Content area
This study investigated science intervention programs for Black students in South Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland. The sample consisted of five programs that aim to increase the participation of Blacks in science via after-school, Saturday, and summer experiences. These long-term programs offered a variety of experiences, including hands-on science activities, contact with mentors and role models, exposure to science-related careers, and opportunities to increase science content knowledge and improve science process skills. Artifact data, a Program Coordinator Questionnaire, site visits, and interviews were used to identify and describe five existing science intervention programs for Black students.
The study proposed a set of standards for science intervention programs for Black students. These standards addressed eight components of programs, including objectives, format, location, target population, recruitment and selection, intervention activities, staff, and financial information. Using a modified approach to cluster evaluation, the five programs were compared to the standards. This evaluation revealed the strengths and underlying weaknesses of the cluster that informed the development of two models for future science intervention programs.
Though implemented in numerous ways, the cluster's strengths included sound, measurable objectives; articulation of program objectives to staff, participants, and parents; frequent contact during sessions; the potential for continuous involvement of staff and participants; the inclusion of a range of student achievement levels; programs that served their target group; the representation of various communities, neighborhoods, and schools; effective recruitment strategies; financially inclusive programs; a variety of intervention activities; intensive training for staff, and substantial staff compensation.
Three major shortcomings of the cluster were identified as inadequate focus on science-related careers and science process skills; poor use of communities as sites for doing and seeing science; and meager intervention strategies for younger students. These shortcomings perpetuated underlying inequities of knowledge and power, despite the well-intended science intervention efforts.
This study identified and described several science intervention programs, developed standards for implementing and evaluating science intervention programs, and proposed two models for future programs. In light of current efforts to make science for all students by the year 2061, the value of these contributions is high.