Advertisement

Mapping the evolution of an after-school STEM club for African American girls using activity theory

  • Katherine Wade-JaimesEmail author
  • Jonathan D. Cohen
  • Brendan Calandra
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Research has shown that African American girls are interested in science but not as likely to pursue science-related careers as their white or male peers. Although out of school time (OST) science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) programs have been presented as means to address this discrepancy and support scientific identity development in girls and students of color, programs specifically for African American girls have not been studied in detail. Additionally, the challenges associated with creating and sustaining OST STEM programs have not been examined. This study explores the evolution of one OST STEM program for African American, middle school girls over the course of three semesters. Using a combined framework of activity theory, communities of practice, and critical race theory, the contradictions within each stage of the program were identified and viewed as opportunities for expansion of the activity system. Results indicated that a consideration of dominant ideologies, or tertiary tools in the activity system, as well as the cultural and historical context of the activity system were necessary to understand and resolve tensions in the system. Implications of this work for researchers and others interested in OST STEM Programs include the need to focus on the interaction of components within activity systems and to identify contradictions within systems in order to support the establishment of a community of practice in the OST STEM Program.

Keywords

After school Race Gender Activity theory Out-of-school-time 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Archer, L., deWitt, J., & Osborne, J. (2015). Is science for us? Black students’ and parents’ views of science and science careers. Science Education, 99, 199–237.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker, B. S., Nugent, G., & Grandgenett, N. F. (2014). Examining fidelity of program implementation in a STEM-oriented out-of-school setting. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24, 39–52.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9245-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu, S. J., & Barton, A. C. (2007). Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 466–489.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Research Council of the National Academies.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, B. A. (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture of science and its implications for minority students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 810–834.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlone, H. B., Scott, C. M., & Lowder, C. (2014). Becoming (less) scientific: A longitudinal study of students’ identity work from elementary to middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 836–869.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersections of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1, 139–167.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, K. S. (2002). Advocating for equitable science-learning opportunities for girls in an urban city youth club and the roadblocks faced by women science educators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 151–163.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eisenhart, M., & Edwards, L. (2004). Red-eared sliders and neighborhood dogs: Creating third spaces to support ethnic girls’ interests in technological and scientific expertise. Children Youth and Environments, 14, 156–177.Google Scholar
  10. Emdin, C. (2010). Affiliation and alienation: Hip_hop, rap, and urban science education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42, 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270903161118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
  12. Engeström, Y. (1992). Interactive expertise: Studies in distributed working intelligence. Research Bulletin 83. Department of Education, University of Helsinki, Bulevardi 18, SF-00120 Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
  13. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fadigan, K. A., & Hammrich, P. L. (2005). Informal science education for girls: Careers in science and effective program elements. Science Education Review, 4(3), 83–90.Google Scholar
  15. Foot, K. A. (2014). Cultural-historical activity theory: Exploring a theory to inform practice and research. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 24, 329–347.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.831011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fordham, S. (1993). ‘Those loud Black girls’: (Black) women, silence, and gender ‘passing’ in the academy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 24, 3–32.  https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1993.24.1.05x1736t.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1167322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gonsalves, A. J. (2014). “Science isn’t just what we learn in school”: Interaction rituals that value youth voice in out-of-school-time science. Canadian Journal of Education, 37, 185–208.Google Scholar
  19. Hanson, S. (2008). Swimming against the tide: African American girls and science education. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Morris, E. W. (2007). “Ladies” or “loudies”? Perceptions and experiences of black girls in classrooms. Youth and Society, 38, 490–515.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X06296778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  24. National Research Council (NRC). (2015). Identifying and supporting productive STEM programs in out-of-school settings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  25. National Science Foundation (NSF), Arlington, VA. (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2014. ERIC Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
  26. Paris, D., & Winn, M. T. (2013). Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Rahm, J. (2008). Urban youths’ hybrid positioning in science practices at the margin: A look inside a school–museum–scientist partnership project and an after-school science program. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 97–121.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-007-9081-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rahm, J. (2012). Collaborative imaginaries and multi-sited ethnography: Space–time dimensions of engagement in an afterschool science programme for girls. Ethnography and Education, 7, 247–264.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2012.693696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Renold, E., & Allan, A. (2006). Bright and beautiful: High achieving girls, ambivalent femininities, and the feminization of success in the primary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27, 457–473.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300600988606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reveles, J. M., Kelly, G. J., & Durán, R. P. (2006). A sociocultural perspective on mediated activity in third grade science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 467–495.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9019-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Scribner, S. (1985). Vygotsky’s uses of history. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 119–145). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Seiler, G. (2001). Reversing the “standard” direction: Science emerging from the lives of African American students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1000–1014.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Theriot, M. T. (2009). School resource officers and the criminalization of student behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 280–287.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.04.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vakil, S. (2014). A critical pedagogy approach for engaging urban youth in mobile app development in an after-school program. Equity and Excellence In Education, 47, 31–45.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2014.866869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Eijck, M., & Roth, W. M. (2009). Authentic science experiences as a vehicle to change students’ orientations toward science and scientific career choices: Learning from the path followed by Brad. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 611–638.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9183-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Wartofsky, M. (1979). Models: Representation and scientific understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9357-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yerrick, R. K., & Gilbert, A. (2011). Constraining the discourse community: How science discourse perpetuates marginalization of underrepresented students. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 6, 67–91.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2010.510909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Youdell, D. (2003). Identity traps or how black [1] students fail: The interactions between biographical, sub-cultural, and learner identities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instructional Curriculum and LeadershipUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA
  2. 2.Learning Technologies Division of the College of Education and Human DevelopmentGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options