Children acquire knowledge about their world through interactions with adults such as parents (Vygotsky, 1978; Bruner, 1983). This may be especially true in scientific domains where such knowledge is often abstract or unobservable (Harris et al., 2006; Corriveau and Harris, 2014). In particular, parental talk about science promotes children’s own ability to talk and reason about scientific causal relations and mechanisms (Leinhardt and Crowley, 1998; Crowley et al., 2001a,b; Callanan et al., 2002; Jipson and Callanan, 2003; Canfield and Ganea, 2014). This study examines parent and child scientific discourse, and specifically whether differences exist between mothers’ and fathers’ use of questions about science. Below we highlight our rationale for focusing on questions within science conversations and potential differences between mothers and fathers before turning to our study design.

Parental questions, in particular wh-questions (e.g., why did that happen?), scaffold children’s development (Boland et al., 2003; Haden, 2010; Cristofaro and Tamis-LeMonda, 2012; Rowe et al., 2017). Compared to close-ended questions which can be answered with yes/no responses (e.g., is the light on?), wh-questions invite the child to continue the discussion and oftentimes engage in reasoning. Most studies have examined parental questions during book-reading and toy play (e.g., 3-bags task; Love et al., 2005) in relation to children’s language development. For example, parental wh-questions during contexts such as free play and reading are more likely to receive a child response than close-ended questions and are predictive of young children’s vocabulary development (Pancsofar and Vernon-Feagans, 2006; Pancsofar et al., 2010; Leech et al., 2013; Rowe et al., 2017).

In addition to language outcomes, there is accumulating evidence that wh-questions foster children’s conceptual and scientific knowledge. Ash (2004) documented the types of questions that move parent–child conversation toward a higher level of scientific understanding by qualitatively examining three families’ interactions at a science museum. Her findings suggest that questions that invite child explanations, are framed in an open-ended way, or build on prior conversations are most effective in promoting children’s scientific discourse. During science interactions, parent–child conversations containing wh-questions are longer and more sustained (Benjamin et al., 2010), relate to better child memory and recall of the scientific principles discussed while engaged in the exhibit (Hedrick et al., 2009; Benjamin et al., 2010; Haden et al., 2014), and increase child scientific discourse (Callanan et al., 2017; Eberbach and Crowley, 2017).

In the current manuscript, we add to this literature by exploring the relation between parents’ wh-questions and preschool children’s scientific discourse. We focus on children’s scientific discourse because prior research has indicated that children’s scientific explanations – specifically causal and mechanistic explanations – are related to children’s inductive inferences (Walker et al., 2014), generalizations (Legare and Lombrozo, 2014), and learning (Kurkul et al., 2021). Thus, it is important to explore how parental question-asking can prompt such science talk in young learners.

Our data were collected in a science museum which has several advantages including increasing access to both mothers and fathers. Traditionally, the literature on parent–child conversations has focused on children’s interactions with mothers, given their historical role as children’s primary caregiver. However, current demographic data in the United States indicate fathers play a considerably larger role in their children’s development than in previous generations (e.g., Cabrera et al., 2018). An examination of potential differences between mothers’ and fathers’ questions in science contexts is warranted because interactional differences have been found in non-science contexts. During book reading and toy play, fathers, on average, ask more wh-questions than mothers (Rondal, 1980; McLaughlin et al., 1983; O'Brien and Nagle, 1987; Leaper et al., 1998; Rowe et al., 2004, although see Tenenbaum and Leaper, 2003 and Pancsofar and Vernon-Feagans, 2006 for reverse patterns). We are not aware of direct comparisons of mothers versus fathers wh-questions in scientific contexts.

This study describes data on conversations in a museum between four- to six-year-old children and their father or mother. Unlike some museum research which focuses on large-group interactions (e.g., Diamond, 1986; Allen and Gutwill, 2009; Gutwill and Allen, 2010), or examines language at the level of the conversation (e.g., Crowley et al., 2001b; Pattison and Dierking, 2019), we coded and analyzed every verbal utterance within dyadic parent–child conversations. The first research question examined potential differences in the frequency of wh-questions between mothers and fathers. To our knowledge, no studies have examined differential rates of questioning between mothers and fathers in science contexts. We predicted that fathers would ask more wh-questions than mothers based on meta-analysis data showing that fathers ask more wh-questions than mothers in non-science contexts (Leaper et al., 1998). We also anticipated that interactional differences between mothers and fathers might not be limited to wh-questions, but to additional features of parental talk. Thus, we also examined possible differences in mothers’ and fathers’ use of close-ended questions and statements (i.e., non-questions).

The second research question examined the relation between parental questions and children’s scientific discourse. We predicted that children’s scientific discourse would be positively associated with parental wh-questions. Because underlying scientific mechanisms are often invisible, we argue that wh-questions may be a particularly effective strategy for fostering children’s scientific discourse. We also predicted that the frequency of parental wh-questions would be more strongly related to child scientific discourse than frequency of close-ended questions. Follow-up analyses examined whether these predictions were supported within both mother–child and father–child conversations.

In preliminary analyses, we explored child age and gender as potential covariates. Parents ask more questions to younger versus older children (Callanan et al., 2017), and talk more with “novices” versus “experts” (e.g., Palmquist and Crowley, 2007). Research indicates that the content of scientific conversations may also vary by child gender, for instance, explaining concepts more often to boys than girls (Crowley et al., 2001b) or using more challenging scientific language with adolescent boys (Tenenbaum and Leaper, 2003; Tenenbaum and May, 2014). Unfortunately, this study did not have adequate power to examine statistical interactions between child and parent gender, though we acknowledge this would be a fruitful topic for future research (see Crowley et al., 2001b).

This study examined children’s science conversations with parents, specifically focusing on question-answer exchanges. A main finding of this study was that parental wh-questions were positively associated with child scientific discourse, whereas close-ended questions were not. Importantly, these findings were qualified by interactions with parent gender: fathers asked significantly more wh-questions than mothers, and the positive relation between parental wh-questions and children’s scientific discourse was only found in interactions with fathers.

Our data indicated that children’s scientific discourse was positively associated with the rate of parent wh-questions (per minute), and children were significantly more likely to respond scientifically to a wh-question, as compared to a close-ended question. Why might a higher rate of wh-questions relate to more child scientific talk? Controlled experimental studies offer some clues. Consider the difference between the following two parent utterances taken from our corpus of parent–child conversations. These utterances convey the same content but differ in whether the utterance functions as a question (A) or statement (B).

Yu et al. (2018) propose that although both (A) and (B) transfer knowledge to the child, (B) would constrain a child’s potential exploration and subsequent discussion about the scientific phenomenon. On the other hand, (A) expands the potential space of exploration and discussion about balance and weight between the parent and child. We argue that wh-questions during informal learning activities bring forward two situations that are known to scaffold children’s science discourse: directing children’s attention to important features of the activity (e.g., balance, weight), and prompting children to think and speak within their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Thus, it is plausible that although children may not always respond immediately to a question such as (A), the wh-question may lead to a subsequent scientific utterance later in the conversation. This framework is also useful in explaining may why close-ended questions were not related to children’s scientific talk: close-ended questions likely constrain children’s exploration and scientific talk to a similar degree as Yu et al. (2018) found with statements such as (B).

Although other studies point to the importance of parental wh-questions for children’s learning (Benjamin et al., 2010; Haden et al., 2014; Callanan et al., 2017), this is the first study to directly compare children’s responses to wh-questions versus close-ended questions as they occur around a scientific activity. Haden (2010) has argued that it is not the frequency with which parents ask questions, the more important aspect is how these questions promote learning. Our data supports this argument: in our sample, close-ended questions (M = 3.10 questions per minute) were two times more frequent than wh-questions (M = 1.57 questions per minute), yet close-ended questions were not related to children’s scientific discourse. Differential relations between wh- and close-ended questions to children’s talk holds important implications for educators and parents regarding how to facilitate children’s engagement in informal, and perhaps formal, scientific contexts. For instance, an adult who asks only a few wh-questions may confer larger benefits for their child’s engagement and learning compared to an adult who asks many close-ended questions.

The second major finding of this study was that fathers asked significantly more wh-questions than mothers. Results were presented in the rate of utterances (per minute) in order to control for differences in the length of time spent engaged in the activity. These results indicate that the density of fathers’ wh-questions was greater than that of mothers’, and this difference was not explained by the fact that fathers spent more time with children on the balance scale activity and therefore had more opportunities to ask questions.

This work is both similar to and different from prior work on mother and father conversation in non-scientific settings. For example, our work is consistent with Leaper et al.’s (1998) meta-analysis, indicating that one of the largest differences between mother and father interactions is use of wh-questions. Further, differences between mothers and fathers seems to be isolated: we only found that the rate of wh-questions differed, not close-ended questions or statements. This is similar to findings from Rowe et al. (2004) showing that only wh-questions differed between mothers and fathers, not total questions (which included close-ended questions). In contrast, however, other studies report that mothers ask more close-ended questions than fathers (Leaper et al., 1998; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2012), which we did not observe in the current study.

These findings contribute to previous work showing that fathers’ wh-questions during book reading and toy play at home are related to various indices of language and cognitive development between 24- and 36-months (Leech et al., 2013; Rowe et al., 2017). Our study broadens our understanding of fathers’ challenging communicative style by showing these effects in other contexts such as the museum, with older children (i.e., 4- to 6-year-olds), and during interactions around scientific activities. Although parents in our sample were highly educated on average, previous work has found that fathers without a college degree also ask more wh-questions than mothers (Rowe et al., 2004). However, as questioning patterns vary by cultural context and reflect the broader socialization goals of that society (Schröder et al., 2013), it is important that generalizations of this study be limited to middle-class families in the United States.

Not only did fathers ask more wh-questions, but their wh-questions were more strongly associated with children’s scientific discourse. A post-hoc analysis offered one explanation for this finding: fathers’ wh-questions more often referenced scientific concepts, perhaps prompting children to engage in more scientific talk themselves. Of course, both speakers are co-constructing the conversation, and children are likely playing an important role in eliciting fathers’ questions. To that end, an additional explanation we did not explore in this paper is the contribution of children’s own interest and background knowledge of the topic. Children who demonstrate more interest in physical science may be initiating additional questions from parents, leading to extended back-and-forth conversation. Future research should explore the bi-directional associations between children’s science interest and parents’ language input. In addition, we did not explore the relation between scientific close-ended questions and children’s scientific discourse, as theory and empirical data point to open-ended questions as more strongly related to scientific discourse. Future studies may consider how the delivery of scientific information using close-ended questions or statements relate to children’s talk about science.

Fathers’ high rate of scientific wh-questions adds to previous findings that fathers tend to challenge children to converse and reason beyond their current ability level (Gleason, 1975). However, when looking more closely at the likelihood of a child response, fathers’ and mothers’ wh-questions were equally likely to elicit children’s scientific discourse. These results suggest that fathers’ and mothers’ questions are both an important element in supporting children’s scientific discourse, but that the frequency with which fathers engage in this conversational move is more frequent than mothers. Indeed, Benjamin et al. (2010) found no difference in the rate of father and mother wh-questions after an experimental manipulation that instructed parents to increase elaborative talk such as wh-questions. This suggests that interventions which focus on boosting wh-questions may be equally beneficial to both mothers and fathers.

Though we did not observe that mothers’ wh-questions related to child discourse, we must acknowledge other studies which have (e.g., Cristofaro and Tamis-LeMonda, 2012). One possibility beyond the scope of the present study is that mothers were using different conversational strategies than asking wh-questions while playing with the balance scale. For example, mothers have been found to engage in more supportive talk to children than fathers (Leaper et al., 1998). Thus, supportive talk may be positively influencing other aspects of the interaction, such as child interest or enjoyment, which were not measured outcomes in this study.

A limitation of this study is that the small sample size precluded us from potentially observing effects of both parent and child gender and their interactions. Although child gender was not significantly related to any parent or child conversational variables, it is possible that a larger sample size would have had the power to detect such effects. Furthermore, parent gender effects should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size. Future work with larger samples should seek to replicate these findings as additional evidence of differences in maternal and paternal discourse patterns. A second limitation is that the current sample included a relatively small number of mother-son dyads. This was not by choice but reflected a recruitment decision to invite participation from any parent–child dyad visiting the museum who fell into the study age range. The unique and combined effects of parent and child gender are interesting and important and would be well-suited for a more controlled study outside of the museum where both parent and child gender are equally distributed.

An interesting direction for future research concerns whether the patterns of conversation around the balance scale—a physical science activity—would replicate in contexts that expose children to other scientific domains. There is evidence from the literature that conversational content varies based on the scientific domain of the activity: dyadic math and engineering talk is more common in science museum exhibits that focus on building, whereas biological science talk occurs frequently in settings such as aquaria and live animal exhibits (Rowe and Kisiel, 2012; Marcus et al., 2017; Kelly et al., 2022). Parent–child conversations in biological exhibits such as aquaria provide opportunities that the balance scale activity does not afford, such as talk about the life cycle and biological processes (Kelly et al., 2022). Touching and observing live animals in biological exhibits may also lead to opportunities for additional language interactions, such as comparing and contrasting and highlighting discrepancies (Rowe and Kisiel, 2012). However, there are likely conversational features that are common to all contexts, such as questions from parents, hypothesis testing, and a focus on general problem solving. Thus, future research should examine whether differences between mothers’ and fathers’ questioning patterns extend beyond the physical domain.

In summary, this study adds to existing evidence that parental wh-questions support children’s participation in science conversations. We extend this work by showing that fathers, on average, asked more questions, which are associated with more scientific discourse from children. Fathers’ strengths can serve as a unique and additive role to mothers in supporting children’s developing conceptions about science.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Boston University IRB. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

KC and IC-C conceptualized the study design. IC-C, JA, and KL collected and coded the data. KL drafted the manuscript. KC, IC-C, and JA provided critical revisions. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This work was funded by NSF Grants #1652224 and #1640816 to KC.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.