Table Of ContentTRANSFORMING 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
