a better understanding of what they were doing, rather than following a step—by-step demonstration. The activities, such as when they had to build a bridge to support a chalk board eraser, or erect a tall tower using straws, needed several trial-and-error attempts to reach a group consensus. At the post- interview stage, when I asked about the group activities, they told me how difficult it was to make their tower stand erect. For this activity, the problem was to build a tower as tall as possible from drinking straws, strings (balls of yarn) and scotch/masking tape as materials. They were allowed to use any amount of tape, straws and strings to build a tall, erect tower. Dr. Rodriguez said: Ybur job is to build a tower. One straw over the other. Figure out how'many straws you need....Anchor the tower on table using masking or scotch tape....Try to anchor it with one string, two strings, three strings, four strings....If you are designing a tower, what is the minimum number of strings you use? Figure out how tall you can build (ll/19/92). There were four groups working at four tables. Except for one group, the other three groups had a parent with whom to work (Figure 9, Table 3). 1128 Steve . 11.12331 Mrs. A endi Hints Ofelia Andre 1 Ramiro Otifh rs. Briones 1 Sarah Myra R1 Julia ‘3 4 e ‘Reyena 3 Mrs. Mart nez Belinda ‘ Lucinda 'ID Sarifa‘ Figure 9 Group distribution ||| Parent 0 Child A Junior Scientist 129 Table 3 Group distribution Group Junior Children Parent Scientists 1 Andrea, Ramiro Laura, Sarah Mrs. Arizmendi 2 Otila, Rafael Steve, Ofelia Mrs. Briones 3 Myra, Sarita Luz, Reyena Mrs. Martinez Lucinda 4 Belinda, Roberto Felix, Julia ------ Rita The group members had to anchor their tower onto the tables. Each group tried to make their tower the tallest. The first task was to put one straw over the other, which was not an easy task to start with. The following excerpt reveals how Group 1 started building the tower: Andrea: Let's stack straws Ramiro: HOW many? Andrea: Can you remember how she put one straw over the other? It's hard. Sarah: Squeeze that end Mrs. A: Do two at a time. O.K., try to put this thing. (the squeezed end of one straw to the end of the other straw, 11/19/92). They tried to anchor the tower after putting the straws together. Ramiro did not talk much, but he asked Andrea to hold the tower. As it was leaning, Sarah helped Andrea hold it. Ramiro tried to put tape at the 130 base to hold the tower. Mrs. Arizmendi suggested using strings to strengthen the base. But Ramiro said that he could stand the tower up without any strings. He asked the others to hold the tower until he could balance it. .Andrea and Mrs. Arizmendi put tape'on the table in the form of braces. When it stopped swirling, everyone in the group tried to put on tapes to balance the tower. It looked like the roots of a palm or coconut tree (Figure 10a). They were finally able to stand the tower up erect. The other three groups tried to keep the tower erect while building it. Otila and Rafael started with a three-straw tower. Then they tried to add more straws to the tower. When it started leaning, Rafael suggested anchoring the tower using strings: Rafael: I think we need to put some strings at the middle. Mrs. Briones: HOw many strings we should use? Otila: Maybe four They used a round table, and, with the help of everyone, they tied the strings connecting the middle of the tower to the underside of the table. When the tower stood erect, Rafael tried to add two more straws to the top of the tower. To do that he had to stand on a chair to reach the top of the tower. Ofelia: This reminds me of the radio tower. Mrs. Briones: Yes, the antenna on the freeway. It has several string like things. we should add more strings. Rafael: I am wondering to balance with three. I think it is better with three. Ofelia: What's wrong with this? Rafael: If we can do it by three, why four? (11/19/92). 131 Although Ofelia's idea of the transmission antenna would have helped them in thinking further, it was not done. When they were trying to tie the strings to the table, they had difficulty in fastening the ends of the strings from the tower. Mrs. Briones brought some heavy books from a book shelf and balanced the strings. When Rafael got the idea to balance the tower using three strings, they undid the strings, and tried to balance the tower using three strings. It took a while to balance the three strings. One thing they found was that, when it leaned to one side, they then had to pull the strings in the other directions. Another thing that they tried was adjusting the distance between the strings. With fine adjustments of the distance between the strings, they were able to stabilize their tower. The two junior scientists--Myra and Sarita--worked with Luz, Reyena, and Lucinda. Mrs. Martinez also worked in the same group. They had a square table on which to work. At first, they tried to erect a five- straw tower using tape. When the tower leaned to one side, they tried tying on strings as an alternative, without having any confidence that it might work. The following excerpt reveals that their attempts were achieved by imitating and learning from the other groups: 132 straw COVE! strings tnpes (a) (b) straw tower strings tapes (C) (4) Figure 10 Towers 133 Sarita: Look what Ramiro does? Let's put tape here. Mrs. Martinez: They are using masking tape. Myra: (Lucinda), go get masking tape. Luz: This thing doesn't work. (Luz thought masking tapes could not hold the tower.) Reyena: Where are we going to use strings? Sarita: Maybe,.maybe to the top. (She always had the habit of looking at what other people did. When she said, "maybe," she was looking at Otila and Rafael's design.) Myra: To the top? Where? Reyena: To the corners. Myra: Corners? Lucinda: Four corners of the table. Mrs. Martinez: Who is going to tie the strings to the top? Myra: I am the tallest, I can do it (11/19/92). Myra stood up on a chair to tie the strings at the top. Then the other members of the group helped by tying the other ends of the strings to the table legs. When it balanced, Lucinda wanted to add another straw to the top. That successful adding encouraged them to add straws one by one. But after adding two more straws, it was hard for them to make the tower stand erect, and they gave up adding the third one. Their tower had eight straws in total. It reached almost to the ceiling. Group 4 also had a square table on which to work. The junior scientists Belinda and Roberto worked with the three children-—Felix, Julia, and Rita. They also started out with a five—straw tower. Unlike the other groups, they started balancing the tower by using string. It was successful at the beginning. When they added more straws to the tower, however, the tower 134 tended to bend to one side. Then they tried using tape at the base, as the other groups had done. At one point, the tower broke in the middle. One-half hung on to the strings, and the other half stayed on the table with the tape. After fixing the two halves, they tried to straighten the tower, but they failed (Figure 10d). Except for Andrea's and Ramiro's tower, all the other towers had eight straws. Myra's and Sarita's tower was the only tower that did not stand erect. During discussion time, two questions were asked, "Why did the group 4's tower not stand erect? Which group's design was the best for stabilizing the tower?" These questions led the participants to think. No one gave a quick answer. Dr. Rodriguez had to break down the question into very simple sub-questions to provoke their thoughts. "Let's see, how.many used only one string? .Nobody? Two strings? Three strings?" Otila and Rafael's group raised their hands. They had to explain what they did. Luz said that it was Rafael's idea to have three strings. As no one else in the group responded, Rafael said that they used four strings at first, but then he thought that it might be more evenly balanced with three. Then came the question, "Which design is the most stabilize?" Pointing to the group 3's design with four strings, group 2's design with three strings, and group 1's design with no strings, Dr. Rodriguez asked, "Which design is better? Why do you 135 think one is better than the others?" Again, there was silence for awhile. Then Dr. Rodriguez tried to get an explanation as to why group 1's tower was standing erect without any strings. Ramiro's group had an erect tower, but it was shorter than the others. They were able to stabilize the tower only from.using tape because of the way they constructed the tower. Ramiro first cut the edge of a straw and inserted the end into another straw. The others learned from him how to insert one end of a straw into another. When they inserted one end of the straw into the other, they made a cut and inserted the end of the one straw as much as they could, which gave the tower additional strength. When they constructed the tower, even the taping was done by Ramiro at first, and then the others imitated him. Dr. Rodriguez tried to give the students some clues to make them think by saying, "Try to think about the towers that you have seen." It helped Ramiro to come up with evidence to support his design: Ramiro: I can remember the towers in cities do not have any kind of support like strings. R: can you remember the shape? Is it uniform? uniform....all the way up, or different? Ramiro: Broad base, gradually narrows R: Which tower do you have in.mind? I am not giving you an answer. Think about it. When you go in the car, look at towers to see how they are supported. Talk to your parents (ll/19/92). 136 Mrs. Briones asked Dr. Rodriguez about the transmission antenna with braces in the broadcasting station mentioned by Ofelia. Without giving an answer, Dr. Rodriguez again posed the question to the whole group. Then Rafael said, "I think even that tower (group 3's tower with four strings) could be balanced by three strings." Rafael's response was close to the concept in civil engineering and architecture that utilized a triangular configuration to give a building structural stability (Roth, 1994). Then the discussion was directed so that they could understand the stability of triangular configurations. It appears from the conversation in group 3 that there was not as much thinking as in the other groups. The initial statements of Sarita, Mrs. Martinez and Reyena were made by looking at the other groups' designs. Reyena's question of asking where to use the string does not reveal any thinking, because they were either given string with which to work, or else the other people were using string. The important thing to take note of from this group is that they learned by imitating the others. Although the four string configuration is not a stabilized configuration, it worked fine for them.because the tower was anchored to the middle of a square table. Lucinda asked to tie the strings to the four corners. (I could not get any evidence from her as to why she had suggested anchoring 137 the tower using the four corners of the table.) Because the table was square, the four strings tied to the four corners helped stabilize the tower. But no one questioned why she used four strings or why the strings were tied at the top- The tower of group 4 also had tape at the base and strings to support the tower. But it did not stand erect. When Dr. Rodriguez asked them to compare their tower with the others by looking at how the strings were connected, the tape was glued, and where it was anchored, Felix noticed that their tower was not anchored in the middle like in group 3. The others also agreed with his assumption, but they did not have time to redo it. Group 2 used four strings at first, and then used three strings. Rafael was guided by the initial question asked by Dr. Rodriguez, "What is the minimum number of strings you must use?" According to him, when he was looking at the table, he suddenly remembered the symbol of "Benz cars.“ The Benz symbol helped Rafael think a stabilized structure with three strings—-a triangular configuration. Di s' n The examples given earlier show that the group members were able to get an understanding of the concept by sharing with each other. Their prior knowledge 138 allowed them to articulate the scientific concept. While they were engaged in the activity, they did not have any knowledge of what principle they should use. But by trial-and-error, and from learning what the others were doing, they were able to refine their construction, and later during the discussion acquire some knowledge about what they had done. As Collins (1987) described, the knowledge that they gained through these activities could be called "craft knowledge." He defines craft knowledge, in contrast to scientific knowledge, as an acquired skill. They worked as members in a community. Being a member, one had to share her/his ideas and skills with the others. The participants in the group experienced themselves to be part of a community in which they shared their knowledge, skills and attitudes. In this nonformal context, they learned effortlessly while they were engaged in an activity. In these activities, learning was driven by skills, and from them knowledge was acquired. The group interaction enabled the children to talk with the junior scientists and parents to find solutions to their problems. They had a focus for their discussion, because they had been given a problem. The junior scientists knew what they had to do because of their experience of doing the same hands-on science activities on Tuesdays. So, in this context, 139 conversations were focused so as to achieve a stated goal. The same question or given problem could be understood differently by the members in the group, because it was a mixed ability group. Questions that the children had were discussed in the group to facilitate an understanding, and by pooling their experiences they were able to achieve a new level of understanding. This understanding was beyond the level that the children had had before, because after the 1 discussion and working together with the others, through social interaction, they were able to do the activities. As Edwards and Mercer (1987) said, people share their knowledge not only within the school, but also in many places outside school. In the Family Science sessions, by doing different activities the participants were able to develop a variety of skills and dialogue. In developing these skills, they did much sharing. By pooling their ideas they could come to a consensus and also solve the problem. Thus, they developed knowledge through mutual understanding. In a regular classroom setting, because of the authority that the teacher has, it is easier to misunderstand what the teacher says due to the limited ability to initiate a dialogue with the teacher or share ideas or a mutual understanding. In the Family Science sessions, they were not alone. They knew that junior scientists and parents would help them in doing the 140 activities. As vygotsky (1978, p.26) says "Children solve practical tasks with the help of their speech, as well as their eyes and hands." The opportunity that the children had in the Family Science sessions in doing the activities and communicating what they were doing with others helped them understand what they were doing. This was possible because of the assistance given by the junior scientists or parents during the group dialogue, and Dr. Rodriguez's facilitation during the wrap-up time. This is comparable to vygotsky's concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). He defines ZPD as: The distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (1978, p.86). Group activities in the Family Science sessions helped children go beyond their ZPDs to understand the scientific concept underlying the hands-on activities. Assertion 4 The elementary grade students acquired a variety of skills from the Family Science Project. Elementary grade children were assisted by junior scientists and parents in doing science activities. As Figure 9 shows, junior scientists were seated in such a way that each group had a junior scientist in it, so that all the elementary children could receive their 141 assistance. Parents were also divided among the groups so that each group had at least one parent in it. Participants were seated in the groups so that they could talk to each other and see what each one was doing. This kind of an environment was necessary in group work, in order to involve the group members in the discussions. Neatly arranged rows of desks and chairs does not engender the relaxed, interactive atmosphere required for group dynamics. This was the main reason that the Family Science sessions were conducted in the kindergarten classroom where the desks and chairs could be moved. Science activities that the participants of the Family Science Project did were interactive and hands—on in nature, and as such were different from the activities that they had to do in school (Table 4). Their science classes at school were predominantly reading, worksheets, and whole class discussions. The Family Science activities, however, were based on the same scientific concepts that they had to learn in school. In addition, doing hands-on science activities helped the children develop science process skills. The remainder of this chapter (Assertion 4) reports the children's skill development in the following skill categories: manipulative, observation, prediction, estimation, classification, discovery, data recording, 142 88 03833338 .0393 2: Sana x95 senescent...» x x x . x X x x x x “535.383: do 8335 £96 333 Pomona «£32.38 22 no.6 333 .835. ouster. 62... .2335 .3396 8.8832 .833 83....» x x x x x x . x x x 2: «£29. xccaacoaotvtaB .. ... S . . W O m m. w W m m m. m M m. . an . . . . . . m: 3. 3 3 .m 8 3 cm W.“ 3. «523983: Eco: Ecom ”as.” 389a 888m ”:3... 323352 33.3. Easements. v 03am. 143 read as .8338 688:3. X X X X X X melon—d .mctaom xenon ”Eh—«95 . :23... .33 82 sex. x x x x x x 2.. 2 use. so... 58 3353. 8:395 8.2: 9:. cacao X X X X X . {magic—n n3 55 50:3 9. aor— 333 28 «one $2828 :2. .83»: a 3:3 8: X X X X X . .EoEdmaco meta—a eons—8.3 Us; 2850: .833 28 20:85.8 mix... 5.... SE»: a has 8m X X X X X . .9550 $522. 2323 383 .oz infidflnuczso as as...» .2295. 28 55 52m: x ..a 8m X X X X X X o... «528. 302.3 a 8: Jews—awn 20383 as X X X X X X £528 .955”. ”sneezed .853 .5 than “magmas: s. 3% 05395 ..a X X X X X . ice—us... $522. .933 tone: as 2.3... 5263 8.5.. «as a. X X X X X . 9:22. is». 303 .mfibm a so 833. €28 Be a; as .22 .322. .23 333 .0 cases coats... X X X X X . 38v «523 .38 no .5923 ..o some. .525an a 035. 144 885.28 13033... 33...... 00.80. 00.226 6000...... 923080 928.00... 9.0.2.. 920.02 83...... 38.475288 39:038.... 19.... 600000.. 92.3.08 62.580... .9209... .05.. b.00.0> 60080828 92880 92.0.09... 09.... 92.680. 88 8... 080.). 2.2.0.5020 8003.62.80 800. 92.88.. 920980 92.0808 92%. 92.02.08 002.52... .820. 92052.5 .80280..00 .9..>..0.....0 92.0.00... .92... 920.02 0.030. 920...... 2‘55... 80.0.. 800. 922.08.. 92.8.6020 922.808 92.00.38 9200.22. $28..» ..0 8.000 .505230 92830 92.0.00... 920.00 920.0... 820.... 9202.5 000300008 .030. ucfisofiogc . a 0. 00000000000 .02»... .800. 92.3... 92.00.... 92.880 920.02 a 80.... 8.2.. ..0 2.0.8.6.). 600000.. 922.80... £28.00... 9200.. 9.50.. 2.08.0 0.0.00 2.0.8....0 000§§J020.84u£35 ..0 82.800 80.00 .52 60052.8 92300.20 92.0.00... 50.2.0.0 920... 228.30.080.20 220.82 0.... 92282.09... ...0u8. 508.5228 5.0.0.. 0580... 0. 80.8.0... 800. 92.808 92.5.... .92.0>00....0 92000 .82... .8. ....0 .2 «9.5 5.8.0... b.0302 5.0.3. .800. 92.2.... 92.6080 $000.00.... 0.... 80.9.0.2. 9...... 09.028 .000. .50 .2 00.0... 2:38.28 8580... .00....» g0...2l.u=...0>08.0 2.2.5200 .8220 .38.... 05 3085.. 2.32 2.0.... 9.830 2.8.8... .52. .529. 8.0.85.2 25.32.1288 gaps... ...0..0......p. 60.02.82 800. meta... .92....030 92.0.00... 920.02 880.. 20% 3.5... 8...... Essa... 089.803. 8922 6000020... 600000.. 92.80.20 92.0.00... £008.. 920.02 63030.. .8822 .8080. 0 0.0a... 145 and communication. Each section describes and then discusses evidence of skill development in a particular category found in various children. Assertion 5 discusses the development of attitudes. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the results. M n' . k' The hands-on science activities required good manipulative skills. For example, the activity on hot and cold water required such manipulative skills as holding, pasting, fixing, adding, pouring, and measuring. Making the hot air balloons required manipulative skills of holding, spreading, copying, cutting, gluing, and hanging. Children develop these skills as they experience performing different activities. Manipulative skills that the children perform help develop science process skills. According to the children they did not have an opportunity in school to do hands-on science activities to develop their manipulative skills. Of the different kinds of manipulative skills, the skill of adding drops that the children did in two activities, is discussed in the following two paragraphs to illustrate the importance of developing this skill. The activity, "water drops on a penny,“ required more patience and manipulative skills than the other activities. During the wrap-up time of 146 this activity, Dr. Rodriguez discussed the different techniques that the children had used to add more and more drops, which required trained manipulative skills. The children used different techniques. The children shared their strategies for adding the drops with the others, as the following excerpt reveals: R: can everybody'wipe your penny now? Someone tell me what techniques you used? Jose: I did it slower and small drops Karena: I spread them on (10/21/93). They were able to put on more drops of water after they had practiced than when they started (Table 5). Some of the younger children had better manipulative skills in adding drops than the junior scientists did. .Table 5 Predictions Vs Observations Name # Predicted # Observed Jaime 1 . 40, 51, 46 Jose 22 18, 33, 44, 51, 31 Karena 21 45, 49, 50, 51 Steve 5 12, 13, 16, 25 Sylvia 3 12, 24, 21, 22, 23 When they did the activity on tee—shirt chromatography, they had to add alcohol drop-by—drop on a particular color in order to separate it into different colors. Using a dropper was a manipulative skill that they had not developed before. Because of 147 the way they had used droppers in an earlier activity, they were asked to try dropping water onto tee—shirt material samples, in order to experiment on the tee- shirts without wasting alcohol. Dr. Rodriguez demonstrated how to add alcohol on the colors in their designs to separate the colors. To get the design they had to add alcohol dropwise. It was necessary to consider the size of the drops and also the angle of the added drops to get the desired design: There are two ways you can drop alcohol. There is an opening at the top. You can add a drop by drop. .... Drop-by-drop right above your design like this or to sides of the design like this. Isopropyl alcohol is expensive. It's a chemical. Be careful in using it. Do not squirt (11/18/93). Discussion. Hands-on science activities require manipulative skills. In the pilot year of the Project, there were some activities for which the use of a dropper was needed. Having a background in working with college biochemistry students, Dr. Rodriguez assumed that using a dropper was a skill that everybody had. Due to her experience in working with elementary and middle school children doing the pilot year of the Program, she changed her style of introducing the activities which needed droppers, in the first and second years. She made them practice using the dropper before doing the activity. Although all the manipulative skills that the children developed are not discussed here, a summary of some of the skills 148 developed while doing the activities are given in Table 4 under the heading "activity/skills." Obseryation skills All the hands-on science activities that the children did needed to be observed carefully in order to ' make suggestions or solve the problem(s) given in the activity. When they did the activity "water drops on a penny," the children had to do observations so they could think about the properties of water. Dr. Rodriguez asked everybody to fill up the penny with water. (Hereafter in this study, "R" is used to designate Dr. Rodriguez.): R: O.K., now everybody fill up your penny with water. .Now look at the water on the penny and describe the penny. Karena: It looks like the same penny. R: If I have to describe who is (Karena) then I say (Karena) has black hair. You have to say something like that to describe the penny; Look at the penny through the water. Say what does you see? Is there a man in the middle? Look at the guy's hair. Can you see short hair like (Rumaldo's)? Sarah: He got curly hair. ----- : He got a beard. (Name unknown) R: Are you sure that he got a beard? , R: HOW can you see a man only when you put water on the penny? Jaime: Makes it bigger, magnifies Sylvia: It makes a dome. R: If it makes a dome, what can you tell me about water? Sylvia: They pack together (10/21/93). The above excerpt shows the children's observations, and how Dr. Rodriguez helped them to 149 describe their observations. Then the children were asked to observe whether they could break the surface of the dome: R: N w put a drop of water and try to break it with a toothpick. Did you break it? Group: No (10/21/93). This led to the discussion that water on the top of the penny acted as a tight skin and a lens, which magnified things on the surface of the penny. Dr. Rodriguez pretended the she and the junior scientists were molecules of water. They held each other's hands and made a close compact circle to show how water molecules stick together: R: In third grade you learned about water. water is.made up of molecules. we are now going to talk about molecules. Let's see what they look like. Come here junior scientists. we are part of water. Do we like to stick together? Yes. we like to be together. water likes to stick together. ' Dr. Rodriguez held hands with the junior scientists and made a circle. Karena, you are the soap molecule, try to get into our circle.... (Karena entered the circle, breaking the hands of two junior scientists.) R: .Now I want you to touch the soap with the toothpick and then touch your drop of water. Jaime: C--o---o---l R: Did it stay together? (10/21/93). The discussion that followed the above narrative provided them with knowledge about surface tension by comparing their observations of the water on the penny 150 before and after touching soap. Dr. Rodriguez used simple terms and described "surface tension" as the attraction that water has to each other on a surface. She further said that some people called surface tension "water's secret skin." At the discussion time, they talked about examples of surface tension that they had seen, such as bubbles and insects walking on water. An activity that all the participants took a long time to finish, and which needed careful observations was, chromatography. There were three activities for chromatography. The first activity on chromatography was to separate colors using different colored markers. Dr. Rodriguez started the session by asking a question about the meaning of chromatography: R: What is chromatography? Mr. Parker: Something to do with colors. R: Right, separating colors. What property did you use to separate yellow and blue blocks? Henry: Color R: Yes, color is a property. But one color may be composed of several colors....we are going to do real chromatography to separate colors (10/28/93). After introducing chromatography, Dr. Rodriguez described what they had to do in the activity. They were given filter paper strips, and were asked to write the name, color, and brand name of the pen at one end. On the other end, about one inch from the bottom, they drew a line using a pencil so they would know where they had started, then they draw a line from the colored marker. Then they had to hang the filter paper so that String*—r 151 ‘Cover Jar Filter paper ____fl—«Pencil mark Water Figure 11 Filter paper strip 152 it touched the water's surface (Figure 11). Many students were not able to follow the instructions in the order given. Some forgot to draw the pencil line before they drew a line from the marker. This blurred the starting position where the colors separated, since there was no pencil line with which to compare. Things such as tying and hanging the filter paper strip so it would touch the liquid needed manipulative skills so that the students could then do their observation. Since the members of the group helped each other in tying and hanging, they were able to overcome that difficulty. A discussion followed when everyone had finished with their observations. Each person shared with the others what color they had used and how it had separated into different colors. For example, Henry said, "I started with red. At first it got wider and then started to turn yellow. Then it went up and turned to pink." At the end of the activity they wanted to keep the filter paper strips with the different colors spread allover as book marks. The second activity that they did on chromatography was to find the mystery color that Dr. Rodriguez had used in the given filter paper strips. They had to match color separations using different colors and different name brands to identify the mystery color. It involved not only observation skills but also thinking 153 skills, as well as some hypothesizing to eliminate and identify the color. The last activity on chromatography was to make a permanent picture on a tee-shirt. To design their picture on the tee-shirt, they had to observe what was happening when alcohol was added at different angles and the colors that they could get from different permanent markers. When Solomon finished doing the tee-shirt, he took it to the window to get more ventilation than inside the classroom. While Solomon was waiting for his shirt to dry, I started a discussion with Solomon: .Me: Did you like making tee—shirts? Solomon: Yeah. Me: What did you learn in doing chromatography? Solomon: YOu could use it to catch forgers. I want to be an FBI agent. Me: What techniques did you use in doing the tee- shirt? Solomon: I drew it and put different color dashes. Me: HOW'did you get this pattern? Solomon: I just dropped it right on one side. Me: If you would have added it this way, what would have happened? I am going to make a tee— shirt too. What hints could you give me to put a pretty design on the neck line? Solomon: YOu want to put a line, have the line go around. Put dashes, and put it on sides so that it goes to your neck line. If you want to go down, put it on top. .Me: Why did you use alcohol? Solomon: Alcohol spreads. Me: Why does it spread? Solomon: I learned that alcohol spreads. water and vinegar do not spread permanent colors. Alcohol has stronger films than water and vinegar (11/18/93). Di§§2§§ign. What Solomon meant by "alcohol spreads," was alcohol could separate even permanent colors, unlike that water and vinegar which cannot dissolve permanent 154 colors. Solomon's responses gave me sufficient evidence that he had good observation skills, while doing the tee-shirt material samples. Without having carefully observed, he would not have been able to direct me on how to do the neckline for my tee-shirt. Developing observation skills is very important in the scientific process, and also in everyday life. Although Solomon did not use the scientific terminology to describe the different solvents' actions, the understanding he had on solubility and the skills he had developed from.the activity were sufficient for a fourth grader. [Some children used this activity on chromatography to show their gratitude to people they loved. Andrew lived with his grandmother, who was a teacher's aide in the school. On the back of his tee-shirt he wrote, "I love you, grandma," and on the front he had a big heart with the letters "grandma" on it. One mother did "I love my children."] In the activity of water drops on a penny, Dr. Rodriguez's method of the children's observations and sharing with others allowed her to have them figure out how water molecules were attracted to each other to form a tight skin. When the children failed to break the surface of water on the penny using tooth picks, they realized that the surface of water acts differently than other surfaces. Using terms like "water's secret skin," along with the scientific term "surface tension" in the 155 discussion, helped the children understand the concept without rote memorization. At the same time, the discussion on the things found written on the penny, such as the letters and the figure of a man, enabled the children to visualize the magnifying property of water. P e i ' n ' 1 In each activity the children were given a problem and they had to first predict what would happen, and then find out what really would happen. Making predictions helped them think. For some activities they were able to predict closely to what actually happened. But for other activities, such as milk and food coloring, and water drops on a penny their predictions were far from reality. When they did the activity with milk and food coloring, the participants were given bowls of milk and asked to wait until the milk settled. Then they were asked to add four drops of four different colors to the milk, as shown in Figure 12. Dr. Rodriguez asked them to do predictions on what would happen to the four drops of food colors before they touched the tooth pick dipped in soap into the center of the milk. No one was able to accurately predict what really happened in this activity. They were surprised to observe what was happening to the colors, as the following excerpt reveals: 156 5:? co uoaoo ooom mo moouo NH 9.2.63 mono HoHoo coca 00m Qoup HoHoo poow BoHHmM xaflz mono HoHoo poo“ wsflm noun uoHoo oOOM smoke 157 Alberto: Go off to the sides. Rumaldo: Going to mix. R: After you touch a fat drop of soap at the center, you have to look at least for a minute. Then you can experiment. Kasey: Oh! I like it. Oh! My gosh! R: Take the toothpick out of it and keep watching. Rumaldo: Look at, it's going, .My g-o-s—h! Isn't that c-o-o-l? Magic. I would show my.mom. Kasey: I never thought that it would have happened. It's good that we do predictions (10/21/93). They had the same kind of excitement for this activity that they had had when they did the activity "water drops on a penny." Dr. Rodriguez introduced the water on a penny activity by saying: There is a penny in front of you. Put the penny in front of you and tell your junior scientist how many drops of water you can put on the pennyu Then try to put on as many...hNoW'test your predictions (10/21/93). Before doing the activity, each one had to predict how many drops of water they could add on the penny. They could not believe how many drops a penny could hold. They tried it several times, to add more and more water drops on the penny. With practice they were able to add more drops than when they started (Table 5). People like Jaime, Jose, and Karena, who did the activity with lots of patience, were able to add more drops than the others. This was the first activity that they did since joining the Family Science Project. In the wrap-up time, they discussed what techniques were useful for adding more and more drops. After this 158 activity, the students did predictions whenever it was necessary . Disgussion. Dr. Rodriguez wanted the children to develop the habit of predicting. Predicting what would happen when they did the activity encouraged them to think about what would happen in the activity. For example, it was simple to think about how many drops of water they could add onto a penny, or what colors there are in a yellow marker. For some children, it was just like guessing what would happen, however they were thinking about how close they could come to what they would actually find. So, making the children predict about the outcome of the activity helped them think about what they were doing. Dr. Rodriguez emphasized importance of predicting and data recording when doing science activities by having the children make predictions before each activity. It was interesting to note how some children wanted to make a prediction before each time that they tried water drops on a penny. E . . n 1.11 As described earlier in Chapter 2 with the description of the Family Science Project, for every session the participants had to do an estimation of items in a jar such as candies, jelly beans, and mints. The objective of doing estimations was to use their 159 observation skills and thinking to practice making judgments in everyday life. One day (11/18/93), there were some colored Halloween candy cones for the students to estimate. Each candy had three colors--yellow, orange and black. It was difficult for most of them to do an estimation close to the real number. Their estimates were: Hilary, 28; Sarah, 47; Jose, 49; Harold, 100; Ricardo, 100; Anthony, 102; Sylvia, 102; Mrs. Briones, 105; Pat, 109; Andrea, 113; Jaime, 126; Solomon, 132; Mrs. Smith, ' 140; Jean, 150; Kasey, 160; Pamela, 205; and Christina, 250. Participants then stuck their yellow stickers on the line plot (range of 0—250), with their estimated number on top and their name on the back. Dr. Rodriguez would then go to the line plot which was hung on the chalk board. Looking at the line plot, Dr. Rodriguez said: R: O.K., let's see. we have all the way to 50 from 28, and a lot about 1005. we have a few 1505 and a 200. The actual number is, there are 133 candy cones. Solomon: I am the closest. Mrs. Briones: That's not what we do. Dr. Rodriguez heard what Mrs. Briones told Solomon, and said: R: This is a competition only about yourself. That's why you put your name on the back. The idea is not to guess, but to come close. Do ‘you think this one was easy? Solomon: .No. Jaime: Really, it did not look like 133. R: What would make it difficult? Jaime: Different shapes and sizes. Steve: Different colors. Jaime: Glass magnifies. 160 R: That's a good observation. Sometimes glass can fool you. In this case, I don't think glass distorts. I think this group is doing really good (11/18/93). Table 6 summarizes the estimations made by ten children in five sessions occurring every two weeks. It shows that the participants were able to get closer and closer to the actual number with practice. Table 6 Ebtimations Name 27 76 jelly 123 marsh- 150 30 mints beans mellows crackers packing stuff Andrew 45 82 101 140 28 Anthony 35 70 150 160 37 Jaime 36 79 127 155 32 Jean 40 80 131 145 33 Karena 41 30 100 148 30 Pamela 4O 60 115 140 39 Pat 39 53 125 171 20 Sarah 37 41 95 168 34 Solomon 38 27 130 150 35 Sylvia 18 90 110 140 31 Average 36.9 61.2 118.4 151.7 31.9 Deviation 7.9 -14.8 -4.6 1.7 1.9 Henry was a fourth grader who attended the evening Family Science sessions. He came with his father, and never missed a session. His teacher told me that Henry demonstrated some of the things to his class that he had done in the Family Science sessions. This was further 161 revealed when he described to me how he demonstrated making helicopters and kaleidoscopes to his class. According to him, it was done upon the request of his science teacher. In responding to a question asking him about what he had learned by doing estimations, he said, "wait a.minute. I'll be right back." He came with a glass bowl full of marbles. He said that he got some money from his father for doing some work at home. He wanted to spend that money to reuse his fish bowl as a glamorous object. He said: I had fish in it. Everytime something happened to my fish. I thought I should use it as an ornament to decorate my desk. I wanted to fill it up with marbles. I estimated it might need 130. There is 126. Didn't I close? (6/1/93). Discussion. Estimation is a skill that is needed everyday in almost everything. Participants of the Family Science Project were able to develop their estimation skills with practice. As Table 6 shows, the deviation between the actual number and the predicted number decreased with practice in doing estimations. A positive impact of doing estimation in the Family Science sessions was that the children as well as the parents tried to apply what they had learned in the sessions to day-to—day life. Henry was happy to say that he was able to buy a sufficient number of marbles because of the experience he had in doing estimation. His feeling that he had learned by doing estimation, as 162 well as his demonstration, show his confidence that he is learning, and it also shows a positive impact on his developing self-esteem. Some parents told me that the estimations they had done in the sessions had helped them buy groceries for parties and in catering. Table 7 Sinking and Floating Item Sink Float Group 1 2 3 4 Basket plastic - X W R R W Bead X - R W R R Clip X - R W W R Clip plastic — X R R R W Fork X - R R R R Large cork - X R R R R Nail X - R W W R Paper - X - — R - Penny X - R R R R Pin X - - - R - Plastic fork - X W W R R Plastic knife -, X W W R R Plastic spoon — X W R R R Rock X - R R R R Rubber stopper X - - R R R Small cork - X R R R R Styrofoam.ball - X R R R R Tag — X R W W R Toothpick - X R W R R Wheel - X R W — R Wooden block I - X R R R R Wooden block II X - W W W W R = Correct prediction W = Wrong prediction 163 Classification skills People need classification and categorization skills in day-to-day activities. The activities in the Family Science sessions enabled the children to understand different principles and methods that could be used in classification. One day (10/21/93) the participants of the Family. Science Project were given wooden yellow and blue cubes to separate. They put the yellow ones in one set and the blue ones in another set. Then they were asked to put the blocks in water. Some yellow blocks floated, while others sank. Then the discussion focused on properties that could be used in classification. The children realized that, in addition to color, there were other properties that they would have to use to classify the cubes. This opened the discussion on "density." Why did some yellow blocks sink, while others floated? Given this problem, they had to do an activity on "sink and float." The children had to make two sets from the given number of items (about 20) as things that sink and things that float. After making the two sets, they tried each item separately by putting it in the water. They then compared their predictions with what they had observed (Table 7). (It was interesting to note that children wrote down their prediction before each item was tested.) 164 In the following session, they were given a mixture of yellow sand and blue salt to separate. While the groups were thinking, Dr. Rodriguez asked them to pretend that the blue items were sand and the yellow ones were iron filings. Jose said, ”I know, take a magnet. It will get the iron stuff." Then Dr. Rodriguez asked, "What property did you use? Henry said, "Iron attracted to the magnet." While this discussion was going on, they wanted to talk about the decorative magnets on the refrigerators, and instances where they had used these magnets to grab pins and needles. Dr. Rodriguez encouraged them to have this kind of discussion, where their applications of scientific knowledge were brought into the real world. Again the question of separating a mixture of yellow sand and blue salt was asked. At once, Don said, "Salt dissolves in water and sand stays." When Dr. Rodriguez asked how to get the salt back, Pamela said, "Put it in the sun, the water will go off." After this activity they did chromatography to separate the colors in one single color. Disggssign. From the group responses it is evident that the everyday experiences of children tend to color which properties of the item to be floated or sank they see. The children brought together their knowledge about seeing things float and sink to tie in with what 165 they've observed in their world. For all the metal items (penny, fork) and rocks, they predicted they would sink. They were given three rocks of different sizes and color. Their prediction for cork and styrofoam was also correct. This example clearly illustrates that if children are given the opportunity, they can bring their ideas and prior experiences together to think forward. They can reflect on their experiences both in and out of the classroom. The two wooden blocks used in the "sink or float" activity were not painted. They were the same size, and looked exactly the same. All the groups guessed wrong in their predictions, for the denser wooden block. They could not figure out why one wooden block floated and the other one sank. As Edwards and Mercer (1987) pointed out, there are things which children cannot be expected to discover for themselves, such as the principle of density used in floating. Their discoveries may not be matched with the intended theory, and assistance should be provided to help them understand the concept. Dr. Rodriguez knew the difficulty that students had in understanding why only one wooden block sank, and introduced the concept of density to them, using observations that they, themselves, had made. Thus, the process of knowledge they achieved was a socially constructed process. As I 166 mentioned earlier, Dr. Rodriguez taught science as a craft, or a social process. i e s In about half of the activities in the Family Science sessions, such as making bridges, towers, helicopters, race cars from mouse traps, periscopes, and kaleidoscopes, the children had to discover their own methods for doing the activity. Some of these activities were done individually, while for still others collaboration was needed before they could start the activity. In the activity to improve the speed of moving a bubble of water on wax paper (10/21/93), the children had to discover successful ways to move the water drop to its home. Underneath the wax paper was a maze drawn on white paper. The speed was counted as the time that one took to move the bubble of water from the starting point to its home in the maze. The junior scientists timed the speed of the moving drop of water. They had to start over if they spilled the water or if they could not move along the maze. After they had tried about five times, Dr. Rodriguez asked the groups what techniques they had used to improve their speed: Anthony: I used the thicker side of the toothpick. Solomon: Put the drop in the middle. Pat: Smaller the drop, the quicker you go. R: YOu were designing a game. What would you say for your players to make it as fast as possible? This is just a thing that you 167 discover. If you have bigger drops, what is the technique that you use? (10/21/93). With the use of different techniques for adding the drop, and with practice, the children improved their speed (Table 8). Table 8 Time (in seconds) taken to move a bubble of water through a maze Pat Sarah Karena Anthony Andrew Solomon 15 26 30 28 23 20 15 29 20 32 Ol 15 22 19 35 32 25 22 25 3O 35 33 - 27 The discovery skills expected to be used in the activity on microorganisms were different than the same skill used in other activities, because the children had to culture microorganisms for a week to observe whether there were indeed microorganisms in the tested areas. Besides the curiosity and eagerness to use microscopes, to their surprise, the students discovered that microorganisms grew everywhere they had tested. Discussigg. In most of the hands-on science activities, the participants had to figure out which way would work best for them when doing the activity. It 168 was not a quick process for the activities such as building a tower or making hot air balloons. But their curiosity and enthusiasm led them to keep involved in what they were doing, which apparently made them interested in doing science activities and also in participating in the Family Science sessions. .D_a_ta_re_c_qrding_s_kill Neither the children nor the junior scientists had the habit of recording their data. When they did the first activities like water drops on a penny, Dr. Rodriguez had to repeatedly ask them to record their results. They were given enough pencils and papers on which to do their rough work. At first, in the earlier sessions, the junior scientists recorded data. But gradually the children voluntarily started doing that task. When Pam, Julia and Christina worked as a group doing the second chromatography activity, Pam wanted to do the data recording. "I'll do the writing today." She wrote the colors they had started with and what colors they got after doing the separation. That day she reported to the whole group, as it was easy for her to describe the results. When the children did the activity on sink and float, they wrote their predictions and then while they tested each item, they recorded the results. 169 Discussion. At the earlier sessions of the Family Science Project, the children did not understand the necessity of data recording. The activities that they did, such as chemical indicators, needed data recording to compare the results of adding indicator to different items to see the color change, and to classify acidic and basic items. When the children realized the importance of keeping records, they wanted to do it themselves. By developing the skill of data recording, they developed an important routine in the scientific process. Communication Skills As mentioned earlier in Chapter 3, one objective of the Family Science Project was to develop the communication skills of children. The children worked in groups doing hands-on science activities. The social interaction in these groups led them to develop their thinking skills. For some of the activities, like building bridges, they had to figure out which model worked the best. In the group, each one had to defend her/his idea against the others' ideas in order to find the best design, listen to others, and also defend their own idea with reasons while challenging the others' ideas in order to come to a consensus. Some of the activities were done individually, such as "water drops on a penny.“ In that case, each 170 individual had to share what s/he found with the whole group. When they did any group activity, at first they had to communicate with their groups' members. Generally in a group there was a person to record the students' observations. Although they took turns in reporting, most of the time the person who did the recording, reported the results to the whole group during the discussion at wrap-up time. Some of the responses given by the children in sharing their findings for the "floating the needle" activity are given below: R: can I have your attention everybody? What did .you learn by floating the needle? Pamela: I put it sideways. Jaime: You have to put it very gently to the sides. Sarah: I failed to do it with the fork. I used my fingers. Pat: I used the fork and dropped the needle at an angle so that it slides on water. Anthony: I pulled it by the corner like this, and just dropped it. R: we heard so.many different techniques. All were successful, so there is no one method to float the needle. Karena, what method are you going to use again? Karena: I like Pat's method. It might work all the time (10/21/93). Dissassign. I noticed that within groups, while they were doing the activities, they were showing each other when they were successful. At the post interviews, when I asked them about their group work, many children told me it was beneficial to work in a group because you could learn from one another. Luz said, "When you go r 171 wrong some one will guide you. Janior scientists knew how to do it." Another activity that required sharing of ideas to a greater extent was when they had to build a tower from straws. The problem.was, "How high can you build a single straw structure?" They were given straws, pins, scotch tape/masking tape and yarn to be used in any amounts. They worked in four groups, and shared their ideas on building the tower. Some ideas failed, and some were successful. The groups tried to figure out why some ideas were successful and the others had failed. In the preceding section, I described how children had developed different skills. The data shows development of the children's skills in the following areas as a result of the Family Science Project: manipulative, observation, prediction, estimation, classification, discovery, data recording, and communication. The following section shows how children changed their perceptions and developed positive attitudes toward science and scientists, which made them develop self-esteem.and high aspirations about their future plans. The following section will discuss what changes were observed in the children's perceptions about science and scientists, and their future aspirations. 172 Assertion 5 The Family Science Project helped the children envision new possibilities for their future. At the first Family Science session of the second year of the Project in October of 1993, the participants were asked to draw a scientist and write what that scientist was doing. Most of them were hesitant to do it. Dr. Rodriguez noticed this and said: we are not giving you a star or a grade. Come on (Jose), just draw a scientist. Nobody will see your drawing except Sunethra and.me (10/14/93). Except for one child, all the others drew males as scientists. The only child who drew a female scientist was Sarah, and that was in her third year of participation in the Project. She drew Dr. Rodriguez as her scientist, because she thought that Dr. Rodriguez was a scientist. She further said that, "Scientists are .younger women. They can be anybody. They are nice. They help people with stuff like (Dr. Rodriguez.)" Sarah showed her scientist to Dr. Rodriguez and said, "I don't like my picture. This is you Dr. Rodriguez." She wanted to be a scientist in the future. Dr. Rodriguez asked the class whether they had ever seen a scientist. Nobody responded by saying "yes." Their silence and surprised faces made me think that they assumed that they could not see a scientist, so 173 that there is a distance between them and a scientist, so that they would not be able to be scientists. It was a great surprise for them when Dr. Rodriguez said that she would bring scientists to the community lectures, and asked them to bring their parents. One had the question, "Are you talking about real, real scientists?" Participation in the activities in doing hands-on science activities helped the children as well as the parents build confidence in their ability to learn science. Many children wanted to be a junior scientist. For Julia, becoming a junior scientist was a stepping stone to reach the scientist stage. They respected the junior scientists, and liked to put on a white lab coat like them, In addition, they believed that the junior scientists were smart, because they knew what they were doing in the activities. Having junior scientists in the sessions had a positive effect for the children to build high aspirations about themselves: Sarah: I like to wear one (lab coat). It helps get out of chemicals. Lab coats help us to know junior scientists (4/29/93). Luz: White coats look like they are scientists. (Dr. Rodriguez) told me I can wear one when I go to the seventh grade (5/3/93). Rita: It shows that they are junior scientist. I like to wear one because it gives a better look, excitement (5/3/93). Julia; I want to be a junior scientist, and a scientist to do things (5/25/93). Lucinda: It is fun to wear them. They look like real scientists. I like to wear it one day (5/3/93). 174 As I described earlier (Assertion 2) they liked to do things, rather than just listening or writing. They were curious about what they were doing. They felt that what they were doing everyday was Science. At the post interviews their response to the question, "What do you think about scientists?" was different than the answer they gave at the beginning of the Project. Some of the responses of the elementary students were: Kate: They explore a lot. They find new things. Probably they.have lot of fun (5/11/93). Sarah: Nice people. Old and young people (4/29/93). Luz: I think they really great. Because they got more brain than normal persons. They could be both women and men (5/3/93). Rita: They discover things. They try to find cures for illnesses (5/3/93). Julia: Really neat what they make up. They have coats like our junior scientists. They sit in the lab trying to figure out new things (5/25/93). Lucinda: Very interesting. They put on a coat like junior scientists (5/3/93). Because they said some positive things about scientists, I wanted to learn what they wanted to be in the future to get an understanding of whether they want to continue learning science. Following are their responses: Kate: I want to be a scientist (5/11/93). Sarah: I want to be a teacher (4/29/93). 175 Luz: I want to be a teacher, a brain surgeon 5/3/93). Rita: I want to be a lawyer (5/3/93). JUlia: I want to be a scientist (5/25/93). Lucinda: I want to be a scientist 5/3/93). Of the six students, three wanted to be scientists, and two wanted to be teachers. The three who wanted to become scientists wanted to do things to engage in some kind of activity such as doing observations. The two who wanted to be teachers said that they wanted to teach science. This shows that the younger children could be motivated to learn science by providing them with positive role models. For further verification of what kind of perception they had about scientists, I asked them whether any one could become a scientist. Their answers were: Kate: Yes, anybody can be a scientist (5/11/93). Sarah: Yes, because they could be smart enough (4/29/93). Luz: Yes, because even though scientists have.more brain, but people have brains too, and there is little room for fun (5/3/93). Rita: Yes, it is easy if you are interested (5/3/93). Julia: Yes, if they listen (5/25/93). Lucinda: Yes, because they don't have to be smart (5/3/93). Although all six children said that anyone could be a scientist, the last person's response was different 176 from that of the others. When I tried to get some explanation, the child repeatedly said, "Because it is easyu" Lucinda was a first grader, and from what she said, I was not sure what kind of an image she had received about scientists. I was not clear if she thought that it is very easy to become a scientist or what other notions she had picked up. They were asked to draw a scientist at the post interviews (not during the session time). Except for one student, all of them drew female scientists. The only person who drew a male scientist was a boy. Many drew their scientists with white lab coats on. This made me think that their perception of a scientist had been influenced by the junior scientists' behavior and the white lab coats that they wore. I also had a hunch that the people who conducted the sessions had had an impact on how they viewed themselves, because the Project Director, myself, the teacher who brought the junior scientists, the instructor in the evening session, and the undergraduate who came to assist in the evening were all females. In the 1994 fall semester, a male graduate student from.the Biochemistry Department volunteered to help the children and junior scientists in doing the hands-on science activities. 177 shake +eeckmq Hat Hds how +9 bouh‘: Wise she \ Figure 13 A scientist 178 Figure 14 A scientist Figure 15 A scientist 179 Many of them had drawn the scientist holding something. In the interviews, when I asked, "What is your scientist doing?" most of them told me that the scientist was mixing chemicals. To them a scientist was a person who worked with chemicals and found new things. Even at the post-interview stage they wrote something about chemicals when drawing their scientists (Figures 7,8 & 13-15). It was not clear what made them think that scientists worked with chemicals. Although the activities in the Family Science Project required some materials from the kitchen and home, still for most activities the participants had to use test tubes, reagent bottles, and things like filter papers. These materials might have had an influence on them to think that scientists used chemicals. They did activities on heat (air pressure, conductivity, etc.), light (mirrors, periscopes, kaleidoscopes, etc.), and biology (microorganisms). For all of these activities some kind of science equipment was used. For the activities on acidity, indicators, and chromatography they used more chemicals and equipment than in the other activities. For some children, scientists were people who invented new things. When I asked them, "What kind of new things?" most of them could not specify any. Andrew showed his drawing and said, "He is designing a roller coaster." At the pre-interview (9/28/92), Steve told me that he wanted to be a pilot. I was with the community 180 liaison, and she asked Steve to tell something more about what he is planning to do when he is a pilot. His response was to describe fixing the pilot lamp in the gas stove. During that time he was a third grader. At the post-interview stage (4/29/93), he wanted to be a scientist. I observed that in all the children, the. image of a scientist had started to change since they joining the Family Science Project. Di u 'o It was evident that the children's behavior had changed since they started attending Family Science sessions. The children who could not believe that they could see a scientist now wanted to be a scientist. Doing hands—on science activities motivated them to think that they could learn science, and are capable of becoming scientists. They had also changed their attitudes toward science and scientists. Realizing their potential to learn science and develop positive attitudes toward science helped them to build their self-confidence and high self-esteem, which apparently led them to think about their future goals. Analysis David and Palincsar (1991), and Anderson (1994) discussed how group members develop their understanding through collaborative efforts. As with their findings, 181 the students' engagement in the hands-on science activities of the Family Science Project enabled the participants to develop manipulative skills, and improved their predicting, observing, estimating, classifying, and discovering skills. In addition to the science process skills that the children developed, they also developed communication skills through reporting their findings, and sharing their ideas among the group members and the whole group. When one can understand a concept, then s/he develops the capability to use that knowledge, share it with others and apply what s/he learned. Doing science activities helped the students understand science concepts, along with developing the necessary skills. Through both questioning and answering the students increased their knowledge by reflecting on their existing knowledge. In addition to developing scientific understanding, the interactions within the group enabled the children to develop positive attitudes toward science. Kunjufu (1984), referring to Freire's "banking model" in education, discussed that in a traditional classroom setting, minority children passively receive, store and deposit information, thus perpetuating the oppression of the minority group. He suggests that we adopt a mode of pedagogy which transforms the oppressive relationships of minority groups in the classroom. The environment of the Family Science Project was conducive for learning by 182 minority students (Hispanics) due to several reasons. 1) Children had a secure feeling for engaging in doing science activities, because they had a junior scientist or a parent to help; 2) They were able to talk and move around while doing the activity; 3) Dialogue among the group members was encouraged; and 4) They worked with a Hispanic professor who knew their culture. As Sheriff and others (1965) said, the nonformal setting with peers helped them in developing positive attitudes by sharing values. This study also supports Slavin's (1990) thesis that cooperative learning affects children by developing high self-esteem. Having a higher self-esteem, they were easily motivated to engage in doing more and more science activities and to develop skills, attitudes and knowledge. HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES Ill 1 ll 1| Ill 1 312930 4 II" I 1 1 2928