TRANSFORMING NATIVE AMERICAN YOUTHS’ CONCEPTS OF GEOSCIENCE THROUGH A CONNECTION TO CULTURE, NATURE AND COMMUNITY A Thesis by JAMIE LEIGH RICCI Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Chair of Committee, Eric Riggs Committee Members, Bruce Herbert Christian Branstrom Head of Department, Rick Giardino May 2014 Major Subject: Geology Copyright 2014 Jamie Leigh Ricci ABSTRACT This qualitative study examines the experience of twelve Native American youth who participated in culturally appropriate geoscience summer programs throughout California. These programs have been shown to change participating youths’ perceptions of science. After the programs, the youth are more likely to describe science as something tribes use to manage natural resources and have been using for a long time, something that is not only learned in classrooms, that they like science and they can live a cultural way of life and still be scientists. Hermeneutic phenomenology is used to understand the experience of the youth participating in the program. Semi-structured, life-world, pre- and post- interviews were designed to elucidate participants’ program experience, conceptions of science and home life. From these, salient themes were found and organized into meaning units. It is suggested that having a supportive community, which youth have identified as a group of people described as familial, supportive and empowering, where youth can express their culture while enjoying outdoor programming provides the foundation and safe space to approach program science. Moreover, positive connections between nature and program science are made in this context. This provides scaffolding where these new conceptions of science as nature, and nature as science, can be applied to participants’ lives outside of the program. ii DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to the youth who made this research possible. Your resiliency, commitment, openness and pride have taught me so much more than I could hope to teach you. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must thank many people for their support and insight, which made this project possible. I am grateful to my friends, from new ones (Angie, David, Kimbra, Kristen, Tuba and Zeynep) to old ones (Aneesha, Caitlin, Kiloran and Liz), who were constantly supportive and always kept me sane in the great Texas heat. I also need to thank my family, even though you do not understand why I am in Texas or what I do, I always appreciate that you keep me grounded at home, even so far away. I am thankful so many vibrant young people, mentors, community members and instructors who made my time with InterTribal Youth and Sharing the Land so fulfilling. Without you, I would have no project and would be a significantly more boring person. It is essential that I also thank my committee, Dr. Brannstrom and Dr Herbert. I appreciate that you would each care to spend time working with me on this. I am indebted to Dr. Sara Unsworth for sharing her incredible talent, insight and project with me. Sara and her husband Jerry have been tireless supporters of my work and a great sounding board for all my thoughts. I am also grateful that Sara can always make me laugh until I cry. Ahéhee', Sara and Jerry. Of course, thanks, Eric! I am so very grateful you believed in my abilities from the start, that you committed so much time and energy to my academic and personal wellbeing and that you were always on my side. Grad school wasn’t so bad because of you. iv NOMENCLATURE CDT Cultural Discontinuity Theory IRB Institutional Review Board ITY InterTribal Youth NSF National Science Foundation SES Social Economic Status SIT Social Inequality Theory StL Sharing the Land TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families TEK Traditional Ecological Knowledge UNITY United National Indian Tribal Youth v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................ii DEDICATION ................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................................iv NOMENCLATURE...........................................................................................................v TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................vi LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ viii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ix 1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1 1.1 Background .....................................................................................................1 1.2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................12 2. METHODS...................................................................................................................13 2.1 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................13 2.2 Research Setting............................................................................................14 2.3 Locating the Researcher ................................................................................23 2.4 Methodology .................................................................................................25 3. RESULTS.....................................................................................................................34 3.1 Themes ...........................................................................................................34 4. DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................................42 4.1 Meaning Unit 1: Program Foundations..........................................................42 4.2 Meaning Unit 2: Science and Nature .............................................................50 4.3 Meaning Unit 3: School Experience ..............................................................53 4.4 Textural Description.......................................................................................54 5. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................56 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................59 APPENDIX I INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD....................................................63 APPENDIX II SAMPLE ITINERARIES .......................................................................66 vi Page APPENDIX III DETAILED PROGRAM DESCRIPTION............................................69 Programming Details............................................................................................69 APPENDIX IV INTERVIEW PROTOCOL....................................................................84 Summer 2012 .......................................................................................................84 Summer 2013 .......................................................................................................85 APPENDIX V INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS ..............................................................87 Aubrey – Central California 2012........................................................................87 Beth – San Diego 2013.........................................................................................99 Emily – San Diego 2013 ....................................................................................110 Jack – San Diego 2012 .......................................................................................124 Jenny – San Diego 2012.....................................................................................143 Jessica – Northern California 2012 ....................................................................160 Kyle – Central California 2012 ..........................................................................174 Laura – Central California 2013.........................................................................184 Lindsay – San Diego 2012 .................................................................................195 Michael – Central California 2012.....................................................................214 Tina – Central California 2013...........................................................................221 Tyler – San Diego 2013 .....................................................................................232 APPENDIX VI CODING RUBRIC .............................................................................245 APPENDIX VII RESULTS OF CODING....................................................................249 APPENDIX VIII INTERACTIVE MODEL………………………………………….252 vii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 4.1 Program foundation……………………………………………………...50 Figure 4.2 Co-occurring experiences help to explain youths’ understanding of their time at ITY/StL.…..…………………………...……………..…….52 viii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1.1 Theoretical misalignment of Western science education (W) for Native American learners (N) and suggested solutions to each are shown……..............................................................................10 Table 2.1 A comparison of the recommendations of SIT and CDT of how to make science education approachable to Native American learners and how ITY/StL accomplishes these goals shows that the program should function in a way that alleviates border crossings..…...………...22 Table 3.1 Frequency of co-occurring themes by pre-interview, post-interview, and, finaly, total…………………….………….…………….….…….35 Table 3.2 Program experience by frequency of response of each individual in pre- and post- interviews ...…...………….………………………….….36 ix 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Although 1.2% of the total population of the United States identify as Native American (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013b), academic achievement of Native Americans is limited. The population of Native Americans and Alaska Natives in California is just over 710,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a). In 2010, only 3,624 (0.695%) of 525,374 science and engineering degrees were awarded to Native Americans in the United States. Only 44 (0.92%) degrees, out of 4,802 total degrees, in Earth, atmosphere or ocean sciences were granted to Native Americans in 2010 (National Science Foundation, 2013). Moreover, the high school dropout rate for Native American high school students is 117% higher than their white counterparts (Smagorinsky, Anglin, & O'Donnell-Allen, 2012). Fields requiring degreed expertise, such as, economic development, health services and resource management, continue to be challenges for communities (Bang & Medin, 2010). Particularly, lack of expertise in the geosciences continues to be of paramount importance to tribes, as water resources, mineral exploration and environmental stewardship continue to be salient (Unsworth, Riggs, & Chavez, 2012). Furthermore, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau News, 2013), 29.1% of Native Americans and Alaska Natives lived in poverty in 2012, the highest of any ethnic group. The national rate was 15.9%. Moreover, the median household income was $35,310, well below the national average of $51,371. Tribal members who have degrees in geoscience and serve their tribes will help protect sovereignty by persistently protecting cultural and tribal values. This differs 1