An investigation of the role of learning conversations in youth’s authoring of science identities during an informal science camp

International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 76-102

  Riedinger, Kelly ^a   McGinnis, J Randy ^b  

^a David Heil Associates Inc   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

identity development; Informal science education; learning conversations; out of school learning; science camps

Indexed keywords

EID: 85045150720     PISSN: 21548455     EISSN: 21548463     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2016.1173741     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Allen, S., (2002). Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. In G., Leinhardt, K., Crowley, & K., Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 259–303). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Archer, L. A., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B., (2012). ‘Balancing acts’: Elementary school girls’ negotiation of femininity, achievement, and science. Science Education, 96(6), 967–989. doi: 10.1002/sce.21031
3. Archer, L. A., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B., (2013a). ‘Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: Primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21(1), 171–194. doi: 10.1080/14681366.2012.748676
4. Archer, L. A., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B., (2013b). Young children’s aspirations in science: The unequivocal, the uncertain and the unthinkable. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 1037–1063. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.608197
5. Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B., (2010). ‘Doing’ science versus ‘being’ a scientist. Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren’s construction of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94(4), 617–639. doi: 10.1002/sce.20399
6. Ash, D., (2003). Dialogical inquiry in life science conversations of family groups in a museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 138–162. doi: 10.1002/tea.10069
7. Ash, D., (2004). Reflective scientific sense-making dialogue in two languages: The science in the dialogue and the dialogue in the science. Science Education, 88, 855–884. doi: 10.1002/sce.20002
8. Ash, D., Crain, R., Brandt, C., Loomis, M., Wheaton, M., & Bennett, C., (2007). Talk, tools, and tensions: Observing biological talk over time. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1581–1602. doi: 10.1080/09500690701494118
9. Barton, A. C., & Tan, E., (2011). We be burnin’! Agency, identity and science learning. Journal of the Learning Science, 19, 187–229. doi: 10.1080/10508400903530044
10. Baxter, P., & Jack, S., (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.
11. Bhattacharyya, S., Mead, T. P., & Nathaniel, R., (2011). The influence of science summer camp on African-American high school students’ career choices. School Science and Mathematics, 111(7), 345–353. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00097.x
12. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R., (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
13. Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P., (2014). ‘What comes to mind when you think of science? The perfumery!’: Documenting science-related cultural learning pathways across contexts and timescales. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 260–285. doi: 10.1002/tea.21134
14. Brickhouse, N. W., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K., (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441–458. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200005)37:5<441::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-3
15. Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M., (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002. doi: 10.1002/tea.20241
16. Brown, B. A., (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture of science and its implications for minority students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 810–834. doi: 10.1002/tea.20228
17. Brown, B. A., (2006). ‘It isnt’ no slang that can be said about this stuff’: Language, identity, and appropriating science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 96–126. doi: 10.1002/tea.20096
18. Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J., (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89, 779–802. doi: 10.1002/sce.20069
19. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P., (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researchers, 18(1), 32–42. doi: 10.3102/0013189X018001032
20. Burgin, S. R., McConnell, W. J., & Flowers, A. M., (2015). ‘I actually contributed to their research’: The influence of an abbreviated summer apprenticeship program in science and engineering for diverse high-school learners. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 411–445. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.989292
21. Charmaz, K., (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K., Denzin & Y. S., Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Charmaz, K., & Henwood, K., (2008). Grounded theory. In C., Willig & W., Stainton Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 240–259). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. 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. doi: 10.1002/sce.1035
24. Dierking, L. D., Falk, J. H., Rennie, L., Anderson, D., & Ellenbogen, K., (2003). Policy statement of the ‘Informal Science Education’ Ad Hoc Committee. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 108–111. doi: 10.1002/tea.10066
25. Dillon, J., (2012). Science, the environment and education beyond the classroom. In B. J., Fraser, K. G., Tobin, & C. J., McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education, Volume 2 (pp. 1081–1096). New York, NY: Springer.
26. Donmoyer, R., (1990). Generalizability and the single-case study. In E. W., Eisner & A., Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 175–200). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
27. Ellenbogen, K. M., (2002). Museums in family life: An ethnographic case study. In G., Leinhardt, K., Crowley, & K., Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 81–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Ellenbogen, K. M., Luke, J. J., & Dierking, L. D., (2007). Family learning in museums: Perspectives on a decade of research. In J. H., Falk, L. D., Dierking, & S., Foutz (Eds.), In principle, in practice: Museums as learning institutions (pp. 17–30). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
29. Erickson, F., (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In J. L., Green, G., Camilli, & P. B., Ellmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 177–192). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
30. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D., (2000). Learning from museums: Visitors experiences and the making of meaning. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
31. Falk, J., & Storksdieck, M., (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89(5), 744–778. doi: 10.1002/sce.20078
32. Farland-Smith, D., (2009). Exploring middle school girls’ science identities: Examining attitudes and perceptions of scientists when working ‘side-by-side’ with scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 109(7), 415–427. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb17872.x
33. Farland-Smith, D., (2012). Personal and social interactions between young girls and scientists: Examining critical aspects for identity construction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10972-011-9259-7
34. Fienberg, J., & Leinhardt, G., (2002). Looking through the glass: Reflections of identity in conversations at a history museum. In G., Leinhardt, K., Crowley, & K., Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 167–211). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Frost, J. H., & Wiest, L. R., (2007). Listening to the girls: Participant perceptions of the confidence-boosting aspects of a girls’ summer mathematics and technology camp. The Mathematics Educator, 17(2), 31–40.
36. Geerdts, M. S., Van de Walle, G. A., & LoBue, V., (2015). Parent-child conversations about animals in informal learning environments. Visitor Studies, 18(1), 39–63. doi: 10.1080/10645578.2015.1016366
37. Gonsalves, A., Rahm, J., & Carvalho, A., (2013). ‘We could think of things that could be science’: Girls’ re-figuring of science in an out-of-school-time club. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(9), 1068–1097. doi: 10.1002/tea.21105
38. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C., (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39. Holland, D., & Lave, J., (2009). Social practice theory and the historical production of persons. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2, 1–15.
40. Hughes, R. M., Nzekwe, B., & Molyneaux, K. J., (2013). The single sex debate for girls in science: A comparison between two informal science programs on middle school students’ STEM identity formation. Research in Science Education, 43, 1979–2007. doi: 10.1007/s11165-012-9345-7
41. Hutchins, E., (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Johnson, A., Brown, J., Carlone, H., & Cuevas, A. K., (2011). Authoring identity amidst the treacherous terrain of science: A multiracial feminist examination of the journeys of three women of color in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 339–366. doi: 10.1002/tea.20411
43. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A., (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
44. Kim, K. Y., & Crowley, K., (2010). Negotiating the goal of museum inquiry: How families engineer and experiment. In M. K., Stein & L., Kucan (Eds.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 51–65). New York, NY: Springer.
45. Kisiel, J., Rowe, S., Vartabedian, M. A., & Kopczak, C., (2012). Evidence for family engagement in scientific reasoning at interactive animal exhibits. Science Education, 96(6), 1047–1070. doi: 10.1002/sce.21036
46. Kopczak, C., Kisiel, J. F., & Rowe, S., (2015). Families talking about ecology at touch tanks. Environmental Education Research, 21, 129–144. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2013.860429
47. Land, S. M., & Zimmerman, H. T., (2015). Socio-technical dimensions of an outdoor mobile learning environment: A three-phase design-based research investigation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 229–255. doi: 10.1007/s11423-015-9369-6
48. Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., & Knutson, K., (2002). Preface. In G., Leinhardt, K., Crowley, & K., Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. ix–xiii). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49. Lemke, J. L., (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
50. Luehmann, A. L., (2009). Students’ perspectives of a science enrichment programme: Out-of school inquiry as access. International Journal of Science Education, 31(13), 1831–1855. doi: 10.1080/09500690802354195
51. Luehmann, A. L., Markowitz, D., (2007). Science teachers’ perceived benefits of an out-of school enrichment programme: Identity needs and university affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1133–1161. doi: 10.1080/09500690600944429
52. Martell, S. T., (2008). Of cultural tools and kinds of knowledge: Investigating field trip-based learning about art, culture, and the environment. Journal of Museum Education, 33(2), 209–220. doi: 10.1080/10598650.2008.11510601
53. McClain, L. R., & Zimmerman, H. T., (2014). Prior experiences shaping family science conversations at a nature center. Science Education, 98, 1009–1032. doi: 10.1002/sce.21134
54. Merriam, S. B., (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
55. Nasir, N. S., (2002). Identity, goals, and learning: Mathematics in cultural practice. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4, 213–247. doi: 10.1207/S15327833MTL04023_6
56. National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
57. National Research Council. (2014). STEM learning is everywhere: Summary of a convocation on building learning systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
58. Nicholson, H. J., Weiss, F. L., & Campbell, P. B., (1994). Evaluation in informal science education: Community based programs. In V., Crane, H., Nicholson, M., Chen, & S., Bitgood (Eds.), Informal science learning: What the research says about television, science museums, and community-based projects (pp. 107–176). Ephrata, PA: Science Press.
59. Olitsky, S., Floher, L. L., Gardner, J., & Billups, M., (2010). Coherence, contradiction, and the development of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1209–1228. doi: 10.1002/tea.20389
60. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J., (2007). Research on learning in informal contexts: Advancing the field? International Journal of Science Education, 12(8), 1441–1445. doi: 10.1080/09500690701491122
61. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J., (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.
62. Patrick, P. G., & Tunnicliffe, S. D., (2013). Zoo talk. Dordrecht: Springer.
63. Pea, R., (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G., Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64. Price, J. F., & McNeill, K. L., (2013). Toward a lived science curriculum in intersecting figured worlds: An exploration of individual meanings in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 501–529. doi: 10.1002/tea.21084
65. Rahm, J., (2008). Urban youths’ hybrid positioning in science practices at the margin: A look inside a school-museum-scientist partnership project and an after-school science program. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(1), 97–121. doi: 10.1007/s11422-007-9081-x
66. Rahm, J., (2012). Activity theory as a lens to examine project-based museum partnerships in robotics: Tools, challenges and emergent learning opportunities. In E., Davidsson & A., Jakobsson (Eds.), Understanding interactions at science centers and museums: Approaching sociocultural perspectives (pp. 147–172). Rotterdam: Sense.
67. Rennie, L. J., (2007). Learning science outside of school. In S. K., Abell & N. G., Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 125–167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
68. Rennie, L. J., (2014). Learning science outside of school. In N. G., Lederman & S. K., Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, Volume II (pp. 120–144). New York, NY: Routledge.
69. Rogoff, B., (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
70. Rowe, S., & Kisiel, J., (2012). Family engagement at aquarium touch tanks: Exploring interactions and the potential for learning. In E., Davidsson & A., Jakobsson (Eds.), Understanding interactions at science centers and museums: Approaching sociocultural perspectives (pp. 63–77). Rotterdam: Sense.
71. Riedinger, K., (2012). Family connections: Family conversations in informal learning environments. Childhood Education, 88, 125–127. doi: 10.1080/00094056.2012.662136
72. Riedinger, K., (2015). Identity development of youth during participation at an informal science education camp. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 10(3), 453–475.
73. Riedinger, K. A., (2011). Identity development of middle school students as learners of science at an informal science education camp (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park.
74. Siegel, D. R., Esterly, J., Callanan, M. A., Wright, R., & Navarro, R., (2007). Conversations about science across activities in Mexican-descent families. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1447–1466. doi: 10.1080/09500690701494100
75. Stake, R. E., (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
76. Stake, R. E., (2000). Case studies. In N. K., Denzin & Y. S., Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
77. Stake, R. E., (2005). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
78. Tan, E., Barton, A. C., Kang, H., & O’Neill, T., (2013). Desiring a career in STEM-related fields: How middle school girls articulate and negotiate identities-in-practice in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1143–1179. doi: 10.1002/tea.21123
79. Tunnicliffe, S. D., (2000). Conversations of family and primary school groups at robotics dinosaur exhibits in a museum: What do they talk about? International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 739–754. doi: 10.1080/09500690050044071
80. Vygostky, L. S., (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
81. Wheaton, M., & Ash, D., (2008). Exploring middle school girls’ ideas about science at a bilingual marine science camp. Journal of Museum Education, 33(2), 131–141. doi: 10.1080/10598650.2008.11510594
82. Wiggins, S., & Potter, J., (2008). Discursive psychology. In C., Willing & W., Stainton Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 73–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
83. Wong, B., (2012). Identifying with science: A case study of two 13-year-old ‘high achieving working class’ British Asian girls. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 43–65. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.551671
84. Yin, R. E., (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
85. Zimmerman, H. T., Land, S. M., McClain, L., Mohney, M. R., Choi, G. W., & Salman, F. H., (2015). Tree investigators: Supporting families’ scientific talk in an arboretum with mobile computers. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 5(1), 44–67. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2013.832437
86. Zimmerman, H. T., & McClain, L. R., (2014). Intergenerational learning at a nature center: Families using prior experience and participation frameworks to understand raptors. Environmental education research, 20(2), 177–201. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2013.775219
87. Zimmerman, H. T., McClain, L. R., & Crowl, M., (2013). Understanding how families use magnifiers during nature center walks. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1917–1938. doi: 10.1007/s11165-012-9334-x
88. Zimmerman, H. T., Reeve, S., & Bell, P., (2010). Family sense-making practices in science center conversations. Science Education, 94(3), 478–505.