View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Explaining and Exploring the Dynamics of Parent-Child Interactions and Children's Causal Reasoning at a Children's Museum Exhibit

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Explaining and Exploring the Dynamics of Parent-Child Interactions and Children's Causal Reasoning at a Children's Museum Exhibit
Language: English
Authors: Sam R. McHugh (ORCID 0000-0002-8121-7249), Maureen Callanan, Garrett Jaeger, Cristine H. Legare, David M. Sobel
Source: Child Development. 2024 95(3):845-861.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2024
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: 1420241
1420259
1420548
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Parent Child Relationship, Museums, Thinking Skills, Child Behavior, Play, Goal Orientation, Learning Processes, Preschool Children
Geographic Terms: California (San Jose)
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.14035
ISSN: 0009-3920
1467-8624
Abstract: This study examines how parents' and children's explanatory talk and exploratory behaviors support children's causal reasoning at a museum in San Jose, CA in 2017. One-hundred-nine parent-child dyads (3-6 years; 56 girls, 53 boys; 32 White, 9 Latino/Hispanic, 17 Asian-American, 17 South Asian, 1 Pacific Islander, 26 mixed ethnicity, 7 unreported) played at an air flow exhibit with a nonobvious causal mechanism. Children's causal reasoning was probed afterward. The timing of parents' explanatory talk and exploratory behaviors was related to children's systematic exploration during play. Children's exploratory behavior, and parents' goal setting during play, were related to children's subsequent causal reasoning. These findings support the hypothesis that children's exploration is related to both internal learning processes and external social scaffolding.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1424442
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFEMAmwchxa0PWMi49oV66IAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHaWVFon2S9pTg2v1gIBEICBm1iCyTIsV229aHkCBSmKib0gtN78mQpyb-lQCcA6Othcw5rC4OQcpKSAU2Dq0Kk23OlDggP4AbTXOhOWkWa0xJaj0323khpzM51ORvcSjaCpu0rXmES8zeEfrT0fr5jqmHAVNRE8eYHroGXCVD2lkC7rnxGTe9a8RCuw3oynw440XDQwZGDzSGaFCT1YRg4Xyv5Osri4IRwIo_Z0
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0176649831;cdv01may.24;2024Apr19.05:21;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0176649831-1">Explaining and exploring the dynamics of parent–child interactions and children's causal reasoning at a children's museum exhibit </title> <p>This study examines how parents' and children's explanatory talk and exploratory behaviors support children's causal reasoning at a museum in San Jose, CA in 2017. One‐hundred‐nine parent–child dyads (3–6 years; 56 girls, 53 boys; 32 White, 9 Latino/Hispanic, 17 Asian‐American, 17 South Asian, 1 Pacific Islander, 26 mixed ethnicity, 7 unreported) played at an air flow exhibit with a nonobvious causal mechanism. Children's causal reasoning was probed afterward. The timing of parents' explanatory talk and exploratory behaviors was related to children's systematic exploration during play. Children's exploratory behavior, and parents' goal setting during play, were related to children's subsequent causal reasoning. These findings support the hypothesis that children's exploration is related to both internal learning processes and external social scaffolding.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Abbreviations</item> <p></p> <item> AIC Akaike information criterion</item> <p></p> <item> BIC Bayesian information criterion</item> <p></p> <item> GLMM generalized linear mixed model</item> <p></p> <item> PCI parent–child interaction</item> </ulist> <p>Children learn about causal relations in the world through exploratory and explanatory processes. When learning by themselves, children explore their environment, observe the impacts of their actions, and generate explanations for themselves in order to reason about their observations (see e.g., Gopnik & Wellman, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref1">23</reflink>]; Legare, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref2">33</reflink>]). But explanatory and exploratory processes are also mutually constructed through collaborative action and conversations with others (e.g., Legare et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref3">35</reflink>]). One common way children experience interactive learning is in everyday contexts with their parents.</p> <p>Our approach integrates constructivist and sociocultural theories in order to best understand how learning occurs in children's daily lives (Callanan et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref4">11</reflink>]; Callanan & Valle, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref5">10</reflink>]; Rogoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref6">50</reflink>]). The constructivist perspective posits that children create and seek their own learning experiences through observations of the world and interactions with others (Gopnik & Wellman, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>]; Miller, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref8">43</reflink>]; Piaget, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref9">44</reflink>]). Children accumulate and interpret input from their environment that allows them to acquire knowledge. On the other hand, the sociocultural perspective considers learning to be embedded in everyday cultural practices and to be mutually co‐constructed by the child along with others in social (in this case, parent–child) interactions (Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref10">18</reflink>]; Rogoff, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref11">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref12">49</reflink>]; Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref13">59</reflink>]). This focus on the dynamic contexts of children's lives highlights the idea that learning happens in multidirectional ways (Rogoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref14">50</reflink>]). We aim to integrate these distinct approaches by implementing methods that highlight the importance of both what is happening in the mind of the child and how their social interactions constitute settings for learning.</p> <p>The goal of this investigation is to examine how exploration and explanation during parent–child play at a museum exhibit relate to children's causal thinking about exhibit mechanisms. Children's museums offer a unique environment for studying the dynamics among exploration, explanation, and reasoning in the context of parent–child interaction. Museums encourage open‐ended play and exploration as well as opportunities to engage in collaborative explanation of causal mechanisms. Researching families' interactions in this context provides a valuable window into the everyday interaction and learning processes of some families (Callanan, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref15">9</reflink>]; Gutwill & Allen, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref16">24</reflink>]; Haden, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref17">25</reflink>]; Sobel & Jipson, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref18">52</reflink>]). By considering children's reasoning in a naturalistic setting, we investigate learning within family conversations and everyday practices.</p> <p>To provide background for the present study, we first consider research on how explanation and exploration support children's causal learning with different types of causal mechanisms. We next consider how these processes may unfold differently depending on family interaction styles. Finally, we consider how explaining and exploring interact in real time to predict children's understanding. We then consider open questions, which motivate the present study.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-2">Explanation and exploration in parent–child interaction</hd> <p>Focusing first on explanation, in museum contexts (as well as in laboratory settings), there are clear relations among the causal language children hear, the causal language they generate, and their causal knowledge (e.g., Alvarez & Booth, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]; Attisano et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>]; Booth et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref21">6</reflink>]; Callanan & Oakes, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref22">12</reflink>]; Chandler‐Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>]; Crowley et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref24">17</reflink>]; Walker et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref25">60</reflink>]). When parents give causal explanations about science, they have an opportunity to guide their children to learn concepts, models, and facts through talk and experience. Crowley et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref26">17</reflink>]) found parents sometimes assumed the role of "explainer" by speaking about the causal properties of an exhibit, connecting the experience to children's prior knowledge, or introducing abstract science principles. In studies where parents were prompted to ask questions or to encourage children to explain, interactions became more elaborative, providing deeper learning opportunities for children (e.g., Haden et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref27">26</reflink>]; Jant et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref28">29</reflink>]; Marcus et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref30">37</reflink>]; Willard et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref31">64</reflink>]). Moreover, children often benefit from generating their own explanations after observing a causal mechanism (e.g., Legare & Lombrozo, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref32">34</reflink>]) and their "why" questions have been shown to serve as an information‐seeking technique to generate meaningful and helpful explanations from parents in various everyday contexts (Callanan & Oakes, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref33">12</reflink>]; Kelemen et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref34">30</reflink>]). Although previous research has demonstrated that both parents and children generated and sought causal explanations while interacting with one another, less is known about how these explanations occur over the course of an activity.</p> <p>Beyond the importance of explanatory talk, there is also considerable evidence of relations between children's exploration and their causal learning (e.g., Hirsh‐Pasek et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref35">28</reflink>]). When children explore, they are able to learn causal structures through their own actions (Schulz et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref36">51</reflink>]; Sobel & Sommerville, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref37">53</reflink>]), and their exploration is often motivated by gaps in their knowledge (Bonawitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]; Cook et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref39">16</reflink>]). When parents and children participate in collaborative activities, children learn in embedded and contextual ways by engaging in everyday practices (Rogoff, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref40">49</reflink>]). But there are also limits on the extent to which children can learn from their own actions (e.g., Kushnir & Gopnik, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref41">31</reflink>]; Sobel & Letourneau, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref42">54</reflink>]). For example, children often need guidance from knowledgeable adults to support their learning, which is consistent with studies that have shown a benefit of guided play over direct instruction or free exploration (e.g., Alfieri et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>]; Weisberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref44">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>In guided play, children are encouraged to explore while being supported to meet goals and accomplish tasks (Weisberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref45">62</reflink>]). In particular, researchers have considered how parents and children set goals together during their play (Fung & Callanan, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref46">19</reflink>]). Some interactions are <emph>parent‐directed</emph>, with parents setting more goals for the play than children. Other interactions are <emph>child‐directed</emph>, in which children set more goals for the play, and parents merely observe or act to only facilitate the goals set by the child. Still other interactions are <emph>jointly‐directed</emph>, in which parents and children set goals together, or parents support the construction of goals initially determined by children. Previous findings suggest that variations in these interaction styles relate to both children's engagement with the task itself (Medina & Sobel, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref47">40</reflink>]) and their persistence with challenges related to the task (Sobel et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref48">55</reflink>]). Different types of tasks also elicit different interaction styles; for example, Fung and Callanan ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref49">19</reflink>]) found more parent‐directed interactions at an exhibit with a clear goal than at a more open‐ended exhibit. Variations in interaction styles between parents and children during free play can help us to better understand how exploration and explanation may be integrated differently in children's learning.</p> <p>Although there are numerous studies that examine relations between parents' explanatory talk and children's learning, children's exploration and their learning, or parent–child interaction and children's learning, few studies look at the interaction and dynamics among all of these processes. Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref50">11</reflink>]) measured parents' explanatory talk and 3‐ to 6‐year‐olds' exploration at museum exhibits focused on the mechanics of gears. They found that the proportion of systematic exploratory behavior during this play (e.g., connecting gears together and then testing the gear machine that was created) positively related to children's performance on a set of follow‐up measures about their causal knowledge of gears. Children in jointly‐directed interactions generated more systematic exploratory behaviors than did those in parent‐directed interactions. The overall frequency of parents' explanatory talk did not predict either children's exploration or performance on the follow‐up measures, but the particular timing of parents' explanatory talk was predictive of children's systematic exploration. When parents' explanatory talk occurred as children were beginning to connect gears together, children were more likely to complete the sequence by spinning the gears they had connected. Parents' explanatory talk at other points in time was unrelated to children's exploratory actions. Overall, these findings demonstrated the importance of the timing of explanatory talk and exploring which might be overlooked when studies rely on analyzing how overall measures of explanations and exploration predict learning.</p> <p>What the Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref51">11</reflink>]) study does not consider is parents' actions during the free play with their children—that is, how parents' exploration might also relate to children's systematic exploration or subsequent performance on measures of causal knowledge. Marcus et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref52">38</reflink>]) showed that children between the ages of 4 and 9 years old explored more with their parents than without them during a tinkering activity together. Also, when children explored together with their parents, they generated more causal language when reflecting on their play afterward. Sobel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref53">55</reflink>]) showed that some parents' actions during free play with children negatively predicted children's successful completion of challenging science‐related activities. The more parents engaged in actions that completed goals when playing with their children, the less likely children were to later solve challenges on their own. These findings suggest that parents' exploration during free play can both support and deter children's learning and engagement.</p> <p>Parents' exploratory actions can also be a form of nonverbal support that parents may provide during activities with their child. Some studies show cultural variations in parents' use of nonverbal support to guide children's learning. Chavajay and Rogoff ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref54">14</reflink>]) found that parents in a Guatemalan Mayan community engaged in simultaneous attention to an adult while also interacting with their child—often nonverbally. In another study, Zhang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref55">67</reflink>]) found that mothers in Taiwan used more directive guidance, such as hand holding, than did European‐American mothers, to support their children's learning in a challenging task. More research is needed to understand how parents' exploratory behavior relates to children's causal learning.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-3">The current study</hd> <p>In the current study, we considered multiple facets of the parent–child interaction by capturing exploratory actions and explanatory talk on the part of both parents and children as they played at an airflow exhibit. We coded particular exploratory actions that parents and children used to change the airflow in the exhibit. We also coded the temporal relations between these behaviors and the explanatory talk produced by both parents and children. This is critical to our theoretical framework, which aims to capture the full scope of the social context in which parents and children interact. A constructivist framework suggests that there are exploratory actions children engage in that predict their causal knowledge. A sociocultural framework encourages attention to the broader social and cultural context, considering parents' and others' actions and talk (not just the child's). Thus, we investigate the multi‐directional dynamics of parents' and children's actions and explanatory talk in relation to their causal learning. Further, we consider the broader context of the families' background, including demographic variables such as parents' schooling background, children's and parents' gender, and parents' attitudes toward science, as these variables might relate to variation in how parents interact with their children in museum settings (Gaskins, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref56">21</reflink>]; Szechter & Carey, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref57">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study builds upon Callanan et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref58">11</reflink>]) findings to uncover patterns in how parents' explanatory talk related to children's exploring during play at a museum exhibit. Critically, there were important limitations of this earlier work, which we address. We aim to make wider claims about how parent–child interactions predict children's reasoning by focusing on a different type of exhibit with a nonobvious causal mechanism. In the present study, we considered how parents and children interacted at an air flow exhibit, in which balls and scarves could be placed in clear pneumatic tubes and propelled by an air current. The air current was controlled by a junction box, which visitors could manipulate to force air into different tubes. This exhibit had different conceptual, perceptual, and physical properties than the gear exhibits studied by Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref59">11</reflink>]), which focused on gear mechanisms that had easily observable causal relations. To appreciate the causal relations in this air exhibit, parents and children had to posit invisible mechanisms (airflow) that caused objects to move through a set of tubes. Additionally, we investigated parents' exploration of the exhibit to highlight important ways that parents nonverbally support their children's thinking.</p> <p>This present study thus extends the design and analysis strategy used by Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref60">11</reflink>]) to ask whether we find similar patterns linking children's exploration with their causal understanding, as well as linking the timing of parents' explanatory talk and parents' exploration to children's exploration in a different content domain and activity. We observed parent and child dyads while they played at the exhibit, and considered how parents and children explored, the explanatory talk that both parents and children generated during their play, and the parent–child interaction style based on who set goals for the play. To gauge children's understanding of the exhibit, we next presented children with a set of challenge questions related to their causal understanding of the exhibit mechanism after the dyad played together. Our study thus sought to answer the following questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>) How frequently do children engage in explanatory talk and systematic exploration of an airflow exhibit? How might this vary due to individual differences? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>) How frequently do parents engage in explanatory talk and systematic exploration of the exhibit? How might this vary due to individual differences? (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref63">3</reflink>) How do the patterns of children's and parents' explanatory talk and exploration vary depending on the dyads' interaction style? (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>) How do parents' and children's explanatory talk and exploration relate to one another? (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>) How are these explanatory and exploratory behaviors related to children's scores on later causal challenge questions? and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref66">6</reflink>) How do the temporal dynamics of parents' and children's talk and action during their play relate to children's exploration?</p> <p>Building on the previous research by Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref67">11</reflink>]), we hypothesized that explanation and exploration would be related to children's causal learning. Specifically, we hypothesized that the timing of parents' explanatory talk would relate to children's systematic exploration, and that children's systematic exploration would relate to their responses on the subsequent measures of their causal understanding of the exhibit. Because this exhibit design involves a nonobvious causal mechanism, we reasoned that parents' overall exploration and explanation may be more important to children's understanding of the causal features in this case. Further, we asked whether parent–child interaction style may relate differently to children's causal learning in this case where children may need more guidance to recognize the mechanism.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-4">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176649831-5">Participants</hd> <p>A total of 109 parent–child dyads participated in our study at Children's Discovery Museum of San Jose in San Jose, California. Children in the sample ranged from 3 to 6 years old (by parent report, 56 girls, 53 boys, <emph>M</emph> = 58.75 months, SD = 12.54 months, range: 36–83 months). Fifty‐seven children were tested with their mother; 52 children were tested with their father. In an open‐ended question asking how they would describe their families' ethnicity, 32 parents self‐identified their family ethnicity as White, nine self‐identified as Latino or Hispanic, 17 self‐identified as Asian or Asian‐American, 17 self‐identified as Asian Indian or South Asian, one self‐identified as Pacific Islander, 26 self‐identified as of mixed ethnicity, and seven did not report. The majority of parents identified their household income as greater than 120 K (<emph>N</emph> = 73) and identified themselves as having at least a bachelor's degree (<emph>N</emph> = 97). A full breakdown of parents' self‐identified schooling level and household income is shown in Table 1. While demographic questions are not our major focus, we included demographic variables in preliminary correlational analyses to determine which variables should be included in the later regressions.</p> <p>1 TABLE Additional participant demographic information.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">Percentage</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Parental schooling</td></tr><tr><td align="left">High school graduate</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Some university</td><td align="char" char=".">6</td><td align="char" char=".">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Associate's degree</td><td align="char" char=".">4</td><td align="char" char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bachelor's degree</td><td align="char" char=".">43</td><td align="char" char=".">39</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Master's degree</td><td align="char" char=".">42</td><td align="char" char=".">39</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Doctorate or professional degree</td><td align="char" char=".">12</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Household income</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><30 K</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">31–50 K</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">51–70 K</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">71–90 K</td><td align="char" char=".">4</td><td align="char" char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">91–120 K</td><td align="char" char=".">17</td><td align="char" char=".">16</td></tr><tr><td align="left">>120 K</td><td align="char" char=".">73</td><td align="char" char=".">67</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Not reported</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left">SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left"># of annual museum visits</td><td align="char" char=".">2.79</td><td align="char" char=".">1.52</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (out of 7)</th><th align="left">SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Attitudes toward science questionnaire</td><td align="char" char=".">5.36</td><td align="char" char=".">0.78</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Data collection took place between January and June of 2017. We collected data on weekend days to maximize the presence of families (rather than school groups), and we limited our sample to families who had never played with this new exhibit. The museum staff agreed to allow us to limit the exhibit to one family at a time for research purposes, with the constraint that we close the exhibit for a few hours at a time and open it to the public periodically throughout each day. The ideal sample size was determined through power analysis using GPower3.1, based on a two‐tailed logistic regression, assuming <emph>α</emph> = .05, <emph>β</emph> = .05, and a medium to large effect size (odds ratio = 2.5). This analysis suggested a sample size of 113 participants. Because of the constraints mentioned above, we collected data from slightly fewer dyads than our proposed sample size (<emph>n</emph> = 4). Additional sample size and power analysis information can be found in the Supporting Information.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-6">Materials</hd> <p>The museum exhibit, shown in Figure 1, is called <emph>Amazing Airways</emph>. The components for this exhibit were created by MindSplash (mindsplash.net) and the exhibits team at Children's Discovery Museum of San Jose designed and installed this particular version of the exhibit. At the time of data collection, this exhibit consisted of two intertwined pathways of transparent plastic tubes with one entry point and two exit points. Air flows through the tubes with sufficient force to propel small balls and scarves. A basket near the exhibit holds various objects (e.g., fluffy toy balls) that participants can put into the system of airways through one opening. Participants can manipulate a knob at a junction point that moves an internal flap covering one pathway at a time, and changing the direction of airflow. Objects passing through the tubes emerge in one of two different locations, depending on the position of the knob. Objects could also get stuck in the exhibit if the airflow was suddenly redirected by manipulating the knob. In the context of our study, families set their own goals and explored the exhibit in whatever way they chose. However, we limited play at the exhibit to only the participating family during the procedure. At the request of the museum staff, we opened access several times throughout the day and told nonparticipating families when the exhibit would be open to all.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/CDV/01may24/cdev14035-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdev14035-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Picture of children playing at the Amazing Airways exhibit." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176649831-8">Procedure</hd> <p>Parents were approached by researchers asking if they would be interested in participating in the study. Once researchers obtained written consent, parents and their children were first asked to interact at the airways exhibit in open‐ended free play for up to five minutes. This interaction was video‐recorded using two cameras at different angles for subsequent analysis. We asked the parent to wear a remote lapel microphone for clear audio. After parents and children played together at the exhibit, the researcher invited children to engage in a series of challenges at the exhibit while parents completed a set of questionnaires on paper. These questionnaires, including a demographic form and the Attitudes toward Science measure (Szechter & Carey, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref68">57</reflink>]), can be found in the Supporting Information.</p> <p>The first set of challenge questions requested actions that tapped into children's predictive understanding of the causal mechanism of the airways exhibit. Because the link between turning the knob and changing the airflow was the most clear and direct causal mechanism, the researcher asked, "Can you make the ball come out of this tube?" and gestured to one of the two exit points. Then, the researcher handed children a ball and waited for their response. Regardless of the outcome of the first opportunity, the researcher asked the child to put the ball into the exhibit a second time to make it come out of the other exit point. In order to successfully complete this challenge question, children had to understand that adjusting the flap with the knob at the junction box would change the direction of airflow.</p> <p>The second set of challenge questions requested children's verbal explanation of the causal mechanism of the exhibit. The researcher prompted children to explain the causal mechanism of the knob asking, "What does this do?" while pointing to the knob at the junction point. Researchers waited for children to respond to this challenge question before moving on to the other questions in the follow‐up task. Other questions about the exhibit that were asked, but not included in this analysis are listed in the Supporting Information.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-9">Coding</hd> <p>Coding is presented below for several aspects of parents' and children's talk and behavior in the free play session, and for the children's answers to the challenge questions. In general, the play coding paralleled Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref69">11</reflink>]) in order to replicate their analyses, but was adapted for this exhibit. Interrater reliability was calculated separately for each coding scheme (explanatory talk, exploration, parent–child interaction style, challenge question responses) by having two research assistants code 20% of the videos. Following McHugh ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref70">39</reflink>]), we used a cutoff kappa value of.60, defined as moderate agreement. Disagreements in the reliability set were resolved by the two coders before they each went on to code the remaining data. Reliable coders checked in again after completing coding to resolve especially difficult coding decisions. Coder agreements for each coding scheme are reported separately in the following sections.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-10">Explanations during free play</hd> <p>All parent and child talk that occurred during the free play session was transcribed and parsed into individual utterances. The onset of each utterance was recorded. Parents' and children's causal exploratory talk included the five subcategories shown in Table 2: Causal connections (specific cause‐effect links), Making predictions (predicted actions), Personal connections (analogies to familiar experiences), Science principles (generic causal statements), and Labeling or Describing relevant to Causal Mechanism (drawing attention to the causal mechanism without providing a complete cause‐effect link). This coding scheme was based on the explanatory talk coding scheme developed by Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref71">11</reflink>]) which combined statements and questions for the explanation subcategories. In addition to coding for explanatory talk related to the exhibit, we also coded talk describing actions of objects and people, and other miscellaneous talk. Interrater reliability for the full coding scheme was 77% (<emph>κ</emph> = .75). The full coding scheme can be found in the Supporting Information. Parents' utterances were coded if they were directed at the participating child. Children's utterances were coded if they were directed at the participating parent.</p> <p>2 TABLE Coding schemes for parents and children.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Coding scheme</th><th align="left">Code</th><th align="left">Description</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Statements</th><th align="left">Questions</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Explanatory talk</td><td align="left">Causal connection</td><td align="left">Making a statement about how a specific action leads to a consequence. These statements needed to include mention of both the cause/action and the effect in the exhibit. <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>"When you turn the knob, then the ball exits the other way."</p></list-item><list-item><p>"If you put in the ball, then it will come out over here."</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">Asking someone about the cause of a given effect, or the effect of one's action. These questions usually included "why" or "how." <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>"How did that happen?"</p></list-item><list-item><p>"How did you make your ball go through this way?"</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Making prediction</td><td align="left">Suggesting that something will happen as a consequence of an action. <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>"I think it will come out over there now."</p></list-item><list-item><p>"Now it'll go through this, and when you close this it'll go through that."</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">A question that asks for a prediction about a causal relation. This code did not include what‐if questions that only prompted an action. <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>"What happens now when you put a ball in?"</p></list-item><list-item><p>"What will happen when you turn the knob?"</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Personal connection (analogy)</td><td align="left">A statement that related the experience to a previous personal experience or a piece of information with personal relevance to the child or parent. <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>"This is like how the fan at home blows air on us."</p></list-item><list-item><p>"It's like your rockets."</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">A question that requested such a connection to a personal experience or piece of information with personal relevance to the child or parent. <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>"Where have we seen air blowing like this before?"</p></list-item><list-item><p>"What does this remind you of that we did last summer?"</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Science principle</td><td align="left">An utterance that relates the experience to a larger scientific principle or knowledge about a general concept, usually with a generic statement. This code was also applied if the utterance involved an analogy to a more general principle. <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>"Air flows unless something stops it."</p></list-item><list-item><p>"Wind blows things around."</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">A question that asks for a broader scientific principle or knowledge about a general concept. <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>"How does air push things?"</p></list-item><list-item><p>"How does wind make things fly around?"</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Labeling or describing the exhibit, relevant to causal mechanism</td><td align="left">Naming parts of the exhibit or talking about aspects of the exhibit that are relevant to the causal mechanism. This code was also assigned for utterances that mentioned causally relevant properties. For the airways exhibit, this included statements about the entry, exits, junction point, switch, flaps inside junction box, objects moving through tubes, or airflow. <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>"That flap is closed."</p></list-item><list-item><p>"The switch is turned the other way."</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left">A question that asks for a label or description that is relevant to the causal mechanism. <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>"Is this the only thing we can switch, or are there any other places we can switch?"</p></list-item><list-item><p>"Where is the ball going?"</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Systematic exploration</td><td align="left">Turning the Knob</td><td align="left">When a parent or child turned the knob a single time to change the direction of the airflow. This included cases where the parent or child was just focused on the knob itself, as well as cases when they were also looking at the motion of the flap in the junction box or carefully tracking the location of the ball in the tube.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent–child interaction style</td><td align="left">Parent‐directed</td><td align="left">Parent sets goals and directs the child with imperatives or does much of the activity themselves; or the parent makes suggestions that are not building on the child's activity. When trouble arises, the parent is likely to solve the problem themselves or to state with an imperative what the child should do.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child‐directed</td><td align="left">Child sets goals and the parent observes the child's action, mostly hands off, and not doing much (if any) talking. When trouble arises, the child attempts to solve the problem.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Jointly‐directed</td><td align="left">Parent and child lead equally and/or work together smoothly setting goals and solving problems—hard to identify separate agendas, may include nonverbal blending activity. Both the parent and child both set goals, or it is difficult to identify who is setting goals, and both also build on each other's ideas. Parent's language does not signal that they are the teacher or the authority and they signal that they do not know everything. When trouble arises, both partners contribute to finding a solution.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0176649831-11">Exploration during free play</hd> <p>A coding scheme was developed through an iterative process to capture the types of actions that participants engaged in, such as feeding a ball into the exhibit or positioning themselves to catch a ball exiting the exhibit. We defined one behavior a priori as <emph>systematic exploration</emph> because we thought it provided evidence of causal knowledge during play at the exhibit. For the present study, systematic exploration for the child or parent involved turning the knob at the junction point (see Table 2). Even when not looking directly at the ball in the tube or into the junction box, we argue that a single turn of the knob is systematic due to the discrete interaction with the causal mechanism. Systematic exploration did not include times when the participant turned the knob repeatedly without waiting for an effect. Throughout the course of the free play session, we separately documented the onset, duration, and frequency of parents' and children's actions. In this way, we were able to capture the extent to which both parents and children engaged in systematic exploration. Interrater reliability for this coding scheme was 76% (<emph>κ</emph> = .71). The full coding scheme for exploration during free play can be found in the Supporting Information.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-12">Parent–child interaction style</hd> <p>We coded the dyads' overall interaction style from the free play session at the exhibit. Based on a coding scheme originally developed by Fung and Callanan ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref72">19</reflink>]), parent–child interaction styles were coded as either parent‐directed, child‐directed, or jointly‐directed. These holistic codes were determined by which participant took the lead in setting goals and solving problems while interacting at the exhibit (see Table 2). The full coding scheme can be found in the Supporting Information. Using the coding procedure from Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref73">11</reflink>]), coders divided the free play session into 30‐second intervals and assigned the code that best fit each segment. The segments in each category were counted, and dyads were assigned the code that reflected the majority of segments. Consistent with Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref74">11</reflink>]), if there were an equal number of codes in multiple categories (<emph>n</emph> = 7), coders chose the interaction style code that they judged the best fit for the free play session. Reliability was determined based on the majority code for each dyad. Two coders coded a random 20% of the families, and interrater reliability for this coding scheme was 86% (<emph>κ</emph> = .60). Disagreements were resolved through discussion, and the two coders each coded half of the remaining families.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-13">Performance on challenge questions</hd> <p>We coded two facets of children's causal reasoning when answering the researcher's challenge questions. In the <emph>predictive action challenge questions</emph>, children were asked to make the ball come out of each of the two exit points. Their responses were calculated with a scoring system ranging from 0 to 3: Children were given one point for correctly making the ball come out of each tube, as well as one point for manipulating the knob between trials. Because there is some randomness in the starting state of the exhibit, we wanted to give some credit for turning the knob between questions, which indicates some understanding of the mechanism. We also wanted to give partial credit in instances where children did turn the knob but did not make the ball come out of either exit point (<emph>n</emph> = 8). In the <emph>explanatory challenge question</emph>, children were asked to explain the function of the knob. Each response was parsed and coded by utterance. We were interested in whether children's answers mentioned the movement of the ball, the airflow, or the movement of the internal flap controlled by the knob at the junction point (see Table 2). Children received one point for mentioning each of these aspects of the causal mechanism. Scores ranged from 0 to 3. For example, a child who included details about how the air pushed the flap open, and how that then made the ball move would receive a 3. If children's responses did not include any mention of the relevant causal mechanisms, they received a 0. The coding scheme for the explanatory challenge question can be found in Table 3. Two coders coded a random 20% of the participants' responses, and interrater reliability for this coding scheme was 92% (<emph>κ</emph> = .90). Disagreements were resolved through discussion and each coder coded half of the remaining participants' data.</p> <p>3 TABLE Challenge question scoring and coding.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Challenge question</th><th align="left">Scoring/code</th><th align="left">Description</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Predictive question: "Can you make the ball come out here?" <pointing to each exit tube></td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">Child did not make the ball come out of either correct exit and did not turn the knob in between trials.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">Child got the ball to come out of one correct exit or turned the knob in between trials.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">Child got the ball to come out of one correct exit and turned the knob in between trials.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">Child got the ball to come out of both correct exits and turned the knob in between trials.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Explanatory question: "What does this do?" <pointing to knob></td><td align="left">Ball movement</td><td align="left">Child mentions that turning the knob changes the movement or direction of the ball. <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>"It switches the way the balls go."</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Airflow</td><td align="left">Child mentions that turning the knob redirects the air flow in the exhibit, either blocking the ball or pushing the ball. <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>"It makes the air go over on this side."</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flap movement</td><td align="left">Child mentions that turning the knob moves the plastic flap inside the junction box from side to side, or that the flap blocks or stops the ball or the air, or opens or closes one tube. <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>"It blocks it from moving over here."</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0176649831-14">RESULTS</hd> <p>We organize our results into six sections that correspond with our research questions. First, we describe how frequently children engaged in explanatory talk and exploring at the exhibit. Second, we describe how frequently parents engaged in explanatory talk and exploring at the exhibit. Third, we examined how these patterns varied depending on the dyads' interaction style. Fourth, we examined the relations among parents' and children's explanatory talk and exploration. Fifth, we considered how these parent and child behaviors predicted children's scores on the challenge questions. Finally, we investigated the temporal dynamics of parents' and children's talk and action during their play, particularly focused on whether and how parents' exploration and explanatory talk related to children's exploration. Because the first five sections parallel analyses done in previous investigations (Callanan et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref75">11</reflink>]; Sobel et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref76">55</reflink>]), they are mostly confirmatory in nature, and yet they include exploratory components by extending the analyses to a new type of exhibit. The sixth section contains both confirmatory and exploratory analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-15">Children's explanation and exploration during free play</hd> <p>We focus on two aspects of the children's free play, the proportion of explanatory talk they generated during their play and the proportion of actions coded as systematic exploration during their play. As shown in the first column of Table 4, on average, 14% of the utterances that children generated were coded as explanatory talk (range 0%–77%, SD = 14%) and 8% of children's actions were coded as systematic exploration (range 0%–51%, SD = 11%). Given these distributions were not Gaussian, Shapiro–Wilk tests, both <emph>p</emph>‐values < .001, we treated all subsequent analyses of these data nonparametrically.</p> <p>4 TABLE Descriptive statistics for overall sample and across parent–child interaction (PCI) styles.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Overall</th><th align="left">Parent‐ directed</th><th align="left">Child‐ directed</th><th align="left">Jointly‐ directed</th><th align="left">Difference among PCI group (Kruskal–Wallis test)</th></tr><tr><th align="left">(<italic>N</italic> = 109)</th><th align="left">(<italic>N</italic> = 18)</th><th align="left">(<italic>N</italic> = 13)</th><th align="left">(<italic>N</italic> = 78)</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Prop (SD)</th><th align="left">Prop (SD)</th><th align="left">Prop (SD)</th><th align="left">Prop (SD)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Parents</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Explanatory talk</td><td align="left">0.20 (0.11)</td><td align="left">0.18 (0.08)</td><td align="left">0.12 (0.11)</td><td align="left">0.22 (0.11)</td><td align="left">H(2) = 9.90, p = .007</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Systematic exploration</td><td align="left">0.13 (0.23)</td><td align="left">0.15 (0.20)</td><td align="left">0.16 (0.31)</td><td align="left">0.13 (0.23)</td><td align="left">H(2) = 4.07, p = .13</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Children</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Explanatory talk</td><td align="left">0.14 (0.15)</td><td align="left">0.09 (0.10)</td><td align="left">0.14 (0.17)</td><td align="left">0.15 (0.15)</td><td align="left">H(2) = 2.95, p = .23</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Systematic exploration</td><td align="left">0.08 (0.11)</td><td align="left">0.07 (0.10)</td><td align="left">0.03 (0.08)</td><td align="left">0.09 (0.12)</td><td align="left">H(2) = 8.74, p = .01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Challenge scores (0–3)</td><td align="left">1.29 (0.81)</td><td align="left">1.19 (0.81)</td><td align="left">0.92 (0.73)</td><td align="left">1.37 (0.81)</td><td align="left">H(2) = 3.80, p = .15</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To consider whether these patterns varied across our sample, we completed a set of preliminary correlational analyses. We ran Spearman correlations considering whether the average percentage of children's explanatory talk, and the average percentage of their systematic exploration, were correlated with the demographic variables (children's age, gender, parents' gender, household income, parents' level of schooling, parents' response to the attitudes toward science measure, and the families' average number of annual museum visits). The average percentage of utterances containing children's explanatory talk was significantly related to children's age, <emph>r</emph><subs>s</subs>(<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref77">107</reflink>) = .22, <emph>p</emph> = .02, and gender, <emph>r</emph><subs>s</subs>(<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref78">107</reflink>) = −.20, <emph>p</emph> = .04, such that children generated a higher average percentage of explanatory talk as they got older, and boys generated a higher average percentage of explanatory talk than girls, 16% versus 12%. The percentage of children's actions coded as systematic exploration was significantly related to parents' gender, <emph>r</emph><subs>s</subs>(<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref79">107</reflink>) = −.26, <emph>p</emph> = .006, such that children interacting with their fathers generated more systematic exploration than those interacting with their mothers, 10% versus 6%. Children's systematic exploration was also positively correlated with parents' scores on the attitudes toward science measure, <emph>r</emph><subs>s</subs>(<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref80">107</reflink>) = .24, <emph>p</emph> = .01. No other demographic variable related to children's explanatory talk or children's systematic exploration. Moreover, children's systematic exploration was unrelated to their explanatory talk, <emph>r</emph><subs>s</subs>(<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref81">107</reflink>) = .13, <emph>p</emph> = .18; thus, we analyzed these two variables separately. Because of these significant findings, in our subsequent analyses, we include the significant covariates when analyzing these variables. For example, when we consider children's systematic exploration, we will also include parents' gender as a possible covariate. We do not include nonsignificant demographic variables in later analyses to reduce the risk of Type I error.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-16">Parents' explanation and exploration during free play</hd> <p>We looked at parents' explanatory talk and systematic exploration in the same way as children's behaviors. On average, 20% of the utterances that parents generated were coded as explanatory talk (range 0%–44%, SD = 11%) and 13% of parents' actions were coded as systematic exploration (range 0%–100%, SD = 23%) (see first column of Table 4). Parents' systematic exploration was not normally distributed, Shapiro–Wilk test, <emph>p</emph> < .001. A similar test on their proportion of explanatory talk did not reach significance, <emph>p</emph> = .07, suggesting that the distribution might be Gaussian. However, to be compatible with other analyses, we treat all of these variables nonparametrically (the general patterns of significance in the analyses reported below do not change when the proportion of parental explanatory talk is analyzed parametrically).</p> <p>We ran a set of preliminary Spearman correlations among the percentage of parents' explanatory talk, the percentage of systematic exploration, and the demographic variables (children's age, gender, parents' gender, household income, parents' level of schooling, parents' response to the attitudes toward science measure, and the average number of annual museum visits). Parents' systematic exploration did not significantly correlate with any of these variables (all <emph>p</emph>‐values > .08). The percentage of utterances parents generated that were coded as explanatory talk was significantly correlated with parents' schooling level, <emph>r</emph><subs>s</subs>(<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref82">107</reflink>) = .20, <emph>p</emph> = .03, but was not correlated with any other variable.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-17">How explaining and exploring varied by parent–child interaction style</hd> <p>Table 4 shows the distribution of parent–child interaction styles, as well as children's and parents' percentage of explanatory talk and systematic exploration across the three parent–child interaction styles. Seventy‐eight dyads were coded as having a jointly‐directed interaction; 18 were coded as parent‐directed and 13 were coded as child‐directed. This distribution was not uniform, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref83">2</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 109) = 72.02, <emph>p</emph> < .001. There was a difference in the percentage of explanatory talk parents generated and the percentage of children's systematic exploration across the three groups. Parents in the jointly directed dyads generated a significantly higher percentage of explanatory talk (22% of their utterances) than parents in child‐directed dyads (12%), Mann–Whitney <emph>U</emph> = 255.00, <emph>z</emph> = −2.86, <emph>p</emph> = .004. Parents in the parent‐directed dyads (18%) did not significantly differ from parents in either group, both <emph>z</emph>‐values < 1.62, both <emph>p</emph>‐values > .09. Children in the jointly‐directed dyads engaged in a higher proportion of systematic exploratory actions (9%) than children in the child‐directed dyads (3%), Mann–Whitney <emph>U</emph> = 253.50, <emph>z</emph> = −2.97, <emph>p</emph> = .003. Children in parent‐directed dyads also generated a higher proportion of systematic exploratory action (7%) than children in the child‐directed dyads, Mann–Whitney <emph>U</emph> = 66.50, <emph>z</emph> = −2.25, <emph>p</emph> = .04. Children in the parent‐directed and jointly‐directed dyads did not significantly differ, <emph>z</emph> = −0.34, <emph>p</emph> = .73.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-18">Relations among parents' and children's explaining and exploring</hd> <p>Table 5 shows zero‐order correlations among parents' and children's explanatory talk and systematic exploration. Considering first children's explanatory talk, the proportion of children's explanatory talk was related to both parents' explanatory talk and parents' systematic exploration, and as noted earlier, was also related to children's age and gender. To consider the unique role of each of these variables, we performed an ordinal regression on the proportion of children's explanatory talk with these four variables as predictors. The overall model was significant, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref84">4</reflink>) = 36.82, <emph>p</emph> < .001. Parameter estimates revealed that the only significant predictors were age, <emph>B</emph> = 0.04, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [0.01, 0.07], Wald <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>) = 7.44, <emph>p</emph> = .006, and the proportion of parents' explanatory talk, <emph>B</emph> = 7.65, SE = 1.76, 95% CI [4.19, 11.10], Wald <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>) = 18.81, <emph>p</emph> < .001.</p> <p>5 TABLE Zero‐order correlations among parents' and children's explanatory talk, systematic exploration, and children's score on the challenges.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Parents' systematic exploration</th><th align="left">Children's explanatory talk</th><th align="left">Children's systematic exploration</th><th align="left">Children's challenge score</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Parents' explanatory talk</td><td align="left">r<sub>s</sub>(107) = .34p < .001</td><td align="left">r<sub>s</sub>(107) = .47p < .001</td><td align="left">r<sub>s</sub>(107) = .33p < .001</td><td align="left">r<sub>s</sub>(107) = .28p = .003</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Parents' systematic exploration</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">r<sub>s</sub>(107) = .21p = .03</td><td align="left">r<sub>s</sub>(107) = .53p < .001</td><td align="left">r<sub>s</sub>(107) = .20p = .04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Children's explanatory talk</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">r<sub>s</sub>(107) = .13p = .18</td><td align="left">r<sub>s</sub>(107) = .11p = .26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Children's systematic exploration</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">r<sub>s</sub>(107) = .33p = .001</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Next, we considered children's exploration. Tables 4 and 5 revealed that children's systematic exploration was related to parent–child interaction style, parents' explanatory talk, parents' systematic exploration, and as noted above, parents' gender and responses on the attitudes toward science questionnaire. We performed an ordinal regression on the percentage of children's systematic exploration with these five variables as predictors. The overall model was significant, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref87">7</reflink>) = 35.28, <emph>p</emph> < .001. Parameter estimates revealed that significant predictors of children's systematic exploration, controlling for the variables in the regression were parents' gender (children explored more with fathers than mothers), <emph>B</emph> = −0.81, SE = 0.38, 95% CI [−1.55, −0.08], Wald <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>) = 4.67, <emph>p</emph> = .03, the percentage of parents' systematic exploration, <emph>B</emph> = 2.45, SE = 0.83, 95% CI [0.82, 4.08], Wald <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref89">1</reflink>) = 8.68, <emph>p</emph> = .003, and the parent–child interaction style, with children engaging in a greater percentage of systematic exploration in parent‐directed and jointly‐directed dyads, compared with child‐directed dyads, <emph>B</emph> = 2.32 and 2.31, SE = 0.91 and 0.84, 95% CI [0.53, 4.11] and [0.66, 3.96], Wald <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>) = 6.45 and 7.55, <emph>p</emph> = .01 and.006, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-19">Explaining and exploring as predictors of children's causal reasoning</hd> <p>We next looked at children's performance on the challenge questions, which measured children's causal reasoning about the exhibit. Scores on the predictive action and explanatory challenge questions were averaged together (<emph>M</emph> = 1.29 out of a possible 3, SD = 0.81). We combined these two measures in order to produce a more stable measure of children's understanding of the causal mechanism. Additionally, the predictive action and explanatory talk questions were correlated with one another, <emph>r</emph><subs>s</subs>(<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref91">107</reflink>) = .41, <emph>p</emph> < .001. The distribution of responses was not Gaussian, Shapiro–Wilk test, <emph>p</emph> < .001, so we again used nonparametric statistics for further analysis.</p> <p>Examination of Table 5 reveals that children's scores on the challenges were significantly related to parents' systematic exploration, parents' explanatory talk, and children's systematic exploration. We also conducted zero‐order correlations between performance on the challenge questions and the demographic variables described above, finding that only children's age significantly related to performance on the challenge questions, <emph>r</emph><subs>s</subs>(<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref92">107</reflink>) = .40, <emph>p</emph> < .001. We ran an ordinal regression with children's score on the challenges as the dependent measure, to examine the variance predicted by each of these factors as well as parent–child interaction style (because it was related to both parents' explanatory talk and children's systematic exploration). The overall model was significant, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref93">6</reflink>) = 33.22, <emph>p</emph> < .001. Parameter estimates showed that the only significant predictors of performance on the challenge questions, when controlling for all the variables in the regression, were children's age, <emph>B</emph> = 0.07, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.04, 0.10], Wald <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>) = 18.77, <emph>p</emph> < .001, and children's systematic exploration, <emph>B</emph> = 3.32, SE = 1.61, 95% CI [0.16, 6.49], Wald <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>) = 4.23, <emph>p</emph> = .04.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-20">Temporal dynamics predicting children's systematic exploration</hd> <p>So far, we have considered how aggregate behaviors over the play session relate to one another and relate to children's score on the challenge questions. To summarize the regression findings so far, children's age and systematic exploration (but not explanatory talk) predicted children's performance on the challenges, and parents' gender, parents' systematic exploration, and parent–child interaction style all related to the percentage of systematic exploration performed by children. Systematic exploration during free play thus may be important for children's understanding of the exhibit, but interactions with others might influence the frequency of such exploration.</p> <p>What these analyses do not consider is whether parents' and children's behaviors dynamically build on one another over time during the play session. Because children's systematic exploration was related to their causal understanding when tested on the challenges by themselves, we focused on whether parents' talk or action, when they occurred in certain time sequences, were linked to children's systematic exploration during the free play session.</p> <p>To analyze the dynamics linking parents' exploration and explanatory talk to children's exploration, we divided the free play session into 5‐second time segments. For each 5‐second segment, we categorized whether children and parents engaged in a systematic exploratory behavior, as well as whether parents said an utterance that was labeled as explanatory. We constructed a set of generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) that looked at whether parents generated explanatory talk or systematic exploratory behavior 5 seconds or 10 seconds before children engaged in a systematic exploratory behavior (proactive models), 5 seconds or 10 seconds after (reactive models), or during the same interval (concurrent model). This parallels the analysis used by Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref96">11</reflink>]). Figure 2 shows the representation of these event sequences.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/CDV/01may24/cdev14035-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdev14035-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Representations of the event sequences between proactive, concurrent, and reactive models used in analysis of systematic exploration." /> </p> <p></p> <p>For both the proactive and reactive models, the 10‐second model was a better fit than the 5‐second model (as shown by both Akaike information criterion [AIC]‐ and Bayesian information criterion [BIC]‐values); therefore, we continue our discussion of the results only describing the 10‐second models. A full table with all 5‐second and 10‐second models can be found in the Supporting Information (Table S1). The significance levels and model fit for these GLMM analyses are shown in Table 6. The Proactive 10‐second model was the best fit to the data (as shown by AIC and BIC).</p> <p>6 TABLE Significant results (p ‐values) and model selection criterion of the generalized linear mixed models used to analyze systematic exploration between parents and children based on the timing of parents' language (proactive—before, concurrent—during, reactive—after).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Model</th><th align="left">Time</th><th align="left">Age</th><th align="left">Parent gender</th><th align="left">Jointly‐directed versus parent‐directed</th><th align="left">Jointly‐directed versus child‐directed</th><th align="left">Parent sys. explore</th><th align="left">Parent explan. talk</th><th align="left">No talk</th><th align="left">Akaike information criterion</th><th align="left">Bayesian information criterion</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Proactive (10 s)</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">0.958</td><td align="char" char=".">0.005</td><td align="char" char=".">0.100</td><td align="char" char=".">0.003</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">0.928</td><td align="char" char=".">40,818</td><td align="char" char=".">40,832</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Concurrent</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">0.964</td><td align="char" char=".">0.006</td><td align="char" char=".">0.087</td><td align="char" char=".">0.003</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">0.130</td><td align="char" char=".">42,774</td><td align="char" char=".">42,788</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reactive (10 s)</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">0.999</td><td align="char" char=".">0.005</td><td align="char" char=".">0.087</td><td align="char" char=".">0.003</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">0.531</td><td align="char" char=".">0.593</td><td align="char" char=".">41,193</td><td align="char" char=".">41,207</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Each GLMM tested for the effect of parent–child interaction style and parents' gender (because these variables related to children's systematic exploration in the aggregate). We also included a comparison to the segments where no talk was generated by the parent, to ensure that the model specifically considered the role of parents' explanatory talk, and not the presence of any kind of talk. Additionally, we added a time variable to test whether children's systematic exploration varied over the time that they played with the exhibit. Finally, although children's age was not significantly related to their systematic exploration, we included it in this analysis to be certain that it did not reflect another cognitive factor that was not measured (no differences from the reported analyses were found when age was not included).</p> <p>To interpret Table 6, in the Proactive model, we observed a significant effect of time, with children less likely to generate systematic exploration as the play session went on, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>, 6774) = 38.81, <emph>p</emph> < .001. Age was not a significant factor, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>, 6774) = 0.00, <emph>p</emph> = .958. Echoing the regression findings reported earlier, children generated more systematic exploration with fathers than with mothers, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>, 6774) = 8.00, <emph>p</emph> = .005, and the main effect of parent–child interaction style suggested that children in jointly‐directed dyads generated more systematic exploration than children in child‐directed dyads, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref100">1</reflink>, 6774) = 8.64, <emph>p</emph> = .003, but were not significantly different from children in parent‐directed dyads, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref101">1</reflink>, 6774) = 2.71, <emph>p</emph> = .10. A new finding emerging from this model is that parents' generation of the onset of an explanatory utterance 10 seconds earlier significantly predicted children's systematic exploration, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref102">1</reflink>, 6774) = 14.18, <emph>p</emph> < .001. Finally, children were more likely to engage in a systematic exploratory behavior if their parents had not done so in the interval 10 seconds earlier, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref103">1</reflink>, 6774) = 12.72, <emph>p</emph> < .001. Because our measure of systematic behavior involves interacting with the knob that redirects the airflow of the exhibit and because only one person can operate the knob at a time, this may reflect the collaborative (or turn‐taking) nature of the interactions. Children might not be redirecting airflow after their parents systematically explore the knob because they are testing the current conditions of the exhibit. Children were more likely to turn the knob and change the airflow in intervals when their parents had not recently turned the knob.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-22">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Our study investigated relations among parents' and children's explanatory talk, exploration, and children's causal reasoning about a museum exhibit. Parents and children played together at an airflow exhibit. We measured the proportion and timing of explanatory talk and proportion and timing of exploratory behaviors on the part of both parents and children as well as the dyads' parent–child interaction style in terms of goal setting. We then measured children's causal reasoning about the exhibit using a set of challenge questions after their interaction.</p> <p>Although numerous behaviors in the parent–child interaction predicted performance on the challenges individually, we found that a particular exploratory behavior we defined a priori—turning a knob that controls the airflow, which we termed systematic exploration—was the strongest predictor of performance on the challenge questions in a regression analysis. We also found that two facets of the interaction predicted this systematic exploration. The first was the timing of parents' explanatory talk. The second was the broader nature of the parent–child interaction style in terms of goal setting. These findings were similar to the results presented in Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref104">11</reflink>]). Two additional predictors go beyond the earlier work: parent gender and timing of parents' exploration. We first discuss the similarities of these findings, which speak to the reproduction and generalization of the research, then we turn to the unique considerations of the present investigation. Finally, we consider the broader theoretical interpretations of these findings, and limitations of the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-23">Reproduction and extensions of previous research</hd> <p>We want to highlight several findings, which reproduce and extend those reported by Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref105">11</reflink>]) to a new museum exhibit with different characteristics. First, children's systematic exploration predicted their understanding of the causal mechanism as measured by their responses to the challenge questions in a regression analysis controlling for age, and other facets of the parent‐child interaction. Unlike the gear exhibits studied in Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref106">11</reflink>]), the airways exhibit studied here employs a causal mechanism that is not likely to be immediately apparent to visitors, including parents. When families played at the gear exhibit, it was immediately obvious how one gear causes another gear to move given their visible connection. The air pressure mechanism of the airways exhibit is not visible and needs some attention for children to uncover. Our study provides additional evidence to support the predictive role of children's systematic exploration in children's causal reasoning in this less transparent setting.</p> <p>Second, in contrast to the importance of children's systematic exploration in children's causal reasoning, when considered in the aggregate, neither parents' explanatory talk nor their systematic exploration predicted children's performance on the challenge tasks in our regression analysis. However, there were temporal relations between parents' explanatory talk and children's systematic exploration. The best fitting model of our data showed that children's systematic exploration during their play occurred more often when it was preceded by an explanatory utterance from the parent. Although there was not a direct link between parents' explanatory talk and children's systematic exploration (as shown in the regression analysis), there was a temporal link, such that when parents provided an explanatory utterance, their children were significantly more likely to explore the exhibit in a way that might have promoted their causal understanding. This finding fits with earlier research showing that children are more likely to explore the crucial elements of an exhibit when interacting with parents than when by themselves or with other children (Crowley et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref107">17</reflink>]). Additionally, these findings align with findings reported by Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref108">11</reflink>]), even though that study had a longer temporal sequence for systematic exploration. In both studies, parents' explanatory talk predicted children's systematic exploration behaviors when the explanations occurred before the exploration.</p> <p>Third, goal setting—as indicated by the parent–child interaction style coding—also related to children's systematic exploration. Children in child‐directed dyads, despite being freer to set goals for their exploration, were less likely to engage in systematic exploration. This finding also reproduces results by Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref109">11</reflink>]) with an important caveat. In the Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref110">11</reflink>]) study, the distribution of parent–child interaction styles was uniform; here, many more dyads were jointly‐directed. Gutwill and Allen ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref111">24</reflink>]) suggested that the nature of activities afforded by an exhibit—including goal setting—likely account for some differences in families' ways of interacting. The airways exhibit may have afforded more joint interaction because it was much larger than the gear exhibits used in Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref112">11</reflink>]). Whereas gear exhibits provide opportunities to engage with causal mechanisms using a type of parallel play, engagement with the causal mechanism of the airways exhibit required moving back and forth between parts of the exhibit that were several feet apart (the entry point for the balls and the switch mechanism for airflow). An efficient alternative afforded by airways is for two people to coordinate their actions using those two separate parts of the exhibit in temporal sequence. This requires coordination and collaboration, which might have prompted more jointly‐directed interactions. Critically, the nonuniformity of the distribution of parent–child interaction styles could suggest that the general findings of Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref113">11</reflink>]) generalize to exhibits that have different characteristics, and accompanying variation in the ways parents and children interact.</p> <p>This brings up an important difference between the present and previous studies. Here, children in both the parent‐directed and jointly‐directed dyads had higher proportions of systematic exploration than children in the child‐directed dyads, whereas in Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref114">11</reflink>]), children in jointly‐directed dyads systematically explored more than those in either of the other two groups. While we hesitate to draw strong conclusions from this finding given the relatively small number of families characterized as using the parent‐directed style, this difference could support the idea that parents' guidance may have distinct functions between the two exhibit contexts. Because the mechanism of the airways exhibit was less obvious, parents' involvement with setting goals in the play might have supported children's exploration of the exhibit in systematic ways (see also Crowley et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref115">17</reflink>]). Future research should investigate whether parents' guidance may be more helpful for children's exploration and causal learning in settings where the causal mechanisms underlying observations are less clear.</p> <p>The present study also considered the role of parents' exploration, which has not been considered as extensively elsewhere. That is, the present study considered the relation between parents engaging in systematic exploration and children's exploratory behavior and causal understanding of the exhibit. Although parental exploration did not predict children's causal understanding of the exhibit in our regression analysis, parental exploration did relate to children's exploration, particularly in terms of the temporal dynamics. Children were more likely to engage in a systematic exploratory behavior when parents had not engaged in such behavior in the previous 10 seconds. Our speculation on how to interpret this negative predictive relation is related to the advantages of collaborative action for this exhibit, as described above in our discussion of goal setting. We suspect that after parents turned the knob to explore the exhibit, children were waiting to turn it again until they observed the direction of the airflow. Inversely, if the knob had not been recently turned, children may have been more willing to change the direction of the airflow. This suggests coordination between children's and parents' actions in this particular exhibit setting. In contrast, this finding might also be interpreted similarly to Sobel et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref116">55</reflink>]) finding that parents' goal completion actions negatively predicted children's learning; perhaps segments where parents did not turn the knob left open opportunities for children to systematically explore the exhibit, thus supporting their learning. Future research should investigate the dynamics of a broader range of nonverbal and exploratory actions by parents to better understand how they might support or deter children's exploration and learning.</p> <p>Finally, we unexpectedly found that children were more likely to systematically explore with their fathers rather than their mothers. This difference was not observed in the previous research by Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref117">11</reflink>]) or in many other investigations of parent–child interaction in museum settings (e.g., Garner, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref118">20</reflink>]; Sobel et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref119">55</reflink>]). Leech et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref120">32</reflink>]) did find that, in a museum setting focused on a balance scale, fathers asked more wh‐ questions and more questions with scientific content than did mothers. Such differences are consistent with other findings suggesting fathers and mothers might reminisce with their children differently (possibly mediated by the child's gender, see, e.g., Reese et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref121">47</reflink>]). Although we have not observed this difference in other studies, future research should investigate other museum exhibits to examine gender differences in parents' and children's exploration during play, as well as alternative ways to code and integrate exploratory actions and explanatory talk. For example, research on parents' and children's questions suggests that it may be fruitful to compare parents' causal statements versus causal questions as they relate to children's exploration. In addition, cultural variation in parents' use of exploratory and explanatory behavior with children must be considered in more depth (Chavajay & Rogoff, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref122">14</reflink>]; Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref123">67</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-24">Theoretical implications</hd> <p>As a broad way of interpreting these data, we rely on an integration of sociocultural and constructivist perspectives to understand how experiences from children's everyday life connect to their causal reasoning (Callanan et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref124">11</reflink>]; Callanan & Valle, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref125">10</reflink>]; Legare et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref126">35</reflink>]). The current results support an integrated theoretical approach by demonstrating that parents and children interact in contextually embedded and intricate ways that may support children's constructed causal knowledge about the mechanism of a specific exhibit. If we were to have looked at these variables in isolation from one another, we might not have realized that parents' explanatory talk was related to children's systematic exploration; only by considering the dynamics of these behaviors over time do we detect certain relations between parents' and children's behaviors. Children's own exploration might relate to their causal understanding of the exhibit, but it appears that those exploratory actions are scaffolded by their parents' explanatory talk. Cognitive processes, discovery, guidance, and interaction all play important roles in the learning process. The development of cognitive processes is embedded within children's social and cultural contexts, where children learn by participating in everyday activities with others (Gaskins & Paradise, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref127">22</reflink>]; Heath, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref128">27</reflink>]; Rogoff, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref129">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>Parent–child interaction at museum exhibits involves parents generating explanations, guiding children's attention, and helping them to interpret evidence and connect their observations with their prior experience (e.g., Benjamin et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref130">4</reflink>]; Borun et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref131">7</reflink>]; Braham et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref132">8</reflink>]; Puchner et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref133">46</reflink>]; van Schijndel & Raijmakers, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref134">58</reflink>]). At the same time, children engage in exploratory play and find explanations for events. In a setting where the causal mechanisms are less clear, the interaction we observed here parallels the literature on parental "scaffolding" (Wood et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref135">65</reflink>], p. 90), which shows that parents often support children's problem solving by controlling elements of the task that children might not be able to do for themselves. Parents contingently act in response to what children understand, and support children in engaging with elements of the problem they do not understand, which enables further learning (e.g., Connor & Cross, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref136">15</reflink>]; Meins, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref137">41</reflink>]; Pratt et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref138">45</reflink>]; Wood & Middleton, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref139">66</reflink>]; see Mermelshtine, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref140">42</reflink>], for a review).</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-25">Limitations of the present investigation</hd> <p>It is important to note that although our findings linking explanatory talk and exploratory action during parent–child intactions at a children's museum exhibit are supported by the previous research by Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref141">11</reflink>]), in both cases, families were aware they were being recorded and only one family played with the exhibit at a time. It is an open question whether the parent–child interactions would reflect our observed patterns in more natural museum contexts where multiple families might engage with an exhibit at once.</p> <p>Additionally, although several studies have documented that the parent–child interaction style coding we used to describe the dyads' goal setting generalizes across contexts other than museum exhibits (e.g., Medina & Sobel, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref142">40</reflink>]; Sobel & Stricker, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref143">56</reflink>]; Weisberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref144">61</reflink>]), to our knowledge, there have not been investigations considering the observed temporal dynamics between parental explanatory talk and children's exploratory behaviors. We suspect that the observed temporal relations will generalize to parent–child interactions outside of museum contexts; however, future research should directly test how parents and children interact with one another in other informal learning settings.</p> <p>As described in the method section, our sample was generally highly educated and reported high average income. Although this does not represent all populations of museum visitors, these features do reflect the regional demographics of visitors to this museum. Further, Callanan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref145">11</reflink>]) collected data from three sites across the United States, and like here, parental schooling and household income were unrelated to many facets of parent–child interaction or children's exploration.</p> <p>One further limitation involves an alternative interpretation of the findings, which might suggest that children's systematic exploration and challenge question responses are merely two measures of children's understanding of airflow that they arrived with at the exhibit. That is, children who understood the causal mechanism prior to engaging with the exhibit might have engaged in more systematic exploration and understood the challenge questions better. Although we acknowledge that this is a possible interpretation, both the predictiveness of the temporal dynamics of parents' explanatory talk, and the parent–child interaction style in terms of goal setting, suggest that the immediate experiences in the exhibit were linked to children's causal understanding. Further, the relation between systematic exploration and the challenges was still present when controlling for children's age and experience families had with the exhibit. These patterns suggest that it is more likely that children's exploratory behaviors at the exhibit related to their reasoning.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-26">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>In summary, we found that children's own exploratory behavior was scaffolded by the explanatory talk and exploratory behaviors generated by their parents. But it was the exploratory behaviors children engaged in that predicted their understanding of the causal mechanism of the exhibit. Just like scientists, children's learning is not solely the product of discovering new information by exploring their environment or being told information. Rather, children's understanding of the world comes from the interplay of their own exploration and interactions with others, as highlighted by an integration of constructivist and sociocultural perspectives.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-27">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>We are grateful to the families who participated in the study, the National Science Foundation (1420259, 1420241, and 1420548) for the support, Children's Discovery Museum of San Jose (CA) where we collected the data for this study, especially Jenni Martin, and the research assistants who helped with data collection, transcription, translation, and coding. We specifically thank research assistants Monica Carrasco, Kevin Chu, Isabelle Gross, Kate Haerizadeh, Kristine Harris, Tony Nguyen, Destiny Prado, Erika Rubio, Matthew Villahermosa, and Mamie Yang. The authors thank Douglas Bonett for his generous time and helpful statistical advice.</p> <hd id="AN0176649831-28">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>Data, code, and materials are available from the first author upon reasonable request. The analyses presented here were not preregistered.</p> <p>GRAPH: Data S1.</p> <ref id="AN0176649831-29"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref43" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery‐based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alvarez, A., & Booth, A. E. (2016). Exploring individual differences in preschoolers' causal stance. Developmental Psychology, 52, 411 – 422. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000085</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref20" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Attisano, E., Nancekivell, S. E., & Denison, S. (2021). Components and mechanisms: How children talk about machines in museum exhibits. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref64" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Benjamin, N., Haden, C. A., & Wilkerson, E. (2010). Enhancing building, conversation, and learning through caregiver‐child interactions in a children's museum. Developmental Psychology, 46, 502 – 515. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref38" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bonawitz, E., Shafto, P., Gweon, H., Goodman, N. D., Spelke, E., & Schulz, L. (2011). The double‐edged sword of pedagogy: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Cognition, 120, 322 – 330.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref21" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Booth, A. E., Savlik, M., & Haden, C. A. (2020). Parent's causal talk: Links to children's causal stance and emerging scientific literacy. Developmental Psychology, 56, 2055 – 2064.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref87" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Borun, M., Chambers, M. B., Dritsas, J., & Johnson, J. I. (1997). Enhancing family learning through exhibits. Curator, 40, 279 – 295.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref132" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Braham, E. J., Libertus, M. E., & McCrink, K. (2018). Children's spontaneous focus on number before and after guided parent–child interactions in a children's museum. Developmental Psychology, 54, 1492 – 1498.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref15" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Callanan, M. (2012). Conducting cognitive developmental research in museums: Theoretical issues and practical considerations. Journal of Cognition and Development, 13, 137 – 151.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Callanan, M., & Valle, A. (2008). Co‐constructing conceptual domains through family conversations and activities. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 147 – 165). Elsevier Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Callanan, M. A., Legare, C. H., Sobel, D. M., Jaeger, G. J., Letourneau, S. M., McHugh, S. R., & Willard, A. K. (2020). Exploration, explanation, and parent–child interaction in museums. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 85, 7 – 137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Callanan, M. A., & Oakes, L. M. (1992). Preschoolers' questions and parents' explanations: Causal thinking in everyday activity. Cognitive Development, 7, 213 – 233.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chandler‐Campbell, I. L., Leech, K. A., & Corriveau, K. H. (2020). Investigating science together: Inquiry‐based training promotes scientific conversations in parent‐child interactions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1934.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chavajay, P., & Rogoff, B. (1999). Cultural variation in management of attention by children and their caregivers. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1079 – 1090.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connor, D. B., & Cross, D. R. (2003). Longitudinal analysis of the presence, efficacy, and stability of maternal scaffolding during informal problem‐solving interactions. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 315 – 334.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook, C., Goodman, N. D., & Schulz, L. E. (2011). Where science starts: Spontaneous experiments in preschoolers' exploratory play. Cognition, 120, 341 – 349.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Jipson, J. L., Galco, J., Topping, K., & Shrager, J. (2001). Shared scientific thinking in everyday parent‐child activity. Science Education, 85, 712 – 732.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, H. (2011). Vygotsky and psychology. In U. Goswami (Ed.), The Wiley‐Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 673 – 696). Wiley‐Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fung, G., & Callanan, M. (2013). Pedagogy versus exploration: Parent–child interactions in a museum setting. Poster presented at 2013 Biennial meetings of Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garner, B. (2015). Mundane mommies and doting daddies: Gendered parenting and family museum visits. Qualitative Sociology, 38, 327 – 348.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaskins, S. (2008). The cultural meaning of play and learning in children's museums. Hand to Hand, 22, 8 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaskins, S., & Paradise, R. (2010). Learning through observation. In D. F. Lancy, J. Bock, & S. Gaskins (Eds.), The anthropology of learning in childhood (pp. 85 – 117). Alta Mira Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (2012). Reconstructing constructivism: Causal models, Bayesian learning mechanisms, and the theory theory. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1085 – 1108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gutwill, J. P., & Allen, S. (2010). Facilitating family group inquiry at science museum exhibits. Science Education, 94, 710 – 742.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haden, C. A. (2010). Talking about science in museums. Child Development Perspectives, 4, 62 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haden, C. A., Jant, E. A., Hoffman, P. C., Marcus, M., Geddes, J. R., & Gaskins, S. (2014). Supporting family conversations and children's STEM learning in a children's museum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29 (3), 333 – 344.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirsh‐Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Berk, L., & Singer, D. (2009). A mandate for playful learning in preschool: Presenting the evidence. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jant, E. A., Haden, C. A., Uttal, D. H., & Babcock, E. (2014). Conversation and object manipulation influence children's learning in a museum. Child Development, 85, 2029 – 2045.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelemen, D., Callanan, M., Casler, K., & Pérez‐Granados, D. (2005). Why things happen: Teleological explanation in parent‐child conversations. Developmental Psychology, 41, 251 – 264. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.41.1.251</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kushnir, T., & Gopnik, A. (2005). Young children infer causal strength from probabilities and interventions. Psychological Science, 16, 678 – 683.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leech, K., Chandler‐Campbell, I. L., Alton, J., & Corriveau, K. H. (2023). What would happen if?: A comparison of fathers' and mothers' questions to children during a science activity. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Legare, C. H. (2012). Exploring explanation: Explaining inconsistent evidence informs exploratory, hypothesis‐testing behavior in young children. Child Development, 83, 173 – 185.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Legare, C. H., & Lombrozo, T. (2014). Selective effects of explanation on learning during early childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 126, 198 – 212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Legare, C. H., Sobel, D. M., & Callanan, M. (2017). Causal learning is collaborative: Examining explanation and exploration in social contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1548 – 1554.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcus, M., Haden, C. A., & Uttal, D. H. (2017). STEM learning and transfer in a children's museum and beyond. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 63, 155 – 180.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcus, M., Haden, C. A., & Uttal, D. H. (2018). Promoting children's learning and transfer across informal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning experiences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 175, 80 – 95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcus, M., Tõugu, P., Haden, C. A., & Uttal, D. H. (2021). Advancing opportunities for children's informal STEM learning transfer through parent–child narrative reflection. Child Development, 92, e1075 – e1084.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22, 276 – 282.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Medina, C., & Sobel, D. M. (2020). Caregiver–child interaction influences causal learning and engagement during structured play. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 189, 104678.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meins, E. (1997). Security of attachment and the social development of cognition. Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mermelshtine, R. (2017). Parent–child learning interactions: A review of the literature on scaffolding. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 241 – 254.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, P. H. (2011). Piaget's theory: Past, present, and future. In U. Goswami (Ed.), The Wiley‐Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 649 – 672). Wiley‐Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, J. (1930). The child's conception of physical causality. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pratt, M. W., Kerig, P., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (1988). Mothers and fathers teaching 3‐year‐olds: Authoritative parenting and adult scaffolding of young children's learning. Developmental Psychology, 24, 832 – 839. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.24.6.832</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puchner, L., Rapoport, R., & Gaskins, S. (2001). Learning in children's museums: Is it really happening? Curator: The Museum Journal, 44, 237 – 259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reese, E., Haden, C. A., & Fivush, R. (1993). Mother‐child conversations about the past: Relationships of style and memory over time. Cognitive Development, 8, 403 – 430.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogoff, B., Dahl, A., & Callanan, M. (2018). The importance of understanding children's lived experience. Developmental Science, 50, 5 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schulz, L. E., Gopnik, A., & Glymour, C. (2007). Preschool children learn about causal structure from conditional interventions. Developmental Science, 10, 322 – 332.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sobel, D., & Jipson, J. (2016). Relating research and practice: Cognitive development in museum settings. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sobel, D., & Sommerville, J. (2010). The importance of discovery in children's causal learning from interventions. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sobel, D. M., & Letourneau, S. M. (2018). Preschoolers' understanding of how others learn through action and instruction. Child Development, 89, 961 – 970.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sobel, D. M., Letourneau, S. M., Legare, C. H., & Callanan, M. (2021). Relations between parent–child interaction and children's engagement and learning at a museum exhibit about electric circuits. Developmental Science, 24, e13057.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sobel, D. M., & Stricker, L. W. (2022). Messaging matters: Order of experience with messaging at a STEM‐based museum exhibit influences children's engagement with challenging tasks. Visitor Studies, 25, 104 – 125.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Szechter, L. E., & Carey, E. J. (2009). Gravitating toward science: Parent–child interactions at a gravitational‐wave observatory. Science Education, 93, 846 – 858.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Schijndel, T. J., & Raijmakers, M. E. (2016). Parent explanation and preschoolers' exploratory behavior and learning in a shadow exhibition. Science Education, 100, 153 – 178.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and word. In L. Vygotsky, E. Hanfmann, & G. Vakar (Eds.), Thought and language (pp. 119 – 153). MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker, C. M., Lombrozo, T., Williams, J. J., Rafferty, A. N., & Gopnik, A. (2017). Explaining constrains causal learning in childhood. Child Development, 88, 229 – 246.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weisberg, D. S., Dunlap, L. C., & Sobel, D. M. (2023). Dinos and GoPros: Children's exploratory behaviors in a museum and their reflections on their learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, G. (2013). Guided play: Where curricular goals meet a playful pedagogy. Mind, Brain, & Education, 7, 104 – 112.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Kittredge, A. K., & Klahr, D. (2016). Guided play: Principles and practices. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 177 – 182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willard, A. K., Busch, J., Cullum, K. A., Letourneau, S. M., Sobel, D. M., Callanan, M., & Legare, C. H. (2019). Explain this, explore that: A study of parent‐child interaction in a children's museum. Child Development, 90, e598 – e617.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 17, 89 – 100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, D., & Middleton, D. (1975). A study of assisted problem‐solving. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 181 – 191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, Y., Wang, S. H., & Duh, S. (2021). Directive guidance as a cultural practice for learning by Chinese‐heritage babies. Human Development, 65, 121 – 138.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Sam R. McHugh; Maureen Callanan; Garrett Jaeger; Cristine H. Legare and David M. Sobel</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref144"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1424442
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Explaining and Exploring the Dynamics of Parent-Child Interactions and Children's Causal Reasoning at a Children's Museum Exhibit
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sam+R%2E+McHugh%22">Sam R. McHugh</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8121-7249">0000-0002-8121-7249</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Maureen+Callanan%22">Maureen Callanan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Garrett+Jaeger%22">Garrett Jaeger</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cristine+H%2E+Legare%22">Cristine H. Legare</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22David+M%2E+Sobel%22">David M. Sobel</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Child+Development%22"><i>Child Development</i></searchLink>. 2024 95(3):845-861.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 1420241<br />1420259<br />1420548
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Child+Relationship%22">Parent Child Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Museums%22">Museums</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Thinking+Skills%22">Thinking Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Behavior%22">Child Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Play%22">Play</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Goal+Orientation%22">Goal Orientation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22California+%28San+Jose%29%22">California (San Jose)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/cdev.14035
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0009-3920<br />1467-8624
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examines how parents' and children's explanatory talk and exploratory behaviors support children's causal reasoning at a museum in San Jose, CA in 2017. One-hundred-nine parent-child dyads (3-6 years; 56 girls, 53 boys; 32 White, 9 Latino/Hispanic, 17 Asian-American, 17 South Asian, 1 Pacific Islander, 26 mixed ethnicity, 7 unreported) played at an air flow exhibit with a nonobvious causal mechanism. Children's causal reasoning was probed afterward. The timing of parents' explanatory talk and exploratory behaviors was related to children's systematic exploration during play. Children's exploratory behavior, and parents' goal setting during play, were related to children's subsequent causal reasoning. These findings support the hypothesis that children's exploration is related to both internal learning processes and external social scaffolding.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1424442
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1424442
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/cdev.14035
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 845
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Parent Child Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Museums
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Thinking Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Play
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Goal Orientation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: California (San Jose)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Explaining and Exploring the Dynamics of Parent-Child Interactions and Children's Causal Reasoning at a Children's Museum Exhibit
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sam R. McHugh
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Maureen Callanan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Garrett Jaeger
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cristine H. Legare
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: David M. Sobel
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0009-3920
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-8624
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 95
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Child Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1