Learning Here and There: Identifying Families’ Strengths When Learning in a Museum and at Home (Poster 7)

• In Event: (Re)Imagining Different Educational Realities: Anti-Deficit Approaches in Informal Learning Environments Research

Abstract

Objectives & Theoretical Framework 

Constructivist (Piaget, 1970) and sociocultural (Vygotsky, 1978) theories suggest that informal learning environments (ILEs), including museums, libraries, and families’ homes, can foster learning through hands-on activities and parent-child conversation (Rogoff et al., 2016). However, families may interact and learn differently across ILEs, leveraging different strengths in each setting (Gaskins, 2008; Geerdts et al., 2015; Morris et al., 2019). In this project, we examined families’ engineering projects and conversations in two different ILEs. We specifically asked (1) whether families would use a greater variety of materials when constructing their projects and (2) whether children would use more engineering and spatial talk after an engineering activity in their homes or in a museum. 



Method 

Sixty-seven families with 4-11-year-old children (M = 6.91 years) completed an engineering challenge either in their homes (N = 36) or in a museum tinkering exhibit (N = 31). Our sample included 58% boys and 42% girls, and 52% of families identified as white, 14% as Latine, 12% as Asian, 9% as black, and 12% as more than one ethnicity.  

All families were challenged to move something from “here to there” (e.g., by making a ramp). Families participating from home met with a researcher via Zoom, who played a video introducing the activity. Families could use any materials they had in their homes (e.g., cardboard, straws, tape) to construct their project. Families participating in the museum were recruited outside the tinkering exhibit and received an orientation to the activity from a museum educator. They could use any exhibit materials (e.g., plastic tubes, cardboard, clips) to construct their project. After the activity, researchers interviewed children about their projects. Children's interviews were coded for talk about engineering practices (i.e., goal-setting, planning, testing, identifying problems, redesigning) and use of spatial language (e.g., locations, dimensions, features, patterns, shapes). We also identified how many unique materials families used in their projects.  



Results  

Children at home identified more problems with their projects (M = 3.89, SD = 2.62) than children in the museum (M = 2.48, SD = 2.03), t(65) = 2.43, p = .02. Children at home also talked more about testing (M = 1.61, SD = 1.27) than children in the museum (M = 1.03, SD = 0.91), t(65) = 2.11, p = .04. However, children talked more about shapes in the museum (M = 1.70, SD = 1.92) than at home (M = 0.22, SD = 0.59), t(64) = 4.39, p < .001. Families also used a greater variety of materials in their projects in the museum (M = 6.00, SD = 2.41) compared to the home (M = 4.82, SD = 1.67), t(63) = 2.30, p = .03.  



Significance 

This project highlights how different ILEs draw on families’ strengths to promote learning. Familiar environments like the home may foster engagement in engineering practices, but museum settings may encourage exploration of new materials and use of spatial language. We will discuss how museums can make learning experiences more accessible to diverse families by sharing content online.  

Authors

• Lauren Christine Pagano Hush, Northwestern University

• Riley George, Loyola University Chicago

• Kaitlyn Hurka, Northwestern University

• Elena Fiegen, Northwestern University

• Evan Vlahandreas, Northwestern University

• Catherine A. Haden, Loyola University Chicago

• David H. Uttal, Northwestern University