Young children develop causal knowledge through everyday family conversations and activities. Children's museums are an informative setting for studying the social context of causal learning because family members engage together in everyday scientific thinking as they play in museums. In this multisite collaborative project, we investigate children's developing causal thinking in the context of family interaction at museum exhibits. We focus on explaining and exploring as two fundamental collaborative processes in parent–child interaction, investigating how families explain and explore in open‐ended collaboration at gear exhibits in three children's museums in Providence, RI, San Jose, CA, and Austin, TX. Our main research questions examined (a) how open‐ended family exploration and explanation relate to one another to form a dynamic for children's learning; (b) how that dynamic differs for families using different interaction styles, and relates to contextual factors such as families' science background, and (c) how that dynamic predicts children's independent causal thinking when given more structured tasks. We summarize findings on exploring, explaining, and parent–child interaction (PCI) styles. We then present findings on how these measures related to one another, and finally how that dynamic predicts children's causal thinking. In studying children's exploring we described two types of behaviors of importance for causal thinking: (a) Systematic Exploration: Connecting gears to form a gear machine followed by spinning the gear machine. (b) Resolute Behavior: Problem‐solving behaviors, in which children attempted to connect or spin a particular set of gears, hit an obstacle, and then persisted to succeed (as opposed to moving on to another behavior). Older children engaged in both behaviors more than younger children, and the proportion of these behaviors were correlated with one another. Parents and children talked to each other while interacting with the exhibits. We coded causal language, as well as other types of utterances. Parents' causal language predicted children's causal language, independent of age. The proportion of parents' causal language also predicted the proportion of children's systematic exploration. Resolute behavior on the part of children did not correlate with parents' causal language, but did correlate with children's own talk about actions and the exhibit. We next considered who set goals for the play in a more holistic measure of parent–child interaction style, identifying dyads as parent‐directed, child‐directed, or jointly‐directed in their interaction with one another. Children in different parent–child interaction styles engaged in different amounts of systematic exploration and had parents who engaged in different amounts of causal language. Resolute behavior and the language related to children engaging in such troubleshooting, seemed more consistent across the three parent–child interaction styles. Using general linear mixed modeling, we considered relations within s...
No abstract
This article introduces the special issue of the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law on contact disputes and allegations of domestic abuse. It first describes the aims and findings of the International Symposium on Contact Disputes and Allegations of Domestic Violence-Identifying Best Practices at which the papers in the special issue were originally presented. It then outlines the position in England and Wales regarding allegations of domestic abuse in child arrangements cases, highlighting the difference between the 'law in the books' and the 'law in action'. Thirdly, it discusses the research evidence on another prominent international approach to domestic abuse allegationslegislative presumptions against custody or unsupervised visitation/contact for abusive parents. The experience of presumptions in the USA and New Zealand suggests that a similar gap between 'law in the books' and 'law in action' exists, together with potential problems of legislative drafting. Finally, the article outlines the contributions of the other papers in the special issue to our understanding of international approaches to ensuring safety for children and resident parents in family proceedings where allegations of domestic abuse are raised.
Prior to the loss of legal aid for many litigants in private law Children Act proceedings occasioned by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, family lawyers were observed to pressurise victims of domestic violence to agree to unsafe contact orders. Drawing on Luhmann's theory of autopoietic social systems, this article suggests that, since April 2013, family lawyers have been repositioned as the champions of victims of domestic violence, and considers what this tells us about the way in which family law is observed to operate without lawyers in many cases. It suggests that the problems that LIPs create for the orderly running of proceedings and the continued operations of the legal system have led to a perceived crisis for justice, but that family law is likely to survive without lawyers in many cases, although little change can be observed in the substantive law.
Fact-finding hearings may be held to determine disputed allegations of domestic violence in child contact cases in England and Wales, and can play a vital role for mothers seeking protection and autonomy from violent fathers. Drawing on the author's empirical study, this article examines the implications for the holding of fact-finding hearings of judges' and professionals' understandings of domestic violence and the extent to which they perceive it to be relevant to contact. While more judges and professionals are developing their understanding of domestic violence, the ambit of when and how it is considered relevant to contact has grown increasingly narrow, which suggests that many disputed allegations of domestic violence are disregarded and women and children continue to be put at risk from violent fathers. This bifurcated approach is likely to have significant implications for recent developments in this area of family law which are considered in this article.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.