Search for: All records

The home environment is a critical context in which children engage in STEM activities. Caregivers serve as key influencers on their children’s engagement in these activities. This case study of four families explored how caregivers support their child(ren) during moments of problem-solving while completing engineering activities at home and illustrated the variation in caregiver support, caregiver participation/child agency, problem-solving strategies used, and integration of activities into the home. Our findings suggest we need to be purposeful in designing kit activities and supports for caregivers that will contribute to meaningful interactions during STEM activities that draw upon the unique relationship between caregivers and their children in the home. 

We began this project with three goals: (1) engage families in engineering activities, (2) increase the awareness of kids and caregivers as to what engineering is, and (3) increase children’ interest in engineering. We focused on caregivers and home environments because of the important role that at-home experiences with STEM play in triggering interest for many individuals who enter STEM professions. We created and distributed four different kits to families interested in engaging in STEM activities at home. Each kit included a challenge around engineering-related content (e.g., circuits, construction) and contained activity instructions (child) and a facilitation guide (caregivers). However, few instructions were given to caregivers about the expectations of their role while engaging with their children. This paper reports on the findings from family engagement in the Watercolor Bot kit. We sought to explore the roles enacted and behaviors utilized by caregivers as they supported their children during the activity. Our findings add to the conversation about how to define and conceptualize caregiver roles and how the home context/setting influences the types of supports caregivers provide. In contrast to emerging work on caregiver support, we argue that it may be more fruitful to think about the types of support (physical, verbal, content, and managerial) offered rather than defining specific roles (e.g., collaborator, project manager, etc.). We provide implications for designing kits and activities to include specific support for caregivers beyond simply providing project-specific instructions that address caregivers’ needs.