This article was downloaded by: [71.206.183.2]On: 25 June 2015, At: 09:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

International Journal of ScienceEducation, Part B: Communication andPublic EngagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsed20

Informal Science: Family Education,Experiences, and Initial Interest inScienceKatherine P. Dabneya, Robert H. Taib & Michael R. Scotta

a Department of Teaching and Learning, Virginia CommonwealthUniversity, Richmond, VA, USAb Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education,University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USAPublished online: 25 Jun 2015.

To cite this article: Katherine P. Dabney, Robert H. Tai & Michael R. Scott (2015): Informal Science:Family Education, Experiences, and Initial Interest in Science, International Journal of ScienceEducation, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2015.1058990

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1058990

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Informal Science: Family Education,

Experiences, and Initial Interest in

Science

Katherine P. Dabneya∗, Robert H. Taib and Michael R. ScottaaDepartment of Teaching and Learning, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond,

VA, USA; bDepartment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of

Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Recent research and public policy have indicated the need for increasing the physical science

workforce through development of interest and engagement with informal and formal science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics experiences. This study examines the association of

family education and physical scientists’ informal experiences in science along with the association

of informal family science experiences and early initial interest in science through multiple and

logistic regression analyses. Research questions addressed are as follows: Controlling for

demographic variables, do physical scientists parents’ level of education associate with

participation in informal family science experiences? And which informal family science

experiences are associated with physical scientists that report an initial personal interest in science

by elementary school? These questions are analyzed with survey data from Project Crossover (N ¼

4,285), a sequential mixed-methods study that examines factors influencing entrance into physical

science doctoral programs as well as the transition from graduate students to independent

researcher. Results indicate that families with higher parental education are more likely to take part

in informal science experiences and therefore more likely to provide positive encouragement for

their children to develop an early interest in science. Detailed analyses show that the following

family forms of informal science education: occupation, diversions and hobbies, and

encouragement are associated with an early initial interest in science by elementary school.

Keywords: Physical science; Family; Interest; Informal education; Elementary school;

Quantitative research

Science education and the development of science interest and engagement have

become a focus of educational policy due to concerns about the size of the US

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; National Academy of

International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1058990

∗Corresponding author. Department of Teaching and Learning, Virginia Commonwealth Univer-

sity, 1015 West Main Street, P.O. Box 842020, Richmond, VA, USA. Email: kdabney@vcu.edu

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Sciences [NAS], 2007) workforce. The fields of chemistry and physics, or physical

science, pose a significant challenge in entrance and retention into the workforce

(National Science Board [NSB], 2008, 2010). Due to this, the NAS and NSB have

called for research and public policy that examine factors that may influence persist-

ence in physical science such as development of interests and academic achievement

(NAS, 2007; NSB, 2010).

Informal science has been advocated as a means to support school curriculum,

student interest, and academic success (Bell, Lewenstein, Shouse, & Feder, 2009;

Bybee, 2001; Eccles & Barber, 1999; National Science Teachers Association

[NSTA], 1998). Prior research has examined school-led informal science activities

such as field trips to parks and museums (Rennie & McClafferty, 1995). Recent

research has identified that informal science activities outside of school such as

reading fiction and nonfiction science texts and participating in science groups and

competitions are associated with STEM career choice (Dabney et al., 2012). Families

have been cited as a factor in forming initial science interest with physical scientists

through informal science (Dabney, Chakrverty, & Tai, 2013). General research

shows parents with higher levels of education provide more informal education oppor-

tunities and resources to their children (Chesters, 2010; Nauert, 2008), and spend

more time with them (Guryan, Hurst, & Kearney, 2008) than parents with lower

levels of education. Research has yet to examine whether informal science experiences

associated with family demographics such as parental education of physical scientists.

Several studies have demonstrated that informal science experiences influence early

interest in STEM fields. Mau and Bikos (2000) explained one’s career choice through

four categories, one of which being family variables. Even with these findings, most of

the research examining a students’ early interest in STEM fields still largely points to

high school or college factors (Maltese & Tai, 2011). However, some studies argue for

an examination of earlier influences. For example, Maltese and Tai (2010) found that

65% of their respondents attributed their STEM interests to reasons that occurred

before middle school. Dabney et al. (2013) maintain that doctoral students and scien-

tists in STEM fields report family as a primary factor in initial interest in STEM. A

plethora of general research and theory exists separately examining informal

science, general parental influence on early education, and initial interest in

science. Yet, there is a paucity of research examining physical scientists and the influ-

ence of parental education on informal science experiences and childhood develop-

ment of early interest in science.

Literature Review

Parental Education

Students are more engaged in their schooling if their parents have college and gradu-

ate degrees (Adamuti-Trache & Andres, 2008; Ojeda & Flores, 2008). As Isaac,

Malaney, and Karras (1992) reported, students with a same-sex parent that holds a

higher education degree are more likely to have aspirations for a graduate education.

2 K. P. Dabney et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

In addition, students with parents who have a higher level of education tend to work

toward a degree in science, whereas those with parents without a higher education are

less likely to even pursue advanced science courses in high school (Adamuti-Trache &

Andres, 2008). Furthermore, Sonnert (2009) found that if their parents had a college

education, male scientists were 6.8 times more likely to state that their parents influ-

enced their career decision.

Studies have also examined the role of parental education and career aspirations in

different ethnic and gender groups. One study found that Latino students tend to have

lower educational aspirations than Caucasian and African-American students (Cheng

& Starks, 2002). However, Ojeda and Flores (2008) found that educational aspira-

tions of Mexican-American students were significantly correlated to the education

level of both of their parents, likely due to the cultural constructs of parental roles

in Mexican-American families. Gender is also an important consideration in career

interest and degree selection (Dryler, 1998; Jacobs & Bleeker, 2004; Sonnert,

2009). Girls were 3.5 times more likely to name parental influence as an important

factor in career decisions than boys (Sonnert, 2009). However, the gender of both

the child and the parent is important in determining how much parents influence

their children (Dryler, 1998; Jacobs & Bleeker, 2004). Dryler (1998) found that

sons were more apt to be influenced by their fathers, but a same-sex correlation

was not evident for mothers and daughters. While mothers claimed that they would

be more likely to buy science toys for their sons than their daughters, both fathers

and mothers reported spending more time with their daughters on science activities

(Jacobs & Bleeker, 2004).

Research has shown that greater levels of parental education positively associated

with fifth-grade girls’ motivation to participate in informal science activities, such

as games, as well as their grades in science class (Simpkins, Davis-Kean, & Eccles,

2006). This is important as elementary school students generally do not get to

choose their classes, but they can express an opinion in participating in out-of-

school activities (Simpkins et al., 2006). In addition to parental education, as explored

in the next section, family informal science experiences, such as occupations, hobbies,

and encouragement, are other important considerations (Dabney et al., 2013; Ferry,

Fouad, & Smith, 2000). General education research found that parents with a higher

level of education spend more time with their children (Guryan et al., 2008). These

parents also often spend more time on activities that are developmentally appropriate

than parents with a lower level of education (Kalil, Ryan, & Corey, 2012).

Family Experiences in Informal Science

Several studies have explored the role of parental support and family experiences in

informal science as a means to foster interest (Dabney et al., 2013; Ferry et al.,

2000; Jacobs & Bleeker, 2004). Ferry et al. (2000) also examined the inclusion of

family activities as a means for piquing curiosity in science. Family experiences in

informal science greatly increased student self-efficacy (Ferry et al., 2000). The

inclusion of science-related activities, such as science fair participation and

Informal Science 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

museum and library visits, positively affects student attitudes toward science (George

& Kaplan, 1998). Other variables have been used to affirm the importance of family

experiences in informal science, such as parental warmth toward student academics

(Juang & Silbereisen, 2002), parental support in pursuing STEM-related careers

(Turner, Steward, & Lapan, 2004), and parental aspirations for their children’s

future academic and career decisions (Spera, Wentzel, & Matto, 2009). In these

three studies, parents who have strong academic aspirations for their children, and

explicitly share this with their children, are more apt to encourage them to be acade-

mically successful. Parents often provide students with informal science experiences;

specifically, Moakler and Kim (2014) have shown that out-of-school time exposure to

science through a parental occupation is important in helping children make their own

future career decision.

Parental occupation. Parental education and occupation are closely linked (Dryler,

1998; Leppel, Williams, & Walduaer, 2001; Moakler & Kim, 2014). Children with

parents who have STEM careers are approximately 1.6 times more likely to enter a

STEM field themselves (Moakler & Kim, 2014). Dryler (1998) found that boys

and girls are more likely to enter the same occupation as their father, regardless of

their gender. Furthermore, parents in executive positions are more apt to have chil-

dren who study business, engineering, or science, and girls are particularly less

likely to enter education as a field (Leppel et al., 2001).

Hobbies. Few research studies have explored the impact of family hobbies on student

academic choices (Young, Fraser, & Woolnough, 1997). However, Guryan et al.

(2008) examined the role of parental education and its positive effect on the time

they spent with their children. In this study of 22,693 participants, mothers with

less than a high school diploma spent 12 hours per week engaging in child care,

whereas mothers with more than a college diploma spent an average of 17 hours

per week (Guryan et al., 2008). This is important as children and adolescents who

engage in a variety of certain science-related activities tend to be more interested in

choosing a career in a similar category (Bregman & Killen, 1999). Overall, scientists

have reported that childhood recreational activities influenced their career decisions

(Venville, Rennie, Hanbury, & Longnecker, 2013).

Encouragement. Several studies examine the importance of parental encouragement

on a child’s early career interest in STEM (Tang, Fouad, & Smith, 1999; Russell &

Atwater, 2005). There is a paucity of literature connecting this to parental education

(Ferry et al., 2000; Riegle-Crumb, Moore, & Ramos-Wada, 2011). Turner et al.

(2004) showed that parent encouragement is important as it helps children boost

their self-efficacy. Encouragement was significantly associated with socio-economic

status, as measured by parental education (Ferry et al., 2000). Jacobs and Bleeker

(2004) found that a student’s career interest is highly influenced by parental interest

and involvement. Parents who encourage their children academically from early child-

hood are found to have lasting positive school-related impacts, as shown through a

4 K. P. Dabney et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

12-year longitudinal study (Bleeker & Jacobs, 2004). African-American students

working on degrees in STEM fields also named parental encouragement as an impor-

tant factor in their choice of degree (Russell & Atwater, 2005). A separate study found

that family involvement of Asian-American children strongly influenced career choice

(Tang et al., 1999). Turner et al. (2004) indicated that parental support, career

gender-typing, self-efficacy, and expectations of math performance are all correlated

to each other.

Initial Personal Interest in Science

Personal interest is correlated to experiences, encouragement, and self-efficacy

(Turner et al., 2004; Venville et al., 2013). Children with positive self-efficacy who

believe science is important are a significant determinant to future science activities,

such as coursework or career pursuit (Simpkins et al., 2006). Thereby students who

are successful in science classes tend to be more interested, and those interested prior

to middle school are more likely to continue with their science education in later years

(Maltese & Tai, 2010). An examination of the National Educational Longitudinal

Study of 1988 found that students who expected in the eighth grade to obtain a

STEM degree were 3.4 times more likely to obtain a career in physical sciences or

engineering than their nonscience peers (Tai, Liu, Maltese, & Fan, 2006). Moakler

and Kim (2014) also examined the influence of academic confidence on a child’s per-

sonal interest in STEM. They argue that parents provide the most influence through

opportunities such as out-of-school activities, mentoring and encouragement, and

exposure through a parent’s STEM career; specifically, developing academic interest

early builds confidence, leading to later academic success. As student’s academic con-

fidence in STEM increases, so does their likelihood of choosing a STEM major

(Moakler & Kim, 2014). Science classrooms are important sites for fostering interest

in STEM. Specifically, an examination of the NELS:88 survey showed that discussing

career possibilities in the science classroom associated with an increase in student

interest (Maltese & Tai, 2011).

Parental Education and Privilege

As explored previously, parental educational levels positively affect students’ interest

in STEM. Some literature addresses how students of distinctive genders and ethnici-

ties are affected differently than Caucasian male students (Davis-Kean, 2005; Riegel-

Crumb et al., 2011; Spera et al., 2009). In examining parental education and child

achievement, Davis-Kean (2005) found that parental involvement had more of a posi-

tive effect on European-American children than African-American children. Flouri

(2006) had similar findings, but for students with a lower socio-economic status,

here the main forecasters of educational degree attainment, regardless of gender,

were mother’s education, social class, and socio-economic experience. Gayles and

Ampaw (2011) support this claim, whereby students with parents who have a

higher income level and education are more likely to complete a STEM degree.

Informal Science 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Despite these considerations, differences in the correlation between ethnicity and

parental aspirations are outweighed when parental educational attainment is con-

sidered (Spera et al., 2009). There are differences in ethnicity in that Latino students

required more governmental financial support, had parents with a lower education

level, and obtained lower math scores, but Latino students’ odds of majoring in

STEM fields was not decreased because of their race as compared to their Caucasian

counterparts (Crisp, Nora, & Taggart, 2009). More research will need to be con-

ducted in order to understand the real impact of ethnicity and socio-economic

status on parental education and STEM interest.

Gender of the child is also an important factor in STEM interest and degree selec-

tion. Males earn doctoral degrees in the physical sciences disproportionately to

females (Simon & Farkas, 2008). Several studies have shown that females list

family support as more predicative of a STEM career than their male colleagues

(Maltese & Tai, 2010; Sonnert, 2009; Venville et al., 2013). These data show that

it is essential to examine the role of family influence on career choice in order to

increase the equal representation of females in STEM fields, particularly in the phys-

ical sciences.

Family experiences in science are critical in the development of initial interest in

STEM (Dabney et al., 2013). Experiences, such as participating in hobbies and inter-

acting with parents, tend to boost self-efficacy and motivation in STEM (Ferry et al.,

2000). Parental education, an important factor that permeates the discussion of

student background, positively affects informal education experiences to which chil-

dren are exposed (Bleeker & Jacobs, 2004). Nevertheless, a dearth of literature exists

regarding the effect of parental education on family informal science experiences and

children’s initial interest in STEM. This is partially due to the tendency to use par-

ental education to control for socio-economic status (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2011).

As parents have been named as an important factor in STEM career choice (Jacobs

& Bleeker, 2004), variables of parental influence, such as education and involvement,

are important to understanding family informal science experiences, academic inter-

ests, and how they relate to timing of initial childhood interest in science (George &

Kaplan, 1998; Young et al., 1997). Literature shows that an early interest in science

and participation in informal science positively influences STEM career choices

(Dabney et al., 2012; Maltese & Tai, 2010). Therefore, a closer examination of

family background and informal science experiences association with initial childhood

interest is essential.

Research Questions

The objective of this study is to examine the role of parental education in shaping

physical scientists’ family experiences in informal science and early personal interest

in science. Specifically, we look at the highest level of parent education and its associ-

ation with reported family informal science experiences through parent occupation,

hobbies, and encouragement of their children to pursue a STEM education and

career. Then, physical scientists’ early interest in science is examined through first

6 K. P. Dabney et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

general interest in science by kindergarten through fifth grade. Our research questions

include the following: Controlling for demographic variables, do physical scientists

parents’ level of education associate with participation in informal family science

experiences? And which informal family science experiences are associated with phys-

ical scientists who report an initial personal interest in science by elementary school?

Data and Methods

The Study and Sample

Survey data for this paper were taken from Project Crossover. Project Crossover is a

sequential, mixed-methods study, containing interview and survey components,

developed to examine factors influencing entrance into physical science doctoral pro-

grams as well as the transition from graduate students to independent researcher. The

preliminary portion of the study used semi-structured interviews of 125 physical

science doctoral students and scientists. Interviews varied from 30 minutes to 2.5

hours and included doctoral students, post-doctorate students, faculty, scientists,

and some individuals who left the field of physical science. All interviews were

recorded, transcribed for analysis, and examined to generate research hypotheses to

develop the subsequent Project Crossover Survey.

Epidemiological survey methods were used in Project Crossover, which rely on the

variation of the background and experiences of individuals who enter the physical

science field as doctoral students or scientists. This method was used instead of an

experiment consisting of treatment and control groups, which would be unfeasible

in this case given the independent variables examined (Tiwari & Terasaki, 1985).

While this research is not causal, it provides the ability to show either that a relation-

ship does not exist or identify relationships that are associative and therefore worthy of

follow-up studies in the future. Similar methods have been used in other fields such as

public health (Elwood, Little, & Elwood, 1992).

The accuracy and reliability of self-report through survey depends primarily on

context, relevance, and survey clarity (Bradburn, 2000; Niemi & Smith, 2003). In a

review of existing research on self-report, Kuncel, Crede, and Thomas (2005) con-

cluded that self-report might be characterized as particularly accurate in samples

where the surveys address issues relevant to the respondents. This survey falls into

that category as it is conducted with professional physical science doctoral students

and scientists where participants’ reflection on their prior experience is commonplace.

The Project Crossover Survey consisted of 145 questions examining background

and demographic experiences such as early science interest and motivations, aca-

demic achievement, undergraduate and graduate experiences, and career variables

following graduation from doctoral programs. Potential participant names were

acquired from the American Chemical Society and American Physics Society.

From this list, a random sample of 17,500 individuals were mailed hard copies and

online versions of the survey in 2007. A total of 3,600 of these initial surveys were

not in the field of physical science and therefore determined to not fit the participant

Informal Science 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

group. In addition, 550 of the surveys were returned as undeliverable. Of the final

13,350 qualified possible survey takers, 4,285 returned completed surveys for a

response rate of 32.1%. The survey sample included chemistry and physics doctoral

students, scientists, and individuals holding other doctoral physical science degrees.

To determine that the data set was nationally representative, the sample was com-

pared to the National Science WebCASPAR data set with a focus on their demo-

graphics (gender and race/ethnicity) and employment backgrounds (government

agencies, universities, profit, nonprofit, and other). Overall, the Project Crossover

sample was found to be comparable to the representation of WebCASPAR data

based on these backgrounds (Hazari, Potvin, Tai, & Almarode, 2010).

The sample size for this study is 4,285 and contains all of the participants from the

Project Crossover Survey. The population studied is composed of 28.5% females and

67.3% males. Of this sample group of participants, 2.4% were identified as African-

American, 2.8% Latino/Hispanic, 16.7% Asian, 70.8% Caucasian, and the remaining

respondents specified that they were in other ethnic groups or minimally represented.

Within this group of doctoral students and scientists, 9.3% were physics doctoral stu-

dents, 14.0% were chemistry doctoral students, 22.4% were physicists, and 48.1%

were chemists. The two research questions are unique and used two different forms

of analyses; therefore, the methods and results sections will be examined individually

by the corresponding research question.

Association of Parental Education on Family Informal Science Experiences

Independent variable: parent education. Question #12 from the Project Crossover

Survey focused on the respondent’s Parent Education (as shown in Figure 1). The

survey requested the participants mark the highest level of education completed by

both their mother and father. In order to account for the highest parent education

within a household, and due to significant correlation (.466, p , .01), mother and

father variables were recoded into one composite variable. These variables were com-

bined so that the highest level of education reported between the mother and father

remained in the data set under a new variable labeled parent education. This

Figure 1. Question #12 on the highest level of education completed by parents/guardians from the

Project Crossover Survey

8 K. P. Dabney et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

allowed for the analysis to account for parent education while preventing potential

collinearity within the data due to two household values that were frequently very

similar according to prior Pearson correlations (Pedhazur, 1997).

Parents who reported having an education level that was less than a high school

diploma were coded as ‘1’. This continuous variable was coded up until parents

with a doctorate were coded as ‘6’. According to this classification, parent education

had a slight negative skew. Four percent (n ¼ 168) of the Crossover sample reported

their parent did not finish high school and 16.7% (n ¼ 714) had a parent who did

finish high school. Sample participants indicated that 11.9% (n ¼ 511) had a

parent with at least some college education and 23.1% (n ¼ 991) reported that

their parent had at least a bachelor’s degree. A total of 17.2% (n ¼ 737) of respon-

dents marked they had a parent with a master’s degree and 16.8% (n ¼ 719) had a

parent with a doctorate.

Dependent variable: family informal science experiences. Question #17 from the Project

Crossover Survey looked at the participant’s Family Experiences in Informal Science.

Seen in Figure 2, the question asked respondents to mark all of the items that

described their past family informal science experiences. This analysis focused on

the four positive statements of family experiences in informal science including the

following: ‘science was involved in at least one parent’s jobs’, ‘science was a diversion

or a hobby’, ‘science was viewed as a pathway to a better career’, and ‘science was

encouraged to the same degree as other academic pursuits’. ‘Science was not a

family interest’ was not included in the analyses as it was a negative statement of

family informal science experiences. Data for this question were coded as an additive

continuous variable that ranged from ‘1’ to ‘4’ based on the response rate of the par-

ticipants. Therefore, if one response was marked it was coded as‘1’, whereas if three

statements were marked it was coded as ‘3’ and so on. This coding allowed for a

greater view of the level of family experiences in informal science.

A series of Pearson correlations were developed between the four different types of

family informal science experience and are shown in Table 1. Correlations were

created to determine the association between the four forms of family informal

science experiences found in the Project Crossover Survey. These correlations were

also developed to uncover any collinearity, or significant overlap in measurement,

in the future regression models. No large significant correlations were discovered of

the four variables examined in the following regression models. This, in combination

with the unique representation of each of these variables within the survey, left each of

Figure 2. Question #17 on family’s past interest in science from the Project Crossover Survey

Informal Science 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

these variables to be viewed as separate within the data and therefore coded as such in

the following analyses.

Association of Family Informal Science Experiences on Personal Interest in Science by

Grades K-5

Independent variable: family informal science experiences. Question #17 from the

Project Crossover Survey looked at the participant’s Family Informal Science Experi-

ences which was later used as an independent variable in the logistic regression analysis

examining family experiences in informal science and early personal interest in

science. As seen in Figure 2, each of the positive forms of family experiences in infor-

mal science was individually dummy coded. Therefore, if a participant indicated that

‘science was involved in at least one parent’s job’, they were coded as ‘1’, and if they

did not indicate the response, they were coded as ‘0’. The other three variables,

‘science was a diversion or a hobby’, ‘science was viewed as a pathway to a better

career’, and ‘science was encouraged to the same degree as other academic pursuits’,

were coded in a similar format and each variable was placed as an independent vari-

able in a logistic regression.

Descriptive analyses showed that 31.1% (n ¼ 1,332) of the chemists and physicists

surveyed in the sample marked that science was involved in at least one parent’s job.

An estimated 14.7% (n ¼ 630) indicated that science was a diversion or hobby;

26.3% (n ¼ 1,125) showed that science was viewed as a pathway to a better career;

41.7% (n ¼ 1,788) marked that science was encouraged to the same degree as

other academic pursuits. Finally, 27% (n ¼ 1,157) did not indicate any of the four

choices studied in these analyses. In order to thoroughly examine the association of

family informal science experiences on early personal interest in science, all forms

of family informal science experiences were used as independent variables in the fol-

lowing logistic regression.

Dependent variable: personal interest in science by grades K-5. The second analysis used

earliest reported general interest in science by grades K-5 as a dependent variable. If

Table 1. Pearson correlation of family informal science experiences from Question #17 from the

Project Crossover Survey

Parent

job

Diversion/

hobby

Pathway to better

career

Equally

encouraged

Parent job – 0.175∗∗ 0.155∗∗ 0.017

Diversion/hobby – 0.190∗∗ 0.096∗∗

Pathway to better

career

– 20.031

Equally encouraged –

∗∗p , .01.

10 K. P. Dabney et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

participants chose K-5th grade as their response, it was coded as ‘1’, whereas if they

chose any grade level selection subsequent to fifth grade their response was coded as

‘0’. This outcome variable, question #18 from the Project Crossover Survey, is shown

in Figure 3.

Specific to this sample, a large percentage of participants, 79.2% (n ¼ 3,395), indi-

cated a general interest in science before fifth grade. Therefore, 20.8% (n ¼ 890) did

not indicate a general interest in science prior to fifth grade.

Control Variables: Demographic and Background Factors

An individual’s interest in STEM depends on numerous factors, in addition to the

potential influence of parent education and family informal science experiences.

Due to this, all regression analyses in this study included the following control vari-

ables: gender, race/ethnicity, and parent education. These control variables were

selected by consulting with seminal research of associated factors with STEM interest

(Hill, Corbett, & St. Rose, 2010; Maltese & Tai, 2010; Tai et al., 2006). For each

research question, all control variables were cross tabulated with independent vari-

ables and no systematic bias was uncovered based on survey responses of participants

by gender, race/ethnicity, and parent education.

Missing Data

Missing data of variables in the following regression analyses ranged from 4.2% to

10.4%. No missing data were found with the Family Informal Science Experiences

variable as survey directions asked respondents to mark all experiences that

applied. Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Parent Education of respondents were exam-

ined through mean comparisons of missing data. There was no chance of sys-

tematic bias within the data, as missing responses did not differ based on the

outcomes of Family Informal Science Experiences and Personal Interest by Grades

K-5.

Mean comparisons of the control variables gender and parent education show

that the chemists and physicists with missing data were not significantly different

for family informal science experiences and first interest in general science by

grades K-5 and thus indicated no chance of data-driven systematic bias. When

this was combined with low percentages of missing data, prior research indicated

that there was no need for missing data procedures (Rubin, 1987; Scheffer,

2002).

Figure 3. Question #18 on first interest in science from the Project Crossover Survey

Informal Science 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Results

Association of Parental Education on Family Informal Science Experiences

A multiple regression was constructed to examine background factors and the impact

of parent education on family informal science experiences. The outcome for the

model had four values as an additive continuous variable ranging from ‘0’ if respon-

dents reported no family informal science experiences, ‘1’ for one response, ‘2’ for two

responses, ‘3’ for three responses, and ‘4’ for four responses. Gender and race/ethni-

city were included in the model to account for control variables. The predictor vari-

able for this analysis was the parent education variable reported. The results are

summarized in Table 2.

The multiple R2 of the multiple regression model, or the squared multiple corre-

lation of family informal science experiences, with control and predictor variables,

is 0.099. R2 indicates that 9.9% of the variance in family informal science experiences

is accounted for by the background demographics and parent education variables of

physical scientists. The adjusted R2, 0.098, allows for sampling error in the model.

Therefore, if the model was based on the actual population as opposed to sample

data, it would represent 0.001% (0.099–0.098) less variance in the outcome.

Furthermore, the model indicates that the independent variable of high parent edu-

cation as a primary source of family informal science experiences is significant with a t-

test of 16.562 at p , .001. As the dependent variable of family informal science

experiences is an additive continuous variable ranging from no interest upward, the

results show that having a parent with a greater level of education associates with a

higher level of family informal science experiences.

The model had a significant multiple R2 and parent education has a positive impact

on the model, meaning that family informal science experiences were reported to be

greater when parent education was higher. These findings were significant after con-

trolling for gender and race/ethnicity. Interaction models were created by separately

crossing gender and then race/ethnicity with parent education. None of these

Table 2. Multiple regression model predicting family informal science experiences with parent

education

B SE Sig. t

Highest parent education 0.137 0.008 ∗∗∗ 16.562

Gender Included

Race/ethnicity Included

Intercept controls Included

R2 0.099

Adjusted R2 0.098

N 4,285

Note: Sig, significance.

∗∗∗p , .001.

12 K. P. Dabney et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

interactions were significant. To have a clearer understanding of the types of family

informal science experiences and their influence on physical scientists, first personal

interest in science was examined in the logistic regression that follows.

Association of Family Informal Science Experiences on Personal Interest in Science by

Grades K-5

A logistic regression was constructed using personal interest in science by grades K-5

(interest vs. noninterest) as the dependent variable. The independent variables for the

model were the following family informal science experiences: science was involved in

at least one parent’s jobs, science was a diversion or a hobby, science was viewed as a

pathway to a better career, and science was encouraged to the same degree as other

academic pursuits. Demographic variables such as gender, race/ethnicity, and

parent education were controlled for within the model. Model summary of the logistic

regression analysis shows that x2 (df ¼ 9) is 543.88 (p , .001), and the pseudo R2

(Nagelkerke) is 0.19. This indicates that the forms of family informal science experi-

ences (parent job, diversion/hobby, pathway to a better career, and equally encour-

aged) and demographic/background information altogether account for an

estimated 19% of the variance in whether physical scientists report a personal interest

in science by grades K-5. This regression model when compared to a model with no

predictors is significant at the a level of 0.05. The results are summarized in Table 3.

The results indicate that those respondents who reported any family informal

science experiences including, science was involved in at least one parent’s jobs,

science was a diversion or a hobby, science was viewed as a pathway to a better

Table 3. Logistic regression model summary predicting personal interest in science by grades K-5

with family informal science experiences

B SE Sig. Odds ratio [EXP(B)] 95% CI for EXP(B)

Intercept 0.58 0.10 ∗∗∗ 1.66 [1.36, 2.03]

Gender 20.03 0.00 ∗∗∗ 0.98 [0.97, 0.98]

Race/ethnicity

East Asian 20.15 0.15 0.33 0.86 [0.64, 1.16]

Caucasian 0.50 0.14 ∗∗∗ 1.64 [1.25, 2.16]

African-American 0.39 0.25 0.11 1.48 [0.91, 2.39]

Parent education 0.05 0.02 ∗ 1.06 [1.01, 1.11]

Parent job 0.58 0.10 ∗∗∗ 1.66 [1.36, 2.03]

Diversion/hobby 1.04 0.17 ∗∗∗ 2.83 [2.02, 3.96]

Pathway to better career 0.43 0.10 ∗∗∗ 1.54 [1.26, 1.89]

Equally encouraged 0.53 0.89 ∗∗∗ 1.70 [1.43, 2.02]

Nagelkerke R2 0.19

N 4,285

∗p , .05.

∗∗∗p , .001.

Informal Science 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

career, and science was encouraged to the same degree as other academic pursuits,

were more likely to report a personal interest in science by grades K-5. As indicated

by the odds ratio, respondents had a 1.66 times higher odds of a reporting a personal

interest by grades K-5 if science was involved in at least one parent’s job. In addition,

when science was used as a diversion or hobby among the family, participants had a

2.83 times higher odds of reporting a personal interest by grades K-5. When respon-

dents reported that the family viewed science as a pathway to a better career, they had

1.54 times higher odds of reporting a personal interest by grades K-5. Finally, partici-

pants had a 1.70 times higher odds of reporting a personal interest by grades K-5 if

science was equally encouraged with other subjects taught in school. Therefore,

this logistic regression shows that the support of all forms of family informal

science experiences is significant after controlling for demographic and background

factors.

Certain demographic and control variables also indicated a connection to personal

science interest by grades K-5. Males as opposed to women had a 0.98 times odds to

report a personal science interest by grades K-5. Participants who reported they were

Caucasian had 1.64 times higher odds of indicating a personal interest in science by

grades K-5. Finally, respondents who had a parent with a higher level of education

were 1.06 times more likely to report a personal science interest by grades K-5. Fur-

thermore, as each level of parent education grew the odds ratio compounded, so when

the model was held constant and the parent level of education increased by 1 within

the survey the personal interest in science by grades K-5 increased by 1.06. Therefore,

respondents who indicated a higher level of parent education were increasingly more

likely to report a personal interest in science by grades K-5.

Interactions were modeled by crossing family forms of interest (e.g. parent job,

diversion/hobby, pathway to a better career, and equally encouraged) with individual

factors (e.g. gender and parent education). The interaction variables were then placed

into the logistic regression model. The first interaction model developed included the

interactions of gender and parent job, gender and diversion/hobby, gender and

pathway to a better career, and gender and equally encouraged. These interactions

were not found to be significant. A second interaction model was created with the

interactions of parent education and parent job, parent education and diversion/

hobby, parent education and pathway to a better career, and parent education and

equally encouraged, but none of these interactions were significant.

Conclusions

Research and public policy have indicated a need for increasing the physical science

workforce through development of interest and engagement with informal and

formal STEM experiences (NSB, 2008, 2010). This paper studies chemistry and

physics doctoral students and practicing scientists. Informal science experiences are

examined to determine how family education, environments, and opportunities inter-

twine with timing of initial interest in science. While these results provide a rare

14 K. P. Dabney et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

examination of physical scientists, the uniqueness of these participants is important to

keep in mind with the interpretation of the results.

Results indicate that the level of family education influences the likelihood and

extent of family participation in informal science experiences that in turn associate

with timing of initial interest in science. More specifically, as the level of parent

education increases, so does the variety of informal science opportunities provided

within the home. And when a wider variety of informal family science opportu-

nities are provided, an initial interest in science by grades K-5 is more likely to

occur.

Family level of education and its association with informal science experiences pro-

vides background to these analyses. Prior studies have found that parent education

influences school engagement, degree choices, and educational time spent with chil-

dren outside of school (Adamuti-Trache & Andres, 2008; Isaac et al., 1992; Ojeda &

Flores, 2008). This study provides a new perspective with an examination of specific

informal science experiences provided within the home and their subsequent link to

family education. Physical science doctoral students and scientists report that

parents with a greater level of education positively influence the variety of informal

science opportunities provided within family settings. These findings may provide

implications as to the level of parent education in the home and its connection with

science experiences made available to children. While parent education is often set

and cannot be changed within the greater population, the informal science opportu-

nities provided in the community that may target all levels of family education,

especially at-risk groups, is pertinent. Prior research has focused on underrepresented

ethnic and minority groups in STEM careers, but these findings further delineate that

families that contain parents with lower levels of education are also members of under-

represented groups in informal science

Thus, this study lends itself to a family systems approach (Berger, 2000), often used

in the field of psychology (Broderick, 1993). This theory reinforces that while we may

take students out of their family and communities, they will still return to these

systems and spend the majority of their time there developmentally and educationally.

In order to make lasting changes within STEM education, we may need to treat the

family and educational system as a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

When it is possible, informal science opportunities should be provided to families

and not just the students within them. By educating the family as a whole, informal

science educators may break the inheritance of educational opportunities provided

in our local schools, communities, and families. In order to support families with

lower educational backgrounds, informal science programs may provide support to

the families of individuals in high school equivalency classes, head start programs,

and those that receive financial support from our communities. Informal science pro-

grams may include outreach to all families through museums, boys and girls clubs,

national organizations, summer camps, and local schools and universities. By increas-

ing the informal science education opportunities of the family as a whole, we may

strengthen these experiences and make lifelong changes for children and parents

within them.

Informal Science 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Informal family science experiences are the primary focus of this study, including

parent occupations, diversions and hobbies, and encouragement. Early studies exam-

ined these factors individually (Anderson, Lin, Treagust, Ross, & Yore, 2007; Byars-

Winston & Fouad, 2008; Dierking & Falk, 1994; Ferry et al., 2000). Recent research

has shown that these family forms of interest are positively associated with family as a

primary source of initial interest in science (Dabney et al., 2013). Yet, until this paper,

the examination of physical science doctorates and scientists’ informal family science

experiences taken altogether and their influence on the timing of interest with back-

ground factors has been unfounded. Chemistry and physics doctorates and scientists

indicate above and beyond background factors that all of these informal family science

experiences associated with an early initial interest in science by grades K-5. It is

important to note that these informal science factors were initially found to be

unique through Pearson correlations and later remained individually significant

when placed into one logistic regression. Thus, these informal science opportunities

when combined can provide additive strength to the development of an earlier interest

in science.

Findings of this study suggest that a series of factors weave together that may lead to

important long-term implications. Parent education levels associate with informal

science experiences, which in turn are connected to an early interest in science,

leading to potential career choices. Prior research established that informal science

experiences are associated with early STEM career selections (Dabney et al.,

2012). And Tai et al. (2006) found that youth who develop interests prior to high

school are more likely to enter in to STEM career fields. Yet efforts to diversify the

scientific workforce have concentrated on students at the college and high school

levels (e.g. Graham, Frederick, Byars-Winston, Hunter, & Handelsman, 2013).

The results of this study suggest that the battle to engage minds of the next generation

begins as early as elementary school, if not earlier, and within a systems context. What

we do know is that early informal science programs that include activities with pro-

fessionals in STEM occupations, encouragement to enter STEM fields, and

hobbies and activities may provide positive outlets for early interest in science. Of

note, is that these informal science programs do not have to be limited to out-of-

school activities within families, but could be potentially utilized in classroom settings

to target at-risk groups of students and as a proxy to informal science.

Research studies have found that parent education, informal science opportunities,

and an early interest in science individually associate with career interest in STEM

fields (Adamuti-Trache & Andres, 2008; Dabney et al., 2012; Tai et al., 2006).

Prior studies illuminated the scope of these individual factors, but did not pinpoint

the roles of family education, specific informal family science opportunities, and

timing of initial interest in science altogether as this study sought to accomplish.

This broader picture of physical scientist experiences provides a deeper perspective

of both early education opportunities and the roles of informal science outside of

school settings. Parent education findings in this paper indicate a need for early infor-

mal science support for all families, especially those with lower levels of education.

Parent education and informal science opportunities may seem to be outside the

16 K. P. Dabney et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

reach of formal education systems and public policy; yet these supports along with

informal science organizations may provide a proxy to science experiences provided

to families with young children as a whole and individually both inside and outside

of formal education systems. Given the scope of influence of informal science experi-

ences examined here, this paper indicates a need for future research on the impor-

tance, development, and support of family and early student experiences in

informal science settings and with science organizations. In light of our research find-

ings, lasting efforts to diversify the scientific workforce and bolster our communities

through informal science education should begin in early education and include the

family whenever possible.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This research was conducted with the support of the National Science Foundation [grant numbersNSF REC 0440002; NSF DRL 0748041] (Project Crossover, PI Robert H. Tai; Youth-BasedProgram Impact on Education and Career Choices, PI Robert H. Tai) and the Robert N. NoyceFoundation (Exploring the Outcomes and Methods of Youth Out-of-School-Time Science Pro-grams, PI Robert H. Tai). The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the Robert N. Noyce Foundation.

References

Adamuti-Trache, M., & Andres, L. (2008). Embarking on and persisting in scientific fields of study:

Cultural capital, gender, and curriculum along the science pipeline. International Journal of

Science Education, 30(12), 1557–1584.

Anderson, J. O., Lin, H. S., Treagust, D. F., Ross, S. P., & Yore, L. D. (2007). Using large-scale

assessment datasets for research in science and mathematics education: Program for Inter-

national Student Assessment (PISA). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Edu-

cation, 5, 591–614.

Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in informal environ-

ments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Berger, E. H. (2000). Parents as partners in education: Families and schools working together. Upper

Saddle River, MD: Merrill.

Bleeker, M. M., & Jacobs, J. E. (2004). Achievement in math and science: Do mothers’ beliefs

matter 12 years later? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 97–109. doi:10.1037/0022-

0663.96.1.97

Bradburn, N. M. (2000). Temporal representation and event dating. In A. A. Stone, J. S. Turkkan,

C. A. Bachrach, J. B. Jobe, H. S. Kurtzman, & V. S. Cain (Eds.), The science of self-report: Impli-

cations for research and practice (pp. 49–61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bregman, G., & Killen, M. (1999). Adolescents’ and young adults’ reasoning about career choice

and the role of parental influence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9(3), 253–275.

Broderick, C. B. (1993). Understanding family process: Basics of family systems theory. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Informal Science 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Byars-Winston, A. M., & Fouad, N. A. (2008). Math and science social cognitive variables in college

students contributions of contextual factors in predicting goals. Journal of Career Assessment,

16(4), 425–440.

Bybee, R. W. (2001). Achieving scientific literacy: Strategies for insuring that free-choice science

education complements national formal science education efforts. In J. H. Falk (Ed.),

Free-choice science education: How we learn science outside of school, (pp. 44–63). New York,

NY: Teachers College Press.

Cheng, S., & Starks, B. (2002). Racial differences in the effects of significant others on students’

educational expectations. Sociology of Education, 75, 306–327.

Chesters, J. (2010). Has the effect of parents’ education on child’s education changed over time? Centre for

Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University in

its series, CEPR Discussion Papers (Vol. 637).

Crisp, G., Nora, A., & Taggart, A. (2009). Student characteristics, pre-college, college, and environ-

mental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a STEM degree: An analysis of students

attending a Hispanic serving institution. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 924–

942. doi:10.3102/0002831209349460

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. doi:10.1002/sce.21060

Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., Almarode, J. T., Miller-Friedmann, J. L., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., &

Hazari, Z. (2012). Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career inter-

est in STEM. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public

Engagement, 2(1), 63–79.

Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achieve-

ment: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of

Family Psychology, 19(2), 294–304. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.294

Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (1994). Family behavior and learning in informal science settings: A

review of the research. Science Education, 78(1), 57–72.

Dryler, H. (1998). Parental role models, gender and educational choice. The British Journal of Soci-

ology, 49(3), 375–398. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9867028

Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band

what kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14(1), 10–43.

Elwood, J. M., Little, J., & Elwood, J. H. (1992). Epidemiology and control of neural tube defects (Vol.

20). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ferry, T. R., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (2000). The role of family context in a social cognitive

model for career-related choice behavior: A math and science perspective. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 57(3), 348–364. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1743

Flouri, E. (2006). Parental interest in children’s education, children’s self-esteem and locus of

control, and later educational attainment: Twenty-six year follow-up of the 1970 British Birth

Cohort. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 41–55. doi:10.1348/000709905X52508

Gayles, J. G., & Ampaw, F. D. (2011). Gender matters: An examination of differential effects of the

college experience on degree attainment in STEM. New Directions for Institutional Research, 152,

19–25.

George, R., & Kaplan, D. (1998). A structural model of parent and teacher influences on science

attitudes of eighth graders: Evidence from NELS: 88. Science Education, 82(1), 93–109.

Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A., & Handelsman, J. (2013). Increasing

persistence of college students in STEM. Science, 341, 1455–1456.

Guryan, J., Hurst, E., & Kearney, M. (2008). Parental education and parental time with children.

Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, 22(3), 23–46.

Hazari, Z., Potvin, G., Tai, R., & Almarode, J. (2010). For the love of learning science: Connecting

learning orientation and career productivity in physics and chemistry. Physics Education

Research, 6(1), 1–9.

18 K. P. Dabney et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics. Washington, DC: AAUW. Retrieved June 1, 2012, from http://www.aauw.org/

resource/why-so-few-women-in-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics/

Isaac, P. D., Malaney, G. D., & Karras, J. E. (1992). Parental educational level, gender differences,

and seniors’ aspirations for advanced study. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 595–606.

doi:10.1007/BF00973760

Jacobs, J. E., & Bleeker, M. M. (2004). Girls’ and boys’ developing interests in math and science: Do

parents matter? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 106, 5–21. doi:10.1002/cd.113

Juang, L. P., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2002). The relationship between adolescent academic capability

beliefs, parenting and school grades. Journal of Adolescence, 25(1), 3–18. doi:10.1006/jado.

2001.0445

Kalil, A., Ryan, R., & Corey, M. (2012). Diverging destinies: Maternal education and the develop-

mental gradient in time with children. Demography, 49(4), 1361–1383.

Kuncel, N. R., Crede, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point

averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of

Educational Research, 75(1), 63–82.

Leppel, K., Williams, M. L., & Waldauer, C. (2001). The impact of parental occupation and socioe-

conomic status on choice of college major. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22(4), 373–394.

Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science. Inter-

national Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 669–685.

Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational

experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–

907. doi:10.1002/sce.20441

Mau, W. C., & Bikos, L. H. (2000). Educational and vocational aspirations of minority and female

students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(2), 186–194.

Moakler, M. W., & Kim, M. M. (2014). College major choice in STEM: Revisiting confidence and

demographic factors. The Career Development Quarterly, 62(2), 128–142. doi:10.1002/j.2161-

0045.2014.00075.x

National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing

America for a brighter future. Retrieved January 19, 2012, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.

php?record_id=11463

National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2008 (Vol. 1, NSB 08–01; Vol. 2,

NSB 08–01A). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved June 5, 2012, from

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/

National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National

Science Foundation. Retrieved June 5, 2012, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/

National Science Teachers Association. (1998). An NSTA position statement: Informal science

education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 28(1), 17–18.

Nauert, R. (2008). Dominant parents influence child’s passion. Psych Central. Retrieved from http://

psychcentral.com/news/2008/09/19/dominant-parents-influence-childs-passion/2968.html

Niemi, R. G., & Smith, J. (2003). The accuracy of students’ reports of course taking in the 1994

National Assessment of Educational Progress. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,

22(1), 15–21.

Ojeda, L., & Flores, L. Y. (2008). The influence of gender, generation level, parents’ education level,

and perceived barriers on the educational aspirations of Mexican American high school stu-

dents. The Career Development Quarterly, 57(1), 84–95.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction.

New York, NY: Wadsworth.

Rennie, L., & McClafferty, T. (1995). Using visits to interactive science and technology centers,

museums, aquaria, and zoos to promote learning in science. Journal of Science Teacher Edu-

cation, 6(4), 175–185.

Informal Science 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Riegle-Crumb, C., Moore, C., & Ramos-Wada, A. (2011). Who wants to have a career in science or

math? Exploring adolescents’ future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity. Science Education,

95(3), 458–476. doi:10.1002/sce.20431

Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons.

Russell, M. L., & Atwater, M. M. (2005). Traveling the road to success: A discourse on persistence

throughout the science pipeline with African American students at a predominantly white insti-

tution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 691–715. doi:10.1002/tea.20068

Scheffer, J. (2002). Dealing with missing data. Research Letters in the Information and Mathematical

Sciences, 3, 153–160.

Simon, R. M., & Farkas, G. (2008). Sex, class, and physical science educational attainment: Por-

tions due to achievement versus recruitment. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and

Engineering, 14(3), 269–300.

Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation: A longi-

tudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 42(1),

70–83. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.70

Sonnert, G. (2009). Parents who influence their children to become scientists: Effects of gender and

parental education. Social Studies of Science, 39(6), 927–941. doi:10.1177/0306312709335843

Spera, C., Wentzel, K. R., & Matto, H. C. (2009). Parental aspirations for their children’s edu-

cational attainment: Relations to ethnicity, parental education, children’s academic perform-

ance, and parental perceptions of school climate. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(8),

1140–1152. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9314-7

Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science.

Science, 312, 1143–1144.

Tang, M., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (1999). Asian Americans’ career choices: A path model to

examine factors influencing their career choices. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(1),

142–157.

Tiwari, J. L., & Terasaki, P. I. (1985). HLA and disease associations. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Turner, S. L., Steward, J. C., & Lapan, R. T. (2004). Family factors associated with sixth-grade ado-

lescents’ math and science career interests. The Career Development Quarterly, 53(1), 41–52.

Venville, G., Rennie, L., Hanbury, C., & Longnecker, N. (2013). Scientists reflect on why they

chose to study science. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2207–2233. doi:10.1007/

s11165-013-9352-3

Young, D. J., Fraser, B. J., & Woolnough, B. E. (1997). Factors affecting student career choice in

science: An Australian study of rural and urban schools. Research in Science Education, 27(2),

195–214.

20 K. P. Dabney et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

71.2

06.1

83.2

] at

09:

47 2

5 Ju

ne 2

015