4
Everyday Settings and Family Activities

Everyday science learning is not really a single setting at all—it is the constellation of everyday activities and routines through which people often learn things related to science. What distinguishes everyday and family learning from the other venues represented in this volume is that a significant portion of it occurs in settings in which there is not necessarily any explicit goal of teaching or learning science—at least not part of an institutional agenda to engage in science education. In many situations, scientific content, ways of thinking, and practices are opportunistically encountered and identified, without any particular prior intention to learn about science. In this way, science learning is simply woven into the fabric of the everyday activities or problems.

An individual could be asked to make a health-related decision, contingent on a set of scientific concepts and complex underlying models, while keeping a routine doctor’s appointment. A family might stumble across a science-related event—like a robotics or science fair put on by avid hobbyists—while on a weekend outing. An individual may have to learn about some detailed aspect of computer technology in order to resolve a problem with a computer or network. A group of children might decide to construct an elaborate treehouse one summer, necessitating that they develop a deeper understanding of materials and structural mechanics. Or community members may decide to canvass their neighborhood to educate and involve others responding to an environmental hazard that has been uncovered. As each of these examples illustrates, moments for science learning and teaching surface in people’s everyday lives in unpredictable and opportunistic ways. The research reviewed in this chapter raises intriguing questions about how such everyday moments can figure importantly into a



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 93
 4 Everyday Settings and Family Activities Everyday science learning is not really a single setting at all—it is the constellation of everyday activities and routines through which people often learn things related to science. What distinguishes everyday and family learn- ing from the other venues represented in this volume is that a significant portion of it occurs in settings in which there is not necessarily any explicit goal of teaching or learning science—at least not part of an institutional agenda to engage in science education. In many situations, scientific con- tent, ways of thinking, and practices are opportunistically encountered and identified, without any particular prior intention to learn about science. In this way, science learning is simply woven into the fabric of the everyday activities or problems. An individual could be asked to make a health-related decision, con- tingent on a set of scientific concepts and complex underlying models, while keeping a routine doctor’s appointment. A family might stumble across a science-related event—like a robotics or science fair put on by avid hobbyists—while on a weekend outing. An individual may have to learn about some detailed aspect of computer technology in order to resolve a problem with a computer or network. A group of children might decide to construct an elaborate treehouse one summer, necessitating that they develop a deeper understanding of materials and structural mechanics. Or community members may decide to canvass their neighborhood to educate and involve others responding to an environmental hazard that has been uncovered. As each of these examples illustrates, moments for science learn - ing and teaching surface in people’s everyday lives in unpredictable and opportunistic ways. The research reviewed in this chapter raises intriguing questions about how such everyday moments can figure importantly into a

OCR for page 93
 Learning Science in Informal Environments longer developmental pathway that leads to an increasingly sophisticated understanding of science. A typical scenario for everyday science learning might be a child learn- ing from a parent, or children and adults learning from the media, siblings, peers, and coworkers. Everyday science learning can even appear in the structure of schools and the workplace. For example, some have argued that many child-oriented preschools and apprentice-like graduate programs have in common a kind of situated learning embedded in meaningful ac- tivities characteristic of everyday learning (Tharp and Gallimore, 1989). In some school classrooms, as well, children engage with science concepts and activities in informal ways (Brown and Campione, 1996). Many adults learn a great deal about science in the workplace. The science learning we focus on in this chapter, however, occurs in less structured settings. An important distinction can be made between two categories of ev- eryday science learning. First, there are spontaneous, opportune moments of learning that come up unexpectedly. Second, there are more deliberate and focused pursuits that involve science learning and may grow into more stable interests and activity choices. These types establish two ends of a continuum, with a range of activities falling in between. Virtually all people participate in spontaneous everyday science learning. A classic example is when a preschool-age child asks a parent a question during everyday activities. For example in one study, while fishing with his dad, a four-year-old boy asked, “Why do fish die outside the water?” While watching a movie about dinosaurs, another four-year-old boy asked, “Why do dinosaurs grow horns?” A five-year-old girl eating dinner with her family asked, “When you die what is your body like?” (Callanan, Perez-Granados, Barajas, and Goldberg, no date). Such questions often emerge in conversa- tions that become potential learning situations for children. Although the children themselves are not likely to be thinking about the domain of science, their questions engage other people in the exploration of ideas, creating an important context for early thinking about science. Of course, young children are not the only ones to engage with science ideas in these spontaneous ways. Every adult has had experiences in which they pick up some new idea or new way of understanding something scien- tific through a casual conversation, or through a newspaper article or televi- sion show. Conversational topics one might casually encounter range from what causes earthquakes, to how new television screen technology works, to the best way to determine what food may be causing allergic reactions in a child. What these examples have in common is that science learning may be occurring without any particular goal of learning. Not everyone participates in the second, more deliberate type of every- day science activity. But many do: children become “experts” in particular domains (dinosaurs, birds, stars), adults pursue science hobbies (computers, ham radio, gardening), and other focused pursuits emerge because of life

OCR for page 93
 Everyday Settings and Family Activities circumstances (caring for a family member with a particular condition, deal- ing with a local environmental hazard). In these more deliberate pursuits, there is a learning goal, although it might be quite different from the goals held by science teachers for their students. For example, an adult with a hobby of flying model planes learns a great deal about aerodynamics, and a child who develops a keen interest in dinosaurs gains expertise in under- standing biological adaptation. The focused pursuits that are based on life circumstances also involve learning and teaching—for example, a young woman who searches the Internet to better understand her mother’s cancer diagnosis, as well as the community member who learns about water con- tamination because of a local hazard. Agricultural communities and families engage in sophisticated science learning related to environmental conditions and botany in specific ecosystems. Hobbyists and volunteers can spend hundreds of hours each year engaging in science-related elective pursuits, from astronomy and robotics to animal husbandry and environmental stew- ardship (Sachatello-Sawyer et al., 2002). A parent might decide to structure significant portions of weekend family time around a science-related practice like systematic mixing to make perfumes or cross-pollination experiments with house plants (Bell et al., 2006). In contrast to the more opportunistic experiences described first, these deliberate educational opportunities are more systematic, more sustained, more likely to involve the development of social groups to support the activi- ties (e.g., hobby groups), and more likely to link with institutions that make the pursuits possible (e.g., equipment manufacturers, government agencies). Furthermore, sustained learning is more of a central goal in these activities than in the spontaneous ones. But notice that the learning and teaching that occurs in these examples is not defined by the goal of becoming expert in a domain of science or in science as a global concept. The learning is much more specific, more focused, and more connected to the deeply motivated interests and goals of the learner. These everyday pursuits, while they involve sustained individual inquiry, are also often intensive social practices in which individuals share expertise and combine their distributed expertise to reach goals that include solving problems, increasing expertise, and enjoyment. SETTINGS FOR EVERYDAY LEARNING The settings in which everyday and family science learning occur vary a great deal in terms of physical setting, the degree to which a particular location is obviously marked as science-oriented, and the relationship to science learning institutions and programs. Some settings for everyday and family learning are clearly tied to sci- ence content—activities like fishing, berry picking, agricultural practices, and gardening, for example. Although participants in these settings may not view their activities as relevant to science, it is not difficult to make the case

OCR for page 93
 Learning Science in Informal Environments that they are potentially interesting places for science learning as they are linked to scientific domains (e.g., berry picking can overlap with questions of botany). Other everyday activities are even more explicitly focused on learning science content; these include reading books about science topics, or watching videos and television shows about such topics (e.g., the Discovery Channel). When children are a bit older, homework activities with parents (e.g., science fair projects) are possible venues for science conversations, as well as conversations related to literacy and other school topics (McDermott, Goldman, and Varenne, 1984; Valle and Callanan, 2006). Some settings for everyday and family science learning may occur in or build on settings designed for science learning—science or natural history museums, zoos, science centers, environmental centers, school experiences, and the like. Although we discuss experiences in designed settings at length in Chapter 5, it is important to note that the distinction between everyday learning and learning in designed settings is blurry and imperfect. After all, family groups are among the most common social configurations of par- ticipants in these settings. Conversations about these events and activities occur as the experiences are unfolding in both unstructured family settings and institutionally organized, designed settings. For example, Crowley and Galco (2001) report on the ways that parents, through conversations with their children in museums, seem to extend children’s exploration and pro- vide brief explanations of the phenomena they are observing. Reflection on those experiences often extends after these experiences and is observed in future family activities in a variety of home and other settings (Bell et al., 2006; Bricker and Bell, no date). A third type of setting—the unanticipated incidental experiences of family life—are in some sense not obviously linked to a scientific setting. Dinner table conversation is one activity that has been studied by a number of re- searchers (Ochs, Smith, and Taylor, 1996). Other activities, such as driving in the car, can also provide opportunities for reflection on the events of the day or on issues that come to mind (Callanan and Oakes, 1992). Goodwin (2007) discusses “occasioned knowledge exploration,” in which, for example, a family on an evening walk might encounter events that lead to explana- tion. She discusses one family walk on which each family member pretended to be a different animal, and this engendered open-ended discussion of a number of topics, such as camouflage, how fireflies’ lights work, and the behavior of snakes. A crucial point to make here is that the features of the settings for every- day science learning are likely to vary a great deal depending on the cultural community, as well as the particular family in question. Some individuals, families, and communities live in ways that give them regular exposure to living animals, while others are limited to encountering only pictures of ani- mals, along with pets and occasional zoo visits. People, especially children, also vary a great deal in their exposure to different types of technology

OCR for page 93
 Everyday Settings and Family Activities (such as computers, automobile mechanics, and construction equipment). In addition, there is diversity in the patterns of interaction of children and adults in families. Some communities value storytelling, others focus more on explanation, others focus more on intent observation of ongoing activity without as much verbal commentary (Heath, 1983; Rogoff et al., 2003). All of these issues have importance for the ways in which groups of people tend to engage with the natural and technological world and the ways in which young children master, as well as learn to identify as normal, habitual modes of interacting with one another and with science and the natural world. We return to this in greater detail in Chapter 7. WHO LEARNS IN EVERYDAY SETTINGS Virtually all people develop skills, interests, and knowledge relevant to science in everyday and family settings. The nature of learning varies over time as development, maturation, and the life course unfold. Particu- lar interests and abilities arise through development that shape pursuits of learning, as well as the intellectual and social resources individuals draw on to learn science. People develop new interests and manage new tasks that arise through the life course. Being a sibling, entering the workforce, caring for one’s self, one’s children, and one’s aging parents, for example, often demand that one navigate and explore new scientific terrain. Here we briefly sketch out a life-course developmental view of science learning as it unfolds in everyday and family settings. At birth, children begin to build the basis for science learning. By the end of the first two years of life, individuals have acquired a remarkable amount of knowledge about the physical aspects of their world (Baillargeon, 2004; Cohen and Cashon, 2006). This “knowledge” is not formal science knowledge, but rather a developing intuitive grasp of regularity in the natural world. It is derived from the child’s own experimentation with objects, rather than through planned learning by adults. In accidentally dropping something from a high chair or crib, for example, the child begins to recognize the effects of gravity. These early experiences do not always lead to accurate interpreta- tions or understandings of the physical world (Krist, Fieberg, and Wilkening, 1993). As children acquire new or deeper knowledge about physical objects and events, some of their learning will correct false or incomplete inferences that they have made earlier. As a child masters language and becomes more mobile, opportunities for science learning expand. Informal and unplanned discoveries of scien- tific phenomena (e.g., scrutinizing bugs in the backyard) are supplemented by more programmatic learning (e.g., bedtime reading by parents, family visits to museums or science centers, science-related activities in child care or preschool settings). These lead to the development of scientific concepts (Gelman and Kalish, 2006), which are enhanced by the child’s expanding

OCR for page 93
8 Learning Science in Informal Environments reasoning skills (Halford and Andrews, 2006). Even in these initial years of life, children display preferences for some phenomena more than others. Such preferences can evolve into specific science interests (e.g., dinosaurs, insects, flight, mechanics) that can be nurtured when parents or others pro- vide experiences or resources related to the interests (Chi and Koeske, 1983; Crowley and Jacobs, 2002). By the time they enter formal school environments, most children have developed an impressive array of cognitive skills, along with an extensive body of knowledge related to the natural world (National Research Coun- cil, 2007). It is also likely that they have become familiar with numerous modalities for acquiring scientific information other than formal classroom instruction: reading, surfing the Internet, watching science-related programs on television, speaking with peers or adults who have some expertise on a topic, or exploring the environment on their own (Korpan, Bisanz, Bisanz, and Lynch, 1998). These activities continue throughout the years in which young people and young adults are engaged in formal schooling, as well as later in life (Farenga and Joyce, 1997). It is also common for elementary schoolchildren to bring the classroom home, to regale parents with stories of what happened in school that day and involve them in homework assignments. These events help to alert parents to a child’s specific intellectual interests and may inspire family activities that feature these interests. A child’s comments about a science lesson at school may encourage parents to work with the child on the Internet or take him or her to a zoo or museum or concoct scientific experiments with household items in order to gather more information. In these ways, informal experiences can supplement and complement school-based science education. As young people move into adolescence, they tend to express a de- sire to pursue activities independently of adults (Falk and Dierking, 2002). This does not necessarily mean that relationships with parents grow more distant (Zimmer-Gembeck and Collins, 2003), but young people do spend less time with parents or other adult relatives and more time with peers or alone (Csikszentmihalyi and Larson, 1984). Attachment to teachers also wanes across adolescence (Eccles, Lord, and Buchanan, 1996). Despite such alterations in relationships with adults who have organized or supervised their learning experiences in previous years, many young people continue to engage in many activities outside school that can involve science learning. Individuals’ interests in and motivations to pursue scientific learning change during adolescence. Yet especially for those with strong personal interests in scientific areas, learning experiences in informal settings potentially continue to supplement classroom science instruction. As individuals move into adult roles, they usually reserve a reasonable amount of time for leisure pursuits. Those with hobbies related to science, technology, engineering, or mathematics are especially likely to continue with intentional, self-directed learning activities in that area (Barron, 2006). Science

OCR for page 93
 Everyday Settings and Family Activities learning may also continue in more unintentional ways, such as watching television shows or movies with scientific content or falling into conversa- tion with friends or associates about science-related issues. Some adults may focus especially on scientific issues related to their occupation or career, and in many cases their pursuit of scientific topics will be influenced by personal interests or (in later years) the school-related needs of their children. Beginning in middle age and continuing through later adulthood, in- dividuals are often motivated by events in their own lives or the lives of significant others to obtain health-related information (Flynn, Smith, and Freese, 2006). Health-related concerns draw many adults into a new domain of science learning. At the same time, with retirement, older adults have more time to devote to personal interests. Their science learning addresses long- standing scientific interests as well as new areas of interest (Kelly, Savage, Landman, and Tonkin, 2002). In sum, although the nature and extent of science-related learning may vary considerably from one life stage to another, most people develop relevant capabilities and intuitive knowledge from the days immediately after birth and expand on these in later stages of their life. In this sense, science learning in informal environments is definitely a lifelong enterprise (Falk and Dierking, 2002). To date, no one has compiled reliable information on the amount of information about the natural world acquired by infants and toddlers through everyday interactions in the world or through more programmed learning contexts (e.g., preschool activities, television shows). Information is equally scant on the amount of scientific knowledge that young people acquire in school classrooms in comparison to other venues. It is safe to say, however, that the sheer number of hours in which individuals encounter scientific information outside school over the life span is far greater than the number of hours of science education in formal classroom environments. WHAT IS LEARNED This section focuses on the science knowledge, skills, and interests that children and adults develop in everyday learning. We organize this discus- sion according to the strands of our framework, focusing specifically on the evidence of learning in everyday and family settings. The strands serve as a means of pulling apart the evidence in ways that make the stronger claims more evident. We devote varied amounts of space to the strands. In most cases, this variability reflects the quantity of work that has examined the strand in a particular venue. Here and in subsequent chapters, we often discuss the strands individually for analytic purposes. Yet we hope to keep sight of how the strands are interrelated and mutually supportive in practice. Tizard and Hughes (1984), for example, offer an illustrative example of an almost-4-year-old’s conversation with her mother (see Box 4-1). In this short thread, we see the child using her parent as source of information (Strand 5)

OCR for page 93
00 Learning Science in Informal Environments Example of a Parent-Child Incidental Science BOX 4-1 Conversation Child: s our roof a sloping roof? I Mother: mm. We’ve got two sloping roofs, and they sort of meet M in the middle. Child: hy have we? W Mother: h, it’s just the way our house is built. Most people have O sloping roofs, so that the rain can run off them. Otherwise, if you have a flat roof, the rain would sit in the middle of the roof and make a big puddle, and then it would start coming through. Child: ur school has a flat roof, you know. O Mother: es it does actually, doesn’t it? Y Child: nd the rain sits there and goes through? A Mother: ell, it doesn’t go through. It’s probably built with drains W so that the water runs away. You have big blocks of flats with rather flat sort of roofs. But houses that were built at the time this house was built usually had sloping roofs. Child: oes Lara have a sloping roof? [Lara is her friend] D Mother: mm. Lara’s house is very like ours. In countries where M they have a lot of snow, they have even more sloping roofs. So that when they’ve got a lot of snow, the snow can just fall off. Child: f you have a flat roof, what would it do? Would it just have I a drain? Mother: o, then it would sit on the roof, and when it melted it N would make a big puddle. SOURCE: Tizard and Hughes (1984). as she explores a “why” question (Strand 1) and tries to explain the role of pitched roofs in drainage (Strand 2). Strand 1: Developing Interest in Science What sets everyday learning apart from other learning is the sense of ex- citement and pure intrinsic interest that often underlies it (Hidi and Renninger,

OCR for page 93
0 Everyday Settings and Family Activities 2006). One potential advantage of everyday informal settings is that they may be more likely to support learners’ interest-driven and personally relevant exploration than are more structured settings, such as classrooms and other designed educational settings. Children’s cause-seeking “why” questions have been argued to be one sign of their intense curiosity about the world (see Heath, 1999; Gopnik, Meltzoff, and Kuhl, 1999; Tizard and Hughes, 1984). Simon (2001) compares these questions to the creative thought and exploratory thinking of scientists. Similarly, Gopnik (1998) suggests that explanation seeking is a basic human process. Some children become so interested in one domain that they are described as experts—for example a great deal of research has characterized the activities of preschool-age dinosaur experts, as well as experts in other domains relevant to science or technology (Chi, Hutchinson, and Robin, 1989; Johnson et al., 2004). Such children may also develop social reputations as experts in a particular science domain (Palmquist and Crowley, 2007). These social reputation systems can serve to further the child’s learning, in that adults, peers, and siblings may call on the child to perform as an expert (e.g., to produce and refine an explanation of a natural phenomenon) or provide them with specialized topic-related learning resources to further their learning (Barron, 2006; Bell et al., 2006). Similarly, adult experts often develop their knowledge through informal channels. Adult science learning in everyday settings is also usually self-motivated and tightly connected to individual interest and problem solving. For example, adult learners often learn about science in the context of hobbies, such as bird watching or model airplane building (Azevedo, 2006). A sociocultural perspective on adult learning highlights how learning is often initiated in direct response to a current life problem or issue (Spradley, 1980). Environ- mental science learning often occurs in the context of local conflicts that threaten neighborhoods, such as pesticide use, industrial waste, effects of severe weather, or introduction of new industries in an area (Ballantyne and Bain, 1995). Also, a great deal of adult learning about human physiology and medicine tends to occur because of immediate and strong motivation to learn about illnesses experienced by the learner or someone close to them (Flynn, Smith, and Freese, 2006). Indeed, one conclusion from the literature is that adult learners tend not to be generalists in their learning of science; rather, they tend to become experts in one particular domain of interest (Sachatello-Sawyer, 2006). Even when science learning is of the momentary type (rather than sus- tained or expert-like), keen interest is likely to be behind it. The research on adults’ medical knowledge is one strong example; that knowledge often comes from deep questioning of health care providers and intense searches of literature (and, more recently, the Internet) when one is facing a medical crisis (for either oneself or a loved one). The motivation to understand in

OCR for page 93
0 Learning Science in Informal Environments the context of such a crisis is strong and persistent (Dickerson et al., 2004; Flynn et al., 2006; Pereira et al., 2000). Some have argued that schools and science centers should learn from the authentic moments of curiosity and exploration seen in everyday learning—and try to recreate them in their settings (Falk and Storksdieck, 2005; Hall and Schaverien, 2001; National Research Council, 2000). While pursuit of scientific questions for the sake of pure interest is often a goal in planning curriculum or museum exhibits, visitors may not have that goal. Yet the personal histories of scientists suggest that sustained everyday experi- ences are often seen as a crucial influence on their expertise development (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Simon, 2001). If learning experiences in informal settings are to be linked more productively with formal education, a fun- damental challenge is to systematically explore the effectiveness of ways of offering resources and supports that allow learners to pursue their own deeply held interests. Strand 2: Understanding Scientific Knowledge As noted, throughout the life span, people learn a myriad of facts, ideas, and explanations that are relevant to a variety of scientific domains. Studies of early cognitive development suggest that young children, prior to the age at which they enter school, make great strides in understanding regularities in the natural world, which can be developed into more robust understanding of science (National Research Council, 2007). Their earliest experiences of learning about the natural world begin in infancy. Even in the first days of life, infants’ physical encounters with objects and people begin to give them information about the nature of their new world. Newborns’ contacts with surfaces and objects give them an intuitive understanding of motion which later may be drawn on in the study of physics (Baillargeon, 2004; Spelke, 2002; von Hofsten, 2004). For example, when presented with a person hold- ing an object, 4-month-old babies look longer when the person lets go and the object stays stationary than when the object drops, suggesting that they are surprised when the typical effects of gravity are violated (Baillargeon, 2004). Throughout the first year of life, babies’ simple behaviors, such as looking in anticipation for the movement of a rolling ball, show that they have begun to develop expectations about the behaviors of physical objects, as well as the actions of other people (Luo and Baillargeon, 2005; Saxe, Tzelnic, and Carey, 2007). Much of young children’s early understanding of the natural world grows out of experiences in everyday settings. Consider, for example, research on children’s learning about two scientific questions: (1) What kinds of things are alive? (2) What is the shape of the earth? These are two areas in which extensive research has uncovered patterns in children’s early understanding, as well as developmental changes in their concepts over time. The developing understanding of distinctions between living and nonliv-

OCR for page 93
0 Everyday Settings and Family Activities ing things has been explored in infancy and early childhood using a number of methodologies (Bullock, Gelman, and Baillargeon, 1982; Gelman and Gottfried, 1996; National Research Council, 2007; Springer and Keil, 1991). It is evident from this work that many of children’s earliest ideas about the natural world seem to focus on a distinction between social, intentional creatures as distinct from nonintentional, inanimate things (Carey, 1985). Indeed, it takes many years for children to accept plants as living things (Waxman, 2005). Laboratory studies of children’s inferences about living things first sug- gested that they think about animals in terms of their relation to people (Carey, 1985). When told that people have a particular organ (e.g., a spleen) and asked whether a series of animals have that organ, children as old as 7 years often seemed to make decisions based on how similar the animal was to humans; a monkey would be judged as more likely to have the organ than would a butterfly, for example. Such findings were taken to suggest that children did not have a “naïve theory” of biology, but rather thought in terms of a “naïve psychology” with humans as the prototype. Later studies, however, have shown that Carey’s sample of mostly urban majority children reason differently on this task than do children from communities with more firsthand experience with nature. Both rural American Indian children from the Menominee community and rural majority children made inferences that indicate reasoning about biological kinds without anthropomorphism (Ross, Medin, Coley, and Atran, 2003). Furthermore, Tarlowski (2006) found that children whose parents are expert biologists were more likely to reason about animals in terms of biological categories, and Inagaki and Hatano (1996) found that children who had experience raising goldfish were more likely to reason in terms of biology than those who had not. Research on children’s understanding of evolution has also revealed some interesting influences of learning about biology in families. Evans (2001, 2005) found some ways that developmental phases in understanding the origin of species are similar for children from different family backgrounds. She finds that many young children give “creationist” explanations, and then, as they get older, their families’ beliefs seem to influence children from fun- damentalist and nonfundamentalist households to differentiate their beliefs about evolution. These findings demonstrate that while there are trends related to age, children’s particular experiences, including cultural experiences outside school, are likely to have impact on their thinking about the domain of living things. Less is known about precisely how specific experiences actually affect their thinking. What does seems clear, however, is that much of this learn- ing occurs in informal settings, and that it is likely to involve conversations with peers (Howe, McWilliam, and Cross, 2005; Howe, Tolmie, and Rodgers, 1992; Lumpe, 1995), parents, and other important people in children’s lives (Jipson and Gelman, 2007; Waxman and Medin, 2007). Children’s understanding of the shape of the earth is another area in

OCR for page 93
 Learning Science in Informal Environments more traditional science learning in labs and classrooms. Recognizing these links has particularly important promise for learners who have been outside the practice and identity of science, whether as children or as adults. More attention to everyday practices that are related to science may provide valu- able tools for moving toward equity in access to science. We recognize that the evidence for contributions from everyday science learning venues toward Strand 4 suggests less contribution than for other strands. The literature focuses more on learners’ epistemic commitments and views of science (whether the learners are young or old) than on the ways that the everyday settings contribute to those commitments and views. The research, in fact, tends to focus on the limitations of learners’ capabilities vis-à-vis reflection. We think further examination is warranted. We acknowledge that everyday science cannot replace the kind of sys- tematic and cumulative pedagogy that science educators have developed. For example, the concept of learning progressions has attracted substantial attention among science educators and researchers. Learning progressions call for the K-12 curriculum to build a small number of core scientific constructs across the curriculum. These major ideas are revisited recurrently from year to year with increasing depth and sophistication. Informed by developmental research, learning progressions also build on a broad range of science knowl- edge and skills, such as those reflected in the strands. Everyday learning can- not replace such systematic building of knowledge and experiences toward particular goals. However, everyday learning can augment and complement this and other curricular approaches to science learning. For example, they may be well suited to sparking early interest and for providing opportunities for deeper exploration of particular ideas. A major challenge is to find more productive ways for everyday experi- ences with science to connect with more formal science learning. It is dif- ficult to know how best to connect the pure moments of informal inquiry and exploration to the longer term goals of deeper scientific education. For example, creative use of spaces where the talk and practices of both science and everyday life can come together have shown particular promise in this arena (Barton, 2008). Finally, we call attention to the disagreement in the literature as to the role of everyday experiences in children’s developing scientific thinking. Some researchers are optimistic that everyday settings can be powerful, productive sources for (eventual) sophisticated, mature scientific knowledge. Others are more guarded and focus on how formal instruction should elicit and often correct scientific or science-like ideas that are developed in everyday set- tings. Further research is needed to illuminate the subtleties of the interaction between thinking about science in everyday and in school settings.

OCR for page 93
 Everyday Settings and Family Activities REFERENCES Agan, L., and Sneider, C. (2004). Learning about the Earth’s shape and gravity: A guide for teachers and curriculum developers. Astronomy Education Review, 2 (2), 90-117. Allen, S. (2002). Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 259-303). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. American Association of University Women. (1995). Growing smart: What’s work- ing for girls in school. Researched by S. Hansen, J. Walker, and B. Flom at the University of Minnesota’s College of Education and Human Development. Washington, DC: Author. Amsterlaw, J., and Meltzoff, A.N. (2007, March). Children’s evaluation of everyday thinking strategies: An outcome-to-process shift. In C.M. Mills (Chair), Taking a critical stance: How children evaluate the thinking of others. Symposium con- ducted at the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston. Ash, D. (2002). Negotiation of biological thematic conversations about biology. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 357-400). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Aukrust, V. (2002). What did you do in school today? Speech genres and tellability in multiparty family mealtime conversations in two cultures. In S. Blum-Kulka and C. Snow (Eds.), Talking to adults: The contribution of multiparty discourse to language acquisition (pp. 55-83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Azevedo, F.S. (2006). Serious play: A comparative study of engagement and learning in hobby practices. Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Baillargeon, R. (2004). How do infants learn about the physical world? Current Direc- tions in Psychological Science, 3, 133-140. Ballantyne, R., and Bain, J. (1995). Enhancing environmental conceptions: An evalu- ation of cognitive conflict and structured controversy learning units. Studies in Higher Education, 20 (3), 293-303. Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49 (4), 153-224. Barton, A.C. (2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45 (1), 68-103. Bell, P., and Linn, M.C. (2002). Beliefs about science: How does science instruction contribute? In B. Hofer and P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psy- chology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 321-346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bell, P., Bricker, L.A., Lee, T.F., Reeve, S., and Zimmerman, H.H. (2006). Understand- ing the cultural foundations of children’s biological knowledge: Insights from everyday cognition research. In A. Barab, K.E. Hay, and D. Hickey (Eds.), 7th international conference of the learning sciences, ICLS 2006 (vol. 2, pp. 1029- 1035). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

OCR for page 93
8 Learning Science in Informal Environments Blum-Kulka, S. (2002). Do you believe that Lot’s wife is blocking the road (to Jericho)? Co-constructing theories about the world with adults. In S. Blum-Kulka and C.E. Snow (Eds.), Talking to adults: The contribution of multiparty discourse to lan- guage acquisition (pp. 85-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bricker, L.A., and Bell, P. (no date). Evidentiality and evidence use in children’s talk across everyday contexts. Everyday Science and Technology Group, University of Washington. Brodie, M., Hamel, E.C., Altman, D.E., Blendon, R.J., and Benson, J.M. (2003). Health news and the American public, 1996-2002. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 28 (5), 927-950. Brown, A.L., and Campione, J.C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of in- novative learning environments: On procedures, principles and systems. In L. Schauble and R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, B.A. (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture of science and its implications for minority students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (8), 810-834. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bullock, M., Gelman, R., and Baillargeon, R. (1982). The development of causal reasoning. In W.J. Friedman (Ed.), The developmental psychology of time (pp. 209-254). New York: Academic Press. Callanan, M.A., and Oakes, L. (1992). Preschoolers’ questions and parents’ explana- tions: Causal thinking in everyday activity. Cognitive Development, 7, 213-233. Callanan, M., Perez-Granados, D., Barajas, N., and Goldberg, J. (no date). Everyday conversations about science: Questions as contexts for theory development. Un- published manuscript, University of California, Santa Cruz. Callanan, M.A., Shrager, J., and Moore, J. (1995). Parent-child collaborative explana- tions: Methods of identification and analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 105-129. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chi, M.T.H., and Koeske, R.D. (1983). Network representation of a child’s dinosaur knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 19 (1), 29-39. Chi, M.T.H., Hutchinson, J.E., and Robin, A.F. (1989). How inferences about novel domain-related concepts can be constrained by structured knowledge. Merrill- Palmer Quarterly, 35 (1), 27-62. Chouinard, M.M. (2007). Children’s questions: A mechanism for cognitive develop- ment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 72 (1), 1-121. Cohen, L.B., and Cashon, C.H. (2006). Infant cognition. In W. Damon and R.M. Lerner (Series Eds.) and D. Kuhn and R.S. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognition, perception, and language (vol. 2, 6th ed., pp. 214-251). New York: Wiley. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cole, M. (2005). Cross-cultural and historical perspectives on the developmental consequence of education. Human Development, 48 (4), 195-216.

OCR for page 93
 Everyday Settings and Family Activities Collins, H.M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Crowley, K., and Galco, J. (2001). Everyday activity and the development of scientific thinking. In K. Crowley, C.D. Schunn, and T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 123-156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crowley, K., and Jacobs, M. (2002). Islands of expertise and the development of family scientific literacy. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 333-356). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crowley, K., Callanan, M.A., Tenenbaum, H.R., and Allen, E. (2001). Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Psychological Science, 12 (3), 258-261. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins. Csikszentmihalyi, M., and Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent. New York: Basic Books. Dickerson, S., Reinhart, A.M., Feeley, T.H., Bidani, R., Rich, E., Garg, V.K., and Hershey, C.O. (2004). Patient Internet use for health information at three urban primary care clinics. Journal of American Medical Information Association, 11, 499-504. diSessa, A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman and P. Pufall (Eds.), Con- structivism in the computer age (pp. 49-70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., and Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Dunbar, K. (1999). The scientist in vivo: How scientists think and reason in the laboratory. In L. Magnanai, N. Nersessian, and P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based r easoning in scientific discovery (pp. 89-98). New York: Plenum. Eccles, J.S., Lord, S., and Buchanan, C.M. (1996). School transitions in early adoles- cence: What are we doing to our young people? In J. Graber, J. Brooks-Gunn, and A. Petersen (Eds.), Transitions through adolescence: Interpersonal domains and context (pp. 251-284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press. Erickson, F., and Gutiérrez, K. (2002). Culture, rigor, and science in educational re- search. Educational Researcher, 31 (8), 21-24. Evans, E.M. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: Creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 42 (3), 217-266. Evans, E.M. (2005). Teaching and learning about evolution. In J. Diamond (Ed.), The virus and the whale: Explore evolution in creatures small and large. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Falk, J.H., and Dierking, L.D. (2002). Lessons without limit: How free choice learning is transforming education. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Falk, J.H., and Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89 (5), 744-778. Farenga, S.J., and Joyce, B.A. (1997). Beyond the classroom: Gender differences in science experiences. Education, 117, 563-568.

OCR for page 93
0 Learning Science in Informal Environments Flynn, K.E., Smith, M.A., and Freese, J. (2006). When do older adults turn to the Internet for health information? Findings from the Wisconsin longitudinal study. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21 (12), 1295-1301. Fox, S. (2006). Online health search. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Gelman, R., and Baillargeon, R. (1983). A review of some Piagetian concepts. In J. H. Flavell and E. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive development: Handbook of child development (vol. 3, pp. 167-230). New York: Wiley. Gelman, S.A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York: Oxford University Press. Gelman, S.A., and Gottfried, G.M. (1996). Children’s causal explanations of animate and inanimate motion. Child Development, 67 (5), 1970-1987. Gelman, S.A., and Kalish, C.W. (2006). Conceptual development. In D. Kuhn and R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognition, perception and language (vol. 2, pp. 687-733). New York: Wiley. Gelman, S.A., and Raman, L. (2003). Preschool children use linguistic form class and pragmatic cues to interpret generics. Child Development, 74(1), 308-325. Gelman, S.A., Taylor, M.G., Nguyen, S., Leaper, C., and Bigler, R.S. (2004). Mother-child conversations about gender: Understanding the acquisition of essentialist beliefs. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 69(1), 145. Gleason, M.E., and Schauble, L. (2000). Parents’ assistance of their children’s scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 343-378. Goodnow, J.J. (1990). The socialization of cognition: What’s involved? In J.W. Stigler, R.A. Shweder, and G.H. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 259-286). New York: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96 (3), 606-633. Goodwin, M.H. (2007). Occasioned knowledge exploration in family interaction. Discourse and Society, 18 (1), 93-110. Gopnik, A. (1998). Explanation as orgasm. Minds and Machines, 8 (1), 101-118. Gopnik, A., and Wellman, H.M. (1992). Why the child’s theory of mind really is a theory. Mind and Language, 7 (1-2), 145-171. Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D., Schulz, L., Kushnir, T., and Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychologi- cal Review, 111, 1-31. Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A., and Kuhl, P. (1999). The scientist in the crib. New York: Morrow. Gopnik, A., Sobel, D.M., Schulz, L., and Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mecha- nisms in very young children: Two, three, and four-year-olds infer causal rela- tions from patterns of variation and covariation. Developmental Psychology, 37 (5), 620-629. Gutiérrez, K., and Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32 (5), 19-25. Halford, G.S., and Andrews, G. (2006). Reasoning and problem solving. In D. Kuhn and R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognitive, language and perceptual development (6th ed., vol. 2, pp. 557-608). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Hall, R., and Schaverien, L. (2001). Families’ participation in young children’s science and technology learning. Science Education, 85 (4), 454-481.

OCR for page 93
 Everyday Settings and Family Activities Harris, P.L., and Koenig, M.A. (2006). Trust in testimony: How children learn about science and religion. Child Development, 77 (3), 505-524. Harris, P.L., Pasquini, E.S., Duke, S., Asscher, J.J., and Pons, F. (2006). Germs and angels: The role of testimony in young children’s ontology. Developmental Sci- ence, 9 (1), 76-96. Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S.B. (1999). Dimensions of language development: Lessons from older children. In A.S. Masten (Ed.), Cultural processes in child development: The Minnesota symposium on child psychology (vol. 29, pp. 59-75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Heath, S.B. (2007). Diverse learning and learner diversity in “informal” science learning environments. Commissioned paper prepared for the National Research Council Committee on Science Education for Learning Science in Informal Envi- ronments. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Brice%20Heath_ Commissioned_Paper.pdf [accessed February 2009]. Hidi, S., and Renninger, K.A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 111-127. Hood, L., and Bloom, L. (1979). What, when, and how about why: A longitudinal study of early expressions of causality. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 44 (6), 1-47. Howe, C., McWilliam, D., and Cross, G. (2005). Chance favours only the prepared mind: Incubation and the delayed effects of peer collaboration. British Journal of Psychology, 96 (1), 67-93. Howe, C., Tobmie, A., and Rodgers, C. (1992). The acquisition of conceptual knowl- edge in science by primary school children: Group interaction and the understand- ing of motion down an incline. British Journal of Psychology, 10 (2), 113-130. Inagaki, K., and Hatano, G. (1996). Young children’s recognition of commonalities between animals and plants. Child Development, 67(6), 2823-2840. Ioannides, C.H., and Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meaning of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2 (1), 5-62. Irwin, A., and Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public recon- struction of science and technology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jipson, J.L., and Gelman, S.A. (2007). Robots and rodents: Children’s inferences about living and nonliving kinds. Child Development, 78 (6), 1675-1688. Johnson, K., Alexander, J., Spencer, S., Leibham, M., and Neitzel, C. (2004). Factors associated with the early emergence of intense interests within conceptual do- mains. Cognitive Development, 19 (3), 325-343. Jones, G., and Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (9), 861-874. Kelly, L., Savage, G., Landman, P., and Tonkin, S. (2002). Energised, engaged, everywhere: Older Australians and museums. Canberra: National Museum of Australia. Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery pro- cesses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Knorr-Cetina, K.D. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

OCR for page 93
 Learning Science in Informal Environments Korpan, C.A., Bisanz, G.L., Bisanz, J., and Lynch, M.A. (1998). Charts: A tool for sur- veying young children’s opportunities to learn about science outside of school. Ottawa: Canadian Social Science and Humanities Research Council. Krist, H., Fieberg, E.L., and Wilkening, F. (1993). Intuitive physics in action and judgment: The development of knowledge about projectile motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19 (4), 952. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96 (4), 674-689. Kuhn, D. (1996). Is good thinking scientific thinking? In D. Olson and N. Torrance (Eds.), Modes of thought: Explorations in culture and cognition (pp. 261-281). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kushnir, T., and Gopnik, A. (2005). Young children infer causal strength from prob- ability and intervention. Psychological Science, 16, 678-683. Latour, B., and Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lawler, A. (2002). Engineers marginalized, MIT report concludes. Science, 295 (5563), 2192. Layton, D. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. Driffield, England: Studies in Education. Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of sci- ence: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 (4), 331-359. Lee, O., and Fradd, S. (1996). Interactional patterns of linguistically diverse students and teachers: Insights for promoting science learning. Linguistics and Educa- tion, 8 (3), 269-297. Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and scientific literacy. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, K.A. Renninger, and E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psy- chology (6th ed., vol. 4, pp. 153-196). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Leibham, M.E., Alexander, J.M., Johnson, K.E., Neitzel, C., and Reis-Henrie, F. (2005). Parenting behaviors associated with the maintenance of preschoolers’ interests: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26 (4), 397-414. Lumpe, A. (1995). Peer interaction in science concept development and problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 6, 302-310. Luo, Y., and Baillargeon, R. (2005). When the ordinary seems unexpected: Evidence for incremental physical knowledge in young infants. Cognition, 95, 297-328. Lutz, D.R., and Keil, F.C. (2002). Early understanding of the division of cognitive labor. Child Development, 73 (4), 1073-1084. Madden, M., and Fox, S. (2006). Finding answers online in sickness and in health. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Margolis, J., and Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McDermott, R.P., Goldman, S.V., and Varenne, H. (1984). When school goes home: Some problems in the organization of homework. Teachers College Record, 85 (3), 391-409.

OCR for page 93
 Everyday Settings and Family Activities Mervis, J. (1999, April). High-level groups study barriers women face. Science, 284 (5415), 727. Nasir, N.S. (2002). Identity, goals, and learning: Mathematics in cultural practice. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4 (2-3), 213-248. Nasir, N.S., Rosebery, A.S., Warren B., and Lee, C.D. (2006). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. In R. Keith Sawyer (Ed.), The Cam- bridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 489-504). New York: Cambridge University Press. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking (Eds.), and Committee on Learn- ing Research and Educational Practice, M.S. Donovan, J.D. Bransford, and J.W. Pellegrino (Eds.), Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. R.A. Duschl, H.A. Schweingruber, and A.W. Shouse (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Science Foundation. (2002). Gender differences in the careers of academic scientists and engineers. (NSF 04-323.) Arlington, VA: Author. National Science Foundation. (2007). Women, minorities, and persons with disabili- ties in science and engineering (NSF 07-315.) Arlington, VA: Author. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd [accessed October 2008]. Nussbaum, J., and Novak, J.D. (1976). An assessment of children’s concepts of the earth utilizing structured interviews. Science Education, 60 (4), 535-555. Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., and Jacoby, S. (1996). When I come down I’m in the domain state: Grammar and graphic representation of the interpretive activity of physicists. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, and S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 328-369). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E., Smith, R., and Taylor, C.E. (1996). Detective stories at dinnertime: Problem solving through co-narration. In C.L. Briggs (Ed.), Disorderly discourse: Narrative, conflict and inequality (pp. 95-113). New York: Oxford University Press. Palmquist, S., and Crowley, K. (2007). From teachers to testers: How parents talk to novice and expert children in a natural history museum. Science Education, 91(5), 783-804. Pereira, J.L., Koski, S., Hanson, J., Bruera, E.D., and Mackey, J.R. (2000). Internet usage among women with breast cancer: An exploratory study. Clinical Breast Cancer, 1 (2), 148-153. Prentice, R. (2004). Bodies of information: Reinventing bodies and practice in medical education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Prentice, R. (2005). The anatomy of a surgical simulation: The mutual articulation of bodies in and through the machine. Social Studies of Science, 35 (6), 837-866. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.

OCR for page 93
 Learning Science in Informal Environments Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Mejía Arauz, R., Correa-Chávez, M., and Angelillo, C. (2003). Firsthand learning by intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 175-203. Ross, N., Medin, D., Coley, J.D., and Atran, S. (2003). Cultural and experiential dif- ferences in the development of folkbiological induction. Cognitive Development, 18 (1), 35-47. Sabbagh, M.A., and Baldwin, D.A. (2001). Learning words from knowledgeable versus ignorant speakers: Links between preschoolers’ theory of mind and semantic development. Child Development, 72 (4), 1054-1070. Sachatello-Sawyer, B. (2006). Adults and informal science learning. Presentation to the National Research Council Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments, Washington, DC. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies. org/bose/Learning_Science_in_Informal_Environments_Commissioned_Papers. html [accessed November 2008]. Sachatello-Sawyer, B., Fellenz, R.A., Burton, H., Gittings-Carlson, L., Lewis-Mahony, J., and Woolbaugh, W. (2002). Adult museum programs: Designing meaningful experiences. American Association for State and Local History Book Series. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: AltaMira Press. Samarapungavan, A., Vosniadou, S., and Brewer, W.F. (1996). Mental models of the earth, sun and moon: Indian children’s cosmologies. Cognitive Development, 11 (4), 491-521. Sandoval, W.A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89 (4), 634-656. Sax, L.J. (2001). Undergraduate science majors: Gender differences in who goes to graduate school. Review of Higher Education, 24 (2), 153-172. Saxe, R., Tzelnic, T., and Carey, S. (2007). Knowing who dunnit: Infants identifying the casual agent in an unseen casual interaction. Developmental Psychology, 43 (1), 149-158. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32 (1), 102-119. Simon, H.A. (2001). “Seek and ye shall find”: How curiosity engenders discovery. In K. Crowley, C. Schunn, and T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implica- tions from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 5-20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Smith, J.P., diSessa, A.A., and Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sci- ences, 3 (2), 115-163. Snir, J., Smith, C.L., and Raz, G. (2003). Linking phenomena with competing underly- ing models: A software tool for introduction students to the particulate model of matter. Science Education, 87, 794-830. Snyder, C.I., and Ohadi, M.M. (1998). Unraveling students’ misconceptions about the earth’s shape and gravity. Science Education, 82 (2), 265-284. Songer, N.B., and Linn, M.C. (1991). How do students’ views of the scientific enter- prise influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (9), 761-784. Spelke, E.S. (2002). Developmental neuroimaging: A developmental psychologist looks ahead. Developmental Science, 5 (3), 392-396.

OCR for page 93
 Everyday Settings and Family Activities Spradley, J.P. (1980). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Springer, K., and Keil, F. (1991). Early differentiation of causal mechanisms appropriate to biological and nonbiological kinds. Child Development, 62, 767-781. Stevens, R., and Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in techno- science. In M. Lampert and M.L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107-149). New York: Cambridge University Press. Tardy, R.W., and Hale, C.L. (1998). Bonding and cracking: The role of informal, in- terpersonal networks in health care decision making. Health Communication, 10 (2), 151-173. Tarlowski, A. (2006). If it’s an animal it has axons: Experience and culture in preschool children’s reasoning about animates. Cognitive Development, 21 (3), 249-265. Tate, E.D., and Linn, M.C. (2005). How does identity shape the experiences of women of color engineering students? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14 (5-6), 483-493. Tenenbaum, H.R., and Callanan, M.A. (2008). Parents’ science talk to their children in Mexican-descent families residing in the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32 (1), 1-12. Tenenbaum, H.R., and Leaper, C. (2003). Parent-child conversations about science: The socialization of gender inequities? Developmental Psychology, 39 (1), 34-47. Tharp, R.G., and Gallimore, R. (1989). Rousing minds to life: Teaching and learning in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tizard, B., and Hughes, M. (1984). Young children learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Treagust, D.F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10 (2), 159-169. Tschirgi, J.E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child De- velopment, 51, 1-10. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59 (4), 251-278. Valle, A. (2007, April). Developing habitual ways of reasoning: Epistemological beliefs and formal bias in parent-child conversations. Poster presented at biennial meet- ing of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston. Valle, A., and Callanan, M.A. (2006). Similarity comparisons and relational analogies in parent-child conversations about science topics. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52 (1), 96-124. von Hofsten, C. (2004). An action perspective on motor development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8 (6), 266-272. Vosniadou, S., and Brewer, W.F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of con- ceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24 (4), 535-585. Warren, B., and Rosebery, A.S. (1996). This question is just too, too easy! Students’ perspectives on accountability in science. In L. Schauble and R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 97-126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

OCR for page 93
 Learning Science in Informal Environments Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A., and Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense- making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 529-552. Wason, P.C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12 (4), 129-140. Waxman, S.R. (2005). Why is the concept “living thing” so elusive? Concepts, lan- guages, and the development of folkbiology. In W. Ahn, R.L. Goldstone, B.C. Love, A.B. Markman, and P. Wolff (Eds.), Categorization inside and outside the laboratory: Essays in honor of Douglas L. Medin. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Waxman, S., and Medin, D. (2007). Experience and cultural models matter: Placing firm limits on anthropocentrism. Human Development, 50, 23-30. Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J., and Collins, W.A. (2003). Autonomy development during adolescence. In G.R. Adams and M.D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 175-204). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20 (1), 99-149.