Search for: All records

Adult verbal input occurs frequently during parent–child interactions. However, few studies have considered how parent language varies across informal STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) activities. In this study, we examined how open and closed parent questions (a) differed across three STEM activities and (b) related to math, science, and vocabulary knowledge in their preschool-aged children. A total of 173 parents and their preschool children (Mage = 4 years) from lower socioeconomic households were video-recorded participating in three STEM-related activities: (a) a pretend grocery store activity, (b) a bridge-building challenge, and (c) a book read about a science topic. Parent questions were categorized as open or closed according to the presence of key question terms. Results indicate that the three activities elicited different frequencies of parent open and closed questions, with the grocery store activity containing the most open and closed questions. Children’s science knowledge was predicted by the frequency and proportion of parent open questions during the book read. These results enhance our understanding of the role of parent questions in young children’s language environments in different informal learning contexts. 

IntroductionEarly informal learning experiences are essential for sparking long-term interest in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). In a prior study, we found more promising parent involvement outcomes when families of young children were provided with STEM family education events along with home STEM activity kits compared to providing workshops alone. This study was a conceptual replication using the same program—Teaching Together STEM—to deliver educational workshops plus home activity kits; however, we varied the delivery method by using virtual “funshops” to evaluate if parents perceived this modality as feasible and useful. MethodsMuseum informal science educators introduced four units via virtual video chat sessions linked to 12 hands-on STEM activities that were mailed to families randomly assigned to the treatment group. Half of the families were assigned to a waitlist control group that received a portion of the virtual program after the posttest. Participants included 60 families with children aged 3 to 5 years from diverse linguistic and socioeconomic backgrounds. ResultsOur results indicate no significant group differences in the primary outcome of parents’ involvement in informal STEM but a small, positive effect size (ES = 0.18) that was similar in magnitude to the prior, in-person study. Although parents mostly perceived the remote delivery as convenient and the materials as engaging for their child, there were no significant program impacts on children’s general science interests (ES = −0.19). DiscussionDespite the convenience, parents reported time was a barrier to doing STEM activities at home. Parents with lower education levels were less likely to attend, suggesting virtual approaches are not sufficient for ensuring broad access to family engagement programs for populations underrepresented in STEM. 

Broadening participation in early science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) learning outside of school is important for families experiencing poverty. We evaluated variations of the Teaching Together STEM pre-kindergarten program for increasing parent involvement in STEM learning. This informal STEM, family engagement program was offered in 20 schools where 92% of students received free/reduced lunch. The core treatment included a series of family education workshops, text messages, and family museum passes. The workshops were delivered at school sites by museum outreach educators. We randomly assigned schools to business-as-usual control or one of three additive treatment groups. Using an additive treatment design, we provided the core program in Treatment A, we added take-home STEM materials in Treatment B, and added materials + parent monetary rewards in Treatment C. The primary outcome was parent involvement in STEM (n = 123). There were no significant impacts of any treatment on parent involvement; however, the groups that added take-home materials had larger effect sizes on parent involvement at posttest (ES = −0.08 to 0.18) and later, kindergarten follow-up (ES = −0.01 to 0.34). Adding parent monetary rewards only produced short-term improvements in parent involvement that faded at follow-up. We discuss implications for other community-sponsored family engagement programs focused on informal STEM learning, including considering characteristics of families who were more versus less likely to attend. These null findings suggest that alternatives to in-person family education workshops should be considered when parents are experiencing poverty and have competing demands on their time. 

Abstract We evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of two early childhood interventions that use instructional coaching and parent coaching as levers for improvement. The study design allows us to compare the individual effects of each intervention as well as their combined effect on student outcomes. We find that teachers receiving instructional coaching improve their use of evidence‐based instructional practices, while families receiving parent coaching show increases in numerous responsive parenting behaviors associated with positive child outcomes. Both interventions demonstrate positive impacts on students, but only parent coaching shows statistically significant effects across a range of student outcomes. Instructional coaching alone is substantially less costly and may therefore be the most cost‐effective of the three treatment conditions; however, small sample sizes limit our ability to reach definitive conclusions. Policy simulations suggest that implementing these interventions could raise the overall cost‐effectiveness of Head Start by at least 16 percent.