2021 - JRST - Cience Engament As Insight Into The Science Identity Work Nutures in Community - Based Science

Received: 2 August 2019 Revised: 18 March 2021 Accepted: 29 April 2021
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21714
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
Science engagement as insight into the science

identity work nurtured in community-based
science clubs
Lydia E. Carol-Ann Burke1 | Ana Maria Navas Iannini2
1
Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, University of Toronto, Abstract
Toronto, Ontario, Canada In this article, we explore how children of late elemen-
2
Facultad de Educacion, Universidad de tary to middle school age, from low-income communi-
los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
ties in an East-Central metropolitan area of Canada,
Correspondence described their interests in and attitudes toward science
Lydia E. Carol-Ann Burke, Ontario in an out-of-school science club program. We used the
Institute for Studies in Education,
University of Toronto, 252 Bloor St W.,
children's descriptions of emotional engagement to
Toronto M5S 1V6, ON, Canada. gain insights into the identity work being carried out in
Email: carolann.burke@utoronto.ca the science club. Our analysis was based on survey
responses from 202 children enrolled for at least one
academic year in the science club program at 21 differ-
ent club sites and focus group commentary from a sub-
set of 45 children attending 14 of the clubs. We added
context to the children's perspectives by including com-
mentary from semistructured interviews with nine sci-
ence club staffers and insights from field notes made
after club promotional events. Analysis revealed the
enthusiasm of children and/or their families for science
education prior to engaging with the clubs. The chil-
dren's anticipation that club science would reflect their
school-based science experiences was quickly dispelled
by the hands-on nature of club activities and the posi-
tive relationships built with club staffers. Of concern
was the finding that staff and children frequently
reinforced a rigid dichotomy between school and club
science. This distinction meant that, although children
© 2021 National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
J Res Sci Teach. 2021;1–30. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tea 1

2
| BURKE AND NAVAS IANNINI
described themselves as improving their performance

in school science, they often found it difficult to relate
the fun enacted during club sessions to the learning
that is required during school science classes. This find-
ing is problematic given the club's focus on keeping
children's options in formal and informal science edu-
cation open for as long as possible. The paper con-
cludes by using the insights provided by children and
club staffers to propose ways of enhancing the club/
school/home science connection to better support
transfer of the positive outcomes of the club-based sci-
ence identity work.
KEYWORDS
elementary/middle school children, low-income communities,
science clubs, science engagement, science identity work
1 | INTRODUCTION
Out-of-school science club programs represent informal science education opportunities that,
along with other spaces such as science museums, science camps, and science festivals, are
becoming important contexts for promoting children's engagement with science (Bell
et al., 2016; Dawson, 2014a; Streicher et al., 2014). Stocklmayer et al. (2010) reminded educa-
tors of the potential that informal science education settings have to provide relevant, person-
alized, and inspiring practices to attendees. When looking at the social role that informal
science education settings can play, Bell et al. (2009) and Dawson (2017) highlighted the
potential of these informal spaces to help young people engage with science education on an
ongoing basis. In addition, informal science education settings have been proven effective in
boosting the science-related self-confidence and interest of learners from groups commonly
underrepresented in science education pathways (Peters-Burton et al., 2014; Rahm &
Ash, 2008; Streicher et al., 2014). For example, Rahm and Ash (2008) used a case study analy-
sis to highlight the potential of dedicated, free-choice, hands-on, sustained informal science
education programs to promote science engagement for youth from low-income backgrounds,
supporting their adoption of identities “as insiders to the world of science” (Rahm &
Ash, 2008, p. 50).
Despite the great potential for informal science education to promote children's engagement
with science, Burke (2020) described how informal science education institutions have their
own “internally regulated, systems of governance and legitimization” (p. 1677) that tend to sup-
port the participation of more affluent members of society and can send messages of exclusion
to learners from low-income contexts. This sentiment has also been reflected in the work of
Dawson (2014b) who emphasized the interaction between structural factors such as cost and
geography, with attitudes and behaviors that delimit the engagement of those living in low-
income circumstances.
BURKE AND NAVAS IANNINI
| 3
Our study focuses on a locally renowned science club program developed and implemented
by the STEM Academy organization, specifically serving children from low-income communi-
ties in a metropolitan area in East-Central Canada.1 In this program, children from late elemen-
tary to middle school age (ages 8–14) have the opportunity to attend weekly, hands-on science
sessions in community spaces close to their homes. Clubs are located in areas of the city provin-
cially identified as low-income neighborhoods. In addition, the STEM Academy is particularly
focused on establishing clubs in locations where other informal science education opportunities
are unavailable or difficult for children and youth to access (due to expense or geography).
Given this context, alongside schools and children's home settings, the STEM Academy science
clubs make significant contributions to the science education provision for children and youth
in these low-income neighborhoods. This exploratory study examines the descriptions of emo-
tional engagement with science provided by children attending the clubs. Our definition of
emotional engagement draws on children's accounts of their interests and attitudes as ways
of describing their relationship with and involvement in science education. These descriptions
are augmented by commentary made by club staffers and leaders. We combine these various
reports of engagement to explore the forms of science identity work being nurtured in these
dedicated club settings. Through the perspectives shared by children and staffers, we aim to
uncover ways to promote greater inclusion in science education.
2 | CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
In this study, we were interested in the relationships that children from low-income communi-
ties in a given Canadian city have established with science through the practices and perspec-
tives promoted by the STEM Academy science club program. We were keen to explore the
impact of the program's consistent (weekly sessions), and long-term (throughout the academic
year) informal science education opportunities on the children's emotional engagement with
science. We see children's descriptions of their emotional engagement with the context and
activities of the club as indicating aspects of their self-concepts as science students; we utilize
these descriptions to explore how their identities as science education participants are being co-
constructed in the club space.
In this article, we borrow from, and articulate, a range of knowledge traditions to conceptu-
alize a way of viewing identity within the context of informal science education. For example,
in the tradition of social psychology, identity refers to the individual's self-concept, governed by
“cognitive schemas—internally stored information and meanings serving as frameworks for
interpreting experience” (Stryker & Burke, 2000, p. 286). While we appreciate the notion of an
individual possessing cognitively embedded constructions by which they make sense of them-
selves in the world, we also find value in considering the sociocultural dimensions of those
identity constructions. As described by Brown (2015), identity relates to historical situatedness,
present conceptions, and future imaginings as people enact their “subjectively construed under-
standings of who they were, are and desire to become” (p. 20). Our study probes a dynamic flux
between two branches of identity theory: one that explores the social structures influencing
self-concept, and the other defined by an “internal process of self-verification” (Stryker &
Burke, 2000, p. 284). In taking this approach, we respond to Shanahan's (2009) review of iden-
tity in science education research where she highlighted the tendency for researchers to focus
on the micro-level negotiations occurring with(in) individuals to the detriment of macro-level
agency and structure considerations which impact the normative motifs within which personal
4
perspectives are shaped. Shanahan encouraged science education researchers to take a broader
view of identity that acknowledges the micro/macro dynamic so that our perspectives are more
balanced, and we can be more focused and effectual in our support of students' science identity
development. In this article, we describe the perspectives of child research participants in terms
of their conceptions of the self in relation to science, while recognizing that these personal per-
spectives are influenced by the nuanced diversity of factors operating within the social milieu of
the children.
Below we outline a conceptual framework that recognizes the complexity of factors that
interact to influence the way a child in a community-based science club may view themselves
as a science education participant. We explore how the notion of science identity has been con-
ceptualized in science education research literature and extend the framework beyond the
learner's personal experience to consider the work of science identity co-construction that is
facilitated within the science club context. In the tradition of critical research bricolage
(Steinberg & Kincheloe, 2012), we utilize a transdisciplinary approach that draws on cognitive,
sociocultural, and critical educational traditions. Steinberg and Kincheloe (2012) stated that
such methodologies are particularly effective in science education research that examines the
complexities of social inequality (as is experienced by children living in low-income circum-
stances) where theory, discourse, and identity perspectives are combined to derive practical
ways of effecting social change. Our use of this approach is reflected in the literature we use to
view the science club space as both an educational context and an organizational setting.
2.1 | Identity in relation to science education
Stets et al. (2017) align the notion of science identity with an individual's conception of them-
selves as a science participant; in our case this would represent children's self-concept as a sci-
ence learner in a science club, and the various ways they enact and communicate this sense of
identity. Science identity has been explored by a range of theorists in the field of science educa-
tion research. Studies using the construct include Archer et al. (2010) and Rahm (2007) who
explored the science student/science practitioner distinction; Aschbacher et al. (2014), Tan
et al. (2013), and Wong (2015), whose emphasis was on science career aspirations; and
Calabrese Barton (1998), Calabrese Barton et al. (2013), Carlone and Johnson (2007), and Tobin
and Llena (2012), who examined identity amidst the complexity of sociocultural considerations.
We explore these various perspectives below and relate them to identity work being carried out
in a club setting.
According to Archer et al. (2010), science identity can be understood in terms of embodied
and performed constructions; these are manifest in practices, relationships, and interactions
(Tobin & Llena, 2012; Wong, 2015). Rather than being a static attribute, identity enactment is a
dynamic process (Calabrese Barton, 1998), that is constantly changing according to lived experi-
ences (see also Tan et al., 2013; Tobin & Llena, 2012). Identity is permanently impacted by set-
tings and locations in specific times and spaces (Archer et al., 2010; Carlone & Johnson, 2007).
Science education researchers have used the science identity framework to explore how settings
support the development of the characteristics of the ‘science person’ (Johnson, 2012), as well
as challenging who a young person is obliged to be as a science education participant
(Calabrese Barton, 1998; Carlone, 2012; Tobin & Llena, 2012). These lines of research highlight
the possibilities that a science identity framework offers to explore how youth view themselves
with respect to science education.
| 5
According to Aschbacher et al. (2014), science identity considers both the views of the self
as the individual participates in science practices and activities, and views of the individual's sci-
ence abilities held and expressed by others. Carlone and Johnson's (2007) science identity model
relates to these two viewpoints. The model explores science identity from the perspective of sci-
ence professionals and suggests that a person's science identity develops around three main
areas: knowing science, doing science, and being recognized as a science person (which
includes the individual's own feelings and actions). The model captures three interconnected
and overlapping dimensions of identity: competence, performance, and recognition. Compe-
tence involves knowledge and understanding of science content, performance describes the
social practice of science-related activities, and recognition considers being viewed as a science
person by oneself and by others. In addition to the personal and interpersonal factors, influenc-
ing a student's perception of self in relation to science, Shanahan (2009) highlighted that stu-
dent agency “walks within, through and against social structural constraints” (p. 44). This idea
is reflected in Carlone and Johnson's model that also considers the positioning of individuals in
society (as influenced by gender, race, and ethnicity) and conceptualizes identity as situationally
emergent (i.e., influenced by location, and available resources) and potentially enduring over
time and setting.
This latter point about social positioning highlights the sociocultural dimension of science
identity. Tobin and Llena (2012) argued that the networks and connections established with
others, and with social structures, can strongly impact performances. They illustrated the inter-
connection of personal agency and science identity, stating that
agency is conscious and goal directed – a means for individuals to change their
identities by participating in activities in a variety of fields. At the same time cul-
tural enactments inscribe identity changes over which an actor has no control by
passively appropriating a structural flux while being in a field with others (Tobin &
Llena, 2012, p. 142).
Similarly, Ritchie (2002) asserted that a person may position themselves or be positioned by
others as powerful or powerless. These points are relevant for our study where children describe
their participation in clubs that seek to empower young people from low-income communities
as science participants, now and in the future; while developing their science agency, children
are operating within a framework of established norms and expectations about what science is
and how it should be performed.
2.2 | Science identity work within the organizational setting of a

science club
In contrast to the participants in Carlone and Johnson's (2007) study concerning women of
color engaged in science careers, we acknowledge the provisional nature of the science position-
ings that children in our study adopt. Unlike science practitioners, children and youth are not
committed to performance as people with science careers, and recognition is gained in ways
that do not directly influence the children's livelihoods; nevertheless, children are familiar with,
and subject to, conventions of school science that may or may not be reinforced in a club set-
ting. The conceptions of science identity work described by Calabrese Barton et al. (2013) and
Carlone et al. (2014), are useful when considering the fluid and dynamic nature of the processes
6
of identity construction as they relate to children. Calabrese Barton et al. (2013) asserted that
identity work involves “the actions that individuals take and the relationships they form … at
any given moment and as constrained by the historically, culturally, and socially legitimized
norms, rules, and expectations that operate within the spaces in which such work takes place”
(p. 38). Similarly, Carlone et al. (2014) described children's identity work as involving different
performances in a given science education setting and taking on different meanings depending
on the constraints and enablings of the broader social structures. In informal science education
settings (i.e., museums), Rounds (2006) also situated identity work within the process of negoti-
ating structure and agency. He defined structure as being determined by the physical, social
and cultural influences of the individual's life contexts, while agency points to the individual's
capacity for self-determination in a particular situation. Focusing on organizational analysis,
Brown (2015), cited Davis (1991), to reinforce the significance of “social and symbolic uni-
verses” (Brown, 2015, p. 20) in shaping identity construction processes. This perspective aligns
with Nasir and Cooks' (2009) study exploring how learning settings make certain identities
available to the student. Nasir and Cooks emphasized three kinds of identity resources in opera-
tion in learning contexts:
material resources (the physical artifacts in the setting), relational resources (inter-
personal connections to others in the setting), and ideational resources (ideas about
oneself and one's relationship to and place in the practice and the world, as well as
ideas about what is valued and what is good) (Nasir & Cooks, 2009, p. 44).
In our study, we see how a series of activities, contextual influences, and interpersonal connec-
tions, both within the informal educational setting and the children's social context, contribute
to the science identity work conducted by the children within the STEM Academy science club
program.
We have constructed Figure 1 to illustrate how we view the complex interaction of fac-
tors influencing children's science identity work in the club space; here, attitude and interest
features of emotional engagement (which we describe in more detail below) mediate the
dynamic interaction between children's science identity work and their social contexts. Our
three-pronged conceptualization of science identity work incorporates the science education
practices carried out within the science clubs and recognizes the structure/agency negotia-
tion described by Rounds (2006) and Carlone et al. (2014) in the agency and positioning
components of the construct. These three elements (agency, positioning, and practices) over-
lap in the science identity work of children in a club setting. For example, from the perspec-
tive of a child's self-concept, the perception of who I am in my given social context
(positioning), may lead me to believe that I have a certain capacity or capability to decide
whether or not to participate (agency) in certain enactments (practices). We note that these
components can also work in other directions such as agency leading to practices that influ-
ence the perceptions of myself and others regarding who I am (positioning). By emphasizing
agency, positioning, and practices we draw attention to the discursive interplay of contex-
tual and personal factors that characterize identity work. Indeed, Brown (2015) suggested
that “work” may not be the best term to describe the messiness of many contexts of identity
negotiation, stating that “while ‘work’ is often associated with compliance, rationality, logic
and a means-ends orientation, ‘play’ implicates a different set of potentially generative ideas
relating to enjoyment, discovery, intuition, imagined others, spontaneity and fantasy”
(p. 25). Similarly, Ibarra and Petriglieri (2010) drew on the work of Ashforth (1998) in
| 7
F I G U R E 1 The complex
interaction of factors influencing the
science identity work conducted by
children in a science club setting
[Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
proposing that identity work within an organization allows individuals to “hold desired pos-
sible selves at a distance, ‘playing with’ their identification with [those selves] until the
point when they can adopt them with confidence that they will be accepted as authentic”
(p. 13). This notion of experimenting with different ways of being aligns well with Carlone
et al.'s (2014) discussion of positioning and agency in relation to what children see as the
available and celebrated subject positions in the science classroom. The play-oriented inter-
pretation of science identity work may be well suited to a children's science club setting
since clubs tend to operate based on developing an intentional connection to the affective
domain of a child's personhood.
2.3 | Interest in and attitudes toward science: Emotional engagement

as a portal into science identity work
The field of science education research has an established history of studying the relationship
between identity and youth participation in and engagement with science education (see
Shanahan's (2009) review). Thompson and Windschitl (2005) illustrated how descriptions of
engagement in formal and informal contexts of science education revealed aspects of identity
negotiation for girls described as academically underachieving. In our study, we focused on atti-
tudes and interests of children as key markers of emotional engagement that would allow chil-
dren to describe aspects of science identity work being conducted within the club setting.
Zembylas (2005) articulated the relationship between expressions of emotional connection and
identity of the speaker in an educational context. He asserted that “emotion functions as a dis-
cursive practice in which emotional expression is productive—that is to say, it makes
8
individuals into socially and culturally specific persons engaged in complex webs of power rela-
tions” (p. 937, emphasis in original manuscript). This notion is well aligned with the work of
Fredericks et al. (2004), who stated that engagement “results from an interaction of the individ-
ual with the context [in our case the science identity work occurring within the club] and is
responsive to variation in environments [which we describe as the social context]” (p. 61). As
summarized in Figure 1, we have drawn on research exploring how the social context of science
education can influence emotional engagement which, in turn and reciprocally, impacts the
forms of identity work experienced by the child. For example, Bennett and Hogarth (2009)
described a study conducted in England with students aged 11, 14, and 16. Students were
questioned about their views on science and how these views related to their engagement with
science (as a school subject). Outcomes of their work highlighted more positive attitudes toward
science education outside of school compared with school science education. Their study also
highlighted the influence that school science has on promoting students' ongoing engagement
with and participation in science and, hence, the breadth of opportunities for science identity
development within a school context. This is an important issue in certain low-income commu-
nities in North America, where poor engagement with schooling has been reported
(Jensen, 2013).
The impact of science education on ideas and attitudes toward science was also discussed by
Lyons (2006) who found that school science (particularly during the early years) can signifi-
cantly impact attitudes toward science and personal choices about the subject. In tandem with
this idea, Osborne et al. (2003) identified relevant factors impacting students' attitudes toward
science; among them were gender, socio-economic class, classroom/teacher factors, curriculum
variables, and perceived difficulty of science as a school subject. In addition, DeWitt
et al. (2013) included familial attitudes toward science in the list of sociocultural factors
influencing a child's relationship toward and aspirations in science education. These studies
have highlighted the inextricable interaction between the social/contextual features of a child's
engagement with science and the internal motivations that guide a child's interest and aspira-
tions in science education.
Research related to interest and attitudes in science sheds light on aspects of science that
children tend to engage with positively. In a study conducted in England with students aged
10 and 11, Archer et al. (2010) emphasized that their approach to studying student engagement
was “grounded in notions of identity” (p. 618). The researchers focused on student interest in
science and students' science-related aspirations. Particularly, they explored young students'
perspectives on science and school science classes, out-of-school interests, and future aspira-
tions. Outcomes of the study highlighted that, even though children tended to enjoy science
and held positive attitudes toward science, they still might not choose science as part of their
aspirations for future careers. According to Archer et al., the aspects of science that students
tended to enjoy most were those related to hands-on activities and experiments. One problem-
atic discussed by Archer et al., is that “an enjoyment of ‘doing’ science may not translate into
wanting to ‘be’ a scientist” (p. 628) or aspiring to pursue ongoing engagement with science.
Archer et al. identified key factors that might complicate this translation of classroom engage-
ment into career aspirations. Among those factors were gender constructions associated with
children's aspirations, understandings with respect to the nature of science, and the relationship
between science and children's natural abilities/interests. We wonder about the extent to which
these factors may also influence how the children's emotional engagement with science and
their associated science identity work within the science club context are translated into more
formal settings of science education.
| 9
2.4 | Science identity work in the context of this study
In our study, we use the term science identity work to signify the process of exploring different
science personas; it is a process of becoming and establishing belonging in relation to science.
Shanahan (2009) explained that in a given educational context learners are “constrained and
guided by the possible identities available in the social situation” (p. 44). Therefore, a club or
any organizational context will only support, promote and/or tolerate certain identities within
the context of its organizational structure so, in the STEM Academy science club program, only
certain identities will be available for the children to explore. Using the three-pronged science
identity work framework described above and illustrated in Figure 1, we explore how descrip-
tions of engagement indicate the ways in which the various facets of science identity work are
nurtured within the club space. Given our emphasis on the exploratory, playful interpretations
of identity work, we do not define a particular end point for the science identity work being per-
formed in the club space. Although we acknowledge, as others have done (e.g., DeWitt
et al., 2013; Osborne et al., 2003), that factors such as attitudes toward and interest in science
intersect with social structures and tend to act in conjunction with, and have impact on, choices
and aspirations related to science, we do not define science identity work as necessarily leading
to a child wanting to be or becoming a scientist. Rather, science identity work may contribute
to the development of career paths, nurturing positive feelings about science, or no more than
viewing science as fun; these are all forms of science identity work. For us, it is important to
understand how the interplay of emotional engagement, as developed in/through the science
club program, impacts (or has the potential to impact) the forms and facets of science identity
work that children carry out as science club participants. We frame our study with the follow-
ing research questions:
1. How do children from low-income communities in a given metropolitan area of Canada

describe their emotional engagement with science in/through the STEM Academy science
club program?
2. What do the descriptions of children's emotional engagement suggest about the science iden-
tity work being nurtured in the club setting?
3 | METHODOLOG Y
Our study employs a case study approach (Stake, 2000), a strategy that enables exploration of
real-life bounded systems (cases) “through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple
sources of information” (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 96). Our bounded system, the STEM Acad-
emy science club program, was studied through various qualitative methods that allowed us to
gain descriptions of children's sense of emotional engagement with the club from multiple van-
tage points. Arnold and Clarke (2014) stated just how hard it is to read the agency and position-
ing of individuals in their words and/or actions. They caution against research that assigns
intentionality to research participants based on “cognitive psychological assumptions” (p. 743)
that the researcher presents without explanation, as if they are universally understood. In this
study, we asked children and club staffers to describe the children's emotional engagement with
science education, as experienced through the club setting. We used a range of data sources to
support our interpretations, allowing us to make inferences about the science identity work of
children from multiple angles.
10
Although we acknowledge examples of research in the field of education that present obser-
vational means of gathering data about children's identity work (a number of which have been
cited above), we were mindful that our presence as outsider researchers in a community-based
venture situated in low-income contexts may present us in an authoritative or evaluative light
that runs the risk of deterring children from their involvement in the clubs. We were concerned
that employing direct observation—as was used effectively in Hawkins' (2005) study which uti-
lized home visits, interviews, (classroom) observations, and sociogram analysis—may be too
intrusive for STEM Academy science club attendees, given our status as researchers entering as
observers into established community-based contexts. This meant that we had to rely heavily
on participant reports about emotional engagement rather than directly observing identity work
in action. While we recognize this as a limitation of a study focused on emotional engagement
of children, this approach suited the preferences of the STEM Academy leadership and
responded well to the notion that discourse has power in shaping a community, while being
shaped by community. We were keen to hear children's commonly told accounts of science club
engagement, from this we derived insights into the forms of science identity work conducted
within the club setting. The sources used included written survey responses of children, focus
group sessions conducted with children, semistructured interviews with club staffers, and field
notes collected during promotional events run by the STEM Academy in order to introduce
community members to the science club program.
3.1 | The research context
The STEM Academy science club program operates in more than 20 low-income neighborhoods in
one of North America's fastest growing metropolitan areas. All clubs are located within a jurisdic-
tion that is subject to a single school science curriculum. The demographic profile of club attendees
varied depending on each club's location in the city but, according to a recent report (Ayer, 2019),
the city's low-income neighborhoods have statistically higher concentrations of recent immigrants
(the highest proportions being from West Asia and Arab nations), racialized persons, lone parent
families, and people living in high-rise rental units than other areas of the city. In addition to these
characteristics, the clubs attract slightly more boys than girls, with a small number of participants
identifying an alternative gender classification. There are usually no more than 20 children enrolled
in each club. With a few exceptions, the children range in age from 8 to 14 and attend a range of
public schools in the vicinity of each club; therefore, it is likely that many of the club attendees
would meet each other for the first time in the club setting. The STEM Academy's free program
consists of weekly sessions on Saturday mornings for two hours. The clubs are located in commu-
nity spaces that are within safe walking distance for children who attend (spaces such as commu-
nity centers and recreation rooms of residential buildings). The clubs are staffed by young people
(typically under the age of 25) who have current or recent experience of science education at the
undergraduate level. As staffers enter the program, they are trained to implement the STEM Acad-
emy science club curriculum. Some of the club staffers described their entry into the clubs:
When I first started off, I was a volunteer for one of– for this location, and I went
there as a volunteer and I was just there to mediate the different curriculum which
was being provided to these kids and I was there to contribute however I could,
providing the resources and just being there with them during those two hours.
(Zara,2 interview, club staffer)
| 11
I actually started at [the STEM Academy] as a volunteer. I did that for three years
at two different clubs before I became a [club leader] so I was familiar with the pro-
gram for quite a bit of time before becoming the [club leader]. (Josie, interview,
club staffer)
These comments illustrate an organizational structure where club workers start out as volun-
teers in their local area, working under a more experienced staffer, and have the potential to
develop their leadership expertise and become paid staffers. Over the course of the academic
year, participants in each club (children and staffers) remain the same, although some attrition
is inevitable and late enrollees are accommodated, if space allows.
A typical club session consists of a selection of science-based activities interspersed with
group games and team-building exercises. The science activities provided within the clubs are
hands-on experiences based on a broad range of topics such as electricity, fluid mechanics,
states of matter, evolution, robotics, and DNA. While some activities promote individual work,
others encourage group work and/or design challenges involving competition and awards. An
established curriculum is used across the different clubs, and many of the club products gener-
ated by the children are taken home with them at the end of each session.
The science club program was created to offer a context for children from low-income com-
munities to engage with informal (outside-of-school) science education in their own neighbor-
hoods. Peach, one of the STEM Academy staffers, explained the purpose of the program:
I was very passionate about [the STEM Academy] because I did not see anything
like [the STEM Academy] in our communities. There were many community pro-
grams that were offered … but they were overwhelmingly (and this is not a bad
thing) arts-based and music and sports-based, which is completely fine, they were
great, and they served a purpose, but I found that there was nothing that was edu-
cational in any stretch of the imagination. And when there was, it was extremely
short-term. So, like, a four-week program and it was fly in and fly out, no (at least)
communication that we're going to stay. And what I saw created was our kids
would almost be afraid to participate in certain programs because they're like,
‘well, they're going to be gone anyway, so there's no point’… No consistency, like,
in many of the programs. The only consistent program was a sports program … but
even that, it was just summers. (Peach, interview, club staffer)
As alluded to by Peach, many club staffers have backgrounds in the same low-income commu-
nities as are served by the clubs. As was described by another club staffer, the aim is to keep
children's options open so that they can choose a science career if they wish, but there is no
expectation that the club will necessarily contribute to the science career pipeline. In some
cases, the clubs have been active for 5 or 6 years in the same locality and children can opt to
attend the club year after year, depending on their level of interest and personal/home
circumstances.
3.2 | Research participants
Participants in this study were children and staffers engaged with the science club program in
multiple locations across the city. All children attending the STEM Academy science clubs were
12
administered surveys at the start and end of the academic year; the research team worked with
the STEM Academy to adapt the surveys for the purposes of this study and parental consent
was received for analysis of responses for 202 of the children (who self-identified as 104 boys
and 86 girls, 12 provided an alternative response). In addition, at the end of the year, children
attending all of the STEM Academy science clubs were invited to participate in focus groups
alongside other children attending the same club. We held focus group sessions in any science
club where at least three children had returned their parental consent forms. Focus group ses-
sions were conducted in 14 of the clubs with a total of 45 children (self-identified as 29 boys
and 16 girls) between the ages of 6 and 13. Although the clubs are designed for children aged
8 to 14, occasionally children as young as 6 would attend the clubs if accompanying an older
sibling. These focus groups were conducted during the two-week period after the clubs had
ended for the academic year. Efforts were made to ensure that the timing and location of each
focus group overlapped with the usual club schedule. Although more than 45 children returned
parent/guardian consent forms, we could not anticipate the exact number of participants who
would actually show up to each session so there were occasions when only one child attended
the session. The number of children participating in each focus group ranged from one to six.
The age/gender profiles of children participating in the focus groups and surveys are illustrated
in Figure 2. Further demographic data such as racial, ethnic, or linguistic information was not
gathered.
STEM Academy staffers also participated in the study. We extended an invitation for indi-
vidual interviews to all staffers who had experience of leading out in the science club program;
nine answered our call positively. The interviews took place at locations selected by the partici-
pants, including using Internet-based videoconferencing. We included these participants in our
research as they could provide additional perspectives, curriculum details, and contextual infor-
mation related to the children's experiences and emotional engagement with science education
in the clubs. We did not gather any demographic data about staffers.
We acknowledge that by leaving interviews and focus groups to the end of the club experi-
ence, we were selecting for club participants who, for whatever reason, remained committed to
club attendance throughout the year. Nevertheless, we estimated that over 80% of children
remained in the clubs after recruitment, and it was rare for club leaders to leave during the aca-
demic year, so our focus group sample should not have represented a significant skew in
the data.
3.3 | Data collection methods
3.3.1 | Children's pre- and post-club surveys
Intake and exit surveys conducted with children attending each club mainly consisted of Likert
scale items gauging children's perceptions of skill development within the club. For the pur-
poses of this article, we focus on a single, free-response survey item located at the end of the exit
survey; this item asked children how they felt they had changed as a result of attending the sci-
ence club. This question gave children the opportunity to highlight any aspect of their engage-
ment with the club while accessing their emotional connection to any shifts they considered
significant. The surveys were completed in the club setting during the final club sessions,
administered by club leaders. A script was provided to support consistency in administration
and STEM Academy managers reinforced the need for club leaders to strictly adhere to the
| 13
F I G U R E 2 Age/gender profiles of child participants. Although we see that slightly more children identified as
boys than other gender categories in both the survey and the focus groups, the ANOVA analyses of the Likert scale
portions of the surveys (not included as data for this article) suggested that there were no gender-specific statistically
significant differences in responses. We have no evidence to suggest gender differences in other data sources
script. For the written response, the script read: “now you have a space to write about anything
that has changed for you as a result of being at the [science] clubs. You can write about your
feelings about science, your feelings about people, the kind of job you want to do, anything.”
Club leaders guided children through the survey, encouraging younger children to draw pic-
tures or ask for help when completing their comments.
14
3.3.2 | Children's focus groups
Where the children's focus group sessions were concerned, the participants were considered to
constitute preexisting groups of people and not constructed groups (Liamputtong, 2011) since each
session involved children enrolled in the same science club. Using this methodology, we were
looking for opportunities to observe the process of collective sense making (Wilkinson, 1998)
around the science club experience and shared examples of engagement that might provide
insights into the forms of identity work occurring within the club space. We created a protocol
with questions that could help us to elicit participants' commentary regarding science engagement
within the club (e.g., Why did you enroll in the science club? Describe your experience in the club,
both good and bad points. What kept you coming back every week? What kinds of things did you
learn?). Acknowledging that focus groups, “put control of the interaction into the hands of the
participants rather than the researcher” (Liamputtong, 2011, p. 4), new questions and directions
emerged as part of the conversations developed in each focus group and the issues that the chil-
dren raised. For example, commonly emerging issues included children drawing comparisons
between the club and their schools as contexts for science education and referring to other envi-
ronments where science could be learned, such as their own homes.
Since multiple focus group sessions were run simultaneously in different club locations
across the city, the sessions were moderated by a team of graduate research assistants hired spe-
cifically to conduct these focus groups and trained in focus group methodology by the authors
of this article. The research assistants' “arm's length” separation from the project allowed them
to use the focus group session as an opportunity to genuinely learn about the science club con-
text without carrying the biases and assumptions that might be associated with a year of inter-
actions and relationship-building with the STEM Academy organization (as was the case with
the authors of this article). It also allowed them to follow interesting lines of discussion, as
directed by the children, so that new themes such as the club/school connection could emerge.
Each focus group session lasted between 25 and 60 min. All sessions were audio recorded and
transcribed verbatim.
3.3.3 | Club staffer interviews
Another data source was semistructured interviews with nine club staffers. These conversations
also occurred once the academic year was over for the club. It was important for us to incorpo-
rate staffer perspectives in the study as we acknowledge that the children were entering a set-
ting with specific cultural enactments (Tobin & Llena, 2012) and constraints (Calabrese Barton
et al., 2013), involving rules, norms, expectations, and ideals for science curriculum, primarily
promoted and maintained by the staffers. We formulated questions for the interviews that
focused on how the clubs operate and children's experiences in the club (e.g., Can you speak
about how the clubs work? What are the club goals? What do you think the children in your
club feel about science? How do the children engage with the activities?). In thinking about the
role that these informal science education settings play in the low-income communities where
the program operates, we also included questions related to what the clubs can offer to the com-
munities they serve (e.g., How did the idea of creating these clubs come about? Why do the
clubs operate in low-income communities?). The two authors of this article facilitated these
interviews, which lasted between 30 and 80 min; the discussions were audio-recorded and tran-
scribed verbatim.
| 15
3.3.4 | Field notes based on STEM Academy promotional events
Field notes were recorded after interactions with staffers, children, and community leaders at
STEM Academy recruitment events. As researchers, we had no direct role during these sessions,
but we were guided in our note-taking by a desire to understand more about the general pattern
and ethos of club operations and an overarching focus on the image of science being portrayed
and how this portrayal seemed to be received by attendees.
3.4 | Data analysis
Analysis of the various transcripts (those for the survey responses, the focus groups sessions,
the semistructured interviews, and the field notes) occurred with the support of the NVivo
12 platform. We interacted with data through directed content analysis (Hsieh &
Shannon, 2005). According to Hsieh and Shannon (2005), this analytical approach implies a
“deductive use of theory” and it can “extend conceptually a theoretical framework or theory”
(p. 1281). Based on these reflections, we initially conducted our analysis by coding commentary
according to the agency, practice, and positioning facets of science identity work identified in
the conceptual framework above. We viewed each distinct description of engagement as a sepa-
rate incident (according to the constant comparative method described by Glaser, 1965). In our
analysis, we saw incidents containing statements about what a child can, should or would do or
be as positioning statements. Instances where participants described activities enacted by chil-
dren represented practices. Agency was recognized where children or adults described
children's abilities to follow their own desires or to be self-directed, as seen in children acting
upon their own choices.
In the second phase of our analysis, we continued coding according to Boeije's (2002) con-
stant comparative analytic path that requires the researcher to compare all the transcripts that
are part of the same group (e.g., children's survey responses, children's focus group commen-
tary, or semistructured interview dialogues with club staffers) and moved back and forth across
and between them. In our case, the back and forth analysis was carried out between discussion
fragments identified in the first phase of the analysis (described above) where we sought to cap-
ture the breadth of comments as they aligned with the past, present, and future depictions of
the children's self-concepts within the club. In this second phase of analysis, we highlighted
any features of the social context (as illustrated in Figure 1) that participants drew upon in their
explanations. In doing these comparisons, we refined (and detailed) our existing codes to derive
the subheadings provided in the following section.
4 | F IN D I NG S
In this section, we present our findings through children's individual and collective accounts of
their emotional engagement with science within the club setting and beyond. We start by
exploring their initial reasons for joining the science club so that we can gain insights into the
general level of enthusiasm for science prior to club attendance and any broader social influ-
ences that may have impacted the children's decisions to attend. We then outline ways in which
children described their engagement during and between club sessions. Finally, we explore
stories that reflect the children's hopes and ideals for future engagement with science.
16
Throughout, we use the various accounts of engagement to indicate aspects of science identity
work being conducted by the children within the club setting. These identity work insights are
explored in greater detail in Section 5.
4.1 | Encouraging children to attend the science clubs
Enrollment in the science clubs occurs after a series of promotional events in the neighborhood
of the proposed club. The STEM Academy staffers take responsibility for running interactive
community events and door-to-door flyer distribution to promote the start of each club's new
academic year. In their intake surveys, over 80% of children affirmed the value and importance
of science in society, and over 90% stated that they were interested or very interested in science.
In the focus group interviews, children provided more detail about their decisions to enroll in
the club, explaining that their decisions were influenced by personal interest in science and/or
encouragement from family members:
[My mom] found out, she found out about this club I'm pretty sure from my school.
I don't exactly know how but … she still found out about it. (Sugar, Focus
Group 11)
So, at first, I didn't know what the science club was until my mom decided ‘you
should learn this, you could learn a lot’. And I'm like ‘Ok, I think I like that idea’.
(Saajid, Focus Group 13)
I wanted to be here because I really wanted something to do with myself … and I
would just sit at home and do nothing all day … and, like, I love science. (Owl,
Focus Group 1)
We saw many illustrations of the children's immediate family contexts supporting the children's
enthusiasm for attending the science club. The intermediary role of parents and guardians was
important for children to receive information about the clubs and to support them in following
through on their initial interest in attending. The various references to parental encouragement
revealed that the forms of social positioning associated with science club attendance were
viewed as positive by parents and guardians who, in turn, encouraged their children to take
advantage of the educational opportunity presented. The conversation with children in Focus
Group 10 highlighted prior interest in science, which impacted their decisions to be part of the
club, and members of Focus Group 5 discussed the fun and the parental support that sustained
certain aspects of their engagement.
Jeffy: I came here because I like science.

Moderator: Cool, ok. Anyone else like science? Ok Jimmy, yeah sure
Jimmy: I came here because I like science and I like the activities that we do in [sci-
ence club]
Moderator: Cool
Nathan: I, I, I just enrolled in science club because I like to learn new things in
science
Moderator: You like to learn new things in science. Yeah, cool. Dan, what
about you?
| 17
Dan: [Science club] sounded sorta cool because like I heard that it has science, so I
joined, because of the science.
Moderator: Yeah cool.
Dan: Science rules!
Moderator: [laughs] Jack, how about you? Why did you join?
Jack: I wanted to know more about science.
(Focus Group 10)
Barbie: It's the science. Like the FUN stuff that I don't want to miss
James: Yeah
Moderator: Ok. I think [inviting contribution], Jay?
Jay: It's my mom. Sometimes I want to come, sometimes I don't.
(Focus Group 5)
For Jeffy, Jimmy, Jack, Nathan, and Dan the club experience seemed to have aligned with and
sustained their previous interest in science and science subjects. Through their collective
account, we see that the club fostered the development of many forms of positive emotional
engagement with science. In Jay's comment, we also saw the importance of the parental role in
maintaining commitment to club attendance. This was also reflected in survey responses as cap-
tured in the following comment: “I like Science more now I find it interesting. At the beginning
I asked my mom to let me QUIT. But know [sic] I wonder why I said that” [Upper case empha-
sis in the original text] (Survey 164). Although it was common for children to describe how par-
ents and guardians constrained their agency in deciding whether to attend the club, children
eventually saw the value of the club in presenting a regular opportunity for exploring science.
Children felt free to express how interesting science is to them and how much they enjoyed the
process of learning new things. These expressions were far removed from the social stigma often
associated with the “nerdy” science club (Bhattacharyya et al., 2011). Most of the children who
participated in the focus group sessions described how much they enjoyed being part of the sci-
ence club program and this enjoyment seemed to influence their club attendance. Factors
supporting sustained attendance were discussed by members of Focus Group 14:
Jeff: It was so fun, and I thought that the next week is going to be boring, the next
is going to be fun, the next week is going to be boring but it was actually all fun.
Moderator: What about you John?
John: I'm– amazing! I thought at first when I went there, I thought it was going to
be boring but actually it was amazing.
Jeff: I was shy for, like, only three minutes and now I'm like, uh, yeah, yeah, yeah!
John: Yeah, talk about being shy, but I liked it actually, every single day I think we
are going to make something cool, that's why I went.
(Focus Group, 14)
In the shared story of John and Jeff, the main reason for attending and returning to the science
club was the fun experience (related to science) that the club provided. Our attention was
drawn to the attitude-changing episodes described by the children and that are connected to
their preconceived notions about science. As seen in the extract above, initial anticipation of
boredom was not borne out in the club experience and hopes for subsequent sessions were
raised each week when the children's modest expectations were exceeded. The high-activity
18
nature of the club sessions seemed to promote opportunities for children, who were initially
interested in, but reticent about, their abilities to engage with science, to see themselves doing
science week after week.
4.2 | Valuing strong interpersonal relationships and fun practices
When exploring the elements of club participation that promoted positive emotional engage-
ment, children participating in Focus Group 8 offered two important components of the club
experience that were frequently cited by other groups: the relationships with club staffers and
the experiments.
Moderator: Ok so what kept you coming back every week? Terence?

Terence: The instructors and the experiments and all of it…
Moderator: Cool. Renée?
Renée: All the fun and learning …
Moderator: Muchacho?
Muchacho: The excitement of like, like, like thinking to yourself, “Oh what's gonna
be next? What experiment? I wonder what it's gonna be.”
(Focus Group 8)
Although the children had little opportunity to make decisions regarding the nature of activities
performed in the club, it seems that the club leaders and staff were effective in relating to the
children and selecting tasks that served to maintain children's enthusiasm. The surveys yielded
many comments about relationships developed with club leaders. A number of children wrote
comments or drew images indicating that they were becoming like their club leader. There
were also many comments about experiments. As described by one student: “I was able to do
more experiments that are related to science. Every class we would do something new. At
school we do experiments, but not as often as we do them at [the science club]” (Survey 160).
Conspicuously absent from the children's descriptions of the experiments and practices per-
formed in the club was talk about science concepts. Indeed, even when focus group moderators
challenged the children to reveal aspects of learning and knowledge gained, children referred to
the common names of experiments, rarely utilizing standard scientific terminology. One exchange
within Focus Group 1 was telling of the challenge children had in relating the science learned
through their club experiences to science encountered in their formal educational experience:
Meow: Um, why do you make slime?

Moderator: Why do you make slime?
Meow: Yeah, ‘cause everybody just says ‘Make slime! I don't care about science,
just make slime!’
Moderator: Um, I assume for amusement. Is that a fair answer? ‘Cause it's fun?
Owl: Well, it has a little bit of science behind it too!
Moderator: Ooh! Have you guys made slime?
Meow: Yes
Nuggie: A lot!
Owl: Yeah!
(Focus Group 1)
| 19
Owl later returned to the discussion about slime to explain the workings of non-Newtonian
fluids, using specialist terminology with which Meow and Nuggie seemed unfamiliar. The chil-
dren's perceptions about club science as a fun experience, mediated by experimentation but not
too much depth, echoed the program's objectives, as described by club staffers:
That's where we're, like, we're really trying to– we say, you know, ‘fun experi-
ments’, ‘fun’– just use the word ‘fun’ a lot. ‘Fun experiments’, ‘fun tricks’, and
‘learning’… we really articulate it as, it's a fun learning experience, a fun and con-
sistent learning experience. (Peach, interview, club staffer)
[science] is fun, exciting, challenging but not too challenging that ‘I don't want to
do it.’ (Bowser, interview, club staffer)
There are a few ones that are a bit apprehensive about getting into science but once
they realize, once we tie it in with experiments that they can actually do, then it
becomes something that's more fun and something that's more attainable to them
… (Jess, interview, club staffer)
They can explore and learn and be themselves and they don't have to feel scared or
feel nervous or feel, like, fear anything. [We] present opportunities for, like, older,
non-familial adults to form and cultivate those positive relationships with the kids.
(Renee, interview, club staffer)
An important point of emphasis seemed to be ensuring that the children experienced the fun in
each experiment rather than getting bogged down in the more difficult (conceptual) work of sci-
ence. During this process, the science-trained staffers developed strong relationships with the
children to support and maintain the children's enthusiasm and sustained effort. While this
emphasis on science practices (activities, experiments, games, and competitions pre-determined
by the program) might have been employed by the staffers as a mechanism to build children's
confidence as science participants, the links to children's positioning or agency as science peo-
ple was not made explicit and might have got lost in the club identity work of the children. As
illustrated by Owl in the Focus Group 1 extract above, we see that, when activities are selected
on behalf of the children (no matter how enjoyable), the meaning or relevance of activities can
get lost, and children can lose their grasp on their roles as competent “science persons” while
performing as good club participants.
4.3 | Contrasting club and formal science educational experiences
Children readily spoke about sharing knowledge of the experiments conducted in the club set-
ting with friends and family members. As captured in one of the survey comments: “What has
changed is that now I am blow my friends and familys [sic] minds blow from the experiments I
show them” (Survey 71). These disclosures hint at the science clubs' support of children's
repositioning as science (experiment) knowers. Children's comfort in sharing their club-gained
science knowledge was contrasted with their discomfort regarding the way science learning
takes place in formal educational settings. In the focus group conversations, children tended to
associate any negative attitudes they may have had toward science, or their lack of interest in
20
science, with their school-based science experiences. This was also seen in the survey responses,
as illustrated in the comment of Survey 160 cited in the previous section. In their narratives,
school science was often presented and cited as the opposite of the science experienced in the
club setting. In illustration, we share the perspectives of Saajid, a child participating in Focus
Group 13, and Jeff and John, participants in Focus Group 14 who were explaining how much
they enjoy science:
I really like science and I just wanted to know what we could do more than just
what I do at school, like simple just melting ice cream and then freezing it again.
(Saajid, Focus Group 13)
Jeff: I just love science!

Moderator: You just love science? Did you love science before the club? Do you
remember? …
Jeff: When I started the club, I liked it, but I thought we were just looking at a
screen doing science stuff but actually when we came, we were actually doing fun
stuff.
Moderator: Okay, what about you John, were you interested in science before the
club?John: Yeah
Moderator: You were?
John: The thing that I didn't want to do when I come is the long stuff like what
school does!
(Focus Group 14)
We saw how children readily contrasted their experiences of engagement with the science activ-
ities carried out in the clubs with their school science experiences. Adding to Saajid's story, Jeff
and John described the interest in science that they have developed or maintained in the club
setting. Collective stories developed in other focus group sessions provided further insight into
the children's negative attitudes toward school science. In these accounts, a negative emotional
engagement with school science was often presented. In addition, the children contrasted the
high level of variation in activities experienced in the science club with the more protracted and
less engaging nature of school science activities. This is well reflected in the following exchange
between participants of Focus Group 1:
Moderator: What kept you coming back [to the club] every week?
Owl: The fact that every time I go there there's a different subject, it's interesting…
Meow: We do something new. It gets funner every time
Owl: Yeah!
Moderator: It gets funner every time? How? …So how did you, why do you think
that? How did that happen?
Owl: It's like all the fun experiments that we get to make and do and like the sci-
ence behind all these life skills that we never knew about
Meow: And all the games …
Nuggie: At school we don't learn that stuff…
Moderator: No?
| 21
Owl: We don't really do science, we only learned about space and like light … what
we're doing here is like …way intense
Snowman: It's like learning at school but fun
Nuggie: Yeah!
(Focus Group 1)
In the exchange above, we noted the contrast the children made between learning about science
and doing science (the latter of which seemed to be positioned by the children as real learning).
Children framed club science as being more authentic because of its emphasis on practical dem-
onstration of competence and the club's mechanisms of relating to the everyday experiences of
children: “A lot of things has [sic] changed for me by me being in [science] clubs such as learn-
ing more about experiments and science and now I know how science is AMAZING!” [Upper
case emphasis in the original text] (Survey 134). School was frequently presented as a context
where the children are not learning what science is supposed to be. The children's perceptions
about and attitudes toward science (regarding both club and school science contexts) are echoed
and perhaps reinforced by club staffers:
… I have kids who come in who are saying ‘this is not what science is like at
school’. ‘It's really fun here’. ‘It's really engaging here’. ‘But science isn't like this
at school’. ‘My science classroom or my science teacher doesn't do these things’.
(Zara, interview, club staffer)
The topics that we cover is what a lot of the kids learn in school, but they're not
actually able to do, like, any experiments, [they do have] the concepts but they're
not able to actually [pause] like practically do any experiments related to the con-
cept [pause] but I'm not sure what I would say to that … It's different because I
don't know if it's like a lack of resources or a lot of these kids are, like, oh, we
learned that at school. But I'm like oh, did you do this experiment? And they're
like, no we don't really do experiments, we just do worksheets. (Anne, interview,
club staffer)
We see a more direct messaging expressed in the way staffers describe the opportunities pro-
vided through the club experiences. It seems that at least some staffers hope that the club will
reframe the way children view science and themselves as potential science people which
implies that the school science experience is somehow positioning the children negatively with
respect to science, so much so that it is even good if the children forget that they are doing sci-
ence so that they can focus on having good experiences when they attend the club:
Because we're doing something that's directly linked to education, what they [the
children] would be doing in school but being able to give them kind of a nice, like,
reframe their memory around it in a nice way. (Peach, interview, club staffer)
Honestly, like, our science club is pretty fun. Like, our kids end up having fun. So,
like, they're usually okay, because it's very hands-on and often when they're doing
the science, like, they don't even– like, they forget that ‘oh, like this is science’ or
‘this is like…’ you know, they're just having fun and they're exploring with their
hands and they're engaged. (Renee, interview, club staffer)
22
These comments clearly indicate some intent to position club science as distinct from school
science while acknowledging the link to education. The focus on the link to education rather
than actually conducting education underlines the idea that, while science may be part of the
vehicle of the STEM Academy science clubs, it is certainly not the sole destination or their only
reason for being. In the process of positioning the clubs in this way, we might expect that some
of these sentiments may be received by the children as they conduct the work of self-concept
development in relation to science education.
4.4 | Envisioning future and continuing relationships with science

education
In some of the children's narratives, possibilities for articulating the club and school science
practices reflect the hopes children have for their overall engagement with science education.
Consider this exchange between Sugar, and the focus group moderator:
Sugar: In science we're learning more about structures, like, mostly we did the
same thing.
Moderator: Okay
Sugar: Kind of, well we did do the same thing. It was something new every week
but if we could learn about stuff that actually happened in science, like structures,
we didn't learn about that so that made me a bit sad.
(Focus Group 11)
Sugar went on to reinforce the idea that the school context is the place to learn the concepts,
but the science club is where they perform the related experiments. The point was made that it
would be helpful for the club setting to address topics that are covered at school but in ways
that facilitate the children in getting a deeper understanding. Children participating in the
Focus Group 2 also spoke about a desire for a closer connection between the science clubs and
school science and suggested how this could happen:
STREAM: Say like during a Monday to a Friday you were, like, going to school and
stuff, say you could like have a project … you should be able to, like, come here
and they should be able to, like, help you with that.
Moderator: That's an interesting point STREAM. You think that being able to bring
your projects from school would make the [science club] a little bit better?
STREAM: And they'll be able to like help you …
Moderator: Okay, so kind of like homework that's related to the club?
STREAM: Yeah!
(Focus Group 2)
Although presented in different ways, Sugar and STREAM's stories speak about the idea of see-
ing the science club as a space where they could address school science subjects in depth and
possibly, over longer time spans. There is also a degree of recognition that, although the club is
enjoyable, science education in the club space is not the same as that experienced at school;
ultimately, children see that it is important to do well in school science as well as having fun
with club science. Some club staffers addressed this same line of thought and their accounts
| 23
resonated with the children's comments. Referring to a parent's description of their child's
engagement with the club, Zara explained:
And so, knowing that the community, and having that club there, was helping her
child do better in her academics, it not only showed how important the impact of
this program was within the community itself, but how it's engaging them at
school. (Zara, interview, club staffer)
A number of children spoke about the club helping to boost their confidence in science, as
described in one student survey: “I've been more confident in this [science] club, it has made a
big impact in my life I love science more now and I can't wait for next year:) in the future I
would really love to be a SCIENTIST!!!!:)” [Upper case emphasis in the original text] (Survey
41). While it is fair to assume that the increased confidence that a child is experiencing with
respect to science should also be reflected in school performance, children described the club
science as a good complement to school science but found it difficult to articulate tangible or
specific conceptual understandings developed within the club setting that influenced school sci-
ence performance. That being said, the increased confidence described by the children with
respect to science should not be understated. Such a boost in confidence has the potential to
support children in seeing themselves as science people. Alongside these ideas, club staffers
acknowledged the possibilities that developing a complementarity between the work of school
and club settings might represent in the children's lives. Staffers described hopes that this infor-
mal science education opportunity could help children to positively engage with science in the
school setting and beyond:
So, I think that we're definitely part of an ecosystem support, to do, like, we'll do a
little bit of this, you do this, and we'll all work together. And, like, no one can do it
on their own, so I don't expect the school to take care of all things, and even, it's
too much. (Peach, interview, club staffer)
What the data says for these vulnerable communities, where their perception of
STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] is, it's not, they do not
have a good perception of STEM. They do not see themselves as STEM users, as
STEM workers. They don't necessarily see themselves as connected to STEM out-
side of school. Their only bridge to STEM is through school, and they have a kind
of hate relationship with that, depending on the teacher, or their environment.
(Bowser, interview, club staffer)
No matter how appealing ideals of coordinating school/club educational efforts may seem, col-
laboratively promoting engagement with science through both settings might be challenged by
some staffers' perspectives:
… making sure that it's an informal learning environment, like, this has nothing to
do with school, and it's connected to school but it's not about– you don't have
to get the right answer, you're not on the hook for this, you're not getting assessed,
you're just literally exploring and you're good with that. And, for us, that's very
important to make that distinction and that's why we even have, like, not on a
school day … For us, a club, it just brings a more informal way of doing things, and
24
it changes the narrative of where STEM could happen. It's just, STEM is really syn-
onymous with school things, which is completely fine, nothing is wrong with
school things, but we're just not a school. And it's not going to be the same. (Peach,
interview, club staffer)
As illustrated here, we see some clear alignment between how children and club staffers view
the distinction between school and club practices and positioning. Below we explore the influ-
ence these perspectives have on the transferability of science identity work between club and
school spaces and implications for development of children's identities as “science people.”
5 | DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study set out to examine the underexplored perspectives that emerge when children from
low-income communities are provided with an opportunity for long-term and consistent
engagement with informal science education. The children's insights regarding their emotional
engagement with science in the STEM Academy science club program can help us to under-
stand the impact of sustained informal science education opportunities on developing children's
interest in and attitudes toward science in the club setting and other science-related contexts.
From these insights, we draw inferences about the forms of children's science identity work
being nurtured within the club context.
Children described arriving at their local science clubs with a high degree of anticipation
based on prior interest in science. These perspectives echo Bennett and Hogarth's (2009) evi-
dence that attitudes toward science outside of school tend to be positive among children. They
also support the findings of a detailed report compiled by the Council of Canadian Academies
indicating that, in general, “Canadians have positive attitudes towards science and technology
and low levels of reservations about science compared with citizens of other countries”
(Council of Canadian Academies, 2014, p. xv). In addition, the high proportion of Canadian
newcomers living in low-income circumstances may correlate with the fact that just over half of
the individuals holding science-related degrees in Canada are immigrants (Council of Canadian
Academies, 2014) so it might be expected that children living in low-income communities in
Canada would gain encouragement to join a science club. These observations are important
when we consider the perspective expressed by at least one STEM Academy club leader who
drew on research “data” from other national contexts to make the erroneous assumption that
children living in low-income circumstances in Canada will necessarily have negative attitudes
toward science (see Bowser comment above).
Despite the children's very positive relationships toward science in the club setting, we
found problematic the dichotomy between club and school science that was expressed by chil-
dren and reinforced by club staffers. This highlighted a concerning distinction between the sci-
ence identity work being nurtured in the club and at school. Our analysis suggests that,
although a tension between club and school science is identified by children enrolled in the sci-
ence club program, children and club staffers see scope for a stronger connection between the
science identity work being carried out in the school and club contexts. Strengthening this con-
nection may improve the long-term efficacy of the science club experience in supporting the
academic and career prospects of children in low-income communities.
The focus group transcripts revealed that children were pleased to find that the club curricu-
lum was so strongly focused on hands-on activities. Given that the clubs are noncompulsory
| 25
science education spaces operating on Saturday mornings (unlike school science), the children
who remained in the clubs until the end of the academic year were very likely those who not
only had prior interest in science, but also who had the parental encouragement to enroll and
continue attending. Due to the location of the clubs in the children's immediate neighborhoods,
the out-of-school science club became something that was distinct from the education imposed
by the school, offering the children something that they could see as their own.
Dawson (2014b) has described this sense of belonging as fundamental for minoritized groups to
combat notions that informal science education opportunities are for people who are “white,
middle-class and wealthy” (p. 1002). Also, as described by DeWitt et al. (2013), we saw how
parental encouragement served as a component of the children's engagement, highlighting the
importance of familial attitudes toward science education. We recognize that the personalized
approach of making direct contact with parents/guardians during recruitment of club attendees
can serve to reinforce an important aspect of a child's engagement: parental attitudes. Children
were quick to explain that their continued attendance was supported by the fact that every
week presented a new and interesting experiment, presented by enthusiastic and relatable
staffers. As with the children who participated in Archer et al.'s (2010) study, children enrolled
in the science clubs described experimentation and the possibilities of doing science as the most
enjoyable part of the kind of science they experienced in the clubs. Furthermore, the children
in our study tended to frame their attitudes toward science around the hands-on dimension of
science and the distinguishing features of the club setting (i.e., being fun and varying from week
to week).
While it was encouraging to hear the children enthusiastically describing their engagement
with science education, we were challenged by the children's emphasis on doing science and
the way that this was placed in opposition to the school-based expectation of learning about sci-
ence. As reflected upon by Archer et al. (2010), we wonder if children can equate the idea of
“doing science” with their potential for “being a scientist.” We also wonder how they see them-
selves bridging the divide between their positioning as doers of science in the club setting and
continuing participants in the formal educational context, as is required to become science
practitioners. Although the employment trajectory is far from our concerns in this study, we
appreciate how motivating a career aspiration can be on a child's educational success (also illus-
trated by Stets et al., 2017). If children see a distinction between the science experienced in the
club setting and the science of the school classroom, will club science education be able to moti-
vate children to persevere with formal science education? According to Calabrese Barton
et al. (2013), identity work can carry its meanings over time and/or space and the products of
the identity work produced at one event (e.g., a science club) may be transferred to another
(e.g., a school science class). We saw how confidence built in the club impacted perceptions of
ability in school, but we are concerned that, through the contrast in conceptions of practices in
club and school spaces, children might be making the distinction between the “club science per-
son” and the broader conceptualization of a “science person.” We wonder if club attendees have
opportunities to occupy those celebrated subject positions of school classrooms (Carlone
et al., 2014) that are so central to the science identity work of formal systems of education.
Ibarra and Petriglieri (2010) described identity work as a process of striving for self-concept
coherence. Although the children have some transferability of agency in the confidence that is
built in the club setting, which gives them the potential of being positioned as competent school
science students, the lack of coherence in practice, and the absence of explicit discussion or con-
frontation of that difference, may result in spaces of school science education remaining
uninviting, eroding children's new-found positioning.
26
Referring to our science identity work framework (illustrated in Figure 1), we saw that it
was well within the capability of all children (despite the broad age range of club attendees) to
complete the science-related club tasks (the practices). Nevertheless, within the parameters of
the STEM Academy's club program, we did not hear about many opportunities for children to
exercise autonomy or self-direction when selecting activities to pursue in the club setting. Some
children spoke about desiring more depth and this seemed to relate to an acknowledgement
that there is something about school science that presents different challenges than are experi-
enced in the club. To have agency in the school science realm, the children would need to
secure their positioning in the form of science education valued by schools, and various data
sources presented little evidence that children were taking concepts they were learning in the
club context into the school science setting. We know that, in some cases, schools acted as inter-
mediaries to disseminate information about the club but focus group discussions provided no
evidence of any further connection with the school science context of the child.
Despite the limited references to transferability of science learning between club and school
science, we see potential for transferability between the science encountered in the club setting
and science-related activities in the home context. We see this potential as being facilitated by
the proximity of the club to the children's home settings, the enthusiastic encouragement of
parents and guardians, the observation that resources are usually in healthy supply during the
club session, and the fact that experimental products are made available to the children at
the end of most sessions. Closing the loop of children being encouraged to attend the club by
someone at home, and the children being able to demonstrate their club activities back at
home, can help to create and reinforce the reciprocal relationship between social context and
the science identity work that is conducted within the club. Tobin and Llena's (2012) reflections
are relevant to our exploration of this club/home dynamic where active and passive processes
involved in identity construction overlap.
6 | IMPLICATIONS
Science is embedded in the everyday experiences of all members of society; children are no
exception to this reality, but they have the added complexity of navigating formal and infor-
mal experiences of science education, as they forge paths that determine their life directions.
Bell et al. (2009) described informal spaces of science learning as including everyday experi-
ences with science (such as watching a sunrise), designed settings (like science centers), and
programs (such as science clubs). In addition, in this study, we highlight home settings as
hubs that nurture and organize the interconnection of the various contexts of science educa-
tion for the child. The STEM Academy organization has appreciated this key role of the home
and utilized this knowledge in their efforts to broaden the reach of science education pro-
gramming, catering exclusively and consistently to a demographic of children that has tradi-
tionally been marginalized from educational and career pathways in science. Through an
emphasis on fun and relationship-building, we have seen how children have been enthused
in their engagement with science education at the club. What concerns us is that, while chil-
dren are making strong connections with club-based science education, there seems to be a
segregation from school-based science education and, as a result, a potential lack of coher-
ence in children's self-concepts as science participants. Given the significance of formal sci-
ence education in shaping life pathways, we are keen to explore ways of promoting forms of
| 27
engagement that facilitate the transferability of science identity work for children in a low-
income context.
As researchers, we commend the STEM Academy for taking this step with us to explore in
greater detail how and why children are engaged in their science club program. We recognize
the courage it takes to continue to push boundaries even when a system is working well. As a
result of the findings of this study, we are conducting a second phase of research, exploring
ways of closing the divide between school and club science for the children. Our aim is to capi-
talize on the home and community connections that the children already possess, as well as the
relationship-building that is already a central feature of the science club program. We believe
that, if the science club program leaders can be more intentional about communicating what
they do with members of the children's home and school communities and hearing suggestions
made by those persons, we can start to reposition the outcomes of the science identity work
conducted by children in the school and club settings, closing the gap between children's per-
ceptions of the “club science person” and “school science person.” We are, specifically, seeking
to provide children with club experiences that complement their school science identity work.
The first step in this process is to explore how a neighborhood club might function in the setting
of a school building, acknowledging the various layers of school bureaucracy that are involved
when independent agencies use a school space. We hope that the communication required for
such a move will promote dialogues that can bring closer the objectives of formal and informal
locations for science learning for the child.
A C K N O WL E D G M E N T S
The research contributing to this article was conducted with the financial support of a research
grant from the Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE). Warm thanks are extended
to the STEM Academy organization, the many children who participated in the study, and our
enthusiastic team of researchers.
ORCID
Lydia E. Carol-Ann Burke https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6253-8071
Ana Maria Navas Iannini https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9790-2649
E N D N O T ES
1
In the Canadian context, low-income communities or neighborhoods are defined as metropolitan subdivisions
where 30% or more of the residents earn less than 50% of the adjusted household median for Canada (Statistics
Canada, 2018). Low-income communities, particularly in the metropolitan area of our study, are most heavily
(but not exclusively) characterized by recent immigration of people from a range of locations, particularly West
Asia and Arab nations; high proportions of renters in high- and low-rise housing units; low employment status;
and high percentages of non-White racialized persons of a range of ethnic origins (Ayer, 2019).
2
Self-selected pseudonyms have been used for all participants; in some cases, names were shortened to a single
word to support consistency and ease of reading.
R EF E RE N C E S
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a sci-
entist: Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren's constructions of science through the lens of identity.
Science Education, 94(4), 617–639.
Arnold, J., & Clarke, D. J. (2014). What is ‘agency’? Perspectives in science education research. International
Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 735–754.
28
Aschbacher, P. R., Ing, M., & Tsai, S. M. (2014). Is science me? Exploring middle school students' STE-M career
aspirations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 735–743.
Ashforth, B. E. (1998). Identification with organizations. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in
organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 209–272). Sage.
Ayer, S. (2019). Toronto's vital signs report 2019/2020: Growing pains amid narrow gains. Toronto Foundation
Retrieved from https://torontofoundation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/VitalSigns2019.pdf
Bell, J., Falk, J., Hughes, R., Hunt, G., Parrish, J., Ruffin, M., Sacco, K., & Troxel, G. (2016). Informal STEM edu-
cation: Resources for outreach, engagement and broader impacts. Center for Advancement of Informal Science
Education (CAISE) Retrieved from https://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/CAISE_Broader_
Impacts_Report_2016_0.pdf
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People,
places, and pursuits. National Academies Press.
Bennett, J., & Hogarth, S. (2009). Would you want to talk to a scientist at a party? High school students' attitudes
to school science and to science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1975–1998.
Bhattacharyya, S., Mead, T. P., & Nathaniel, R. (2011). The influence of science summer camp on African-
American high school students' career choices. School Science and Mathematics, 111(7), 345–353.
Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative inter-
views. Quality & Quantity, 36(4), 391–409.
Brown, A. D. (2015). Identities and identity work in organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews,
17(1), 20–40.
Burke, L. E. C. (2020). Informal science educators and children in a low-income community describe how chil-
dren relate to out-of-school science education. International Journal of Science Education, 42(10), 1673–1696.
Calabrese Barton, A. (1998). Teaching science with homeless children: Pedagogy, representation, and identity.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 379–394.
Calabrese Barton, A., Kang, H., Tan, E., O'Neill, T. B., Bautista-Guerra, J., & Brecklin, K. (2013). Crafting a
future in science: Tracing middle school girls' identity work over time and space. American Educational
Research Journal, 50(1), 37–75.
Carlone, H. (2012). Methodological considerations for studying identities in school science: An anthropological
approach. In M. Varelas (Ed.), Identity construction and science education. Research learning, teaching, and
being in multiple contexts (pp. 9–26). Sense Publishers.
Carlone, H., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science
identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218.
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(7),
836–869.
Council of Canadian Academies. (2014). Science culture: Where Canada stands. The Expert Panel on the State of
Canada's Science Culture, Council of Canadian Academies.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.
Sage Publications Ltd.
Davis, F. (1991). Identity ambivalence in clothing: The dialectic of the erotic and the chaste. In D. Maines (Ed.),
Social organization and social processes: Essays in honor of Anselm Strauss (pp. 105–116). Aldine de Gruyter.
Dawson, E. (2014a). Equity in informal science education: Developing an access and equity framework for sci-
ence museums and science centres. Studies in Science Education, 50(2), 209–247.
Dawson, E. (2014b). "Not designed for us": How science museums and science centers socially exclude low-
income, minority ethnic groups. Science Education, 98(6), 981–1008.
Dawson, E. (2017). Social justice and out-of-school science learning: Exploring equity in science television, sci-
ence clubs and maker spaces. Science Education, 101(4), 539–547.
DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Archer, L., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2013). Young children's aspirations in sci-
ence: The unequivocal, the uncertain and the unthinkable. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6),
1037–1063.
Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept state of
the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.
| 29
Hawkins, M. R. (2005). Becoming a student: Identity work and academic literacies in early schooling. TESOL
Quarterly, 39(1), 59–82.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health
Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Ibarra, H., & Petriglieri, J. L. (2010). Identity work and play. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
23(1), 10–25.
Jensen, E. (2013). How poverty affects classroom engagement. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 24–30.
Johnson, A. (2012). Consequential validity and science identity research. In M. Varelas (Ed.), Identity construc-
tion and science education. Research learning, teaching, and being in multiple contexts (pp. 173–188). Sense
Publishers.
Liamputtong, P. (2011). Focus group methodology: Principle and practice. Sage Publications Ltd.
Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students' experiences of school science in their own
words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613.
Nasir, N. I. S., & Cooks, J. (2009). Becoming a hurdler: How learning settings afford identities. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 40(1), 41–61.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implica-
tions. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.
Peters-Burton, E. E., Lynch, S. J., Behrend, T. S., & Means, B. B. (2014). Inclusive STEM high school design:
10 critical components. Theory Into Practice, 53(1), 64–71.
Rahm, J. (2007). Youths' and scientists' authoring of and positioning within science and scientists' work. Cultural
Studies of Science Education, 1(3), 517–544.
Rahm, J., & Ash, D. (2008). Learning environments at the margin: Case studies of disenfranchised youth doing
science in an aquarium and an after-school program. Learning Environmental Research, 11(1), 49–62.
Ritchie, S. M. (2002). Student positioning within groups during science activities. Research in Science Education,
32(1), 35–54.
Rounds, J. (2006). Doing identity work in museums. Curator: The Museum Journal, 49(2), 133–150.
Shanahan, M.-C. (2009). Identity in science learning: Exploring the attention given to agency and structure in
studies of identity. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 43–64.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(pp. 435–454). Sage.
Statistics Canada. (2018). Persons living in low-income neighbourhoods. Statistics Canada Retrieved from https://
www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-014-x/99-014-x2011003_3-eng.cfm
Steinberg, S. R., & Kincheloe, J. L. (2012). Employing the bricolage as critical research in science education. In
B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education
(pp. 1485–1500). Springer.
Stets, J. E., Brenner, P. S., Burke, P. J., & Serpe, R. T. (2017). The science identity and entering a science occupa-
tion. Social Science Research, 64, 1–14.
Stocklmayer, S. M., Rennie, L. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The roles of the formal and informal sectors in the pro-
vision of effective science education. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 1–44.
Streicher, B., Unterleitner, K., & Schulze, H. (2014). Knowledge rooms—Science communication in local, wel-
coming spaces to foster social inclusion. Journal of Science Communication, 13(02), 1–5.
Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly,
63(4), 284–297.
Tan, E., Calabrese Barton, A., Kang, H., & O'Neill, T. (2013). Desiring a career in STEM-related fields: How mid-
dle school girls articulate and negotiate identities-in-practice in science. Journal of Research in Science Teach-
ing, 50(10), 1143–1179.
Thompson, J. J., & Windschitl, M. (2005). “FAILING GIRLS”: Understanding connections among identity negoti-
ation, personal relevance, and engagement in science learning from underachieving girls. Journal of Women
and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 11(1), 1–26.
Tobin, K., & Llena, R. (2012). Colliding identities, emotional roller coasters, and contradictions of urban science
education. In M. Varelas (Ed.), Identity construction and science education. Research learning, teaching, and
being in multiple contexts (pp. 141–156). Sense Publishers.
30
Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus group methodology: A review. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,
1(3), 181–203.
Wong, B. (2015). Careers “from” but not “in” science: Why are aspirations to be a scientist challenging for minor-
ity ethnic students? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 979–1002.
Zembylas, M. (2005). Discursive practices, genealogies, and emotional rules: A poststructuralist view on emotion
and identity in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 935–948.
How to cite this article: Burke, L.-A., & Navas Iannini, A. M. (2021). Science
engagement as insight into the science identity work nurtured in community-based
science clubs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.
21714

2021 - JRST - Cience Engament As Insight Into The Science Identity Work Nutures in Community - Based Science

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 - JRST - Cience Engament As Insight Into The Science Identity Work Nutures in Community - Based Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 2 August 2019 Revised: 18 March 2021 Accepted: 29 April 2021

Science engagement as insight into the science

Lydia E. Carol-Ann Burke1 | Ana Maria Navas Iannini2

© 2021 National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

J Res Sci Teach. 2021;1–30. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tea 1

described themselves as improving their performance

2.1 | Identity in relation to science education

2.2 | Science identity work within the organizational setting of a

2.3 | Interest in and attitudes toward science: Emotional engagement

2.4 | Science identity work in the context of this study

1. How do children from low-income communities in a given metropolitan area of Canada

3.1 | The research context

3.2 | Research participants

3.3 | Data collection methods

3.3.1 | Children's pre- and post-club surveys

3.3.2 | Children's focus groups

3.3.3 | Club staffer interviews

3.3.4 | Field notes based on STEM Academy promotional events

3.4 | Data analysis

4.1 | Encouraging children to attend the science clubs

Jeffy: I came here because I like science.

4.2 | Valuing strong interpersonal relationships and fun practices

Moderator: Ok so what kept you coming back every week? Terence?

Meow: Um, why do you make slime?

4.3 | Contrasting club and formal science educational experiences

Jeff: I just love science!

4.4 | Envisioning future and continuing relationships with science

5 | DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

You might also like