Using families as the analytical focus, this study informs the field of informal science education with a focus on the role of prior experiences in family science conversations during nature walks at an outdoor‐based nature center. Through video‐based research, the team analyzed 16 families during walks at a nature center. Each family's prior science learning experience provided conversational strategies for learning together as a social group and when making meaning out of observations in the outdoors. This analysis provides three main findings: (1) families frequently tapped into a vast repertoire of previous experiences during conversations about nature and very often, explicitly sourced a specific prior experience in their dialogue with one another; (2) when families sourced a prior experience, they almost exclusively named an experience from a nonschool setting, with everyday experiences, designed spaces (i.e., informal institutions), and programs for science learning being the most common experiences cited; and (3) families leveraged references to prior experiences during family science conversations to serve four primary facilitation processes in conversation: reminding, prompting, explaining, and orienting. Implications from this study emphasize the importance of referencing previous life experiences during family science conversations as a meaning‐making tool and for additional research on families learning science in outdoor education spaces.

This informal learning research project examined how guided participation processes support the use of cultural tools (such as scientific equipment) during a nature walk at one nature center. This paper analyzed family interactions outdoors using microethnographic methods. An informal learning framework based on guided participation and cultural tools allowed for an in‐depth investigation of social facilitation used by a working class family: a grandmother, a mother, and two young sons. We identified three findings related to guided participation strategies that facilitated the use of cultural tools for this family, which are discussed in detail: (1) one guided participation process that emerged was the facilitating physical movements related to cultural tool use; (2) a second guided participation process that emerged was balancing the access to cultural tools to reflect family goals for both social harmony and supporting science interests; and (3) trail‐based designed learning settings where outdoor explorations occur are important, but understudied, sites of learning for rural families. Implications of the study included the analytical importance of the constructs of cultural tools, guided participation, and embodied science knowledge for advancing research on family learning related to biology and environmental sciences. The research also suggested an expanded view of what counts as an informal science learning institution by including nature trails and related outdoor spaces alongside museums, science centers, and zoos in order to represent the everyday learning activities of rural families. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 53: 919–942, 2016

No abstract

No abstract

This study investigates how scientist-led educational programs, held in libraries, can make local science issues relevant to families. Given the need for an educated citizenry, it is important to explore if scientistsas learning facilitatorscan use educational strategies to engage intergenerational groups. We view family learning from a sociocultural perspective where parent-child interactions and sensemaking practices are the focus of our analysis. We analyzed three water quality-themed workshops held at public libraries consisting of 25 hours of video data. With a focus on 17 participant family groups, we closely examined the influence of questions asked by three different scientists (each leading a workshop) to understand how the structure of these questions supported or did not support the families in sensemaking conversations. Our findings revealed a relationship between the types of questions the scientists asked and families' talk related to the program content. Specifically, three questioning patterns emerged that either supported or hindered family connecting conversations: (1) family-focused question prompts, (2) scientist-focused question prompts (anti-questions), and (3) closed-ended question prompts. Our analysis illustrates that personallyrelevant family learning about science in their community is supported by conversational opportunities for families to make connections between science and their shared experiences. ARTICLE HISTORY