THE ROLE OF FREQUENCY, DURATION, AND INTENSITY IN NONFORMAL SCIENCE PROGRAMMING

Martin Smith and Katherine HeckUniversity of California, Davis

Background

There is a need for improved science literacy among youth (and adults) in the U.S.

Understanding science is critical for 21st century careers and for daily life

Science achievement scores stagnant or declining for many years

Nonformal science education Nonformal science education programs

are an important strategy to supplement school-based science education

Many opportunities exist to learn science in out of school settings (4-H or other youth programs, museums, camps, etc.)

4-H’s role in science education 4-H has an extensive history in providing

youth with nonformal science education opportunities

2007: National 4-H Science Initiative Goals: strengthen science programming,

expand enrollment, and improve youth science literacy

How much programming is necessary to impact youth science outcomes?

Some of the most commonly measured science program outcomes: Interest or engagement in a science

program (short term) Attitudes toward science overall (longer

term) Content knowledge around science Behavior (e.g., sustainable environmental

practices) Science process skills (Science Abilities)

50 hours?

Original recommendation of the 4-H Science Initiative: 50 hours of programming

Research on outcomes associated with varying levels of programming is sparse

50-hour recommendation was dropped; current recommendation is program planners should consider whether youth are receiving adequate programming to achieve program goals

No guidelines exist on how much is needed to achieve those goals

Dosage

Little is known about how the structure of program delivery, a.k.a. program “dosage”, impacts program gains for participants.

Dosage includes 3 components: frequency, duration, and intensity

Evaluation results on the impact of these components are mixed

Frequency

Frequency = How often programs meet More frequent contact associated with

positive outcomes in mentoring programs More frequent meetings in civic

engagement programs predict positive civic behavior

Frequency not related to outcomes in obesity prevention programs

After school program frequency appears to have a “diminishing returns” effect

Duration

Duration = How long the program runs (e.g. 10 weeks)

Program duration associated with success in some youth development program evaluations

Longer duration has been associated with positive outcomes in mentoring programs

Duration was not associated with effectiveness in substance abuse prevention programs

Intensity

Impact of intensity of programming is unclear Intensity has been measured in various ways

Frequency x duration (how much programming within a given time span)

Intensity may be defined to relate to youth engagement; how youth experience the program

Intensity may be measured from the program standpoint; the level of complexity of the intervention and its level of attunement to individual needs – effectively, “effort” on the part of the program

In conclusion…

There is no clear research basis to recommend any particular combination of frequency, duration, or intensity of programming to ensure specific levels of youth outcomes in nonformal science programming

Information is needed to develop nonformal science programs that can most efficiently and effectively impact youth science literacy

Proposed project

Collect and analyze data on differing levels of frequency and duration of science programming in 4-H clubs and after-school settings

Use results to develop guidelines to strengthen existing programs and plan future programs most effectively

Contacts

Martin H. Smith, Ed.D.mhsmith@ucdavis.edu

Katherine E. Heckkeheck@ucdavis.edu