Parental Socialization and Children’s Engagement in Math, Science, and Computer Activities Sandra D. Simpkins W. Todd Bartko Jacquelynne S. Eccles University of Michigan This research was funded by Grant HD17553 from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development and Grant from the National Science Foundation to Jacquelynne Eccles and Pamela Davis-Kean.

Parental Socialization  Parental Modeling is correlated with –Involvement in sports and computer activities  Parental Encouragement is associated with –Involvement in sports and math activities –Confidence and interest in computer, sports, and math activities  Parent-Child Coactivity is linked with –Computer knowledge –Reading achievement –Knowledge, competence, and involvement in sports activities

Gender Differences  Children’s after-school activity engagement –Boys are more likely than girls to engage in  Computer activities  Math activities  Science fairs and other science-related activities  Parental Socialization –Parent Encouragement  No gender differences in computer activities  Mixed results concerning math and science activities –Parent-child Coactivity  More explanation about science museum exhibits to boys  More parent-son computer coactivity

Eccles’ Expectancy-Value Model Parent & Family Characteristics Education Family Income Child Characteristics Sex Age Aptitudes Parental Socialization Coactivity Encouragement Modeling Child Activity Engagement

Goals of the Study  To test the role of parents in socializing their children’s involvement in out of school math, science, and computer activities  To test the role of parents in socializing any gender differences in these activities

Childhood and Beyond Study  Children –125 2 nd grade children  mean age of 8.20 years, SD =.44 –123 3 rd grade children  mean age of 9.24 years, SD =.43 –200 5 th grade children  mean age of years, SD =.37  448 Families –Mostly European-American and spoke English –40% of mothers & 54% of fathers earned a degree from a 4-year college. –Median annual household income: $60,000 - $70,000

Measures: Children’s Activities  Child report –How often they  Used a computer outside of school  Engaged in math activities  Engaged in science activities  Scale: 0 = never, 6 = almost every day for a lot of time  Parent report –In the last week, how much did their child  Engaged in math and science activities for pleasure  Use the microcomputer for activities other than action video games  Scale: 1 = 0 hours, 9 = hours, 12 = over 25 hours

Measures: Parent Socialization  Parent encouragement –How much they generally encouraged their child to  Work on or play with a computer outside of school  Do math-related (e.g., math-oriented games such as mastermind) or science-related (e.g., chemistry sets) activities at home  Scale: 1 = strongly discourage, 7 = strongly encourage  Parent-child coactivity –Generally, how often did they  Work with their child on the computer  Engage in math or science activities with their child  Scale: 1 = never, 3 = 2-3 times a month, 7 = every day for 30 minutes or more  Parent modeling –In the last week, how much time they spent on  Math- and science-related activities  A microcomputer for activities other than action video games  Scale: 1 = 0 hours, 6 = hours, 8 = more than 20 hours

Measures: Parent & Child Characteristics  Parent education –Highest level of education across each mother- father dyad  Family annual income  Digit Span –Assess children’s mathematics aptitudes  Stevenson & Newman, 1986  Includes 12 sets of whole numbers

Gender Differences  Children’s Activity Engagement –No significant gender difference for math and science activities –Boys used computers more often than girls, F (3, 239) = 3.21, p <.05  Parental Socialization –No significant gender differences

Bivariate Correlations: Computer Use Variable Children’s engagement 1. Child report 2. Maternal report.40 *** 3. Paternal report.32 ***.51 *** Encouragement 4. Maternal.26 ***.38 *** 5. Paternal.32 ***.40 ***.41 ***.42 *** Co-activity 6. Maternal.26 ***.50 ***.41 ***.38 ***.40 *** 7. Paternal.30 ***.40 ***.51 ***.41 ***.49 ***.46 *** Modeling 8. Maternal.17 ***.23 ***.13 *.24 ***.13 *.34 ***.15 * 9. Paternal.21 ***.17 **.19 ***.25 ***.27 ***.23 ***.38 ***.09 *p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001.

Bivariate Correlations: Math & Science Variable Children’s engagement 1. Child report 2. Maternal report.14 ** 3. Paternal report *** Encouragement 4. Maternal.10 *.42 ***.27 *** 5. Paternal ***.33 ***.31 *** Co-activity 6. Maternal ***.21 ***.29 *** Paternal **.22 ***.18 ** Modeling 8. Maternal *** ** ** Paternal *** *** ***.08 *p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001.

Predicting Children’s Activity Engagement Maternal coactivity Paternal coactivity Maternal modeling Paternal modeling Maternal encouragement Paternal encouragement Paternal-report of child engagement Maternal-report of child engagement Child-report of child engagement Child grade Child gender Parent education Family income Parent Socialization Child aptitude

Computer Use Maternal coactivity Paternal coactivity Maternal modeling Paternal modeling Maternal encouragement Paternal encouragement Paternal-reported computer use R 2 =.43 Maternal-reported computer use R 2 =.50 Child-reported computer use R 2 =.27 Child grade Child gender Parent education Family income Parent Socialization R 2 = ***. 36 ***.11 *.10 *. 65 ***. 48 ***.69 ***.37 ***. 62 ***.57 ***. 71 ***. 67 ***. 39 ***.08 *. 15 *** Child aptitude X 2 (58) = , p <.001, TLI =.98, CFI =.99, RMSEA = ***

Math and Science Maternal coactivity Paternal coactivity Maternal modeling Paternal modeling Maternal encouragement Paternal encouragement Paternal-reported math & science R 2 =.34 Maternal-reported math & science R 2 =.44 Child-reported math & science R 2 =.07 Child grade Child gender Parent education Family income Parent Socialization R 2 = ***. 36 ***.11 *.10 *. 58 ***. 12 *.65 ***.24 ***. 47 ***.62 ***. 22 ***. 41 ***. 14 * 23 *. 19 * Child aptitude X 2 (58) = , p <.001, TLI =.98, CFI =.99, RMSEA =.05

Conclusions  Synergistic combination of socialization methods  Utility of parental modeling  Computer vs. math and science activities  Few gender differences in parental socialization or children’s activities