a study of the latent effects of family learning courses in science

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 23, NO. 9, PP. 771-781(1986)

A STUDY OF THE LATENT EFFECTS OF FAMILY LEARNING COURSES IN SCIENCE

EUGENE D. GENNARO AND NANCY HEREID

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

KAREN OSTLUND

Southwest Texas State University, Sun Marcos, Texas 78666

Abstract

It is well documented that students’ exposure to science in the middle school is critical for their later selection of science courses, yet instruction time and course offerings in science during the middle school years are often limited. Out-of-School Science Experiences with funds from the National Science Foundation (DISE No. 07872) produced five short science courses intended for children in middle school grades (6, 7, and 8) and their parents that supplement normal science instruction based on topics that are integral to traditional science teaching. The courses were offered through Community Education programs and through informal science learning centers (e.g., zoos, museums, and planetariums). An added strength of the program is that it employs the family as a motivator and reinforcer in a cooperative learning venture. The study reported here is an attempt to determine participant reaction two to three years after having taken the courses, to the course experience, the influence that the courses had on subsequent learning behavior, and the relationship between parents and children.

The teaching and learning that takes place within a family is considered by some educators to be one of the most important of all educational experiences (Bobbitt & Paolucci, 1976); however, very little is known about how teaching/learning is best accomplished in this context. If parents can be taught how to be better teachers, children’s learning potential can be enhanced by setting the stage for further learning, modeling, and managing the environment (Tinker, 197 1).

Informal science centers such as museums, planetariums, nature centers and zoos are places where parents can share science experiences with children, but very few offer courses for children and parents to take together or provide take-home experiences specifically designed for parents and children to do together. A few successful experiments in science learning experiences of this variety are described in the liter- ature (The Smithsonian Learning Project, 1980; Katz, 1978; Ostlund, 1983; Gennaro & Heller, 1983; Gennaro, Bullock, & Allen, 1980). The study described here focuses on an innovation that holds promise for increasing the scientific literacy of children

0 1986 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/86/090771-11$04.00

112 GENNARO, HEREID, AND OSTLUND

and their parents enrolled together in courses on such topics as animal behavior, communication technology (i.e., building radios, telegraphs, and telephones), nighttime astronomy, microcomputers, and winter nature study, and by doing home activities associated with the courses. The subject matter for the courses was chosen because these topics are rarely treated in depth in middle school curricula. The five courses were developed with funds from the NSF (DISE No. 07872) by staff at the University of Minnesota. The courses consisted of five weekly sessions which met on Saturday mornings with the nighttime astronomy course being the exception; it met on a weekday evening. Class sizes ranged from six to twelve families. A description of the courses can be found in Ostlund, Gennaro, and Dobbert (1985). The courses have been offered to families in urban and suburban areas by Community Education programs or by informal science centers. It was found that children register for the courses primarily because of their interest in the subject matter of the courses and parents because of their desire to nurture the child’s interest in the subject matter. Both children and parents made significant gains in learning and reported that the experience was both enjoyable and beneficial (Ostlund, Gennaro, & Dobbert, 1985).

The present study is an attempt to gain insights into these learning experiences by examining, two to three years after participants took the courses, the latent effects of participation in the courses. The following questions were addressed by the methods in this study:

(1) What reactions do parents and children have to the family learning courses

(2) How did the family learning experience influence the subsequent learning

(3) How did the family learning experience influence the subsequent relationship

they took two to three years ago?

behavior of parents and children?

between parents and children?

Population

The population sampled in this study (N = 158) were middle school children and their parents who registered for 20 separate offerings of the family learning courses in science during the winter and spring of 1981 and 1982 and for whom complete sets of qualitative and quantitative data were obtained. The number of families per course had been limited to 12. Most families signed up in pairs, although occasionally three or four members of one family attended. The most common pair participating in the courses was the father-son combination, followed by the mother-daughter combination. The type of pair varied from course to course with the largest share of the father-son pairs registering for the Communications Technology course and most of the mother-daughter pairs registering for either the Animal Behavior or Nature Study courses. The number of mother-son and father-daughter combinations were evenly distributed among the five courses. The demographic data collected on the precourse questionnaire indicated that the adults in the population were predominantly from professional backgrounds. At the time of participating in the courses the children involved in the study were primarily sixth- through eighth-grade students (1 1 to 14 years old). The ages of the children during the present study ranged from 13 to 17 years.

FAMILY LEARNING COURSES 773

flail Interviews

t t t PERFORtl CONTENT ANALYSIS

Fig. 1. Measurement, design, and analysis.

Procedure and Methods

The extent to which a study employs a naturalistic design is always a matter of degree and is a function of what the investigator does (Guba, 1978). In practice naturalistic inquiry becomes a mixed strategy as the investigator moves back and forth between simply exploring and experiencing the research setting and studying that setting for purposes of verification and replication (Patton, 1980). In this study, data were collected using three different techniques: face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, and mail questionnaires, and involved a mixed strategy of analyzing qualitative data obtained after utilizing naturalistic inquiry and included quantitative measurement (see Fig. 1).

The investigators attempted to ensure content validity and that the findings of the study were not simply an artifact of a single method, a single data source, or a single investigator’s bias. This was accomplished by:

Methodological triangulation: the use of multiple methods to study a single program (i.e., face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, and mail questionnaires). Investigator triangulation: the use of three different researchers to interpret the three sets of data (i.e., results of the data gathering instruments were cate- gorized independently by three researchers). Data triangulation: the use of a variety of data sources in the study (i.e., the data were obtained from three different samples of the participant population).

Conclusions made as a result of triangulation are more stable than any of the vantage points from which they were triangulated (Denzin, 1971). The data in this naturalistic study comprised descriptions, reactions, and evaluations of parents and children to the course experiences. Both fact-to-face and telephone interviews are inore successful in eliciting responses to open-ended questions and more likely to avoid nonresponses to questions than are mail questionnaires (Dillman, 1978). A major advantage of face-to-face interviews over telephone interviews is the opportunity for observation of nonverbal cues by both the interviewer and the respondent (Groves & Kahn, 1979). In this study, an added difference between these two techniques was that the face-to-face interviews were prearranged and the telephone interviews were


not. When compared to telephone interviews, mail questionnaires allow respondents time to examine and answer the written material at their leisure, whereas those contacted by telephone must respond quickly without warning (Dillman, 1978).

Sampling and Data Gathering Procedures

Face-to-Face Interviews

The subjects ( N = 6) who were interviewed face-to-face were selected from a group of twelve focal pairs who had been interviewed in 1982 during enrollment in the courses. Variations such as course, sex, and grade level of children, were taken into account in the selection of the focal pairs to ensure that the sample was propor- tional to the total participant population (Ostlund, Gennaro, & Dobbert, 1985). In- depth interviews were conducted with the selected participants to find out what their reactions were to the family learning experience. The responses given to the open- ended probes during these follow-up interviews were used to generate the questions asked in the telephone interviews and on the mail questionnaires.

Telephone Interviews

Of the 158 families in the original population, 15 families were eliminated from the present study because addresses and/or telephone numbers could not be obtained, 5 families had taken more than one course and it was decided to sample them only once, and 12 families were used in the focal pair study. This left a population of 126 families.

The 126 families were randomly assigned to two groups, those whose views would be obtained by telephone interviews and those whose views would be obtained from responses to mail questionnaires. The 62 families in the telephone interview sample were divided in each of the courses into two groups: those families in which the child would be interviewed and those families in which the parent would be interviewed. Five households were eliminated from the sample because the families had moved and could not be contacted. Of the 57 families remaining in the sample, 25 parents and 25 children were interviewed (representing 81% of the families in the original sample). The individuals interviewed by telephone were asked a series of open-ended questions similar to those in the face-to-face interviews, followed by probes, when necessary, to obtain the most pertinent information.

Mail Questionnaires

One parent questionnaire and one child questionnaire were sent to each of the 64 families in the mail questionnaire sample. Three families were eliminated from the study because of having moved, leaving 61 families that were contacted by mail. If more than one parent or child participated in the course, parents were instructed to select only one of each to respond to the questionnaire. One questionnaire was returned from a parent only. A total of 50 parent questionnaires (representing a return of 82%) and 49 child questionnaires (80%) were returned. The questionnaires for parents and children were similar and consisted of several parts: a Likert scale, some open-ended questions, and a request to select phrases which described the experience.


TABLE I Telephone Interviews and Mail Questionnaires: Would You Take a Course Together Now?

Telephone I n t e r v i e w s Mail O u e s t i o n n n i r e s

C+tegory of r e sponse P a r e n t s C h i l d r e n P a r e n t s C h i l d r e n N = 25 N = 25 N = W n = 5 0

P o s i t i v e 64% hR* 92% 61 %

Undecided 12% 12% 04 151

Nega t ive 241 204. a? ’ 4 1

Results

Reactions to the Family Learning Experience

During the face-to-face interviews, reactions of parents and children to the shared learning experience were all positive. When focal pairs were asked how taking the course as a family contributed to the experience, responses indicated that cooperative learning and the parent giving help to the child were benefits.

At the beginning of each telephone interview, participants were asked what they remembered most about the shared learning experience. Initial recollections of parents were overwhelmingly positive as evidenced by the words they used to describe the course experience: “interesting,” “enjoyable,” “engrossing,” “fun,” “marvel- ous,” “enlightening,” “unique.” When asked whether or not they thought taking the course together contributed to the experience, all but one parent responded positively Every positive response from parents included the recollection of a cooperative/ shared aspect of the course experience.

Nearly one-third of parents mentioned that the shared learning experience provided a special time for parent and child to be together. Over one-fourth of parents remembered learning something new about their child as a result of the course.

Children in the telephone sample were more neutral than parents in their initial reactions to the course experience, but with further probing revealed a positive reaction to the shared family experience. When asked if taking the course with their parents contributed to the experience, all but three children responded positively. In response to this question, one-half of the children interviewed by telephone mentioned a co- operativehhared aspect of the course and over one-third of the children reported receiving help from their parent during the course.

At the time the participants took the course, there were no fees for taking the courses. When asked whether or not they would have taken the course if a cost was involved, all of the parents said “yes”; however, 60% added a phrase such as “if the fee wasn’t too high.”

During the telephone interviews, a majority of both parents and children said they would take a course together with their childparent now (two or three years after the initial course experience). The same question was asked on the mail questionnaires. Parents responding on the mail questionnaires were more enthusiastic about taking another course together now than were their children (see Table I).

Participants’ initial recollections to the course experience were not surveyed on the mail questionnaires. However, responses to the mail questionnaires revealed a positive reaction to the course experience by both parents and children. All but one


TABLE I1 Children Reporting a Positive Influence on Learning Behavior

Comp. Technnlopv 10114 N = 1 1

Vicrocompiit er 6 6 4 M = 6 , 1 1

Matiire Study 501 N = 2 , 9

I1114 - re-visit,ed zoo(?) - read book on

an inn 1 s - P n e w 2pprec ia t ior

for animals and their behavior

- b u i l t or r e b u i l t t h i n e s

- e r e a t e r i n t e r e s t and b e t t e r underst?ndinp of e l e c t r o n i c s

64 P - purchased home cornput ers

i n cnmouters - continued in te re? t

7 3 4 - re -v is i ted na ture center

awareness - new ecologica l

u9r - observe n ight sky with n e w apprec ia t ion

- re-visited planetarium - purchased s t a r c h a r t s - visi.t.ed library

*The first number is the sample of children from the telephone interview; the second, from the mail questionnaire.

parent agreed or strongly agreed that they liked discussing course topics with their children, that it was enjoyable learning together, and they would recommend the course to a friend. Almost all parents agreed that there was a positive reaction on the part of their child to the joint participation in the course and 70% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that they had learned some new things about their child(ren).

On the mail questionnaires, children were provided with a list of five positive and five negative phrases which could be used to describe the courses. When asked to select two phrases, almost all children chose positive phrases. The most commonly selected phrases were “good experience” and “good way to spend time with parent.”

Injuence on Learning Behavior

In the fact-to-face interviews, parents reported little influence on their subsequent learning behavior as a result of participating in the family learning course. All children in the focal pairs, however, reported that the family learning experience influenced their subsequent learning behavior in the course content area.

Many parents and children interviewed by telephone reported an effect on their, or their family’s, subsequent learning behavior as a result of the course experience. Influence seems to be greatest as a result of participation in the Communications Technology and Nighttime Astronomy course (see Table 11).


Forty percent of parents and children in the telephone sample who participated in the Animal Behavior course reported that their visits to zoo(s) or interest in animals increased as a result of the course.

All the parents and children in the telephone sample who participated in a Com- munications Technology course reported that either the child on hidher own (58%) or the child and parent together (42%) had built or rebuilt things since taking the course.

Fifty-eight percent of the families in the telephone sample who participated in the Microcomputer courses purchased a computer at the time of or since taking the course. Telephone interview data revealed that it is generally a son who continues to pursue an interest in computer programming, whereas a daughter usually uses the computer for word processing.

Nearly all the parents and children interviewed by telephone who participated in the Nighttime Astronomy course said they continued to observe the night sky together after taking the course. Half of these parents and children also mentioned that one or more of the following activities resulted since taking the course: the family or child returned to the planetarium, the family purchased star charts, the family went to the library for additional information, or the child pursued an interest in astronomy.

Only the child questionnaire contained a question asking specifically about subsequent learning behavior. The pattern of children’s responses to this question is similar to the responses of parents and children interviewed by telephone; and again, the greatest influence on learning was reported by children participating in the Com- munications Technology and Nighttime Astronomy courses (see Table 11).

Similar to families in the telephone sample, over half the parents in the questionnaire sample who took the Microcomputer course said they bought a microcomputer as a result of the course. One-third of the parents in the questionnaire sample who took the courses at the zoo, planetarium, museum, or nature center said that their number of visits to these sites increased. Over half of all parents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: I think my child became more interested in science as a result of the course.

Influence on Relationship between Parent and Child

The parents interviewed face-to-face stated that the family learning experience did not influence their parent-child relationship. Half of the children in these focal pairs, however, mentioned that the shared learning course had an effect on family relationships. One child said that as a result of taking the course, he could talk to his father about emotional problems. Two children mentioned the contribution the course had in easing tensions between parents and children.

Fifty-six percent of the parents interviewed by telephone said they thought the shared learning experience continued to give them and their children something in common to talk about and/or increased the level of communication between them and their children (see Table 111).

Sixty-eight percent of the children in the telephone sample reported that the shared learning experience gave them and their parents something in common to talk about. Most of these children said the experience continues to be a topic of conversation within the family. Three of the children implied that the course gave them a chance


TABLE I11 Telephone Interviews: Participants Reporting an Increase in Parent-Child Communication as

a Result of the Family Learning Course Course ?., ,-v,, t .' ''bi?-!mv

Animal Pehavior 604 !#,?.a

N = 5 parents F cbildrpn

Comnunications Technolopy N = 6 parents

6 children

Microcomputer N = 6 parent5

6 children

Nature Study N = 3 parent.?

2 children

Nighttime Astronomy

6 children N = 6 parents

1004 1 004.

to talk with their parents on a more adult level (all three are sons who took a course with their fathers).

When asked if the shared learning experience in any way affected their relationship with their child, over three-quarters of parents in the questionnaire sample responded positively.

Summary and Discussion

A summary of the findings comparing the three techniques used in this study is found in Table IV.

An obvious limitation to this study was the fact that each of the research methods relied on self-reporting data. Also, cognitive data were not obtained from participants in rhis study since it was felt too many factors during the intervening 2-3-year period could have influenced any cognitive data that might have been obtained from participants.

Participants' reactions suggest that the family learning courses in science which they had taken two to three years previously were both enjoyable and challenging learning experiences. With few exceptions, both parents and children expressed the fact that they enjoyed the cooperative aspect of learning together. This finding is similar to findings reported earlier (Ostlund, Gennaro, & Dobbert, 1985) when participants were asked either in interview or by questionnaire immediately after having taken the courses. It appears that courses such as these can serve as additional means for increasing scientific literacy. At the time the present study was conducted, most parents and children said they they would consider taking another family learning course together.

Most children and parents suggested that the courses had an effect on their learning behavior. Of particular interest was the reported influence on a significant number of

TABL

E IV

Su

mm

ary of D

ata

REA

CTI

ON

S

INFL

UEN

CE:

L

EA

RN

ING

B

EHA

VIO

R

INFL

UEN

CEz

PA

REN

T-C

HIL

D

REL

ATI

ON

SHIP

FAC

E-TO

-FA

CE

INTE

RV

IEW

S TE

LEPH

ON

E IN

TER

VIE

WS

MA

IL Q

UES

TIO

NN

AIR

ES

N *

6 p

are

nts

. 6

ch

ild

ren

N

= 2

5

pa

ren

ts,

25

c

hil

dre

n

N - 50

p

are

nts

. 4

9

cti

ldre

n

Pa

ren

ts a

nd

ch

ild

ren

re

ac

ted

R

ea

cti

on

s o

f p

are

nts

to

th

e

po

siti

ve

ly t

o t

he

co

urs

e

co

urs

e e

xp

eri

en

ce

wer

e p

osi

tiv

e.

ex

pe

r ien

ce.

Ch

ild

ren

wer

e m

ore

ne

utr

al

in

the

ir i

nit

ial

rea

cti

on

s b

ut

wit

h f

urt

he

r p

rob

ing

re

ve

ale

d a

p

osi

tiv

e r

ea

ctl

on

to

th

e s

ha

red

le

nrn

lng

ex

pe

rie

nc

e.

Pa

ren

ts

rep

ort

ed

lit

tle

in

flu

en

ce

on

le

arn

ing

b

ehav

ior

ae a

re

su

lt o

f th

e c

ou

rse

ex

pe

rie

nc

e.

All

ch

ild

ren

re

po

rte

d t

ha

t th

e c

ou

rse

In

flu

en

ce

d t

he

ir

sub

seq

uen

t le

arn

ing

b

ehav

ior.

A

ma

jori

ty o

f b

oth

pa

ren

ts a

nd

c

hil

dre

n r

ep

ort

ed

a

n i

nfl

ue

nc

e

on

le

arn

ing

be

ha

vio

r.

Pa

rtic

ipa

nts

in

th

e C

omm

un-

ica

tio

ns

Tec

hn

olo

gy

an

d

Nig

htt

ime

Ast

ron

om

y

co

urs

es

rep

ort

ed

th

e

mos

t in

flu

en

ce

.

Pa

ren

ts r

ep

ort

ed

th

at

the

O

ver

ha

lf

the

pa

ren

ts a

nd

ov

er

co

urs

e e

xp

eri

en

ce

did

no

t tw

o-t

hir

ds

of

ch

ild

ren

re

po

rte

d

infl

ue

nc

e t

he

ir p

are

nt-

ch

ild

th

at

the

sh

are

d l

ea

rnin

g

rela

tio

nsh

ip.

Hal

f th

e

e x

pe r

ie n

ce

i nc

re a

sed

c

hil

dre

n m

enti

on

ed t

ha

t th

e

com

mu

nic

atio

n

wit

hin

th

e

shar

ed l

ea

rnin

g c

ou

rse

had

fa

mil

y.

a p

on

ltlv

e e

ffe

ct on

Lnm

Lly

re

la t

Ion

ship

o.

Qu

est

ion

na

ire

da

ta r

ev

ea

led

a

po

siti

ve

re

ac

tio

n o

n th

e

pa

rt o

f b

oth

pa

ren

ts a

nd

c

hil

dre

n t

o t

he

co

urs

e

ex

pe r

ie n

ce .

2 fa

mil

y's

) su

bse

qu

ent

lea

rnin

g

A $ 5 8 N

igh

ttim

e A

stro

nom

y c

ou

rse

s 2

Ov

er h

alf

th

e p

are

nts

in

dic

ate

d

an

eff

ec

t o

n t

he

ir (

or t

he

ir

be

ha

vio

r a

s a

re

su

lt o

f th

e

co

urs

e.

A m

ajo

rity

of

ch

ild

ren

re

po

rte

d a

n e

ffe

ct

on

the

ir

who

had

pa

rtic

ipa

ted

in

th

e

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

s T

ech

no

log

y

and

rep

ort

ed

th

e m

ost

infl

ue

nc

e o

n

lea

rnin

g b

ehav

ior.

C

hil

dre

n

n

vl

m

lea

rn i n

g b

e h

av io

r .

wl

Ov

er t

hre

e-q

ua

rte

rs of

pa

ren

ts

rep

ort

ed

an

in

cre

ase

in

par

ent-

c

hil

d c

om

mu

nic

atio

n a

:)

a re

sult

o

f th

e c

ou

rse

ex

per

iq lic

e.

(In

flu

en

ce

on

pa

ren

t- c

hil

d

rela

tio

nsh

ip w

as n

ot

ass

ess

ed

on

the

ch

ild

qu

est

ion

na

ire

.)

4 4

W


participants of the Nighttime Astronomy course on future viewings of the nighttime skies and the influence of the Communications Technology course in a better under- standing and interest in electronics by children as a result of the course. Both these topics are slighted by middle school programs, the nighttime astronomy because middle school and junior high teachers are forced to teach it in pencil-paper fashion or by readings, and the communications technology (i.e., building radios, telegraphs, and telephones) because this is not generally a topic that is a part of middle school or junior high curricula. It is extremely important to find ways to acquaint children with important science topics that are not adequately taught in schools; the use of family learning courses becomes one of several ways which could be used to accom- plish this task. It is of interest also that over half of the parents reported that the Microcomputers course influenced their buying of a computer. Maybe one of the best ways to get families, who can afford one, to purchase a microcomputer is to see their child using one. Could this have implications for other technological devices and scientific instruments, such as telescopes and microscopes? Of special note is that over half the parents surveyed by the questionnaire reported that their child’s interest in science increased as a result of participation in the course(s). If true, this could become an additional means to motivate children to learn science.

A third of the families who took courses at informal science centers reported that their subsequent trips to these centers increased as a result of taking the courses. Offering courses, such as the ones reported in this study, may become an additional means to increase family visits, a goal that is sought by staff at informal science centers.

If the telephone interview data are correct, educators must find ways to encourage girls to find out that computers can be used for more than word processing. Although the word processing aspect of computers is important, the “real” revolution in society which necessitates the use of computers must be made by all members of our society.

Finally, a fair number of parents, but fewer children, indicated that taking the course together strengthened their relationship and/or increased communication within the family. Maybe it is too much to hope that one short course would have much effect on long-standing relationships. However, it is remarkable that some participants remembered this as being one of its significant outcomes. Perhaps with additional community education courses, specifically intended for parents and children to take and to learn together, there could be a stronger influence on family relationships. Certainly many parents are looking for “quality time” to spend with their children, and it is easy to think of other courses that could be offered for parents and children.

In the face-to-face interviews, parents and children were interviewed together. Since parent responses to questions on the influence of subsequent learning behavior and the influence the courses had on their relationship with their children seemed to be different from the parent responses in the mail questionnaires and in the telephone interviews, where parents responded separately, it may be that parents find it difficult to voice their feelings in the presence of their children. If true, it might have been better to interview the parents and children separately when conducting the face-to- face interviews. Generally, all other results, were consistent.

In hindsight, it may have been more useful to ask identical questions in both the telephone interviews and on the mail questionnaires based on the data obtained from the face-to-face interviews. However, it seemed better to capitalize on the use of probes during the telephone interviews to elicit the best possible information. Use of

FAMILY LEARNING COURSES 78 1

statements to which respondents could easily respond in agree-disagree fashion were used for the mail questionnaires since it was felt that if a questionnaire was too open- ended or too long, fewer respondents, particularly children, would have completed the questionnaires.

When participants were taking the courses, no attempt was made to influence teachingAearning behavior between parents and children. By observing this kind of behavior in families more carefully, it may be possible to select those behaviors which are both nurturing and helpful in learning. It may then become possible to teach parents how to become more effective facilitators in their children's learning of science.

References

Bobbitt, N., & Paolucci, B. (1976). Home as a learning center. Washington, DC: Bureau of Occupational and Adult Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 120 033)

Denzin, N.K. (1971). The logic of naturalistic inquiry. Social Forces, 50 ( 2 ) ,

Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.

Gennaro, E.D., Bullock, A., & Alden, A. (1980). A science learning experience involving adults and their pre-adolescent and adolescent children. Science Education, 64 (3), 209-218.

Gennaro, E.D., & Heller, P. (1981). Out of school learning experiences for parents and their middle school children: Overview manual. Washington, DC: Na- tional Science Foundation. (Grant No. 07872)

Groves, R.M., and Kahn, R.L. (1979). Surveys by telephone: A national com- parison with personal interviews. New York: Academic.

Guba, E.G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry (CSE mono- graph series in Evaluation No. 8). Los Angeles, CA:, Center for the' Study of Evalu- ation.

166-1 82.

Katz, M. (1978). All in the family. Change, 10 (3, 38-39. Ostlund, K. (1983). A naturalistic study of family learning courses in science.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Oslund, K., Gennaro, E.D., & Dobbert M. (1985). A naturalistic study of chil-

dren and their parents in family learning courses in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22 (8), 723-742.

Patton, M.O. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Smithsonian Family Learning Project (1980). Chesapeake Bay Center for Envi- ronmental Studies. Washingston, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Tinker, M.A. (1971). Preparing your child for reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Manuscript accepted July 17, 1986

a study of the latent effects of family learning courses in science

Documents