What Did You Learn Outside of School Today? Using StructuredInterviews to Document Home and Community Activities Related to Science and Technology

CONNIE A. KORPAN, GAY L. BISANZ, JEFFREY BISANZ, CONRAD BOEHMEDepartment of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada;e-mail: ckorpan@psych.ualberta.ca

MERVYN A. LYNCHEdmonton Catholic Schools, Edmonton, AB T5K 1C2, Canada

Received 31 October 1996; accepted 15 May 1997

ABSTRACT: An important but underrepresented element in the growing body of work on in-formal science education is research designed to examine the nature and scope of children’sscience-related activities outside of school. We have begun to study children’s activities re-lated to science, nature, and technology by developing structured interviews for parents ofmiddle class preschool and kindergarten children and for students in upper-elementary grades.These interviews can be used to construct profiles of children’s exposure to science activitiesoutside of school, such as watching television, reading, attending exhibits or events at commu-nity facilities, participating in experiments or demonstrations at home, and asking questions ofparents. We describe how these interviews were developed, what kinds of information thistype of research enabled us to obtain, and what lessons we have learned in the process. Thelevel of extracurricular participation reported in a wide range of science-related activities wasvery high. Structured interviews can help teachers gain information about students’ exposureto science-related learning activities in their home and community. This information can beused as a platform on which classroom instruction can be built. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Sci Ed 81:651–662, 1997.

INTRODUCTION

Learning outside of school plays a vital role in the development of competence in lan-guage, reading, mathematics, and a variety of other school-related domains (Lave, 1988;Morrison, Smith & Dow-Ehrensberger, 1995; Stevenson et al., 1990). We assume that such

© 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326/97/060651-12

Correspondence to: C. A. Korpan or G. BisanzContract grant sponsor: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

learning contributes significantly to classroom education and lifelong patterns of learning(Gardner, 1991; Tressel, 1988). Children have ample opportunities to learn about scienceoutside of school. In recent years, researchers have begun to investigate these opportuni-ties by exploring how children and their families learn about science in museums andother informal settings (Crowley & Callanan, 1997; Dierking & Falk, 1994; Soren, Weiss,& DeDivitiis, 1994), how extracurricular courses for families influence learning and atti-tudes related to science (Ostlund, Gennaro, & Dobbert, 1985), and how children representscience-related concepts and reason scientifically prior to, or outside of, formal schooling(e.g., Carey, 1985; Kuhn, Amsel, & O’Laughlin, 1988; Sodian, Zaitchik, & Carey, 1991;Springer, 1995).

An important but underrepresented element to date is research designed to identify the na-ture and scope of children’s science-related activities outside of school. Information about thebooks children read, the television programs they watch, and the other activities in which theyengage could lead to critical insights into how children learn scientific concepts andprocesses. For example, such information could supplement research on the role of museumsand family-oriented courses in science learning, which is limited primarily to self-selectedsubsets of families. It also could contribute to research on children’s conceptual learning andscientific reasoning by providing information about the context in which learning occurs.Moreover, knowledge about children’s science-related experiences outside of school couldsignificantly influence school-based instructional practice. Consider, by analogy, the way inwhich research on “emergent literacy” has influenced educational rhetoric and classroompractice in the language arts. Researchers studying emergent literacy document the naive oremerging theories of reading and writing that young children construct before they enterschool (e.g., Bissex, 1980; Ninio & Bruner, 1978). A variety of methods have been used togather information about emergent literacy, ranging from structured interviews (e.g, Ferreiro,1978) to ethnographic work (e.g., Heath, 1980). Findings from the intensive study of chil-dren’s learning and home environments have become a force that has undermined traditionalconcepts of “reading readiness,” highlighted the active and constructive nature of children’slearning, and encouraged teachers to consider the importance of home–school partnershipsfor helping children to read. As a result, a paradigmatic shift has occurred in how classroomteachers and curriculum planners think about and teach language arts in the primary grades(Teale & Sulzby, 1986). Knowledge about informal learning opportunities and children’s de-veloping theories of reading and writing have become a platform on which teachers can buildin the classroom.

Informal learning opportunities help preschool children develop in a number of other areas,including linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, and interpersonal competencies(Gardner, 1991). Before entering school, children are exposed to a variety of learning experi-ences and may enter numerous apprenticeships with individuals of varying degrees of exper-tise in different domains. As part of these experiences, children are drawn into the use ofvarious literacies. Research on the influence of these early experiences has served a usefulfunction for teachers who adapt instruction for either compensatory or enrichment purposes(Armstrong, 1994; Gardner, 1991). We anticipate that research on learning science outside ofschool might have a similar impact.

We have begun to study children’s science-related activities outside of school by develop-ing structured interviews for parents of middle class preschool and kindergarten children andfor students in upper-elementary grades. In this progress report we describe how these inter-views were developed, what kinds of information we were able to obtain in two exploratorystudies, and what lessons we have learned in the process.

652 KORPAN ET AL.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERVIEWS

We used the literature on emergent literacy (e.g., Teale & Sulzby, 1986), existing researchon informal learning in science (e.g., Dierking & Falk, 1994; Druger, 1988), and personalknowledge about contemporary family and community life to develop two structured inter-view procedures: The Community and Home Activities Related to Technology and Science forparents of Preschool Children (CHARTS/PS) and for School-Age Children (CHARTS/SA).

CHARTS/PS

The CHARTS/PS interview began with a preamble about what scientists do and what tech-nology means. These preliminaries were considered essential for encouraging parents to thinkbroadly about the nature of science and technology. To encourage parents to provide detailedresponses, we described the value of information about home and community activities for de-veloping educational programs that complement preschool learning. In the seven major sec-tions that followed, we presented questions designed to gather information about opportunitiesto learn about science and technology in a broad range of family and community activities.The order of these sections was selected to establish rapport with the parents and to build theirconfidence. For example, questions about television were asked early because televisionwatching is common and we assumed that most parents would readily provide a response.

The first section, About Your Child, was designed to obtain information about the child andfamily (e.g., the child’s age, gender, and number of siblings). Researchers conducting studieson children’s interest in school science activities have found effects of gender and age (e.g.,Erickson & Erickson, 1984). Questions of this type were included to enable us to determinewhether involvement in home and community activities are similarly related to these factors.

The next five sections were designed to determine the range and frequency of science-related activities in which young children participate. The second section, Watching Televi-sion, consisted of questions about the amounts and types of programs that children watched.We asked questions about children’s favorite television programs, the frequency with whichvarious types of science programs (e.g., Nature of Things, National Geographic, Star Trek)were watched, and the frequency with which parents discussed these programs with their children.

The third section, Adult/Child Reading Activities, pertained to questions about favoritebooks, how frequently someone read to the child, and the proportion of time spent on readingmaterials related to science, nature, or technology. These questions were included to enablecomparisons with the data on emergent literacy in reading and writing (e.g., Sulzby, 1978).The fourth section was Science Activities in the Home, including questions on working withelectronic equipment (computers and calculators), nature-related activities (pets and garden-ing), hobbies and toys, and careful observations or simple experiments at home. The fifth sec-tion, Community Outreach Programs, was motivated by the literature on informal sciencelearning in museum settings (e.g., Dierking & Falk, 1994), but the focus of our questions wasagain one of sampling a broad range of opportunities in our community (14 in total). Weasked about opportunities ranging from the most obvious (e.g., the city’s space and sciencescenter) to those about which parents would be aware only if they or their children had a keeninterest (e.g., science reading programs at a library, engineering camps). These questions pro-vided information, potentially useful to teachers and researchers, about the extent to whichchildren are exposed to informal but structured learning situations designed to maximizelearning and promote interest in science.

HOME AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES 653

The sixth section, Answering Questions about Science and Technology, was motivated bythe literature on language and conversational skills (e.g., Schmidt & Paris, 1984). We inquiredabout the types of questions children ask about science, nature, and technology, the sorts ofactivities that inspire question asking, the question-answering techniques parents use, and par-ents’ comfort level in answering questions. These items reveal the types of situations that in-spire children to ask questions and the topics that cause them to engage in sustained thinking.Teachers also can gain knowledge about the information-gathering techniques children haveobserved and perhaps some idea about the quality of answers to which children have becomeaccustomed. The final section, About Your Household, was designed to gather informationabout the interests of both parents and children, parents’ educational backgrounds, the avail-ability of role models with science-related careers, and familial support for science-related ca-reer choices.

The general format for the interview was to begin by asking yes/no questions, designed todetermine whether or not an activity occurred at all (e.g., “In the past year, did anyone in yourhousehold help Monique conduct simple science experiments or engage in careful observa-tions that were intended to help her understand the way the world works?”). Affirmative re-sponses were followed with requests for an example. For activities we expected to occurfrequently, we proceeded to ask how frequently the activity occurred and provided an oppor-tunity for parents to give examples. (For instance, “Roughly, how many times per week, permonth, or per year does someone in your household read to Monique? How often would youestimate that the reading involves topics related to science, nature or technology? Please givean example of a topic.”)

Lists of activities were also presented (e.g., “Please indicate if Monique has visited or at-tended any of the following things in the past year”). In such cases, the lists were designed tobe comprehensive, but parents were always encouraged to comment on any relevant activitynot included in the lists. These lists had two additional properties. First, some items were de-signed specifically for older children and adults (e.g., questions about encyclopedia articles,science fiction, science textbooks, and both general interest and science magazines), whereasothers were designed specifically for younger children (e.g., educational series, such as WorldBook’s Childcraft series, and science magazines for young children). This wide spectrum pro-vided an opportunity for comparisons with responses of older children. Second, the question-naire was structured so that any regionally appropriate items (e.g., science programs on majorCanadian and U.S. networks, and the local nature center, science center, museum, and conser-vatory) could be substituted in the lists by other investigators. Finally, multiple-choice ques-tions, supplemented by requests for an example, were also used to fully explore some topics(e.g., “How often were the questions Monique asked in the past year related to science, na-ture, and technology?,” with answer options such as “most of the time, some of the time,rarely, none of the time”).

CHARTS/SA

The second interview procedure, designed for use with school-age children, was a modifi-cation of the first. One change involved the preamble. To establish rapport, increase students’comfort with the interview process, and motivate detailed responses, the rationale for the in-terview was focused less explicitly on science and technology and more on exploring studentinterests. A second change involved decreased use of open-ended questions and increased useof questions in combination with comprehensive lists. For example, if a student indicated thathe or she watched science-related programs, the interviewer said “I will read to you a list oftelevision shows that you may have watched over the past year. Please indicate by saying

654 KORPAN ET AL.

‘yes’ or ‘no’ to whether or not you have watched the show. If you say ‘yes,’ I want you to esti-mate how often you watch these shows on average per week, per month, or per year.” Again,opportunities were provided for participants to add items not listed by the interviewer. Thischange in procedure was made to enhance students’ recall of relevant information.

Two further changes were made to accommodate students for whom science and technol-ogy were not passions. First, students were asked about their interests in several areas otherthan science, including sports, music, and math. Second, for each comprehensive list, everyfourth item was unrelated to science and technology (e.g., The Simpsons and Hockey Night inCanada were added to the list of television shows). This feature led to the astonishing discov-ery that students in grades 5 and 6 reported watching The Simpsons an average of 4.7 timesper week! Other sections of the interview were modified to reflect: (a) changes in the avail-ability of television channels and programs; and (b) growing use of the Internet in homes.

SELECTED FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS

To determine the utility of these interview procedures, we conducted one study usingCHARTS/PS and another with CHARTS/SA. These studies were conducted in Edmonton, acity in western Canada with a population of approximately 620,000. Edmonton is a provincialcapital and a regional center with facilities that provide a wide range of opportunities to learnabout science and technology. Many households in the city have access to television networkscommonly viewed in both Canada and the U.S.

The CHARTS/PS interview was conducted with the mothers of 29 kindergarten children(15 males, 14 females; mean age 5 years 7 months) from schools located in middle-classneighborhoods, including one near a university. Parents were interviewed in their homes,and interviews were recorded on audiotape so that parents could express themselves freelyand so that important information or details would not be lost. Interviews lasted approxi-mately 45 minutes. The CHARTS/SA interview was conducted with 35 students (12 malesand 23 females) in grades 5 and 6 (mean age 11 years 11 months). Students were from apublic school located in a middle-class neighborhood near the university. Their interviewswere also audiotaped.

These interviews can be used to construct profiles of children’s participation in activities re-lated to science, nature, and technology in the home and in the community. Because of spacelimitations, we describe selected findings to highlight the types of information that can be ob-tained. We focus primarily on the interview designed for parents of young children(CHARTS/PS) because young children typically have more time than older children to en-gage in science-related activities outside of school. The learning opportunities that children inour community had with regard to science, nature, and technology were frequent and varied.The generalizability of our findings will depend, of course, on the demographic comparabilityof our samples with other samples. More important is the potential these interviews providefor identifying the wide range of opportunities children have to learn science outside ofschool.

Television Watching

As shown in Table 1, most parents reported that their kindergarten children watched scienceprograms on television and did so on average about three times per week. Science programs,however, were rarely cited as favorite television shows. Science fiction and nonfiction pro-grams were watched regularly, but more children watched nonfiction than fiction programs.

HOME AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES 655

Nonfiction programs varied in level of sophistication, from those directed specifically at chil-dren (e.g., 3-2-1 Contact) to those designed to appeal also to older children and adults (e.g.,Nature of Things). The only science fiction programs children watched were Star Trek and itsderivatives. The science presented in these programs is often cutting edge or frontier science(Bauer, 1992).

In the past, parents and teachers viewed their task as exposing children to age-appropriate in-formation incrementally and cumulatively. The level and sophistication of scientific programs towhich some children were exposed, however, suggests that the pedagogical dictum about using“age-appropriate” materials often will be difficult to implement because experiences and back-grounds of children are likely to vary widely within an age group. Thus, parents and teachersmust be as attentive to their roles as framers, interpreters, and evaluators of information as theyare to their roles as providers of information (Brown, 1997; Liebes, 1992).

Reading Activities

On average, parents reported reading to kindergarten children more than eight times perweek (see Table 1). This finding is consistent with the frequencies reported in the literature on

656 KORPAN ET AL.

TABLE 1Activities of Kindergarten Children

PercentageFor Participating Childrena

Activity Participating Mean Maximum

Television watchingScience programs 83 3.28b 10b

Nonfiction 79 2.00 8Fiction 38 2.96 8

ReadingReading of all types 100 8.65 28

Science reading 83 3.00c 21Children’s fiction 83 2.08 7Children’s nonfiction 90 1.79 7Children’s magazines 72 1.00 6Other fiction books 3 0.46 —Other nonfiction books 45 0.57 2Other magazines and 48 0.37 1

newspapers

Computer useIndependent use 59 7.37/mo. 30/mo.Discussions 51 2.77/mo. 14/mo.

Community activities 93 12.45/yr. 61/yr.

aFor children who participated in the specified activity, the mean and maximum number of timesthey engaged in such activity per week, unless indicated otherwise.

bMeans for the “fiction” and “nonfiction” subcategories do not sum to or average the mean of the superordinate category (science programs) because some children are included in bothsubcategories.

cParents often reported a frequency for “science reading” that was different than the sum offrequencies they reported for specific types of science readings.

emergent reading and writing. For example, Sénéchal, LeFevre, Hudson, and Lawson (1996)found that parent–child book reading occurred 8.2 times per week. There were, however, anumber of unexpected findings. First, as shown in Table 1, almost all mothers reported read-ing materials on science, nature, or technology to their child. Second, mothers reported read-ing about science, nature, or technology on approximately one third of all reading occasions.Third, judging by the topics and titles of the reported favorite books, at least one quarter ofthe children prefer books about science, nature, or technology. Fourth, parents reported read-ing to children about science nearly as often as children watched science on television. Fi-nally, as shown in Table 1, the range of materials to which the children were exposed wasquite broad. Although most of the materials involved story books, parents also read books,magazines, and newspapers written for older children and adults. Thus, parents read to theirchildren about science at many levels. Science teachers may wish to build on children’s famil-iarity with science by including a broad range of reading materials in their classrooms. Inter-estingly, researchers in emergent literacy have studied the effects of book reading onvocabulary, but the important role that joint book reading may play in informal learning aboutscience has been overlooked.

Computer Use

Less than half of the kindergartners (41%) lived in a household with a computer, but an-other 25% had access in other locations. As shown in Table 1, many children used the com-puter independently, largely for entertainment (e.g., 48% played games) and sometimes foreducational purposes (word recognition, practicing math skills, writing stories). Thus, al-though many of these young children had some familiarity with computers, science educationwas not a focus of the programs they used. Many parents reported, however, that householdmembers had discussions with the children that may have provided the children with a basisfor understanding elementary concepts related to computing technology (see Table 1).

Community Activities

As shown in Table 1, almost all parents reported that their children participated in commu-nity activities pertaining to science, nature, and technology, and did so on average about 12times annually. Most children (76%) visited a zoo twice a year, and many (66%) visited ex-hibits at a space and sciences center or a museum two to three times a year. Science coursessponsored by different facilities also were attended about twice a year by almost half (48%) ofthe children. In general, teachers could feel confident that many children have participated inlearning experiences related to science, nature, or technology prior to grade 1.

Home Observations and Simple Experiments

In most households (86%), someone helped the child conduct simple science experimentsand/or engage in careful observations intended to help the child understand how the worldworks. Many parents said that they had demonstrated how colors change upon mixing. Anumber of parents stated that they had replicated experiments they saw in a book, on televi-sion, or at a community activity. Many children also engaged in observing stages of growth(e.g., flowers, caterpillars, tadpoles) and astronomical phases. For the most part, children re-quested these activities, but in some cases, parents initiated these activities to facilitate thechild’s learning. In general, most parents engaged in activities designed to encourage theirchildren to think about science as a process of inquiry, a perspective that is compatible withcurrent curricular objectives (DeBoer, 1991).

HOME AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES 657

Question Asking and Answering

Preschool children are renowned for their questions. For nearly all of the children in oursample (97%), most or some of their questions concerned science, nature, or technology. Avariety of activities inspired children to initiate conversations or seek further information byasking questions. In fact, mothers indicated that 90% of reading occasions, caretaking activi-ties, and activities involving hobbies inspired children to ask science-related questions most orsome of the time. Questions also were asked quite frequently after watching television (83%of occasions), attending a community program (72% of occasions), and watching a movie(69% of occasions). Questions were less frequent after using electronic equipment (45% ofoccasions) and after listening to a radio program (10% of occasions).

Multiple-choice items were employed to determine the variety of techniques parents usedto answer their children’s questions. All parents reported using information they already hadat least some of the time, and 59% reported doing so most of the time. This finding may re-flect parents’ confidence in the adequacy of their knowledge. Almost all parents (97%) indi-cated that they were very or somewhat comfortable answering their children’s questions onscience, nature, and technology. When asked to explain their level of comfort, many parentsnoted that the questions were easy and/or they had adequate background knowledge for an-swering the questions of their young children. Several parents simply replied that, if they didnot have the knowledge, they were not afraid to admit it and to find the answer. Most parents(83%) also indicated that they asked other knowledgeable people when they did not know theanswer themselves. Science books and encyclopedias were rarely or never consulted by themajority of parents, but approximately half (52%) of parents sometimes conducted simple ex-periments to answer questions. Such active approaches to science at home are compatiblewith process-oriented approaches to teaching science in the classroom.

Household Interest and Familiarity with Science

Most mothers (97%) reported that their child was interested in science, nature, and technol-ogy, with approximately half (55%) being very interested. Mothers reported a similar level ofinterest for themselves. Such high levels of interest should be encouraging for teachers inter-ested in improving learning by building cooperative relationships with parents. Furthermore,of the 70% of mothers employed outside the home, nearly three quarters had jobs related toscience, nature, or technology (e.g., lab technician, nurse, pediatrician, speech pathologist).Also, when the father’s employment was reported (79% of the sample), 22% had jobs clearlyrelated to science (e.g., environmental appraiser, physics professor, and medical doctor) and alarge majority had trades with a technological component (e.g., electrician, mechanic,welder). Finally, almost all the kindergarten children (86%) had relatives or family friendswho were employed in jobs that involve science, nature, or technology. Thus, many childrenin this sample had role models who dedicate much of their time to science and its applica-tions. Role models potentially serve as a source of extensive knowledge in their area of exper-tise and can engage in sustained conversation with children about related topics (Brown,1997; Gardner, 1991; Soren et al., 1994).

Older Students (CHARTS/SA)

Despite the large proportion of time spent on school and homework, older children devoteda significant amount of free time to science. For example, most watched science programs(91%), although the average frequency for those who watched (2.44 times per week) wassomewhat less than for kindergarten children. Older children watched nonfiction programs

658 KORPAN ET AL.

about as frequently as younger children (74%, 2.14 times per week). More older childrenwatched science fiction programs than younger children (63%), but those who watched did soless frequently (0.89 times per week).

Many older students also read about science, nature, or technology regularly. Some re-ported that they read children’s story books about science (40%), but that they did so infre-quently (0.54 times per week). Most read science fiction written for juveniles or adults (65%)and did so frequently (5.3 times per week). Many of these older students also reported readingabout science in magazines and newspapers. Thus, these older elementary students chose topursue science-related topics in their reading.

Older children had much more exposure to computers than younger children. Most olderchildren (91%) reported that they had a computer at home, and all had a computer room intheir school. Also, 37% of the students reported using the Internet. Primary uses were forentertainment (e.g., games, information retrieval for fun) and communication (e.g., electronicmail, chatrooms). As with younger children, there seemed to be little use of computers athome that would support the science curriculum.

Although the proportion of older children who reported engaging in community activitiesoutside of school related to science, nature, or technology (77%) was less than younger chil-dren (93%), they did so somewhat more frequently than kindergarten children (16.76 vs.12.45 times a year). Furthermore, older children were more likely than younger children to beinvolved in structured activities (e.g., science courses offered by local centers). The propor-tion of older children who conducted simple experiments or observations (83%) was compa-rable to young children (86%).

LESSONS LEARNED

Constructing and testing these interviews was instructive in a number of ways. First, struc-tured interviews with children and parents can yield rich insights into the kinds of science-related experiences children have outside of school. In particular, kindergarten children in ourstudy typically were exposed to a broad range of science-related materials in television pro-grams, in joint reading activities with their parents, in community-based programs, and inhome observations and experiments. This remarkable level of participation in extracurricular,science-related activities was also evident in older elementary children who, presumably,were more likely than younger children to initiate these activities on their own. We view find-ings such as these to be important contextual information for teachers, researchers, and par-ents who seek to understand and optimize the ways in which children learn about science,nature, and technology. The information gained from our initial studies clearly justifies con-tinued development and use of structured interviews about children’s learning experiencesoutside of school. Expanding this study to look at families from other socioeconomic back-grounds is a logical next step.

Second, interpretation of responses from the interviews would have been enhanced in somecases if we had collected information about the frequencies of a wider range of activities. Weomitted questions of this type in the interest of constructing interviews of reasonable length,but this economy had consequences. Sometimes it was difficult to fully characterize the extentto which children engaged in science-related activities because we did not also establish howfrequently they engaged in similar activities that were not science-related. For example, al-though we asked how often younger and older children watched television programs relatedto science, nature, and technology, we did not ask about how much television that theywatched in total. Consequently we could not always determine the relative frequency of science-related activities, which might serve as a good index of interest in science.

HOME AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES 659

Third, for activities we expected to occur rarely (e.g., home experiments), we did not askabout frequency of occurrence. Similarly, we usually did not inquire about why families choseto engage in science-related activities. We have since learned that these types of informationcan be helpful for fully characterizing participation in science-related activities.

Fourth, we suspect that presenting comprehensive lists of items, as compared to open-ended questions, enables respondents to think about a greater range of activities and thus toprovide a broader range of answers. Open-ended questions are suitable for eliciting salient re-sponses and for initiating discussion of a topic, but asking people to respond to preconstructedlists of items cues recall and is likely to yield a more complete picture of science-related ac-tivities outside of school. For this latter approach to be highly informative, these lists must beconstructed on the basis of detailed knowledge about the community in which children andparents are interviewed. Combining both approaches, with an open-ended question followedby a list of items, is likely to be optimal.

Finally, we learned a lesson that encompasses several of the others. Do not underestimatefamily and community involvement when inquiring about learning opportunities afforded tochildren. Some of our oversights stemmed from assumptions we held, now proved to be in-valid, about the likelihood of certain types of experiences occurring (e.g., experiments athome). As is often the case, research provided a dose of humility, as well as illumination. Thislesson, in combination with the others, should facilitate the development of structured inter-views that are even more informative than our initial constructions.

PROSPECTUS

Our initial studies clearly document the richness of science-related learning opportunitiesoutside the home. Interviews provided insights into such topics as the frequency with whichchildren read about science or watch programs with scientific content on television, the im-portance of parents as facilitators of knowledge acquisition as opposed to mere providers ofinformation, and the range of question-asking and question-answering activities that occurs athome. We expect that results will vary from community to community, but the level of ex-tracurricular participation in science-related activities suggests that learning outside of schoolshould not be ignored. In the province where this research was conducted, elementary schoolteachers are required to spend only a few hours per week in science instruction. Given therange and number of science-related activities outside of school reported by parents and stu-dents, the extent to which schooling is a major source of science literacy for some children isquestionable.

Our results highlight the potential value of structured interviews for researchers and teach-ers. Researchers who seek to characterize the development of scientific thinking (e.g.,Springer, 1995) can use these interviews to enrich their accounts of development, givinggreater consideration to the influence of children’s home and community environments (cf.Bisanz & Bisanz, 1994; Nunes, Schliemann, & Carraher, 1993). Science educators who seekto strengthen the presence and quality of science instruction in the early grades also can bene-fit. Structured interviews conducted in schools could yield insights about common experi-ences (e.g., exhibits at a museum) that can be used to facilitate discussions, interpretphenomena, and frame classroom activities. Information from interviews also could serve tohighlight the range of motivations and competencies among students, and help teachers iden-tify areas in which student “experts” could make special contributions to classroom learning.Finally, teachers may discover, on the basis of interviews, the likelihood of having influentialallies at home who can reinforce process-oriented learning at school. What is required for ad-vances in both research and instruction are research tools, similar to the ones we have devel-

660 KORPAN ET AL.

oped, that will help researchers and teachers to understand the full range of children’s sci-ence-related activities and to construct theories and instructional practices that incorporatethis knowledge.

Development of the CHARTS/SA interview was part of an honors thesis submitted by Conrad Boehmein partial fulfillment of the requirements for his undergraduate degree in psychology at the University ofAlberta. The authors thank the principals, teachers, participating students, and parents at Anne Fitzger-ald, Father Leo Green, McKernan, St. Boniface, St. Leo’s, and Windsor Park Elementary Schools.

REFERENCES

Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi-sion and Curriculum Development.

Bauer, H. H. (1992). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Chicago: University ofIllinois Press.

Bisanz, G. L., & Bisanz, J. (1994). Studying the development of academic skills in the 1990’s: Implica-tions for assessment. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40, 127–146.

Bissex, G. L. (1980). GNYS at work: A child learns to write and read. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Brown, A. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious mat-ters. American Psychologist, 52, 399–413.

Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Crowley, K., & Callanan, M. A. (1997, April). Shared scientific reasoning in everyday parent–child in-

teractions. In D. Klahr (Chair), Multiple-space search in scientific reasoning: Developmental implica-tions. Symposium conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, Washington, DC.

DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York:Teachers College Press.

Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (1994). Family behaviour and learning in informal science settings: A re-view of the research. Science Education, 78, 57–72.

Druger, M. (Ed.). (1988). Science for the fun of it. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.Erickson, G. L., & Erickson, L. T. (1984). Females and science achievement: Evidence, exploration and

implications. Science Education, 68, 63–89.Ferreiro, E. (1978). What is written in a written sentence? A developmental answer. Journal of Educa-

tion, 160, 25–39.Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New

York: Basic Books.Heath, S. B. (1980). Functions and uses of literacy. Journal of Communication, 30, 123–133.Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Laughlin, M. (1988). The development of thinking skills. San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Liebes, T. (1992). Television, parents and the political socialization of children. Teachers College

Record, 94, 73–86.Morrison, F. J., Smith, L., & Dow-Ehrensberger, M. (1995). Education and cognitive development: A

natural experiment. Developmental Psychology, 31, 789–799.Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labelling. Journal of Child Lan-

guage, 5, 1–14.Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ostlund, K., Gennaro, E., & Dobbert, M. (1985). A naturalistic study of children and their parents in

family learning courses in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 723–741.

HOME AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES 661

Schmidt, C. R., & Paris, S. G. (1984). The development of verbal communication skills in children. InH. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (vol. 18, pp. 1–47). New York: Aca-demic Press.

Sénéchal, M., LeFevre, J., Hudson, E., & Lawson, E. P. (1996). Knowledge of story books as a predic-tor of young children’s vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 520–536.

Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children’s differentiation of hypothetical beliefsfrom evidence. Child Development, 62, 753–766.

Soren, B., Weiss, J., & DeDivitiis, L. (1994). Studying science culture: A science/technology engineer-ing educational partnership. Studies in Science Education, 24, 129–142.

Springer, K. (1995). Acquiring a naive theory of kinship through inference. Child Development, 66,547–558.

Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S., Chen, C., Stigler, J. W., Hsu, C., & Kitamura, S. (1990). Contexts of achieve-ment: A study of American, Chinese, and Japanese children. Monographs of the Society for Researchin Child Development, 55 (1–2, serial no. 221).

Sulzby, E. (1978). Children’s emergent reading of favorite story books. Reading Research Quarterly,20, 458–481.

Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Tressel, G. (1988). A rationale. In M. Druger (Ed.), Science for the fun of it: A guide to informal science

education. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

662 KORPAN ET AL.