It Runs in the Family: The Role of Family and Extended Social Networks in Developing Early Science Interest

Abstract

Research shows that early scientific interest is associated with science degree completion and career selection. However, little is known about the conditions that support early scientific interest. Using a “funds of knowledge” theoretical framework, this study examined the role of parents, family, and extended social networks in fostering early interest in science. Using interview narratives from 116 scientists (physicists and chemists) in the United States, we conducted a qualitative thematic content analysis. Findings suggest that children who become scientists in adulthood often received early, informal opportunities to use and manipulate material objects and discover how the world works. Second, families used a wide variety of scientific terms at home and encouraged children to pursue their interests whether in science or other fields. Third, these future scientists were often networked with extended family members or friends to observe and do science when they were quite young. Collectively, these findings highlight the specific ways in which families fostered early scientific interest and aided in supporting a student-directed learning environment.

Keywords

funds of knowledge early science interest early science engagement out-of-school time experiences family

Introduction

Preparing a workforce for the growing number of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)–related jobs is a global priority. The World Economic Forum (2016) forecasted an increase of 2 million STEM-related jobs worldwide between 2015 and 2020. Yet young people are not always adequately prepared for pursuing STEM-related professions. Only 16% of American high school seniors are proficient in math and interested in STEM careers (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Several initiatives focus on addressing this problem. In 2015, the Committee on STEM Education—comprising various science agencies and the U.S. Department of Education—was created to improve K-12 STEM education and to increase public and youth engagement with STEM nationally. Such initiatives focus on improving science engagement and learning though the formal context of school (e.g., The National Academy of Sciences, 2007). In addition to compulsory schooling, children’s science interest and learning can be enhanced by informal, free-choice learning (Falk et al., 2007). Science interest potentially begins before middle school and is motivated by both school-initiated and self-initiated activities (Maltese & Tai, 2010). Given the limitations of formal schooling, there is an increased focus on how informal, out-of-school time learning supports interest in science (e.g., Dabney et al., 2012).

Family members can direct children’s science interests through their own science interests, occupations, or hobbies (Dabney et al., 2013), contributing to their career selection (Turner et al., 2004). This happens through participating in science activities, communicating expectations about educational achievement, fostering career aspirations, and discussing learning strategies that shape academic achievement (Hill & Tyson, 2009; Lent, 2005). Although family plays an influential role in fostering science interest, there is little research on how this happens or what this process looks like. The current study examined the role of family, and, by extension, a family’s extended social networks, in fostering early science interest. We examined how scientists recall and prioritize memories of their childhood experiences about co-constructing science learning opportunities with family in informal settings and how those opportunities, in turn, shaped their career interests.

Literature Review

Parents, caregivers, and family members play a critical role in supporting early science interest and learning (Dabney et al., 2013; Maltese & Tai, 2010). They support children’s curiosity, wonder, and sensemaking about the natural world. For example, an 8-year-old may ask her grandfather, “Why is the sky blue?” or “What happens when we die?” Along with these unplanned moments, parents and other caregivers help children learn about science through their daily activities such as cooking, gardening, and building a scientific model. Children also participate, to varying degrees, in more deliberate and sustained social activities that involve science learning. For example, some parents or grandparents spend countless hours participating in mechanical and scientific activities, such as robotics, animal training, or cross-pollination of house plants (Bell et al., 2006; Sachatello-Sawyer et al., 2002).

Families support learning and interest in science through their occupations and education (Chakraverty & Tai, 2013; Dabney et al., 2013; Dabney, et al., 2016). The history and work of family members has an important influence on the lives of young children. Parents with certain occupational backgrounds talk with their children in different ways about science. For example, expert biologist parents are more likely to discuss animals in terms of biological categories (Tarlowski, 2006). Likewise, parents who majored in engineering are more likely to discuss scientific evidence with their children in the context of conflicting claims (e.g., the relative advantages and disadvantages of food additives) than parents with undergraduate degrees in the humanities (Valle, 2007).

Language is a critical tool that parents and family members use to support scientific interest and reasoning (Harris et al., 2006). For example, family members often describe the natural world using generic phrases such as, “Pandas eat bamboo” and “Stars come out at night.” Gelman et al. (2004) concluded that young children can discern the difference between generic statements and more specific proclamations, such as, “That panda is eating bamboo.” Importantly, children who hear generic scientific claims make more subsequent inferences in that domain (Gelman & Raman, 2003). Furthermore, dinnertime conversations (Ochs et al., 1992) and parent-child homework activities (Valle & Callanan, 2006) can encourage children to weave narratives, hold and defend positions, and debate the relative value of conflicting evidence. The meaning and purpose of language and linguistic interactions varies greatly between different communities and between the home and school environments (e.g., Heath, 1983).

While informal and out-of-school time science experiences have important influences on early scientific thinking and enthusiasm as well as later interest and career selection, this relationship is very difficult to investigate. This is partly due to the large time gap between early science experiences and later interests and choices. Therefore, some researchers have used extant datasets to conduct longitudinal analyses. Tai et al. (2006) documented the importance of career expectations for young adolescents and found that early elementary experiences play a pivotal role in this. However, there is little research on the early, home-based and family experiences of people who later choose to become scientists. The larger goal of this research is to understand the factors that contribute to the transition from graduate student to scientist in physics and chemistry (Dabney, Chakraverty, et al., 2016). The purpose of this specific study was to understand the various home-based and family experiences with science that fostered early interest in science.

Theoretical Framework

This investigation was informed by the “Funds of Knowledge” or FoK theoretical framework, which refers to the “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being” (Moll et al., 1992/2005, p. 72). Understanding a family’s FoK includes analyzing the history of family members and their social networks in terms of education, occupation, and cultural practice, all of which reveal the accumulated bodies of knowledge of the household (e.g., Moll et al., 1989). The FoK framework has three core notions: (1) children are active participants in learning, (2) families share their intellectual resources with their children and community, and (3) families use and leverage their social network to accomplish their sociocultural goals.

A key idea within the FoK framework is that children are active participants in their learning. This learning takes place at home informally through a range of interactions with immediate family members and the family’s extended social networks. Most of the informal teaching and learning are motivated by children’s interests and questions. Material and scientific knowledge may stem from family vocations related to construction and repair, such as carpentry, painting, design and architecture, and airplane, automobile, and tractor repair, as well as house maintenance and other types of occupational skills (Moll et al., 1992/2005, p. 73). For example, a child who observes someone in the family fixing a car may take an interest in watching the family member point out specific engine parts while explaining how the carburetor works and hand them tools as they observe. Later, that same child may help their parents with car repair when mechanical problems arise. In this way, the child directs their learning and has an opportunity to learn through observation, trial and error, and informal apprenticeship.

A family’s FoK can be recognized by observing “the wider set of activities requiring specific strategic bodies of essential information that households need to maintain their well-being” (Vélez-Ibáñez & Greenberg, 1992/2005, p. 314). Intellectual resources include various types of family discourse centered on the occupational knowledge of parents and extended family. This discourse includes the language used by parents and family members to lend support, offer encouragement, set expectations, and share knowledge, using technical vocabulary related to the education and occupation of parents and family members. Thus, a child learns how to not only complete various tasks related to parental or family occupation but also use language related to these professions. Children gain confidence, skills, and the orientation to pursue related academic and vocational interests via the supportive talk that families offer.

Another key construct of the FoK framework involves

how families develop social networks that interconnect them with their social environments (most importantly with other households), and how these social relationships facilitate the development and exchange of resources—including knowledge, skills, and labor—that enhance the households’ ability to survive or thrive. (Moll et al., 1992/2005, p. 73).

This exchange is characterized by two attributes. First, the relationships within these social networks are multifaceted. In other words, children may learn a particular skill, such as carpentry, from an extended family member who is also involved in other areas of the children’s life, such as holiday celebrations and family get-togethers. Another key characteristic of these exchanges is their reciprocity. According to Vélez-Ibáñez (1988), relationships are based on the assumptions of confianza or “mutual trust,” which is established and confirmed with each exchange, leading to long-term relationships.

Method

The larger study focused on the accumulated life experiences that contributed to participants’ transition to independent researchers. Following institutional review board approval, 116 PhD students, postdocs, faculty members, and scientists in physics and chemistry were interviewed by phone (45-60 minutes each) using a variety of semistructured, open-ended questions focused on graduate school training as well as early educational experiences. A semistructured interview format offered some flexibility in pursuing clarity, or an extension of responses to questions. U.S.-based participants were solicited through referrals and primary contacts using electronic mailing and telephonic services. We used purposeful sampling from diverse individuals at different career stages to capture a variety of experiences. We also used snowball sampling in which participants help identify potential participants and provide their contact information (Marshall & Rossman, 2006; Miles & Huberman, 1994). For those who spontaneously acknowledged the role of their family in early science interest, follow-up questions were asked about the role of their family. This study particularly focuses on what aspects of early science experiences that fostered science interest were specifically co-constructed and supported by family. Interviews were audio-recorded using a digital recording device and transcribed verbatim for analysis. We conducted only one interview per person; the interviewees were not provided with the questions in advance.

Data Analysis

Qualitative analysis was conducted in two stages. First, the authors read all the interviews to identify and separate the ones that discussed the role of family in supporting science interest. Next, the subset of those interviews with narratives describing aspects of family life that participants believe led to their entry and persistence in a science field (physics or chemistry) were independently coded by the first, second, and third authors to identify themes characterizing the nature of family involvement (Erickson, 2012; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Emergent themes were triangulated with the FoK framework to enhance trustworthiness of interpretation (Denzin, 1978; Janesick, 1994). The aim was broad enough to include themes developed within the FoK framework. The three authors met weekly for 4 months to discuss emergent themes. The authors resolved disagreements through discussions and consensus. The analysis included a hybrid approach with both inductive and deductive elements (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Thomas, 2006). Use of the FoK framework provided inductive data, while identifying themes and patterns and describing its relationship to the FoK framework was a deductive activity. We present findings based on emergent themes and provide exemplar quotes from the participants.

Findings

Participants

Among 116 participants, 42 interviews (19 female, 23 male) described the role of family in fostering early science interest. Among them, there were 24 chemists (12 female, 12 male) and 18 physicists (7 female, 11 male). Overall, there were 22 PhD students, 4 postdocs, 12 faculty and 4 scientists outside academia. Findings are presented as three emergent themes. Theme 1 describes the active role participants took in early learning experiences with material resources and informal learning opportunities. Theme 2 describes how various family intellectual resources, including the use of scientific language, encouragement, and setting expectations fostered science interest. Theme 3 describes the role of extended family members (other than parents) and close adults (e.g., teachers) within participants’ social networks.

Theme 1: Observing, Breaking, and Rebuilding

Families of scientists created an environment for science learning undertaken jointly with children by offering access to a variety of hobbies, hands-on activities, and everyday material resources at home. Eighteen participants reported that they actively engaged in science-related learning by using everyday materials, often with the help of parents, siblings, or other family members who were actively interested in their learning and helped them figure out how things worked by providing access to toys, reading materials, and other household items. Participants reported breaking materials apart as children, rebuilding them, and exploring their environments within and beyond the home. Parents created a nurturing science learning environment at home, for example, by engaging children in informal learning experiences. A male chemistry professor shared that his father, also a chemist, often exposed him to a lab environment at home. His father was “pouring liquid nitrogen on the floor in the lab, my brother and I jumping up and down, going, ‘Wow! That’s cool!’” A female faculty of chemistry described that she “worked in the woodshop with him [her father], and worked on my bicycle when it needed repairs, and yeah, he didn’t do it for me, he helped me learn to do it.” Similarly, a male physics professor described that his father and grandfather (both mechanics) exposed him to a “mechanic-inclined environment” as they built and fixed cars at home.

Participants developed early science interest by also asking questions and exploring toys, books, and other materials at home. For example, a male faculty in chemistry explained, “Apparently, as a kid I was always asking questions about how things worked, and I liked to pull them apart.” A male PhD student in physics recalled,

I still like trying to figure out how things worked. The next thing was having remote controlled cars, driving them around, and after a while they would break down. And I would think how did it work, and then going in and tearing it apart and ripping out motors and seeing the circuit boards and everything, and just messing around with that.

Parents supported children’s budding science interest by providing materials/toys such as remote-controlled cars and encouraging them to investigate how these materials/toys worked.

Additionally, parents created a learning environment by providing children with access to learning materials, including toys, books, circuit kits, robotic kits, and other items. Participants reported owning or having access to materials that fostered science interest. Parents provided encyclopedias and subscriptions to science, physics, and astronomy magazines. A female chemistry faculty recalled, “Our house always had new gadgets in it, and you’re always building things and exploring.” A male physics postdoc mentioned, “My dad is an avid astronomer . . . We started when I was growing up. We had a simple telescope when I was a kid.” Participants remembered owning, as children, Lego sets, chemistry sets, radio kits, solar system models, telescopes, and crystal radios. In addition, everyday household items also became potential tools for exploration. For example, a male faculty of physics recalled,

Ever since I was a little kid, I liked to play with flashlights and magnifying lenses, and I discovered that if I took the Lone Ranger filmstrip and stuck it on the front of the flashlight and a lens here, and looked on the wall in the basement, there was the picture and I could make it right side up if I just turned the film.

Parents also provided varied experiences to support children’s science interest, undertaking learning initiatives, regardless of their profession. Parental occupations in this study included teachers, professors, scientists, engineers, automobile mechanics, farmers, accountants, librarians, plumbers, and pastors. Families regularly went camping, fishing, and on nature exploration trips and pursued farm work and gardening, fostering science interest. Even when parents lacked formal science training, they provided practical, hands-on knowledge. Participants visited local science museums by age 4 and engaged in activities such as creating Milky Way models. Parents teamed up with children to conduct experiments using science kits, bought astronomy and calculus books, and encouraged children to join astronomy clubs and participate in science fairs all through elementary and middle school. Children regularly visited libraries and watched science fiction movies with parents. A male faculty of physics shared that his father’s knowledge about jet airplanes made science fascinating and “much easier to get involved with . . . Because I was learning at home.” Participants learned to build, create, explore, and dismantle things at an early age using all these materials, also getting early exposure to science. Parents from all backgrounds (e.g., physics professors, plumbers, and pastors) undertook hands-on activities such as dismantling radio sets and building solar system models with children as young as age 4, all the way through high school.

Theme 2: Encouragement, Expectations, and Language

A critical aspect of any family is the intellectual resources that it values, supports, and shares. Fifteen participants reported that their families co-constructed their identities, interests, and career trajectories by sharing intellectual resources. In this study, intellectual resources refer to parental and family language, especially verbal encouragement, expectations, vocabulary, and opportunities to learn informally. As families shared their intellectual resources, they cocreated interest and propensity toward pursuing scientific careers. Particularly for women, this often meant going against sociocultural career expectations that supported more historically feminine careers such as nursing and teaching, and instead selecting careers historically male-dominated.

An intellectual resource consistently reported by physical scientists was verbal encouragement toward pursuing scientific careers from parents, relatives, teachers, and family friends. In response to how participants became interested in science, consider these answers:

Female chemistry faculty: I was good at math in school, and I took science. I was encouraged strongly by my father, who was paying the bills for college, to start in engineering. I was basically told, “You have to start in engineering and then if you really don’t like it, you can maybe think about something else.”

Female physics PhD student: Yeah, both my parents have been Star Trek fans for a long time. My dad’s an engineer and my mom and dad both value education a lot. So as soon as I started to show any propensity in science both of my parents were like, ‘Oh you’re going to have a PhD. You’re going to do science.”

Male chemistry faculty: It started around fifth and sixth grade . . . It had to do a lot with parental support and some good teachers who saw my interest in science, and they facilitated it.

In the quotes above, participants distinctly recalled being verbally encouraged toward careers in science. Sometimes, parents directly suggested and encouraged specific fields of study such as physics, medicine, or engineering in college. Parents also provided words of support, offered career advice, and helped in selecting colleges with good science programs as well as careers in the academy versus industry. In addition, parents set high expectations for children’s school performance or science career selection. This sometime had cultural roots; excelling in a science career was viewed as a path to attaining job stability and societal status. A female PhD student in physics noted, “Maybe it is more cultural or related to my family. Like, science has always been very important. It was kind of just assumed that we were going to go into science.” Furthermore, a female faculty of chemistry shared, “I don’t think my parents entertained a lot of alternative options for their children, so it wasn’t like we were exposed to trying something else.”

The expectation to attend college and choose a science career came from families who were in the sciences and those who were not (e.g., farmers). In addition, some participants reported other expectations, such as working to earn summer wages in order to support their own education or earning a science doctoral degree in the future. To help their children fulfill these expectations, parents exposed them to science activities through summer camps, enrichment programs, and shadowing people in the industry early on.

As might be expected, young women often received messages from individuals and cultural artifacts (e.g., billboards, television, online ads) that they should pursue historically female-dominated careers such as teaching or nursing. These messages were, in turn, appropriated by the individual and internalized to co-construct preferences and choice on the chosen occupation. Along with verbal encouragement toward science-oriented fields, a female faculty of chemistry recalled her father actively deconstructing these messages:

People would say things to me, “You’ll make a great nurse one day.” And he’d [her father] pipe in, “She’d make an even better doctor.” So all my life, every time someone said something that would kind of direct me towards the traditional women’s role, teacher, nurse, service, less intellectual role, he instantly said something that made it clear to me that I wasn’t limited to those choices.

By actively deconstructing these gendered suggestions, this father encouraged his daughter to pursue medicine, a historically male-dominated field, and likely enabled his daughter to recognize how encouragement can be gendered in subtle ways.

Along with encouragement to consider and select science-oriented or historically male-oriented careers, participants also reported being immersed in scientific language at home from a young age. For example,

Male PhD student in chemistry: Even as early as elementary school, I knew I had a desire for mathematics and science. My dad worked for the local power company in town, so he was always talking about wattages and the amperes, so terms like that were used quite a bit in my household.

Female faculty of chemistry: Science was part of the family. My dad was a doctor, and we would have science discussions . . . There was also an appreciation for it and a discussion of it in my family.

Both these scientists stated that scientific language was used on a regular basis at home. This was also the language of the family career; in other words, parental careers choices affected family language. Children raised in an environment that regularly uses scientific language may find it easier to comprehend scientific texts in the classroom.

Families also provided children with additional resources to learn more about science, including help with homework and visiting a zoo or a science museum. A female PhD student in chemistry shared, “My parents were very supportive of educational things in general. When I was growing up, every weekend, my parents would take me to the science museum or the zoo or the natural history museum.” Thus, informal science learning opportunities shaped her learning and thinking about science. Additionally,

Female postdoc in physics: My dad is a chemical engineer and, in school, he really made sure that I was proficient in math and science. That was really what led me in the direction of science. Whenever I was doing math homework or science homework, there was always a lot of help and support in that area.

The participant’s father regularly spent time to help her excel in math and science, a fact that she directly connected to her later pursuing science. In both cases, parents shared both time and personal interests with children. Others also reported that parents spent time driving them to science club meetings, buying them science books, or taking them to science museums. The joint collection of these resources—time, interest, and money—was then appropriated by children.

Theme 3: Grandparents, Siblings, and Teachers

Another key theme of the FoK framework is that families and extended social networks exposed children to varied people with specific field-related knowledge and provided encouragement. Fourteen participants reported that while parents were a primary source of support, other family members (e.g., grandparents, older siblings, and aunts and uncles) and other adults who played a role in the child’s life (e.g., teachers) formed extended social networks.

Grandparents, like parents, were professional role models and created a supportive learning environment. One way was by spending time working on household projects together. A male faculty of physics commented, “My granddad was an auto mechanic. I grew up around cars, and we were always fixing things, or building things at home.” Grandparents also acted as professional role models. As one participant noted, “It was both my parents but [also] grandparents, family in general . . .” In addition, grandparents offered financial support. A female postdoc in physics mentioned how her grandmother was able to help, explaining, “My mom had a lot of heart problems and wasn’t working. And my grandmother said that I could stay at her house rent-free if I got good grades.” Another participant noted that his grandfather helped him out financially while in college. In these ways, grandparents acted as an extension of parental support, helping to influence children’s interests and, later, helping young adults with the daunting expenses of higher education, which is something not all parents are positioned to do.

Older siblings also contributed to science interest, such as by role modeling, offering career advice, encouragement, and help with early jobs. A female PhD student of chemistry reflected on the influential role several of her older siblings played:

I have five siblings, and one of them grew up to be a chemical engineer. And my sister has a PhD in chemistry. She married a chemistry professor. So there were people who were involved in science when I was growing up. Also, my brothers were all very science oriented and went on to go into biology.

Another female postdoc in physics recalled the way in which both her mother and sister served as role models, explaining,

A lot of time what gives people the confidence to not be discouraged by things like failing an exam or somebody telling you that you shouldn’t do physics if somehow you believe you should, because your mother did it or your sister.

A male PhD student in physics shared that his older brother helped him find a summer job where he built transistors, which sparked his interested in electronics, solid-state physics, and condensed-matter physics, thereby contributing to his growing interest in pursuing physics.

Older siblings also acted as playmates in scientific play. This kind of science-related play inspired interest in younger siblings. A male PhD student in physics explained that his older brother is the main reason why he went into physics. “He [older brother] was an electrical engineer, and we were always interested in tinkering with, in those days, crystal radios and things like that, and building health [science] kits, and electronics, that sort of thing.” Another female research scientist in chemistry recalled how spending hours playing with a chemistry kit with her older brother created early interest in science:

My older brother and I got a chemistry set to share, and we were still in elementary school, and it was one of those made for kids’ type of things, and that was just great. We played with that down in the basement forever, hours and hours, just experimenting with all that stuff you get in those kits.

A female faculty of chemistry remembered, “My brother and I used to put glow-in-the-dark stars on the ceiling, . . . we would like try to replicate the Hubble photographs with glow-in-the-dark stars and stuff on the ceiling.”

Aunts and uncles also formed participants’ extended social networks, offered career advice, acted as role models, and exposed them to different science careers. A male PhD student in physics explained his aunt career-counseling him: “My aunt advised me that pure mathematics is nice, but we have to see why we have to use mathematics, so physics may be the best place to apply mathematics skills. That is how I got interested in it.” Another male staff engineer in physics shared that his uncle was the director of several science museums, explaining,

The closest [family member in science] that I had was an uncle. He directed science museums . . . It’s not like he ever made a strong pitch to me, “You’ve got to be a physicist” but at least there was an example that it’s okay to be involved in science.

Teachers were an important part of participants’ extended social networks. They role modelled, encouraged, provided science learning opportunities, and cultivated science interest among participants by creating opportunities to participate in science experiments. A male postdoc in chemistry reflected, “In fourth grade, I had a teacher who was very into science and showed a lot of science demonstrations, and I thought that was really interesting and appreciated that a lot.” A female PhD student in chemistry recalled a favorite high school teacher, explaining, “She did demos. She put her hand in alcohol and left the alcohol on fire, . . . we dissected mushrooms, . . . and we did mitosis and meiosis with Twizzlers.” Yet another female PhD student in chemistry recalled the way in which her high school chemistry teacher used experiments to make science seem cool, explaining, “He got these kits on how to test types of blood. So we got the kit. And then we got to prick our fingers and do it and find out what our blood-type was.” These kinds of experiments sparked interest in science careers.

In addition to cultivating science interest through engagement in experiments, teachers used stories and videos too. A female faculty of chemistry remembered watching a video about careers in chemistry and seeing a vignette about a chemist taking samples of toxic waste, stating,

She was dressed in this crazy biohazard suit, and she was wading in a lake of toxic waste, and the voiceover says something like, “This woman is taking samples of toxic waste. In her lab, she’s creating some molecule that will actually eat up toxic water and produce only healthy byproducts.” And, I thought, “Wow! I want to do that!”

She further shared that her teacher encouraged her to join the chemistry Olympiad team, which “was enough to convince me that maybe I would be good enough at it.”

Teachers also fostered science interest by establishing strong, caring relationships. The participant who recalled the demos and experiments by her favorite high school biology teacher also reflected, “She was very approachable and very down to earth, very interested in what she did, and made an effort to make stuff fun and understandable. She was a stellar teacher.”

Conclusion and Discussion

In this study, physicists and chemists discussed the role of their family and extended social networks in shaping their early science interest. This influence was organized around three broad themes. First, families enabled early science learning by using household materials and providing informal learning experiences through trips to local museums. Participants described their science interest in the context of their families’ intellectual resources, such as through verbal encouragement and the use of scientific language at home. Last, extended family and community networks provided material resources, intellectual resources, and a range of learning experiences, at home, at school, or in the community, which also supported participants’ science pursuit. Overall, these increased participants’ science interest and motivation to pursue a science career, although additional family factors may not be represented in the data. Families and community members played a role in supporting early science interest of children and youths, including parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and other invested adults within a child’s extended social networks, such as family friends and teachers. This has important implications for educators and policymakers as they consider ways to foster STEM engagement.

Research shows many gendered trends in the scientific workforce. In this study, 45% of the narratives on the role of family in early science interest came from female scientists. More than a decade before this, ethnographic research by Orenstein (1994) showed contrasting results where both parents and teachers discouraged young girls from viewing themselves as scientists early on. Conducted at two middle schools from two different demographic settings with different racial/ethnic compositions and socioeconomic status, this pointed to gender differences in socialization that had a bearing on adolescent girls’ self-esteem, portraying challenging school and home environments where boys received more attention. While findings from neither Orenstein’s (1994) research nor the current study can be generalized, the dichotomy possibly points to different social and learning environments in which girls grow up.

Earlier research (Easlea, 1986) showed that certain personality traits are associated with certain genders, with masculine traits including rationality, reasoning, competitiveness, and independent thinking (traits sought after in the physical sciences) and feminine traits including sensitivity, emotionality, care, nurturing, and focus on community well-being. This socially constructed dichotomy discourages women’s participation by portraying physical sciences as a field upholding aggressive competition, with a

masculine aura . . . supposedly hard, rigorous method, the aggressive attitude to nature, the strong connection with industry, above all, physics’ profound association with the military represented most dramatically by the creation of weapons of mass destruction together with their means of delivery. (p. 145)

The values represented in physics were viewed as being contradictory to feminine values of nurturing living beings, making subjects like biology an attractive choice for women. Easley (1986, p. 136) also discussed the characterization of science as a field singularly driven by facts and logic, a trait that men were perceived to be suited best at. Such views essentially deprived a field (like physics) of gendered participation, alienating girls through the portrayal of a stereotypical unemotional, masculine field. This is problematic in many respects, since it is likely to discourage girls from pursuing the physical sciences due to incompatibility with their identity. Even the examples used in physics, explained by graphs and calculations, portrays it more as experimental than a lived experience, replete with apparatus and machines, disentangling the subject from everyday reality and examples everyone could identify with (Easley, 1986). Possibly, this distances women from pursuing physical sciences, who view the field as masculine, competitive, and objective, although this claim requires more research.

Such gendered duality has been documented even among male and female professors (e.g., Etzkowitz et al., 2000) where women often find themselves marginalized in the physical sciences. Data from the proportion of women PhDs in traditionally male-dominated fields such as mathematics (5% in the 1960s to 19% in the 1990s), physics (2% in the 1960s to 12% in the 1990s), and engineering (<1% in the 1960s to 11% in the 1990s) not only provide evidence of this but also indicate that the gender gap across this fields spans across all life stages, from school to higher education and in the professional domain (Etzkowitz et al., 2000). Such disproportionate representation is not only likely to discourage women from pursuing science but also likely to pose unique challenges to the small number of women who do persist in these fields. Although we interviewed a small, self-selected group of women (and men) in the physical sciences whose life experiences may not be representative of the overall population of women in the physical sciences, we cannot help but wonder about the following question: Can family, extended social networks, school support, and perhaps contemporary and growing promotion of STEM initiatives help women develop a science identity early on, socialize them into the field through the presence of a thriving community, and help them override some of the early barriers of access to science as pointed by Etzkowitz et al. (2000)? Answering this would need a careful investigation of the journey of women in science careers, accounting for multiple voices and multiple perspectives, that could be undertaken as a next step.

Venville et al. (2013) conducted a survey study reporting on a large sample of scientists’ reflections from Australia and New Zealand about why they chose to study science. The reasons included interest, curiosity, science aptitude, school experiences, and the role of science teachers. Out-of-school, informal, recreational activities played a role in children becoming scientists. The importance of providing learning opportunities and material resources at home was well-documented in the current study. This aligns with the key idea in the FoK framework that children are active learners within the informal context of the home. We found that a variety of common items contributed to opportunities for this active, informal learning, including toys, tools, books and other texts, and regular household objects in conjunction with the opportunity to participate in a range of activities. Whether singly or with other family members, participants recalled exploring these objects at home. Children were interested in how something works or curious about something they wanted to investigate. Whether it was using a flashlight and a lens to improvise a home movie projector or playing for hours with a chemistry kit, these experiences were often motivated by children’s interests and questions.

As Moll et al. (1992/2005) noted, it is the

totality of [these] experiences, the cultural structuring of the households, whether related to work or play, whether they take place individually, with peers, or under the supervision of adults, [that] help constitute the funds of knowledge children bring to school. (p. 75)

Thus, home represented a vast resource for the material objects and informal learning experiences that fostered early science interest. This time is unstructured, informal, and guided by children’s curiosity. An important implication is that there are many families that are not privileged to have such resources, money, or educated parents and may not be able to offer this kind of student-directed learning environment. This inequity is highlighted in Lareau’s (2011) work that emphasized how parenting experiences are shaped by social class, especially pointing to the differences between the middle class and the working class or the financially underprivileged class and how this gap only widened with time. For example, parents from middle-class families (both White and Black) played a proactive role in shaping children’s talents and life experiences through considerable planned, organized involvement but not working-class parents who had limited resources such as free time. As young adults, this gap only widened, with children from middle-class families continuing to enjoy more parental support and involvement while those from poorer families getting love and free time, but not the resources (e.g., information gathering and professional advice) required for one’s career. Eventually, middle-class children had greater educational success and career prospects compared with their working-class peers who developed greater appreciation for their parents and also learned to rely on extended families for added support (Lareau, 2011).

Another finding is that a family’s intellectual resources play a role in fostering early science interest. Vélez-Ibáñez and Greenberg (1992/2005) observed that a family’s FoK can be recognized through “the wider set of activities requiring specific strategic bodies of essential information that households need to maintain their well-being” (p. 314). In this study, intellectual resources included the ways in which parents talked with their children. Conversations centered on a scientific subject (e.g., the rotation of the planets around the sun) or an activity (e.g., fixing a car). This talk also included encouragement to pursue a science career as well as discussions around the dinner table. This talk was important because it fostered interest to pursue a science career. Through this family discourse, children gained confidence, skill, background knowledge, and orientation to enjoy science learning in school and, ultimately, to pursue science as a career (Chakraverty & Tai, 2013; Dabney et al., 2013). Educators may consider types of classroom discourses and how to stimulate science discussions described by the participants.

A third finding was the role of support from family members beyond parents, including siblings, grandparents, aunt and uncles, and others in a child’s social network. This aligns with the FoK framework, which examines “how these social relationships facilitate the development and exchange of resources—including knowledge, skills, and labor—that enhance the households’ ability to survive or thrive” (Moll et al., 1992/2005, p. 73). These networks act as a form of “social capital” (Coleman, 1988) that provides access to information, support, and more knowledgeable others. Participants recalled a variety of ways in which these extended family members and mentors, especially teachers, supported their science interest and their journey toward becoming a scientist. As with parents, this support came through role modeling, offering verbal encouragement and support, establishing expectations, and investing time and money. Due to the assumption that academic success rests primarily on the shoulders of parents and teachers, this finding is particularly important. Participants recalled other members in their network who socialized them into science careers. Educators should not overlook the significant role that these expanded social networks play for children and young adults.

Interestingly, the benefit of museum visits showed up across all three themes in this study; science learning in museums happened through observations (Theme 1), encouraged by immediate and extended family members (Themes 2 and 3). Learning through museum visits (informal learning) by observing artifacts and the shared coconstruction of knowledge with family and peers constitute a dialogic learning culture that push students beyond classroom knowledge and develop competencies across diverse learning contexts (Kumpulainen & Lipponen, 2012). This is a socially mediated process that occurs through interactions with others (Kumpulainen & Lipponen, 2012). Learning while socializing is how children and their families contribute to the FoK during museum visits, by scanning displays and exhibits, recentering museum conversations on purposeful learning, and so on (Griffin, 2004). The usefulness of family learning conversations and discussions in museums is documented in other research as well, underscoring the importance of developing shared understandings with children; discussing what they read, watch, and hear and how it relates to prior knowledge and memories; and cocreating learning experiences for students while also contributing to science identity building (Ellenbogen et al., 2004; Ellenbogen et al., 2007; Falk & Dierking, 2018). These findings are corroborated in this study where some of the participants shared memories of visiting science museums and natural history museums with their family.

While research shows that students are more likely to choose STEM careers if they have parents with STEM occupations (Moakler & Kim, 2014), our study confirms previous findings that even parents who are not in the sciences can support their children’s interest in science by encouraging career-related beliefs (Byars-Winston & Fouad, 2008; Ferry et al., 2000). Findings also show that a supportive home environment can inspire children’s science interest. Just as Moll et al. (1992/2005) suggest, home constitutes an important learning environment for children beyond the classroom. Our study points to the need to acknowledge the role of a supportive family and extended social networks in inspiring children to develop science-based interests and career pursuits. Parents, extended family members, and other adults can foster early science interest in children, which is closely linked with children opting for science-based interests and hobbies. Participants described how interactions with parents and other family members, in the home as well as in other out-of-school learning environments, such as museums and libraries, created a space for focused exploration and shared scientific thinking. This motivated scientific inquiry and built an overall home culture of appreciation for science. This appreciation is associated with children developing self-identity based on their interest and competence in science (Crowley et al., 2001). Moreover, the beneficial role of educational visits to libraries, parks, science museums, and science centers with family, as well as the supervised viewing of educational programs on television, have been discussed extensively in the literature (e.g., Fender & Crowley, 2007; Palmquist & Crowley, 2007; Simpkins et al., 2005; Turner et al., 2004). As Moll et al. (1992/2005) assert, such activities contribute to out-of-school learning that is voluntary, intrinsically self-motivated, and guided by individual interest (Dierking & Falk, 2003; Rennie et al., 2003).

Limitations

This study was based on interview data alone. Only one interview was conducted per person; no follow-up questions were asked after the interview. This study’s contribution is limited to providing supportive data from a small and voluntary sample about the recognized influence of family and family networks. Participants’ FoK in this study were likely more extensive than those of less well-off families who were not in the study. Another limitation is that we did not collect demographic information beyond sex and name of current university, which makes it hard to deeply analyze factors that problematized the issues of privilege, power, and resources that might be available due to participants’ race, culture, class, socioeconomic status, or place/country of origin. The participants were not a representative sample of the U.S. society. Findings do not make any associative, inferential, or causal claims. The demography of physical science (physics and chemistry) as a field is different from, say, that of biological sciences in many aspects. While women are underrepresented in physical sciences (Francis et al., 2017; that was not apparent in this sample due to selection bias), they are overrepresented in biological sciences at the undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral levels (Ecklund et al., 2012; National Science Board, 2014; National Science Foundation, 2013). Other differences include the process of development of certain skills and competencies (e.g., quantitative abilities) that are associated more with the physical sciences, with associated gendered occupational inequities (Etzkowitz et al., 2000). However, an understanding of early interest in science can be reasonably achieved by studying life experiences of physicists and chemists. Physics and chemistry, like many other science disciplines (e.g., biology, geology), known as natural sciences, deal with developing an understanding of the physical world. These fields use an objective, inquiry-driven approach of acquiring knowledge empirically through hypothesis, systematic observation and experimentation, and conclusion. The scientific language and abstract representation through models and phenomena is common across these fields. The laws of physics, for example, govern how particles function in the physical and biological world. It would also serve us well to remember that knowledge is increasingly shifting to become more interdisciplinary in nature, somewhat blurring the boundaries between field-based identities and competencies. A physicist, for example, would apply the traditional laws of physics to understand biological systems, an endeavor that will require knowledge in biology too. That said, future research will benefit from a systematic investigation of early science interest among people from other science disciplines such as biology and geology.

Despite these limitations, we wish to draw attention to the importance of family members and extended social networks in creating science interest among children. Further work can include a deeper examination of family interest and support based on the emergent themes.

This study shows that the development of students’ science-related FoK begins early and evolves in multiple ways. Rather than primarily using FoK as a bridge to the classroom, teachers can also create more classroom opportunities for the active, self-directed, and apprenticeship type of learning that occurs at home. FoK is often conceived in terms of the linguistic and cultural knowledge that students bring to school. However, we must also consider the science-related experiences that students bring to school and build on this knowledge in the classroom. This study elucidates the role of extended family and social networks in developing children’s interest in science. The FoK framework has often been applied to the classroom context. It is used to help teachers recognize the wealth of knowledge that students come to school with and to use this knowledge as a bridge for learning. Although educators typically focus on the role of parents in supporting children’s education at home, findings show that grandparents, aunts and uncles, and siblings play important roles as well.

Last, we know that family resources, networks, role models, and FoK are key to young people choosing science. Study findings expand our views into that privilege. Future research could more directly address the tension that findings raise about the fact that many people do not have access to such privilege. Who has these wonderful experiences, who does not, and why not? What does this mean for the demographic diversity in science? Other than relying on schools and the dominant cultural norms of family activity, are there other ways of developing interest or capacity to choose and pursue science when one is born outside such privilege? Future research could also focus on other science fields (e.g., biology, engineering, etc.), since science is not homogenous and culturally differs across fields, including, but not limited to, theories of knowledge, methodologies, length of training, and access to funding, among others. These would be interesting research areas to pursue in the future.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was sponsored by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Project Crossover, REC 0440002). The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the authors and do not represent the policies of the National Science Foundation.

ORCID iD

Devasmita Chakraverty

Author Biographies

Devasmita Chakraverty is assistant professor, Ravi J. Matthai Centre for Educational Innovation, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India. She has earned a PhD in Science Education from the University of Virginia and master degrees in public health and environmental science respectively from the University of Washington and the University of Calcutta. Her research focuses on higher education and she examines the experiences of underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and medicine.

Sarah N. Newcomer is associate professor in Literacy Education at Washington State University. Her research and teaching focus on culturally responsive language and literacy practices, particularly for culturally and linguistically diverse students, family-school-community partnerships, and how educational policies affect language and literacy education.

Kelly Puzio is an associate professor of Language, Literacy & Technology at Washington State University, Pullman. He investigates ways that teachers differentiate and personalize instruction for their students.

Robert H. Tai is an associate professor of education at the University of Virginia. His work focuses primarily on enhancing science engagement among youth. He was names among the Most Influential in Research and Evaluation in 2018 by the National Afterschool Association.

References

Bell

Bricker

L. A.

Lee

T. R.

Reeve

Zimmerman

H.T.

(2006). Understanding the cultural foundations of children’s biological knowledge: Insights from everyday cognition research. In Barab

S. A.

Hay

K. E.

Hickey

(Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) (pp. 1029-1035). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Byars-Winston

A. M.

Fouad

N. A.

(2008). Math and science cognitive variables in college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(4), 425-440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072708318901

Chakraverty

Tai

R. H.

(2013). Parental occupation inspiring science interest perspectives from physical scientists. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33(1-2), 44-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467613509367

Coleman

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943

Crowley

Callanan

M. A.

Tenenbaum

H. R.

Allen

(2001). Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Psychological Science, 12(3), 258-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00347

Dabney

K. P.

Chakraverty

Hutton

A. C.

Warner

K. A.

Tai

R. H.

(2016). The bachelor’s to PhD transition: Factors influencing PhD completion among women in chemistry and physics. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(4), 203-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467617710852

Dabney

K. P.

Chakraverty

Tai

R. H.

(2013). The association of family influence and initial interest in science. Science Education, 97(3), 395-409. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21060

Dabney

K. P.

Tai

R. H.

Almarode

J. T.

Miller-Friedmann

J. L.

Sonnert

Sadler

P. M.

Hazari

(2012). Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in STEM. International Journal of Science Education, 2(1), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.629455

Dabney

K. P.

Tai

R. H.

Scott

M. R.

(2016). Informal science: family education, experiences, and initial interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 6(3), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1058990

10.

Denzin

N. K.

(1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

11.

Dierking

L. D.

Falk

J. H.

(2003). Optimizing out-of-school time: The role of free choice learning. New Directions for Youth Development, 97, 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.36

12.

Easlea

(1986). The masculine image of science with special reference to physics: How much does gender really matter? In Harding

(Ed.), Perspectives on gender and science (pp. 132-158). Falmer Press.

13.

Ecklund

E. H.

Lincoln

A. E.

Tansey

(2012). Gender segregation in elite academic science. Gender & Society, 26(5), 693-717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243212451904

14.

Ellenbogen

K. M.

Luke

J. J.

Dierking

L. D.

(2004). Family learning research in museums: An emerging disciplinary matrix? Science Education, 88(S1), S48-S58. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20015

15.

Ellenbogen

K. M.

Luke

J. J.

Dierking

L. D.

(2007). Family learning in museums: Perspectives on a decade of research. In Falk

J. H.

Dierking

L. D.

Foutz

(Eds.), In principle, in practice: Museums as learning institutions (pp. 17-30). AltaMira Press.

16.

Erickson

(2012). Qualitative research methods for science education. In Fraser

Tobin

McRobbie

C. J.

(Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1451-1469). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_93

17.

Etzkowitz

Kemelgor

Uzzi

(2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541414

18.

Falk

J. H.

Dierking

L. D.

(2018). Learning from museums. Rowman & Littlefield.

19.

Falk

J. H.

Storksdieck

Dierking

L. D.

(2007). Investigating public science interest and understanding: evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 455-469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506064240

20.

Fender

J. G.

Crowley

(2007). How parent explanation changes what children learn from everyday scientific thinking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28(3), 189-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2007.02.007

21.

Fereday

Muir-Cochrane

(2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107

22.

Ferry

T. R.

Fouad

N. A.

Smith

P. L.

(2000). The role of family context in a social cognitive model for career-related choice behavior: A math and science perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(3), 348-364.

23.

Francis

Archer

Moote

DeWitt

MacLeod

Yeomans

(2017). The construction of physics as a quintessentially masculine subject: Young people’s perceptions of gender issues in access to physics. Sex Roles, 76(3-4), 156-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0669-z

24.

Gelman

S. A.

Raman

(2003). Preschool children use linguistic form class and pragmatic cues to interpret generics. Child Development, 74(1), 308-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00537

25.

Gelman

S. A.

Taylor

M. G.

Nguyen

Leaper

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.

26.

Griffin

(2004). Research on students and museums: Looking more closely at the students in school groups. Science Education, 88(S1), S59-S70. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20018

27.

Harris

P. L.

Pasquini

E. S.

Duke

Asscher

J. J.

Pons

(2006). Germs and angels: The role of testimony in young children’s ontology. Developmental Science, 9(1), 76-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00465.x

28.

Heath

S. B.

(1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classroom. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841057

29.

Hill

N. E.

Tyson

D. F.

(2009). Parental Involvement in Middle School: A Meta-Analytic Assessment of the Strategies That Promote Achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740-763. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015362

30.

Janesick

V. J.

(1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning. In Denzin

N. K

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 209-219). Sage.

31.

Kumpulainen

Lipponen

(2012). Crossing boundaries: Harnessing funds of knowledge in dialogic inquiry across formal and informal learning environments. In. Jarvis

Watts

(Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of learning (pp. 112-125). Routledge.

32.

Lareau

(2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. University of California Press.

33.

Lent

R. W.

(2005). A social cognitive view of career development and counseling. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 101-127). Wiley.

34.

Maltese

A. V.

Tai

R. H.

(2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 669-685. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902792385

35.

Marshall

Rossman

G. B.

(2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage.

36.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.

37.

Moakler

M. W.

Kim

M. M.

(2014). College major choice in STEM: Revisiting confidence and demographic factors. Career Development Quarterly, 62(2), 128-142. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00075.x

38.

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

Neff

González

(2005). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In González

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

(Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 71-88). Lawrence Erlbaum. (Reprinted from “Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms,” 1992, Theory into Practice, 31[2], 132-141, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613462).

39.

Moll

L. C.

Velez-Ibanez

Greenberg

J. B.

(1989). Year one progress report: Community knowledge and classroom practice: Combining resources for literacy instruction (IARP Subcontract No. L-10). University of Arizona, College of Education and Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology.

40.

National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter future. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463

41.

National Science Board. (2014). Revisiting the stem workforce: A comparison to science and engineering indicators 2014. https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2015/nsb201510.pdf

42.

National Science Foundation. (2013). Science and engineering degrees: 1966–2010 (detailed statistical tables; NSF 13-327). http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/nsf13327.pdf

43.

Ochs

Taylor

Rudolph

Smith

(1992). Storytelling as a theory-building activity. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 37-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544801

44.

Orenstein

(1994). Schoolgirls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap. Anchor Books.

45.

Palmquist

S. D.

Crowley

(2007). From teachers to testers: Parents’ role in child expertise development in informal settings. Science Education, 91(5), 712-732. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20215

46.

Rennie

L. J.

Feher

Dierking

L. D.

Falk

J. H.

(2003). Toward an agenda for advancing research on science learning in out-of-school settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 112-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10067

47.

Sachatello-Sawyer

Fellenz

R. A.

Burton

Gittings-Carlson

Lewis-Mahony

Woolbaugh

(2002). Adult museum programs: Designing meaningful experiences (American Association for State and Local History Book Series). AltaMira Press.

48.

Simpkins

S. D.

Davis-Kean

P. E.

Eccles

J. S.

(2005). Parents’ socializing behavior and children’s participation in math, science, and computer out-of-school activities. Applied Developmental Science, 9(1), 14-30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0901_3

49.

Tai

R. T.

Liu

C. Q.

Maltese

A. V.

Fan

X. T.

(2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143-1144. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128690

50.

Tarlowski

(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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.02.001

51.

Thomas

D. R.

(2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

52.

Turner

S. L.

Steward

J. C.

Lapan

R. T.

(2004). Family factors associated with sixth grade adolescents’ mathematics and science career interests. Career Development Quarterly, 53, 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2004.tb00654.x

53.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Science, technology, engineering, and math: Education for global leadership. https://www.ed.gov/stem

54.

Valle

(2007, April). Developing habitual ways of reasoning: Epistemological beliefs and formal bias in parent-child conversations. [Poster presentation]. Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA, United States.

55.

Valle

Callanan

M. A.

(2006). Similarity comparisons and relational analogies in parent-child conversations about science topics. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52(1), 96-124. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2006.0009

56.

Vélez-Ibáñez

C. G.

(1988). Networks of exchange among Mexicans in the U.S. and Mexico: Local level mediating responses to national and international transformations. Urban Anthropology, 17(1), 27-51.

57.

Vélez-Ibáñez

C. G.

Greenberg

J. B

. (2005). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge. In González

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

(Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 47-70). Routledge. (Reprinted from “Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S.-Mexican households,” 1992, Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 23[4], 313-335, https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1992.23.4.05x1582v)

58.

Venville

Rennie

Hanbury

Longnecker

(2013). Scientists reflect on why they chose to study science. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2207-2233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9352-3

59.

World Economic Forum. (2016). Employment trends. http://reports.weforum.org/future-of-jobs-2016/employment-trends/