Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Parents’ epistemic supports during home-based engineering design tasks: opportunities and tensions through the use of technology

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational technology research and development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Within engineering education, informal, out-of-school making experiences and parent–child interactions within home environments are both considered as a promising context for the development of engineering discourse and practices. However, less is known about how parents support children’s engagement in engineering learning, particularly when they are foregrounded with making that use materials and technologies that can introduce sources of uncertainty. To understand both the opportunities and uncertainties of centering making within parent–child engineering learning experiences, this study examines how parents’ use of epistemic supports differ between engineering design tasks with technology and engineering design tasks without technology, and within the different phases in the engineering design process. The study further investigates how parents exhibit epistemic uncertainties differently between engineering design tasks. Building on the notion of guided participation to frame engineering learning and making as co-constructed through multiple situated interactions, this study demonstrates that: (a) parents are skilled knowledge practitioners for their children’s engagement of engineering learning through the use of various epistemic supports; (b) the presence of technology in the engineering design tasks prompt different types of epistemic practices and engineering design phases; (c) opportunities and tensions co-emerge when parents experience epistemic uncertainty about STEM concepts or troubleshooting during engineering design tasks with technology. We discuss implications for the design of engineering design tasks within home environments that extend the use of parents’ epistemic supports.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Identifying information might be removed from identifiable private information and, after such removal, the information could be used for future research studies, but only studies in which the authors are involved.

References

  • Acosta, D. I., Polinsky, N. J., Haden, C. A., & Uttal, D. H. (2021). Whether and how knowledge moderates linkages between parent–child conversations and children’s reflections about tinkering in a children’s museum. Journal of Cognition and Development, 22(2), 226–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2020.1871350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alqurashi, F. (2019). Pragmatic competence for L2 learners: The case of maybe, perhaps, and possibly as hedging terms. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(6), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0906.05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ata-Aktürk, A., & Demircan, H. Ö. (2021). Supporting preschool children’s STEM learning with parent-involved early engineering education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(4), 607–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01100-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birks, M., & Francis, K. (1984). Memoing in qualitative research. Journal of Research in Nursing, 13(1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987107081254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownlee, J. L., Ferguson, L. E., & Ryan, M. (2017). Changing teachers’ epistemic cognition: A new conceptual framework for epistemic reflexivity. Educational Psychologist, 52(4), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1333430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callanan, M. A., Castañeda, C. L., Luce, M. R., & Martin, J. L. (2017). Family science talk in museums: Predicting children’s engagement from variations in talk and activity. Child Development, 88(5), 1492–1504. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12886

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Callanan, M. A., Legare, C. H., Sobel, D. M., Jaeger, G. J., Letourneau, S., McHugh, S. R., Willard, A., Brinkman, A., Finiasz, Z., Rubio, E., Barnett, A., Gose, R., Martin, J. L., Meisner, R., & Watson, J. (2020). Exploration, explanation, and parent–child interaction in museums. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 85(1), 7–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12412

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. C., & Qiao, X. (2020). Using students’ epistemic uncertainty as a pedagogical resource to develop knowledge in argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 42(13), 2145–2180. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1813349

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Cian, H., Dou, R., Castro, S., Palma-D’souza, E., & Martinez, A. (2021). Facilitating marginalized youths’ identification with STEM through everyday science talk: The critical role of parental caregivers. Science Education, 106(1), 57–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21688

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M. (2009). Engineering is elementary (EIE). The Bridge, 30(3), 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M. (2015). Engineering is Elementary: Engineering for elementary school students (grades 1–5). In C. I. Sneider (Ed.), The go-to guide for engineering curricula, preK-5! (pp. 19–38). Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C. P., Brennan, R. T., Kelly, G. J., Tunis, C. S. A., & Gentry, C. A. (2020). The impact of engineering curriculum design principles on elementary students’ engineering and science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(3), 423–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21601

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Dabney, K. P., Chakraverty, D., & Tai, R. H. (2013). The association of family influence and initial interest in science. Science Education, 97(3), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21060

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • De Silva, A. D. A., Khatibi, A., & Ferdous Azam, S. M. (2018). Do the demographic differences manifest in motivation to learn science and impact on science performance? Evidence from Sri Lanka. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9846-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (1984). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorie, B. L., & Cardella, M. E. (2013). Engineering childhood: Knowledge transmission through parenting. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2-19515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dou, R., Hazari, Z., Dabney, K., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. (2019). Early informal STEM experiences and STEM identity: The importance of talking science. Science Education, 103(3), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21499

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Duong, S., Bachman, H. J., Votruba-drzal, E., & Libertus, M. (2021). What’s in a question? Parents’ question use in dyadic interactions and the relation to preschool-aged children’s math abilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 221, 105213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehsan, H., Rehmat, A. P., & Cardella, M. E. (2021). Computational thinking embedded in engineering design: Capturing computational thinking of children in an informal engineering design activity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(3), 441–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09562-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhart, M. (2009). Generalization from qualitative inquiry. In K. Ercikan & W. M. Roth (Eds.), Generalizing from Educational Research. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, F. (2000). Methodological issues in the direct observation of parent-child interaction: Do observational findings reflect the natural behavior of participants? Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(3), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009503409699

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S., & Booker, A. (2009). Making math a definition of the situation: Families as sites for mathematical practices. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 40(4), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2009.01057.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S., Luce, M. R., & Vea, T. (2021). Opportunities and tensions in family science: Challenging dominant paradigms of science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 16(2), 621–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-020-09998-0

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., Powers, J. R., & Musgrove, A. T. (2022). Parental involvement in supporting students’ digital learning. Educational Psychologist, 57(4), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2129647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, M. H. (2007). Occasioned knowledge exploration in family interaction. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507069459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govind, M., Relkin, E., & Bers, M. U. (2020). Engaging children and parents to code together using the ScratchJr app. Visitor Studies, 23(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2020.1732184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 370–394). Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill-Cunningham, P. R., Mott, M. S., & Hunt, A. (2018). Facilitating an elementary engineering design process module. School Science and Mathematics, 118(1–2), 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isabelle, A. D., Russo, L., & Velazquez-Rojas, A. (2021). Using the engineering design process (EDP) to guide block play in the kindergarten classroom: Exploring effects on learning outcomes. International Journal of Play, 10(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2021.1878772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H. (2016). Identifying 21st Century STEM competencies using workplace data. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9593-1

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 2029–2045. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, Y. J., Whalen, D. P., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2020). Epistemic agency shifts between children and parents during inventing with robotics at museum-based makerspace. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 2020(2), 851–852.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungert, T., Levine, S., & Koestner, R. (2020). Examining how parent and teacher enthusiasm influences motivation and achievement in STEM. Journal of Educational Research, 113(4), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2020.1806015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaltenböck, G. (2010). Pragmatic functions of parenthetical I think. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp. 237–266). Brill.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kärkkäinen, E. (2010). Position and scope of epistemic phrases in planned and unplanned American English. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp. 203–236). Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keifert, D., & Stevens, R. (2019). Inquiry as a members’ Phenomenon: Young children as competent inquirers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 240–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1528448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. H., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2021). Collaborative idea exchange and material tinkering influence families’ creative engineering practices and products during engineering programs in informal learning environments. Information and Learning Science, 122(9–10), 585–609. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-02-2020-0031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. H., Jung, Y. J., & Choi, G. W. (2022a). A systematic review of library makerspaces research. Library & Information Science Research, 44(4), 101202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2022.101202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. Y., Seo, J. S., & Kim, K. (2022). Development of novel-engineering-based maker education instructional model. Education and information technologies. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. H., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2023). Serendipitous collective creativity at family making programs in public libraries. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 48, 101283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox, P., Simpson, A., Yang, J., & Maltese, A. (2022). Exploring caregiver influence on child creativity and innovation in an out-of-school engineering program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 45, 101064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1973). Lexicography and generative grammar I: Hedges and meaning criteria. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 211, 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1973.tb49487.x

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, A. M., & Barron, B. (2018). Latino immigrant families learning with digital media across settings and generations. Digital Education Review, 33, 150–169. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2018.33.150-169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, R. Y. (2023). Constructing childhood in social interaction: How parents assert epistemic primacy over their children. Social Psychology Quarterly, 86(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725221130751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W., Zhu, Y., Liu, M., & Li, Y. (2022). Exploring maker innovation: A transdisciplinary engineering design perspective. Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010295

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lottero-Perdue, P. (2017). Elementary student reflections on failure within and outside of the engineering design process (fundamental). ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2017-June. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--28213

  • Lottero-Perdue, P., Bowditch, M., Kagan, M., Robinson-Cheek, L., Webb, T., Meller, M., & Nosek, T. (2016). An engineering design process for early childhood: Trying (again) to engineer an egg package. Science and Children, 54(3), 70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, M. R., Goldman, S., & Vea, T. (2017). Designing for family science explorations anytime, anywhere. Science Education, 101(2), 251–277.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Maltese, A. V., Melki, C. S., & Wiebke, H. L. (2014). The nature of experiences responsible for the generation and maintenance of interest in STEM. Science Education, 98(6), 937–962. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21132

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, M., Acosta, D. I., Tõugu, P., Uttal, D. H., & Haden, C. A. (2021). Tinkering with testing: Understanding how museum program design advances engineering learning ppportunities for children. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689425

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, M., Haden, C. A., Uttal, D. H., Quarterly, M., Marcus, M., Haden, C. A., & Uttal, D. H. (2017). STEM learning and transfer in a children’s museum and beyond. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 63(2), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L., & Betser, S. (2020). Learning through making: The development of engineering discourse in an out-of-school maker club. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(2), 194–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L., & Dixon, C. (2016). Making as a pathway to engineering and design. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makers as learners (Vol. 2, pp. 183–195). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, W. B., Yu, J., Wei, X., Vidiksis, R., Patten, K. K., Riccio, A., & Martin, W. B. (2020). Promoting science, technology, and engineering self-efficacy and knowledge for all with an autism inclusion maker program. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mejía-Arauz, R., Rogoff, B., Dayton, A., & Henne-Ochoa, R. (2018). Collaboration or negotiation: Two ways of interacting suggest how shared thinking develops. Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mihelich, J. A., Sarathchandra, D., Hormel, L., Storrs, D. A., & Wiest, M. M. (2016). Public understanding of science and K-12 STEM education outcomes: Effects of Idaho parents’ orientation toward science on students’ attitudes toward science. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(3), 164–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulhall, A. (2003). In the field: Notes on observation in qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(3), 306–313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2023). Diversity and STEM: Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/

  • Ochs, E., Smith, R., & Taylor, C. (1989). Detective stories at dinnertime: Problem-solving through co-narration. Cultural Dynamics, 2(2), 238–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., & Reigh, E. (2020). What makes a good question? Towards an epistemic classification. In L. P. Butler, S. Ronfard, & K. H. Corriveau (Eds.), The questioning child: Insights from psychology and education. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagano, L. C., Haden, C. A., & Uttal, D. H. (2020). Museum program design supports parent–child engineering talk during tinkering and reminiscing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 200, 104944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104944

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pagano, L. C., Haden, C. A., Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, T. (2019). Conversational reflections about tinkering experiences in a children’s museum. Science Education, 103(6), 1493–1512. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21536

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Park, D. Y., Park, M. H., & Bates, A. B. (2018). Exploring young children’s understanding about the concept of volume through engineering design in a STEM Activity: A case study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9776-0

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Parks, A. N., & Bridges-Rhoads, S. (2018). Seeing mathematical practices in an African American mother–child interaction. School Community Journal, 28(2), 229–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattison, S., Svarovsky, G., Ramos-Montanẽz, S., Gontan, I., Weiss, S., Nuńẽz, V., Corrie, P., Smith, C., & Benne, M. (2020). Understanding early childhood engineering interest development as a family-level systems phenomenon: Findings from the head start on engineering project. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puccia, E., Martin, J. P., Smith, C. A. S., Kersaint, G., Campbell-Montalvo, R., Wao, H., Lee, R., Skvoretz, J., & MacDonald, G. (2021). The influence of expressive and instrumental social capital from parents on women and underrepresented minority students’ declaration and persistence in engineering majors. International Journal of STEM Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00277-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulgar, J., Candia, C., & Leonardi, P. M. (2020). Social networks and academic performance in physics: Undergraduate cooperation enhances ill-structured problem elaboration and inhibits well-structured problem solving. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(1), 10137. https://doi.org/10.1103/PHYSREVPHYSEDUCRES.16.010137

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Relkin, E., Govind, M., Tsiang, J., & Bers, M. (2020). How parents support children’s informal learning experiences with robots. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 6(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2020.87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, E., Vernon-Feagans, L., Bratsch-Hines, M., & Baker, C. E. (2019). Mothers’ and fathers’ language input from 6 to 36 months in rural rwo-parent-families: Relations to children’s kindergarten achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47, 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riedinger, K. (2012). Family connections: Family Cconversations in informal learning environments. Childhood Education, 88(2), 125–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2012.662136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, S. L., & Blaney, J. M. (2021). “We’re the unicorns in STEM”: Understanding how academic and social experiences influence sense of belonging for Latina undergraduate students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education., 14, 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (2008). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In K. Hall, P. Murphy, & J. Soler (Eds.), Pedagogy and practice: Culture and identities (pp. 58–74). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139174299.008

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Göncü, A., Mosier, C., Chavajay, P., & Heath, S. B. (1993). Guided participation in cultural activity by toddlers and caregivers. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(8), i–179. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roque, R., Lin, K., & Liuzzi, R. (2016). I’m not just a mom: Parents developing multiple roles in creative computing. Proceedings of International Conference of the Learning Sciences, ICLS, 1, 663–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silander, M., Grindal, T., Hupert, N., Garcia, E., Anderson, K., Vahey, P., & Pasnik, S. (2018). What parents talk about when they talk about learning: A national survey about young children and science. Education Development Center, Inc., March, http://www.edc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/EDC_SRI_What_Parents_Talk_About.pdf

  • Simpson, A., & Knox, P. (2022). A study of problem exploration heuristics of families. In: Proceedings of the 129th meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved at https://peer.asee.org/40414

  • Simpson, A., Sun, J., & Yang, J. (2022b). Caregiver-child communication of STEM concepts with engineering design tasks. In: Proceedings of the 129th meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/40648

  • Simpson, A., Zhong, Q., & Maltese, A. (2022b). Spontaneous mathematical moments between caregiver and child during an engineering design project. Early Childhood Education Journal, 51, 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01296-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starrett, E., Firetto, C. M., & Jordan, M. E. (2023). Navigating sources of teacher uncertainty: exploring teachers’ collaborative discourse when learning a new instructional approach. Classroom Discourse, 14(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2021.2013266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487–516.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Svarovsky, G. N., Wagner, C., & Cardella, M. (2018). Exploring moments of agency for girls during an engineering activity. International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology, 6(3), 302–319. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.428200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G. P., & Anderson, D. (2013). Parents’ metacognitive knowledge: Influences on parent–child interactions in a science museum setting. Research in Science Education, 43, 1245–1265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9308-z

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Tõugu, P., Marcus, M., Haden, C. A., & Uttal, D. H. (2017). Connecting play experiences and engineering learning in a children’s museum. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 53(773), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzou, C., Meixi, S., & E., Bell, P., LaBonte, D., Starks, E., & Bang, M. (2019). Storywork in STEM-Art: Making, materiality and robotics within everyday acts of indigenous presence and resurgence. Cognition and Instruction, 37(3), 306–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umphress, J. (2015). Epistemic practices in everyday family interactions (Issue March).

  • Umphress, J. (2016). Parents as skilled knowledge practitioners. In A. A. DiSessa, M. Levin, & N. J. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and Interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedder-Weiss, D. (2017). Serendipitous science engagement: A family self-ethnography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(3), 350–378.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Vedder-Weiss, D. (2018). “Won’t you give up your snack for the sake of science?” Emerging science identities in family everyday interaction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(8), 1211–1235.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. In Commissioned paper for Successful Out-of-School STEM Learning: A Consensus Study. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents%0A/webpage/dbasse_089888.pdf

  • Wang, J. (2014). Design challenges at a science center: Are children engineering? American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.

  • Wang, J., Werner-Avidon, M., Newton, L., Randol, S., Smith, B., & Walker, G. (2013). Ingenuity in action: Connecting tinkering to engineering design processes. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 3(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, J., DeVore, A., & Roque, R. (2021a). Parental mediation for young children’s use of educational media: A case study with computational toys and kits. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, J., Granados, J., Hayden, R., & Roque, R. (2021). Parental facilitation of young children’s technology-based learning experiences from nondominant groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahn, C., Ruf, A., & Goldman, R. (2021). Video data collection and video analyses in CSCL research. In U. Cress, C. Rose, A. Friend, & J. Oshima (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, H. T., & Mcclain, L. R. (2016). Family learning outdoors: Guided participation on a nature walk; Family learning outdoors: Guided participation on a nature walk. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 919–942. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21254

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, H. T., Reeve, S., & Bell, P. (2008). Distributed expertise in a science center social and intellectual role-taking by families. The Journal of Museum Education., 33(2), 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, H. T., Reeve, S., & Bell, P. (2010). Family sense-making practices in science center conversations. Science Education, 94(3), 478–505.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Zulkifli, A. Z. Bin, Yeter, I. H., & Ali, F. (2022). Examining K-12 Singaporean Parents’ Engineering Awareness: An Initial Study of the Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior (KAB) Framework (Fundamental). ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1759314 (Binghamton University) and Grant No. 1759259 (Indiana University). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Library and Information Science, Indiana University-Indianapolis, 535 W Michigan St., IT 565, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

    Soo Hyeon Kim

  2. Department of Teaching, Learning and Educational Leadership, Binghamton University-SUNY, P.O. Box 6000, Binghamton, NY, 13902, USA

    Amber Simpson

Authors
  1. Soo Hyeon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amber Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soo Hyeon Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved through the Institutional Review Board. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, S.H., Simpson, A. Parents’ epistemic supports during home-based engineering design tasks: opportunities and tensions through the use of technology. Education Tech Research Dev 72, 209–238 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10322-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10322-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation