The role of parental causal talk in children’s talk about science in museums

• In Event: 1-199 - Parent-child interaction and learning about scientific thinking in informal settings

Integrative Statement

Parents play a vital role in scaffolding children’s understanding of science (e.g., Crowley, Callanan, Jipson, et al., 2001; Legare, Sobel & Callanan, 2017). Because many scientific mechanisms are opaque, although children can access scientific content through informal interactions such as museums, such first-hand exploration is often paired with adult explanations to provide deeper understanding of scientific phenomena (e.g., Harris & Corriveau, 2013; Harris & Koenig, 2006). Yet there is substantial variation in parental ability to provide children with high-quality scientific explanations (Jipson & Callanan, 2003; Shtulman & Checha, 2012; Vlach & Noll, 2016). Although some research has explored how simple interventions at science museums influence parent-child scientific talk (Gutwill & Allen, 2010), no research has explored whether such interventions might be appropriate for children prior to the onset of formal schooling. We explored whether a simple dyadic training session might impact how parents and their preschool children talk about scientific concepts.

Forty-seven parents and children (Mage=5.43) participated at a science museum in one of two training conditions: scientific inquiry (n=25), or scientific statement (n=22). An experimenter modeled the assigned pedagogical approach to the parent. Both approaches provided information about causal mechanisms but differed in the process by which content was delivered to the child. In the scientific inquiry condition, parents were encouraged to help their child choose questions about causal processes to investigate when interacting with a scientific toy. In the scientific statements condition, parents were encouraged to share causal information with their child as he or she interacted with a scientific toy. Immediately following the short intervention, parents were given the opportunity to practice that method with a new scientific exhibit.

We first asked whether the type of parental talk varied across the two training conditions. A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on total parental talk in the post-training practice by Training Condition (scientific inquiry, scientific statement), Content (scientific, procedural) and Delivery (questions or statements) yielded a significant Condition x Content x Delivery interaction, F(1,45)= 5.21, p= .02, ƞ2partial= .10. Follow-up post-hoc simple effects tests indicated that parents in the scientific inquiry condition were significantly more likely than those in the scientific statement condition to use questions when talking about scientific concepts with their child (Mdiff = 7.40%, F(1,45) = 14.92, p< 0.001, ηp2 = 0.25). Moreover, when we re-ran the analysis to explore the type of science talk (causal mechanisms, facts), the analysis yielded a significant Science talk x Delivery interaction. Parents were more likely to use questions when talking about causal mechanisms in the scientific inquiry condition, F(2,44)= 12.02, p< 0.001, ηp2= 0.35. To explored potential relations between parental causal talk and children’s likelihood to respond, we conducted a mixed-model binary logistic regression on children’s likelihood to respond to parental causal talk with condition as a predictor. Children in the scientific inquiry condition were more responsive to parental causal talk (B = 0.95, p = 0.05). We discuss implications for the role of parental causal talk on children’s talk and subsequent understanding about scientific concepts.

Authors

• Kathleen Helen Corriveau, Boston University
  Presenting Author

• Ian L. Campbell, Boston University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Kathryn Leech, Harvard University Graduate School of Education
  Non-Presenting Author