Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

As digital transformation reshapes early childhood education, Science Discovery Children’s Museums (SDCMs) emerge as uniquely positioned spaces to foster rich, multimodal learning environments that extend early literacy learning beyond the museum walls through family engagement. This paper presents a case study of an 8-week transmedia program co-designed with an Australian SDCM to foster young children’s multimodal literacy development through STEM-based family interactions across physical and digital contexts. The entry-level transmedia approach layered curated digital content and home-based activities onto an existing STEM exhibition, combining online activities, hands-on problem-solving, and museum visits. A total of 76 families, including 85 children aged five to nine, participated. Data sources included individual semi-structured interviews with 20 children and 16 adults from 15 families, along with 12 SDCM staff involved in program development and implementation, as well as digital platform analytics and social media interactions. Four narrative vignettes illustrate outcomes. Through analysis, themes were constructed to illustrate how children applied literacy practices across modalities such as gesture, image, text, speech, and material exploration, supported by parental scaffolding and collaborative reflection. The program fostered multimodal literacy development, intergenerational learning, and sustained engagement through STEM contexts. Framed within a multimodal view of literacy, computational thinking was conceptualised as a literacy practice involving the purposeful use of symbolic systems to make meaning, solve problems, communicate ideas, and construct knowledge. Children demonstrated computational thinking as a literacy practice through decomposition, pattern recognition, and algorithmic reasoning while developing scientific identities through playful inquiry. Parents became co-learners, creating reciprocal exchanges that strengthened family connections. Findings position SDCMs as transformative early childhood literacy learning environments and offer practical strategies for equitable, accessible digital engagement. This study contributes to understanding literacy as a socially situated, multimodal practice and provides a replicable, resource-efficient approach for cultural institutions seeking to extend multimodal literacy learning beyond physical boundaries.

Keywords

early childhood literacy family engagement multimodal literacy transmedia learning museum education computational thinking digital equity informal learning

Introduction

This study investigates how transmedia approaches in Science Discovery Children’s Museums (SDCMs) can foster young children’s multimodal literacy through STEM-based family participation. SDCMs provide hands-on environments where children engage through movement, exploration, and sensory experiences (Flewitt 2005; Haywood et al., 2023). Within the context of these informal learning environments, a transmedia approach links home-based activities directly to exhibitions, supports testing and iteration during museum visits, and reinforces learning through subsequent home-based activities. This blending of exhibits, digital media, and online sharing positions SDCMs as ideal contexts for transmedia learning (Fleming 2013; Herr-Stephenson et al., 2013; Sánchez-Caballé and González-Martínez 2023; Yates et al., 2022). Transmedia learning refers to educational experiences unfolding across multiple media platforms, with each medium adding unique elements that extend the learning narrative. In the SDCM context, museum exhibits and digital media are coordinated to support engagement in STEM and multimodal literacy, with computational thinking intentionally embedded as part of the program design. Digital prompts, making activities, and social sharing created a dynamic literacy cycle embedding STEM concepts in everyday problem-solving (Huang et al., 2024; Takeuchi and Stevens 2011). Multimodal literacy in this context extends beyond written text to include gesture, image, speech, and material exploration (Djonov et al., 2021).

Despite this potential, most research on transmedia learning focuses on older learners, with a recent review identifying only two early childhood studies out of 24 (Sánchez-Caballé and González-Martínez 2023). The field remains largely theoretical, with little empirical evidence linking literacy and computational thinking in informal early childhood learning or demonstrating how museum and home activities connect in a cyclical process of engagement. This is despite calls to integrate these rather than teach them separately (Li et al., 2024a; Yadav et al., 2017) and the need for evidence-based models to guide post-digital transformation in informal learning (Giannini and Bowen 2019; Li et al., 2024b). To address these gaps, the research examined a co-designed transmedia program at an Australian SDCM that supported multimodal literacy in children aged five to nine. The 8-week program fostered scaffolded, intergenerational engagement across physical and digital contexts. Families used online Activity Pages, completed hands-on tasks, and participated in STEM-based challenges that created a cohesive learning journey. Findings are presented through four narrative vignettes showing how the program supported multimodal literacy through narrative-based challenges, collaborative meaning-making, and problem-solving across home and museum settings. The conclusion considers implications for SDCMs as transformative literacy spaces and offers practical insights for leveraging STEM contexts to advance transmedia learning in early childhood education.

Theoretical framework

Multimodal literacy and transmedia learning

This study positions children’s multimodal literacy as a form of cultural-historical activity (Engeström and Sannino 2010) in which children, families, and museum resources form an interconnected activity system that generates new multimodal literacy practices. Literacy practices are understood as socially situated ways of making meaning using diverse semiotic resources (Djonov et al., 2021; Jusslin et al., 2020; Serafini and Reid 2023), with multimodal literacy encompassing communication beyond written text to include image, movement, spatial navigation, and digital interaction (Deroo and Galante 2022; Djonov et al., 2021; Hackett 2014; Jewitt 2008; Jewitt and Kress 2003; Kress 2010; Walsh 2010; Woodard et al., 2024). In early childhood, this approach is significant because children naturally draw on diverse resources before conventional literacy skills are established (Kress 2010). It is dynamic and contextual, embedded in everyday activity across home and informal learning environments (Hull and Katz 2006; Meyers et al., 2013; Papadopoulou et al., 2023). STEM learning particularly engages these modes, as verbal, visual, mathematical, and embodied representations each offer distinct affordances for understanding complex ideas (Tang and Tan 2016). These modes are especially relevant in SDCMs, where learning occurs through physical exhibits, digital content, and interactive activities (Crowley et al., 2014; Pierroux et al., 2022; Yates et al., 2022). Children actively construct meaning through embodied, multimodal engagement, strengthened by social interaction with peers and adults (Falk and Dierking 2013; Flewitt et al., 2023; Hackett 2014; Kress 2010; Pierroux et al., 2022; Yates et al., 2022; Young et al., 2022). Multisensory, dialogic exploration further enhances engagement in STEM museum contexts (Flewitt et al., 2023).

Within such contexts, children adapt modes such as gesture, image, and text to reflect their interests (Djonov et al., 2021; Flewitt et al., 2023; Kress 2010). This capacity underlines the relevance of multimodal literacy theory for understanding transmedia learning (Sánchez-Caballé and González-Martínez 2023). Meaning emerges through the interplay of multiple modes, particularly in digital environments where they intersect with physical and social elements (Jewitt 2008; Kress 2010; Pierroux et al., 2022). Transmedia approaches integrate these media and settings, connecting digital, physical, and social experiences in informal environments (Djonov et al., 2021; Sánchez-Caballé and González-Martínez 2023). Unlike single-medium approaches, transmedia designs encourage movement between physical and digital spaces, with children hunting, gathering, and interpreting information across platforms (Jenkins 2010). In practice, this spans multiple platforms, each contributing uniquely to a broader narrative (Jenkins 2006; Sánchez-Caballé and González-Martínez 2023).

Intergenerational learning and collaborative meaning

This form of embodied engagement reflects the social dimension of multimodal literacy. It is grounded in Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development. In transmedia environments, parental scaffolding supports children’s engagement with complex ideas across multiple modes (Callanan et al., 2020; Marsh et al., 2015; Price et al., 2022). Family learning becomes a multidirectional exchange. Adults and children co-construct understanding through shared activity (Franse et al., 2020; Taylor and Kervin 2022). Gutiérrez’s (2008) notion of third spaces captures the convergence of diverse knowledge systems. This concept disrupts traditional hierarchies of expertise as children’s digital fluency complements adults’ contextual and experiential knowledge.

Computational thinking as a literacy practice

Building on socially situated, multimodal practices, computational thinking (CT) functions as a literacy practice for meaning-making across contexts. In this study, meaning-making refers to children’s capacity to interpret, express, and construct understanding through the orchestration of varied semiotic resources, including language, image, gesture, sound, and spatial arrangement (Kress 2010). From this perspective, literacy extends beyond print to encompass how children purposefully use these resources to communicate, solve problems, and make sense of their experiences in diverse environments. CT aligns with this understanding as a structured approach to meaning-making in digital, multimodal contexts. Originally described by Wing (2006) as a set of problem-solving strategies in computer science, CT includes practices such as decomposition, abstraction, pattern recognition, and algorithmic reasoning. These strategies support children’s engagement with multimodal texts by helping them parse information, identify key ideas, recognise recurring motifs, and organise their responses across platforms. Brennan and Resnick (2012) describe CT as a means of structuring knowledge, which complements the interpretive and compositional demands of multimodal literacy. In Science Discovery Children’s Museums, children enact CT as they engage with interactive exhibits that require the coordinated use of visual, spatial, linguistic, and material modes. Adult scaffolding supports these engagements in collaborative learning spaces, allowing children to experiment, reflect, and build understanding through both narrative and problem-solving processes (Jenkins 2006; Kesselheim and Brandenberger 2021). Together, these perspectives position children as active meaning-makers who integrate semiotic and computational resources to support scientific reasoning, inquiry, and communication.

Literature review

Experiential foundations and long-term impact in informal contexts

Experiential learning theory provides the foundational framework for understanding transmedia approaches in museum settings. Dewey’s (1963) principle that meaning emerges through cumulative experiences directly supports transmedia designs that link physical and digital engagement. Falk and Dierking’s (2013) Contextual Model advances this understanding by demonstrating how personal, sociocultural, and physical contexts interact to support meaning-making. Active engagement produces a richer understanding than passive observation. Recent empirical work confirms that children’s physical interaction with exhibits improves knowledge transfer across settings (Andre et al., 2017; Callanan et al., 2020). Taylor and Kervin (2022) found that play-based SDCM experiences foster multimodal literacy through verbal, visual, and embodied resources. Their work extends earlier studies by Crowley and Jacobs (2002) and Barron (2006), which demonstrated that deep topic knowledge develops through sustained engagement with personal interests across multiple contexts. However, experiential learning alone is insufficient without considering its social dimensions.

Social interaction is central to meaning-making in museums, which excel as intergenerational learning environments where adults and children co-construct meaning through shared exploration (Falk and Dierking 2013; Pierroux et al., 2022). Compelling museum experiences depend on both individual exhibit interaction and the quality of social meaning-making processes that extend beyond the visit, with recent research highlighting the importance of scaffolded museum interactions. McHugh et al. (2024) found that structured exhibits support parents in initiating explanatory conversations, encouraging deeper engagement and shared meaning-making between adults and children. Their findings align with Callanan et al. (2020), who showed that guided parent-child exploration enhances engagement during museum visits. However, as Drageset et al. (2025) demonstrated, such benefits depend on visitor preparedness, with pre-visit experiences helping families reduce anxiety and prepare expectations. Together, these studies indicate the need for coordinated support across pre-visit preparation and exhibit design to optimise family learning outcomes.

While these scaffolded interactions show promise, their benefits extend unevenly across populations. Marcus et al. (2023) demonstrated that families using museum resources at home sustained scientific interest and conversations post-visit, illustrating learning’s potential continuity across settings, a finding consistent with earlier work by Zimmerman et al. (2015) on how context-sensitive supports can extend situational interest in informal science learning. However, Matthews et al. (2024) caution that extended learning opportunities often privilege families with higher education, digital access, and science familiarity, perpetuating rather than reducing inequities. The tension between learning potential and access barriers underscores the importance of inclusive design strategies. In this program, deliberate accessibility choices, such as leveraging familiar exhibitions and offering multiple engagement pathways, aimed to address traditional barriers to extended museum learning and enabled participation across diverse literacy levels and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Transmedia learning and early childhood education

Transmedia approaches in SDCMs can shift learners from passive recipients to active meaning-makers, navigating interconnected platforms that disrupt linear pedagogical models, opening personalised pathways for sustained engagement (Jenkins et al., 2009; Meyerhofer-Parra and González-Martínez 2023). For example, flexible points of entry and opportunities for multimodal authoring enable even preschoolers to engage deeply with coherent narratives. They can develop critical literacy through remixing cultural resources and socially negotiated meaning-making within SDCMs exhibitions and across their linked digital spaces (Djonov et al., 2021; Potter and Cowan 2020; Yates and Szenasi 2022). Connecting on-site experiences with digital platforms beyond the SDCM visit can extend multimodal literacy development and support identity-building around personal interests, including STEM (Bell et al., 2009; Mateos-Rusillo and Gifreu-Castells 2018), with digital sharing strengthening these identities through community recognition (Hancox 2017). By leveraging these potentials, transmedia engages learners in navigating and integrating multiple modes such as text, image, gesture, and video, fostering multimodal literacy and inquiry (Djonov et al., 2021; Hovious et al., 2021; Jenkins 2006; Kress 2010). Research indicates that such approaches enhance engagement and knowledge transfer in informal contexts (Scolari et al., 2020; Meyerhofer-Parra and González-Martínez 2023). However, inclusive design remains essential as access depends on digital fluency and cultural familiarity (Matthews et al., 2024; Sánchez-Caballé and González-Martínez 2023).

Science discovery children’s museums and computational thinking

SDCMs provide opportunities for young children to engage with foundational CT practices (Andre et al., 2017; Kotsopoulos et al., 2022; Pierroux et al., 2022; Rennie and Williams, 2006; Yun et al., 2020). In these environments, children encounter scientific and computational ideas multimodally, using gesture and movement to explore concepts (Hackett 2014; Kress 2010; Piscitelli 2001). Such embodied approaches align with research on meaning-making through multimodal interaction (Djonov et al., 2021; Hovious et al., 2021). Extending this perspective, Kotsopoulos et al. (2022) and Saxena et al. (2020) found that young children can explore CT concepts through open-ended, hands-on activities, particularly when narrative-driven exhibits encourage family co-engagement. For example, tangible programming exhibits can make abstract CT ideas more accessible (Horn et al., 2008), and parents can support this learning by linking these ideas to everyday experiences (Yun et al., 2020). In this way, CT emerges as a form of meaning-making in which children use literacy practices such as pattern recognition, sequencing, and abstraction across physical and digital environments, strengthening digital literacies and family connections through collaborative inquiry.

Parent-child interactions and digital meaning-making

Parent-child interactions are central to children’s museum engagement and meaning-making. Studies consistently show that children exploring exhibits with parents engage more deeply and receive richer scientific explanations than those exploring alone (Callanan et al., 2020, Haden et al., 2014; McHugh et al., 2024). Through multimodal literacy practices involving visual cues, gestures and verbal elaboration, parents highlight key features, connect experiences to prior knowledge, and co-construct explanations (Crowley et al., 2001; Serafini and Reid 2023). Such scaffolding is not static but adaptively responsive to children’s needs, with parents shifting between direct instruction and guided discovery, tailoring their support to children’s emerging ideas. This adaptive support reflects the socially situated nature of literacy practices in informal learning environments (Callanan et al., 2020; Degotardi et al., 2019; Franse et al., 2020; Marcus et al., 2021; Pierroux et al., 2022). Digital sharing extends these practices beyond museum visits through sophisticated multimodal literacies. Drawing on established patterns of digital storytelling and memory-making (Ocular et al., 2022), families use digital platforms to sustain learning by recording and sharing experiences that support memory, prompt intergenerational discussion, and foster identity formation (Kim and Li 2021; Lazard 2022). They actively recontextualise museum experiences across modes and settings into new communicative forms (Lim 2018). Consistent with Gutiérrez’s (2008) third space concept outlined earlier, these interactions reveal digital literacy as fundamentally relational, unfolding across time, settings, and platforms, and illustrating how diverse knowledge systems converge in joint STEM exploration.

Participatory co-design in museum-based transmedia programs

Participatory co-design fosters transmedia program development by involving stakeholders in shaping educational content. This approach proves particularly valuable for museum settings, where diverse audiences require varied engagement strategies (Schuler and Namioka 1993). Defined as collective creativity applied across the entire design process (Sanders and Stappers 2008) and adaptable to multiple contexts (Simonsen and Robertson 2021), co-design in transmedia aligns storytelling, visitor experience, and educational intent. It does so through a collaborative process in which stakeholders contribute their skills and lived experiences to co-create the program (Aksela 2019; Ko and Chou 2012). Wakkary (2007) demonstrates how participatory processes enable staff to contribute institutional knowledge while also facilitating exploration, discovery, and prototyping with visitors (Stuedahl et al., 2021). This aligns with Science Discovery Centres’ emphasis on active engagement through visitor participation and co-creation, aimed at building stronger connections with audiences, ensuring programming reflects visitor needs, and increasing the likelihood of sustained engagement.

Research context and methods

Research approach

This study investigates how children’s multimodal literacy practices develop through transmedia experiences that intentionally connect SDCM visits with home-based learning through STEM-focused family interactions. Set within an 8-week co-designed program at an Australian SDCM, the research examines how children aged five to nine, alongside their significant adults, engaged with STEM concepts and literacy practices across physical and digital contexts. Grounded in an interpretivist paradigm and constructivist epistemology, this study recognises children as active meaning-makers who construct knowledge using diverse semiotic resources (James and Prout 1997). A single-case study design enabled detailed observation of evolving literacy practices as families engaged with transmedia activities across home and museum settings (Stake 1995). Ethics approval was granted (HRE2024-0040), with informed consent obtained from all adults and age-appropriate assent from children using visual aids (Powell et al., 2016). All data were anonymised.

Program context

The transmedia program, Super-Human Potential, extended the SDCM’s existing Human Potential STEM exhibition through collaborative design with the museum’s creative team. The program layered digital content and home-based activities onto existing exhibits, creating a low-resource, entry-level transmedia approach that addressed typical resource constraints while delivering robust educational experiences. This was achieved by curating content from the SDCM’s archives and selected external media rather than developing entirely new elements. The program was designed as a cyclical process linking home activities to specific museum exhibitions, followed by museum visits for testing and iteration, then returning to home-based activities that extended and reinforced prior learning. This design sustained engagement and supported deeper multimodal literacy development. Weekly activities alternated between online engagement and physical museum visits, with CT elements embedded to enhance problem-solving and extend multimodal literacy beyond the exhibition’s physical boundaries. The 8-week duration was selected to balance sustained engagement with family accessibility, allowing time for skill development and reflection while avoiding fatigue typically associated with longer programs. Table 1 outlines the weekly structure, STEM focus, and CT elements embedded in each activity.

Table 1.

Eight-week ‘Super-Human Potential’ transmedia program: Home activities, STEM concepts, and exhibit links.

Week	Activity focus	STEM concept	Home-based activities	Computational thinking element^a	Museum connection
1	Wind turbine	Aerodynamics, thrust, drag, wind energy	Paper aeroplanes and seed spinners	Decomposition (breaking down flight); pattern recognition (wing designs)	Wind tunnel exhibit
2	Exoskeleton	Biomechanics, protection, structural resilience	Water balloon protection using household materials	Abstraction (identifying core protective features)	Exoskeleton exhibit
3	Racetrack	Athletic movement, animal locomotion, biomechanics	Tool design for everyday tasks	Pattern recognition (biomechanical concepts)	Racetrack exhibit
4	Camouflage part 1	Biological adaptations, pattern matching	Object camouflage (pencils, small items)	Pattern recognition (effective strategies)	Green screen technology exhibit
5–7	Museum visits	Cross-platform integration	Testing home-made items at exhibits	Application and iteration	All corresponding exhibits
8	Camouflage part 2	Advanced biological adaptations	Self-camouflage in real environments	Pattern recognition; synthesis and reflection	Green screen technology exhibit

^a“Computational thinking element” refers to the primary computational thinking processes embedded in each activity.

Each Activity Page was co-developed with science communicators and included STEM narratives, curated media from YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, podcasts and animated GIFs, activity instruction videos (including adult explainer videos providing scaffolding strategies), and CT challenges. The Activity Pages were intentionally designed to be age-appropriate multimodal texts for children aged five to nine, featuring large fonts, vivid imagery, and inclusive language to support both independent and family-assisted engagement. Each week’s learning sequence began with a narrative contextualising the STEM concept, followed by curated content that required children to synthesise meaning across platforms (Fleming 2013). Content was primarily curated from the SDCM’s archives and social media platforms, with new content developed only when necessary to complete each week’s STEM narrative. Adult Explainer videos supported both child learning and adult learning by providing background science and scaffolding strategies without giving direct instructions, preserving children’s agency while strengthening adults’ confidence in facilitating STEM engagement.

As part of the program structure, museum visits toward the end of the sequence were designed to bridge digital and physical literacy practices by encouraging participants to physically engage with the Human Potential exhibits. These visits enabled further STEM learning on each topic, extending prior digital exploration, and provided opportunities to test activities and challenges from the online program. For example, the Wind Tunnel exhibit allowed participants to test and iterate their paper planes from home-based activities, creating multimodal literacy experiences that connected digital learning, physical making, and embodied experimentation.

The collaborative development process drew on participatory co-design principles (Sanders and Stappers 2008; Wakkary 2007). The researcher provided transmedia learning theory and program structure, while museum staff contributed expertise in exhibit affordances, visitor behaviour, and institutional constraints. Design decisions emerged through collaborative dialogue rather than researcher-led consultation, with the creative team co-developing Activity Page layouts, website elements, and visual design. This participatory approach, aligning storytelling, visitor experience, and educational intent, ensured that the program reflected visitor needs, strengthened connections with audiences, and increased the likelihood of sustained engagement while maintaining theoretical rigour. To support and sustain this engagement in practice, the program employed a timed weekly release strategy supported by SMS and email prompts, creating a predictable framework for families to navigate. Social sharing prompts encouraged participants to document and share experiences in a moderated Facebook group, fostering a broader community of practice and enabling multidirectional engagement between home and museum settings throughout the 8-week sequence.

Participants

A total of 76 families, including 85 children, were recruited from the SDCM’s member base. Following program completion, 15 families were selected for interviews through a multi-stage process based on demonstrated program engagement, evidenced through Activity Page completion and Facebook group participation. Final participation was voluntary, with families self-selecting into the interview process. Of the 20 child participants interviewed, most were aged five to eight, with two aged nine.

Data collection

A multi-method approach captured participants’ experiences through semi-structured interviews conducted after the program as the primary data source. These included individual semi-structured interviews with 20 children and 16 adults from 15 families, along with 12 SDCM staff involved in the program’s development and implementation. Visual prompts from the program enhanced children’s recall and sustained engagement, with parents present but intervening only when needed to keep children’s voices central. Interview data were complemented by digital platform engagement analytics and qualitative Facebook group content, including posts, images, and comments. This triangulated data set (Flick 2018) supported a nuanced understanding of how literacy practices developed through family interaction and informal learning.

Analysis and narrative vignettes

Reflexive Thematic Analysis was employed, recognising that themes are constructed through iterative and interpretive engagement with the data (Braun and Clarke 2006, 2019). The process involved repeated readings of interviews and social media content, followed by initial coding and refinement into themes representing children’s literacy practices. Braun and Clarke’s (2019) guidance on reflexive thematic analysis informed both the decision to conclude data collection, once the research team determined that the interviews provided sufficient depth and richness to address the research questions, and the subsequent coding and theme development process. Shreya’s vignette illustrates how individual cases informed broader themes. Her biochemistry background shaped a hypothesis-driven approach to the exoskeleton activities with her children, which was initially coded under “guided activities” and later refined into the broader theme of “scaffolded scientific inquiry.” The iterative coding process progressed from identifying multimodal moments in which children engaged across visual, gestural, spatial, verbal, and digital modes to developing broader themes that captured how these practices supported STEM learning and family engagement.

Narrative vignettes effectively captured the complexity of participants’ experiences (Richardson and St Pierre 2005), highlighting emotional, embodied, and ethical dimensions often overlooked in conventional analysis (Ellis and Bochner 2000). Four vignettes, drawn from interviews and social media data, each focused on a single family while reflecting broader engagement patterns. Grounded in participant accounts, dialogue and descriptions were synthesised to illustrate recurring dynamics while preserving the integrity of the families’ experiences (Ely et al., 1997). Elements of dialogic narrative methods were incorporated to deepen the analysis of meaning-making (Frank 2010; Riessman 2008), focusing on how children and adults co-constructed meaning and responded to transmedia narratives. The integration of narrative vignettes with reflexive thematic analysis represents a significant methodological contribution to transmedia research, where traditional analysis methods often struggle to capture the dynamic, cross-platform nature of learning experiences (Braun and Clarke 2019, 2021; Jenkins 2006; Johnston et al., 2021; Scolari 2013).

Findings

The findings explore how the transmedia program fostered literacy practices that extended across contexts, platforms, and relationships. These are presented through four narrative vignettes illustrating key themes identified via dialogic narrative analysis of interviews with children and their significant adults, supported by Facebook group data. Dialogue within the vignettes has been edited for clarity while preserving the intended meanings and intentions expressed in the original transcripts.

Vignette 1: Family togetherness: Scaffolded scientific inquiry

Gyles and Shreya, with their children Miraya (8) and Dayaal (7), took part in the exoskeleton water balloon challenge, illustrating how transmedia learning supports collaborative family inquiry while allowing children to pursue their own questions and ideas.

“Can I drop it next?” Dayaal bounced on his toes, clutching a water balloon nestled in a protective paper towel. “We need pavement, soil, and water to test how strong our exoskeletons are,” Miraya said, adjusting her balloon covering. Shreya, her biochemistry background evident in her methodical approach, guided their next steps by suggesting they test from different heights. At the same time, Gyles positioned himself to capture the moment on video. “Ready when you are, scientist,” he called with genuine enthusiasm. Dayaal’s balloon, wrapped in cardboard and bubble wrap, survived the pavement drop intact. “It didn't splash!” he exclaimed, while Miraya’s burst on the soil. After several tests, Dayaal examined his balloon with growing curiosity. “I don't understand. Why does mine keep surviving when Miraya's keeps breaking?” Shreya prompted, “What do you think is happening?” Dayaal turned the balloon over thoughtfully. “I think not all balloons break the same way. Even with the same wrapping, it doesn't break. But Miraya’s always does.” He paused, puzzled, as if realising the problem might not just be about luck or chance. “So, you've discovered something about protection and impact,” Gyles said, smiling. “Yeah. I learned that when balloons are inside things, they don’t always break. It depends on what's protecting them.” Gathering materials from the garden for her next attempt, Miraya suggested, “Let's try different materials. Maybe we could use that plastic container with cotton balls inside?” As they played, Shreya asked, “Did you feel we were helping too much or not enough?” Miraya replied, “It was just right. You gave us ideas but let us figure it out too.” Dayaal grinned, “And Dad taking videos was the best part.” Reflecting on the experience, Shreya said. “What I loved was creating an environment where mistakes can be made. They expanded their problem-solving without consequence.” Gyles added, “The wow moment that was shared... that mutual learning together... it defied age for me. We were all scientists today.” The water balloon challenge strengthened family bonds through shared discovery, bridging digital and physical learning.

The water balloon challenge created a space for scaffolded scientific inquiry, where the family co-constructed ideas, tested solutions, and built shared understandings through mutual collaborative inquiry.

Vignette 2: Parallel discoveries: Learning and growing together

Lila and her son Omar (7) engaged in the camouflage activities, demonstrating how transmedia fosters parallel yet interconnected learning journeys.

After browsing the program's Facebook group, where other families had shared their camouflage experiments, Omar sat watching videos about camouflage with unusual focus for a typically shy seven-year-old. “Can we try that now?” he asked, pointing to a chameleon that had perfectly matched its leafy background. Lila looked up from her thesis draft, surprised by his enthusiasm. “Look, Mom! I'm going to hide!” Omar arranged his blanket over himself, carefully positioning himself among the grey, blue, and white patterns. “Why do animals camouflage themselves?” Lila asked. Omar sat up straighter, confident. “The animals hide to protect themselves or hide themselves to attack prey,” he replied, his voice steadier than usual when explaining concepts. “Camouflage,” Lila repeated softly, the unfamiliar English word settling on her tongue. “This is the first time I’ve learned this word in English. I only knew the Arabic words before.” Omar tested different objects against various backgrounds. “Some were patterns and some were solid colours,” he explained. Moving to Lila’s bedroom, Omar announced, “I’m on your bed. Putting a blanket over me so no one can see me,” disappearing beneath the patterns as Lila pretended to search for him. Later, they prepared to share their experience on Facebook. She watched as he confidently typed, ignoring her suggested phrases. “You’re better than me in English,” Lila said softly. “I told you what to write, but you used your own words. I’m really surprised.” Their roles had reversed in this moment, with the PhD student learning from her seven-year-old son. She set her pen down, suddenly reflective. “Do you know what I learned from our activities? I learned many things about STEM. Doing the activities and watching the videos together was better than I expected.” Omar’s eyes brightened. “It was fun!” he declared, rating their experience “Five out of five!” Lila immediately responded, “Ten!” Her hands spread wide, doubling the scale in her enthusiasm.

Their camouflage exploration demonstrated how transmedia engagement can support parallel yet interconnected learning journeys, fostering moments of mutual discovery between parent and child.

Vignette 3. Flight path: Creating connections that strengthen family bonds

Joe and his son Tim (6) connected through the paper plane activity, illustrating how a simple transmedia activity can spark unexpected connections through a shared enthusiasm for flight.

“Paper aeroplane!” Tim exclaimed as it soared across the living room. Kelly watched him grab another piece of paper, grateful for this shared moment. “That flew really well. Which fold did you use?” Tim held up his plane, pointing to the wing edges. “I angled them up. Rectangles work better than squares. Squares don’t make good planes.” The sound of keys at the door interrupted him. As Joe stepped inside, Tim clutched several planes and raced to meet him. “Daddy, look what I’ve made!” Joe crouched down. “Wow, that’s a serious squadron.” Singling out one plane, Tim said, “Wings like this help it fly straighter. Watch this.” Joe’s eyes widened. “That’s new. Where’d you learn that?” Tim pointed to the tablet without looking up. “From the video. Toby said it’s about thrust and lift.” Joe leaned in, “I used to make these when I was your age.” Tim looked up, beaming. “Let’s race! You make yours how you used to, and I’ll use mine from the iPad.” Joe’s first attempt nosedived. “You need to bend the wings,” Tim said, adjusting it with quiet precision. “The wind needs a way to bounce.” Joe tried again, watching in awe as the plane soared. “Hey! That actually flew!” Tim nodded, his face lighting up. “Much better. Now it has acceleration.” Tim proudly announced the next evening, “I taught everyone at school.” Surprised, Joe asked, “Did you teach them about thrust and lift?” Tim nodded, “Yep! I even showed them how to fold the wings like this.” Joe chuckled. “You’re turning into an engineer.” Tim pointed to Joe’s office. “Can we try your flight simulator too?” Joe’s heart skipped a beat. “You want to fly with me?” Tim’s eyes widened. “Yes.” Joe’s voice softened, touched by the depth of Tim’s focus. “I’d love that.” Kelly observed from the doorway. Their connection was taking flight.

This simple transmedia activity created unexpected connections through Tim and Joe’s shared enthusiasm for flight, strengthening their relationship and sparking new opportunities for shared exploration.

Vignette 4: From exhibit to everywhere: Rory’s sustained STEM engagement

Tian and his son Rory (5) engaged enthusiastically with the program activities, demonstrating how transmedia can extend multimodal literacy development into everyday life beyond the program’s completion.

In the weeks after the program ended, Rory’s bedroom floor was barely visible beneath dozens of paper planes. His small fingers worked methodically, creasing another sheet. “Dad! Look what I made!” Rory called out excitedly. “Another plane?” Tian asked, noticing unusual folds. Rory shook his head vigorously. “Nope! It’s a diamond! Like a jewel!” he announced proudly. “Did you learn that from someone?” Tian asked. “No, I just like folding stuff,” Rory explained, demonstrating his deliberate sequential movements. “You must have made a hundred planes by now,” Tian remarked, surveying the collection. “This one curves when it flies because I bent the wings up. And this one goes super fast but drops really fast.” Rory explained, mimicking flight patterns. “I learned that from the wind tunnel testing. Big things and small things fly differently.” When Tian asked what motivated his continued experimentation, Rory shrugged.. “I wanted to see what would happen. Some work better than others.” He pointed to a complex design. “This one took me three tries to get right.”

A moth fluttered against the bedroom window. “Dad, look! There’s a moth. See how it’s camouflaged!” Rory gasped. “Remember when I hid with my yellow Minion shirt against the yellow chair? You could only see my head!” He giggled. “You’ve been spotting camouflage a lot lately,” Tian observed. “I notice things camouflaging everywhere now,” Rory exclaimed. Watching his son move so confidently between these explorations. Tian asked softly. “Did I help too much with those activities?” Rory considered carefully. “Just enough. You helped when I got stuck sometimes, but I still got to figure things out myself. That’s how you learn stuff.” Tian marvelled at how structured activities had sparked such enduring curiosity. The program had shifted how Rory saw the world, turning everyday moments into opportunities for exploration.

Rory’s sustained engagement illustrates how transmedia experiences can extend multimodal literacy development into everyday life beyond the program’s completion, transforming how he observed the world and inspiring continued creative exploration. This sustained engagement also strengthened the multimodal literacy and problem-solving skills that shaped his emerging identity as a confident and capable STEM learner.

Discussion

Literacy practices, participant context, and program implications

This study demonstrates how transmedia programs can foster multimodal literacy practices that extend across home and museum contexts. Literacy practices are understood here as socially situated acts of meaning-making that use multimodal resources such as gesture, image, text, and speech (Jewitt and Kress 2003; Kress 2010; Serafini and Reid 2023). These practices involve using digital and material resources flexibly across everyday settings to support literacy development (Djonov et al., 2021; Jusslin et al., 2020). Literacy is viewed as dynamic and embedded in identity and community, shaped through social interaction and material culture, with meaning co-constructed across digital and physical media (Pahl and Rowsell, 2012). This framing provides the foundation for interpreting how the transmedia program fostered literacy practices that extended across contexts, platforms, and relationships. In this study, literacy practices were often shaped by the knowledge, skills, and experiences adults brought to the program.

A significant theme was the background of participating adults, which emerged during post-program interviews. Many held bachelor’s or postgraduate degrees in STEM, education, or the humanities, and this educational expertise influenced engagement through sophisticated scaffolding. Shreya’s biochemistry background, for example, supported systematic experimentation in the exoskeleton challenge, guiding her children’s inquiry while preserving their independence. Cultural diversity also shaped participation, as illustrated by Lila, who, while completing her doctoral thesis, brought a multilingual perspective to the camouflage activities and encountered the English term camouflage for the first time during the program. Such moments enriched shared learning and expanded opportunities for meaning-making across languages. This aligns with Falk and Dierking’s (2013) observation that museum audiences often reflect cultural capital. The educational and demographic profile of families raises questions about equity and inclusion in informal learning environments (Dawson 2014; Matthews et al., 2024), despite the program’s accessible exhibits and materials. Together, these forms of diversity enriched the dialogic nature of transmedia learning, suggesting that programs can be especially potent when both adult knowledge systems and cultural perspectives are leveraged in interest-driven inquiry. Addressing these disparities through accessible formats and flexible entry points can help broaden participation while preserving the benefits of adult-supported scaffolding.

Providing accessible formats and flexible entry points creates the conditions for adult-supported scaffolding, reflecting Vygotskian principles (Vygotsky 1978) in which adult expertise extends children’s learning within their zones of proximal development. Such patterns align with equity priorities highlighted by Matthews et al. 2024 and demonstrate how museum experiences can reframe children’s participation from passive consumption to active literacy co-construction. While museum digital transformation discourse often emphasises technology as a primary driver of learning (Giannini and Bowen 2019), the findings of this study show that sophisticated literacy outcomes are possible without costly technology-first approaches. In the Super-Human Potential program, strategic design, low-cost curation, and human-centred scaffolding enabled complex meaning-making, including computational thinking as a literacy practice, sustained multimodal engagement, and strengthened intergenerational learning. These findings align with equity-focused literature (Matthews et al., 2024; Dawson 2014), which warns that resource-intensive solutions can deepen participation gaps. They also highlight the relevance of intentional, accessible design for cultural institutions that cannot afford costly technological upgrades.

The Super-Human Potential program demonstrates how SDCMs can extend multimodal literacy development beyond physical spaces through STEM-based intergenerational engagement. The four narrative vignettes reveal interconnected ways transmedia supports early childhood STEM learning through meaningful family participation. Children acted as meaning-makers, exploring, interpreting, and extending scientific ideas through multimodal expression. This study advances three theoretical areas: positioning CT as a literacy practice rather than a separate cognitive skill, demonstrating resource-efficient transmedia implementation through strategic curation, and revealing how informal learning environments function as collaborative meaning-making spaces. The program’s success in sustaining engagement aligns with research indicating literacy develops more rapidly when learning connects with children’s lived experiences and interests. By positioning children as active knowledge constructors, the transmedia approach reflects contemporary views of early childhood literacy as socially situated, culturally responsive, and multimodal (Burnett and Merchant 2020). The inclusion of CT within literacy practices suggests problem-solving frameworks complement traditional literacy, supporting more resilient pathways for meaning-making across diverse contexts. The findings illustrate that a resource-efficient transmedia approach, grounded in strategic curation and co-design, can deliver powerful learning outcomes without costly technology-first solutions. Such an approach offers a sustainable pathway for cultural institutions to meet post-pandemic digital expectations while preserving accessibility and educational integrity.

Transmedia as a bridge between contexts: Extending museum learning

The program alternated between home-based digital engagement and in-person museum visits, forming a cyclical process where home activities linked directly to exhibitions, museum visits allowed testing and iteration, and follow-up activities reinforced and extended learning. This cycle demonstrates the capacity of transmedia learning to connect contexts by linking home-based digital prompts to museum experiences, extending engagement beyond institutional boundaries, and reinforcing learning through subsequent home-based activities (Sánchez-Caballé and González-Martínez 2023). In Vignette 4, Rory’s interest in paper planes began with home activities, expanded during his museum visit, and continued afterwards, illustrating how transmedia can extend multimodal literacy development beyond program participation. Activity Pages acted as touchpoints linking home and museum experiences, supporting non-linear, inquiry-driven exploration. Families could follow their interests rather than a fixed sequence, aligning with Jenkins’s (2010) concept of transmedia storytelling and Kress’s (2010) view of literacy as multimodal, where varied representations shape meaning-making. Children navigated digital and physical spaces, integrating experimentation, scientific reasoning, dialogue, gesture, material exploration, and verbal reflection. The approach also increased accessibility as families with limited time engaged at home during quieter moments, while those unable to attend in person still participated meaningfully. Variation in digital literacy, infrastructure, and preferred activity type meant some families engaged deeply with digital content while others focused on physical activities. This diversity underscores the value of multimodal design in accommodating different access levels, schedules, and literacy backgrounds. Effective transmedia programs should maintain such flexibility to support broad participation.

Multimodal literacy development through transmedia engagement

Multimodal problem-solving activities supported literacy development as children interpreted instructions, experimented with materials, and made meaning from their creations, often carrying concepts into everyday contexts. Parents and children documented these moments together and shared them in the program’s Facebook group, adding a collaborative layer where learning was valued and reflected upon. Structured problem-solving fostered CT while reinforcing multimodal literacy, with digital content extending STEM learning from exhibits, inspiring hands-on activities at home, and sustaining meaning-making across settings. Children engaged across visual, spatial, gestural, oral, digital, verbal, and action-based modes, encouraging experimentation, recombination, and expression across platforms, reflecting the semiotic practices of science learning described by Tang and Tan (2016). These multimodal activities supported early literacy as children interpreted, experimented, and expressed ideas through varied modes. Engagement extended into everyday contexts and conversations, with parents’ online sharing affirming learning at home and adding layers to the program’s multimodal ecosystem. The vignettes illustrated these practices: in Vignette 1, Dayaal and Miraya explored water balloons while their mother, Shreya, fostered risk-taking; in Vignette 2, Omar progressed from watching videos to conducting experiments, with his iterative testing reflecting Hackett’s (2014) account of embodied literacies in informal learning.

Alongside literacy, children developed CT through tasks that integrated decomposition and sequencing while fostering exploration and persistence. Digital content extended science themes from exhibits, offering ideas to try at home, which children documented and shared. This movement between digital and physical spaces generated ongoing learning opportunities. Children reshaped science content to align with their interests and experiences, reflecting Jenkins’s (2006) concept of remix and Kress’s (2010) multimodal meaning-making. These layered processes illustrate how varied semiotic resources combine to create meaning, aligning with the multimodal ensemble approach described by Serafini and Reid (2023) and Woodard et al. (2024). This also aligns with Djonov et al.’s (2021) observation that young learners draw on digital and physical resources in hybrid ways. These ensembles supported literacy and problem-solving while shaping children’s identities as learners, scientists, and problem-solvers.

Identity formation, scientific thinking, and computational thinking

A key outcome of the program was children’s growing confidence and emerging identities as scientific thinkers. They combined playful exploration with intentional inquiry, drawing on personal experiences and interests to interpret scientific ideas. In Vignette 3, Tim explained flight principles to peers at after-school care, using knowledge from the program’s activities. This deepened his understanding and strengthened his connection with his father, who had a background in aviation. Such exchanges extended learning into everyday social contexts, supporting the formation of early childhood identity as learners and scientists. CT served as a scaffold for these identities, introduced through open-ended, hands-on tasks that encouraged experimentation and problem-solving. Children demonstrated how CT processes supported multimodal meaning-making. Dayaal used decomposition to explain, “I think not all balloons break the same way… it depends on what’s protecting them.” Omar applied pattern recognition from digital to physical experimentation, noting, “Some were patterns and some were solid colours.” Rory’s algorithmic testing generated precise vocabulary: “This one curves when it flies.” Tim’s abstraction enabled him to generalise principles, such as “Rectangles work better than squares.” He shared these with classmates, demonstrating how CT supports both scientific reasoning and knowledge sharing. Together, these examples show CT functioning as a multimodal literacy practice, where computational processes help children interpret, analyse, and communicate scientific understanding across visual, verbal, and physical modes (Brennan and Resnick 2012; Jewitt 2008; Kesselheim and Brandenberger 2021; Kotsopoulos et al., 2022; Kress 2010; Wing 2006). Children used CT as a literacy practice to strengthen communication, explanation, and knowledge transfer while reinforcing their identities as capable scientific thinkers.

Intergenerational learning

The program fostered reciprocal learning across generations, creating opportunities for shared inquiry rather than positioning adults as instructors. In Vignette 2, Lila deepened her own scientific understanding while supporting Omar, and in Vignette 3, Tim’s exploration sparked conversations with his father, who extended the activity through his aviation knowledge. Such moments reflect Gutiérrez’s (2008) concept of hybrid learning spaces, where everyday experiences intersect with disciplinary knowledge, strengthened by the program’s design features. Adult Explainer videos aligned with Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development and Rogoff’s (2003) emphasis on participation in cultural practices, offering accessible guidance that strengthened adults’ role as scaffolds. This reflects Crowley et al.’s (2001) and McHugh et al.’s (2024) findings that structured supports enable adults to scaffold inquiry without overtaking children’s agency. As one child described, parents provided ideas but allowed independent problem-solving, preserving agency within joint activity. Through this approach, SDCMs functioned as informal learning environments grounded in embodied participation, fostering multimodal literacy through hands-on engagement, material exploration, and shared meaning-making. Rather than presenting knowledge as fixed or adult-led, the program cultivated dynamic relationships in which families became co-learners, sustaining engagement, positioning children as capable STEM learners, and shaping their literacies across diverse settings while also addressing a gap in early childhood transmedia research in informal contexts.

Limitations

This study offers valuable insights into how transmedia approaches can support multimodal literacy development in SDCMs, but several limitations must be acknowledged. As a single-case study conducted at one SDCM in Australia, it provided in-depth exploration within a specific institutional and cultural setting, offering rich detail but limiting transferability to other contexts. Globally, equity challenges are shaped by disparities in infrastructure, data costs, device access, and cultural relationships with technology. Transmedia programs developed in well-resourced settings may unintentionally exclude families in communities with limited connectivity or differing digital engagement patterns. The entry-level transmedia approach addressed some of these concerns by adapting existing materials rather than relying solely on bespoke digital content. However, further development is required to ensure equitable participation, including low-bandwidth or offline options, multilingual resources, and culturally responsive community engagement strategies. Most participants self-selected from the SDCM’s membership base, representing families already engaged with the institution. Post-program interviews showed a notable skew toward adults with higher educational qualifications, including postgraduate degrees in STEM, education, and the humanities. This demographic profile may reflect the influence of cultural and educational capital on participation (Falk and Dierking 2013), potentially limiting insights into how such programs might engage less-connected or first-time visitors. Finally, the study captured only short-term engagement, highlighting the need for longitudinal research to explore how transmedia experiences influence children’s literacy development and STEM learning over time.

Recommendations

This study affirms that transmedia approaches can extend museum-based STEM learning and support multimodal literacy in early childhood. To maximise their potential, future initiatives and research should prioritise cultural adaptability, equity, and practical design strategies.

Cultural adaptation and future research

Longitudinal research should investigate how transmedia-supported scientific identities develop over multiple years. Cross-cultural studies could evaluate the adaptability of this accessible transmedia approach in varied institutional and community contexts. In contrast, comparative research with more resource-intensive approaches could establish benchmarks for cost-effectiveness. Cultural consultation and localisation should be integrated from the outset to ensure authentic representation, language inclusion, and alignment with community expectations. Future research should investigate how transmedia literacy practices cultivated in museum contexts extend across children’s broader ecological systems, encompassing home, school, and community settings, to develop longitudinal understandings of how such practices are transferred, adapted, and transformed over time.

Equity and accessibility

Equitable programs should offer multilingual resources that prioritise local languages, incorporate low-bandwidth or offline options, and feature activities using only readily available household items, avoiding additional purchases. Flexible entry points, visual-first content, and culturally responsive narratives can accommodate different literacy levels and family structures. Partnerships with schools, libraries, and cultural organisations can help reach audiences beyond traditional museum visitors. As families with higher educational capital may be more likely to engage with extended learning opportunities (Matthews et al., 2024), program design should also address the needs of those without such advantages, ensuring that children from all educational backgrounds benefit equally from transmedia engagement.

Implications

For practice

Structured digital-physical sequences, such as Activity Pages paired with hands-on tasks, can support adult facilitation while preserving children’s agency. Moderated social sharing encourages reflection and builds community connections, while multimodal resources, including videos, short clips, podcasts, and physical activities, help children synthesise meaning across modes. This scalable transmedia approach provides a replicable model for cultural institutions seeking meaningful digital integration without requiring extensive infrastructure.

For theory and policy

By framing computational thinking as a literacy practice, this study shows that an entry-level transmedia approach can sustain engagement without relying on costly technology-first solutions. The co-designed approach offers adaptable strategies for extending learning beyond institutional boundaries while accommodating diverse family contexts. At a policy level, the findings support investment in accessible, community-responsive initiatives as cost-effective pathways to equity in informal STEM learning. Looking ahead, this approach anticipates a future where museums serve as literacy innovation hubs that bridge formal and informal learning through family-centred transmedia design.

Conclusion

This study shows how Science Discovery Children’s Museums (SDCMs) can be transformative early childhood literacy environments by extending multimodal literacy beyond physical boundaries through STEM-focused transmedia approaches. Structuring learning as a cyclical process linking home activities, museum visits, and follow-up engagement sustained participation, deepened multimodal literacy, and connected STEM concepts to children’s everyday experiences. Positioning computational thinking as a literacy practice and embedding transmedia learning within the cultural ecology of SDCMs provides new insights into how young children develop literacy in contemporary settings. These strategies can sustain engagement beyond program participation, embedding learning into everyday family life and expanding the educational potential of informal learning spaces. As museums worldwide navigate post-pandemic digital transformation and prepare for AI-integrated environments, this research demonstrates that sophisticated literacy outcomes can be achieved through strategic, theory-informed design rather than costly, technology-driven solutions. The co-designed, low-resource transmedia approach offers a transferable, resource-efficient approach that other informal learning institutions can adapt to promote equitable multimodal literacy and sustained STEM engagement.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Simon Daniele

Karen Murcia

John Chappell

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee at Curtin University (Ethics Approval Number: HRE2024-0040). All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013.

Consent to participate

Written informed consent was obtained from all adult participants included in the study. Children provided verbal assent using age-appropriate forms with visual cues. All participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent for publication was obtained from all participants. All identifying information has been removed from the manuscript to protect participant confidentiality. Pseudonyms are used throughout to protect participant identities.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by Simon Daniele received an industry scholarship from Scitech Science Discovery Centre to support this doctoral research.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions related to participant confidentiality and the involvement of children in the research. De-identified data may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request and with appropriate ethical approval.*

References

Aksela

(2019) Towards student-centred solutions and pedagogical innovations in science education through co-design approach within design-based research. In: LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education. Educational Design Research, Vol. 7, 113–139.

Andre

Durksen

Volman

(2017) Museums as avenues of learning for children: a decade of research. Learning Environments Research 20(1): 47–76.

Barron

(2006) Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: a learning ecology perspective. Human Development 49(4): 193–224.

Bell

Lewenstein

Shouse

, et al. (2009) Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. National Academies Press.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101.

Braun

Clarke

(2019) Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11: 589–597.

Braun

Clarke

(2021) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage.

Brennan

Resnick

(2012) Using artifact-based interviews to study the development of computational thinking in interactive media design. In: Paper Presented at the Annual American Educational Research Association Meeting. Vancouver.

Burnett

Merchant

(2020) Literacy-as-event: accounting for relationality in literacy research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 41: 45–56.

10.

Callanan

Legare

Sobel

, et al. (2020) Exploration, explanation, and parent–child interaction in museums. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 85(1): 7–137.

11.

Crowley

Jacobs

(2002) Building islands of expertise in everyday family activity. In: Leinhardt

Crowley

Knutson

(eds) Learning Conversations in Museums, 333–356.

12.

Crowley

Callanan

Tenenbaum

, et al. (2001) Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Psychological Science 12(3): 258–261.

13.

Crowley

Pierroux

Knutson

(2014) Informal learning in museums. In: Sawyer

(ed) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. 2nd edition. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge University Press, 461–478. Available at:. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-the-learning-sciences/informal-learning-in-museums/0B9BD960B26655763957ABCD7CCDB10D

14.

Dawson

(2014) Equity in informal science education: developing an access and equity framework for science museums and science centres. Studies in Science Education 50(2): 209–247.

15.

Degotardi

Johnston

Little

, et al. (2019) “This is a learning opportunity”: how parent–child interactions and exhibit design foster the Museum learning of prior-to-school aged children. Visitor Studies 22(2): 171–191.

16.

Deroo

Galante

(2023) Disciplinary literacy learning at the Museum: supporting preservice teachers’ expanded understandings of multimodality. Literacy Research and Instruction 62(4): 350–370.

17.

Dewey

(1963) Experience and education. Original work published 1938. In: The Kappa Delta Pi Lecture Series. Kappa Delta Pi.

18.

Djonov

Tseng

C-I

Lim

(2021) Children’s experiences with a transmedia narrative: insights for promoting critical multimodal literacy in the digital age. Discourse, Context and Media 43: 100493.

19.

Drageset

Kao

Y-C

Newbutt

, et al. (2025) Promoting inclusive visits to a natural history museum with a pre-visit VR tour for autistic families. Research in Science Education 55(3): 511–528.

20.

Ellis

Bochner

(2000) Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: researcher as subject. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd edition. Sage Publications, 733–768.

21.

Ely

Vinz

Downing

, et al. (1997) On Writing Qualitative Research: Living by Words. 1st edition. Falmer Press. Available at:. https://www.routledge.com/On-Writing-Qualitative-Research-Living-by-Words/Anzul-Downing-Ely-Vinz/p/book/9780750706032?srsltid=AfmBOoqQTbFPvKij462jwgvaXvnAySu_KoytNoZ_7Q7yaHzq8IwVXCbw

22.

Engeström

Sannino

(2010) Studies of expansive learning: foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review 5(1): 1–24.

23.

Falk

Dierking

(2013) The Museum Experience Revisited. Routledge.

24.

Fleming

(2013) Expanding learning opportunities with transmedia practices: inanimate alice as an exemplar. Journal of Media Literacy Education 5(2): 370–377.

25.

Flewitt*

(2005) Conducting research with young children: some ethical considerations. Early Child Development and Care 175(6): 553–565.

26.

Flewitt

Bangpan

Manyukhina

, et al. (2023) Young children’s engagement with objects in science museums: a rapid evidence assessment of research. Curator: The Museum Journal 66(1): 129–148.

27.

Flick

(2018) Triangulation in data collection. In: Flick

(ed) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection. Sage Publications Ltd, 527–544.

28.

Frank

(2010) Letting Stories Breathe: A Socio-Narratology. University of Chicago Press. Available at:. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/L/bo9471242.html

29.

Franse

Van Schijndel

TJP

Raijmakers

MEJ

(2020) Parental pre-knowledge enhances guidance during inquiry-based family learning in a museum context: an individual differences perspective. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 1047.

30.

Giannini

Bowen

(2019) Museums and digital culture: new perspectives and research. Springer Nature.

31.

Gutierrez

(2008) Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly 43(2): 148–164.

32.

Hackett

(2014) Zigging and zooming all over the place: young children’s meaning making and movement in the museum. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 14(1): 5–27.

33.

Haden

Jant

Hoffman

, et al. (2014) Supporting family conversations and children’s STEM learning in a children’s museum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29(3): 333–344.

34.

Hancox

(2017) From subject to collaborator: transmedia storytelling and social research. Convergence 23(1): 49–60.

35.

Haywood

Davies

Souter

(2023) Supporting young children’s learning from science objects: the importance of play on gallery. Science Museum Group Journal (19). doi: 10.15180/170908.

36.

Herr-Stephenson

Alper

Reilly

, et al. (2013) T is for transmedia: learning through transmedia play. Report. In: USC Annenberg Innovation Lab and The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Available at:. https://joanganzcooneycenter.org/publication/t-is-for-transmedia/

37.

Horn

Solovey

Jacob

(2008) Tangible programming and informal science learning: making TUIs work for museums. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Chicago, USA, 11–13 July 2008.

38.

Hovious

Shinas

Harper

(2021) The compelling nature of transmedia storytelling: empowering twenty first-century readers and writers through multimodality. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 26(1): 215–229.

39.

Huang

Han

Villanueva

, et al. (2024) Deepening children’s STEM learning through making and creative writing. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 40: 100651.

40.

Hull

Katz

(2006) Crafting an agentive self: case studies of digital storytelling. Research in the Teaching of English 41(1): 43–81, ncte.org.

41.

James

Prout

(1997) A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance, promise and problems. UNITED STATES Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. Taylor and Francis Group. Available at:. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=181334

42.

Jenkins

(2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press. Available at:. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=2081610

43.

Jenkins

(2010) Transmedia education: the 7 principles revisited. Available at:. https://henryjenkins.org/blog/2010/06/transmedia_education_the_7_pri.html

44.

Jenkins

Purushotma

Weigel

, et al. (2009) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. The MIT Press. Available at:. https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/3204/Confronting-the-Challenges-of-Participatory

45.

Jewitt

(2008) Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education 32(1): 241–267.

46.

Jewitt

Kress

(2003) A multimodal approach to research in education. In: Somekh

Lewin

(eds) Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 92–102.

47.

Johnston

Wildy

Shand

(2021) Student voices that resonate – constructing composite narratives that represent students’ classroom experiences. Qualitative Research 23: 108–124.

48.

Jusslin

Magnusson

Rejman

, et al. (2020) Meaning-making in fifth-graders’ multimodal texts: towards a vocabulary of semiotic potentials in different modes. Apples - Journal of Applied Language Studies 14(2): 2.

49.

Kesselheim

Brandenberger

(2021) The social construction of embodied experiences: two types of discoveries in the science centre. Linguistics Vanguard 7: 20200101.

50.

Kim

(2021) Digital storytelling: facilitating learning and identity development. Journal of Computers in Education 8(1): 33–61.

51.

Y-L

Chou

(2012) Designing solutions to problems from co-design approach. In: 2012 8th International Conference on Computing Technology and Information Management (NCM and ICNIT), Seoul, South Korea, 24–26 April 2012.

52.

Kotsopoulos

Floyd

Dickson

, et al. (2022) Noticing and naming computational thinking during play. Early Childhood Education Journal 50(4): 699–708.

53.

Kress

(2010) Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. Routledge. Available at:. https://www.routledge.com/Multimodality-A-Social-Semiotic-Approach-to-Contemporary-Communication/Kress/p/book/9780415320610

54.

Lazard

(2022) Digital mothering: sharenting, family selfies and online affective-discursive practices. Feminism & Psychology 32(4): 540–558.

55.

Sang

Valcke

, et al. (2024a) Computational thinking integrated into the English language curriculum in primary education: a systematic review. Education and Information Technologies 29: 17705–17762.

56.

Zheng

Watanabe

, et al. (2024b) A systematic review of digital transformation technologies in museum exhibition. Computers in Human Behavior 161: 108407.

57.

Lim

(2018) Developing a systemic functional approach to teach multimodal literacy. Functional Linguistics 5(1): 13.

58.

Marcus

Tõugu

Haden

, et al. (2021) Advancing opportunities for children’s informal STEM learning transfer through parent–child narrative reflection. Child Development 92(5): e1075–e1084.

59.

Marcus

Solis

Sellars

, et al. (2023) Promoting children’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning at home through tinkering and storytelling. Frontiers in Psychology 14(Frontiers): 1146063.

60.

Marsh

Hannon

Lewis

, et al. (2015) Young children’s initiation into family literacy practices in the digital age. Journal of Early Childhood Research 15(1): 47–60.

61.

Mateos-Rusillo

Gifreu-Castells

(2018) Transmedia Storytelling and Its Natural Application in Museums. The Case of the Bosch Project at the Museo Nacional del Prado. Curator: The Museum Journal 61(2): 301–313.

62.

Matthews

Honda

Mitchell

et al. (2024) Building capacity for inclusive informal STEM learning opportunities for autistic learners. International Journal of STEM Education 11(1), Article 53.

63.

McHugh

Callanan

Jaeger

, et al. (2024) Explaining and exploring the dynamics of parent–child interactions and children’s causal reasoning at a children’s museum exhibit. Child Development 95(3): 845–861.

64.

Meyerhofer-Parra

González-Martínez

(2023) Transmedia storytelling usage of neural networks from a universal design for learning perspective: a systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology 14: Frontiers.

65.

Meyers

Erickson

Small

(2013) Digital literacy and informal learning environments: an introduction. Learning, Media and Technology 38(4): 355–367.

66.

Ocular

Kelly

Millan

, et al. (2022) Contributions of naturalistic parent-child conversations to children’s science learning during informal learning at an aquarium and at home. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 943648.

67.

Pahl

Rowsell

(2012) Literacy and Education: Understanding the New Literacy Studies in the Classroom. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.

68.

Papadopoulou

Makri

Pagkourelia

, et al. (2023) Early literacy going digital: interweaving formal and informal literacy learning through digital media. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 25(3): 14687984231189988.

69.

Pierroux

Knutson

Crowley

(2022) Informal learning in museums. In: Sawyer

(ed) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press, 448–464. Available at:. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-the-learning-sciences/informal-learning-in-museums/9E378A5A2962278620FEEDF38E64CA4D

70.

Piscitelli

(2001) Young children’s interactive experiences in museums: engaged, embodied and empowered learners. Curator: The Museum Journal 44: 224–229.

71.

Potter

Cowan

(2020) Playground as meaning-making space: multimodal making and re-making of meaning in the (virtual) playground. Global Studies of Childhood 10(3): 248–263.

72.

Powell

Graham

Truscott

(2016) Ethical research involving children: facilitating reflexive engagement. Qualitative Research Journal 16: 197–208.

73.

Price

Jewitt

Moussouri

(2022) Supporting family scaffolding and collaboration through digital interactive tabletop exhibits. Visitor Studies 25(1): 22–40.

74.

Rennie

Williams

(2006) Adults’ learning about science in free‐choice settings. International Journal of Science Education 28(8): 871–893.

75.

Richardson

Pierre Ea

(2005) Writing: a method of inquiry. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd edition. Sage Publications, 959–978.

76.

Riessman

(2008) Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Sage Publications.

77.

Rogoff

(2003) The Cultural Nature of Human Development. Oxford University Press.

78.

Sánchez-Caballé

González-Martínez

(2023) Transmedia learning: fact or fiction? A systematic review. Culture and Education 35(1): 1–32.

79.

Sanders

EB-N

Stappers

(2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4(1): 5–18.

80.

Saxena

Hew

, et al. (2020) Designing unplugged and plugged activities to cultivate computational thinking: an exploratory study in early childhood education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 29: 55–66.

81.

Schuler

Namioka

(eds) (1993) Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. CRC Press.

82.

Scolari

Ardèvol

Pérez-Latorre

, et al. (2020) What are teens doing with media? An ethnographic approach for identifying transmedia skills and informal learning strategies. Digital Education Review 37(37): 269–287.

83.

Serafini

Reid

(2023) Multimodal content analysis: expanding analytical approaches to content analysis. Visual Communication 22(4): 623–649.

84.

Simonsen

Robertson

(eds) (2021) Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge.

85.

Stake

(1995) The Art of Case Study Research. the Art of Case Study Research. Sage Publications.

86.

Stuedahl

Lefkaditou

Ellefsen

, et al. (2021) Design anthropological approaches in collaborative museum curation. Design Studies 75: 101021.

87.

Takeuchi

Stevens

(2011) The new coviewing: designing for learning through joint media engagement. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center.

88.

Tang

K-S

Tan

(2016) Intertextuality and multimodal meanings in high school physics: written and spoken language in computer-supported collaborative student discourse. Classroom Discourse 8: 19–35.

89.

Taylor

Kervin

(2022) Parent/caregiver perspectives on children’s play and learning at a children’s museum: a qualitative descriptive study. Journal of Museum Education 47(2): 275–285.

90.

Vygotsky

(1978) Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press. Available at:. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvjf9vz4

91.

Wakkary

(2007) A participatory design understanding of interaction design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, NY, USA, 1 January 2007. Available at:. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228751868

92.

Walsh

(2010) Multimodal literacy: what does it mean for classroom practice? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 33: 211–239.

93.

Wing

(2006) Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM 49(3): 33–35.

94.

Woodard

Diaz

Phillips

, et al. (2024) Be creative and have fun’: elementary-aged children’s digital and embodied composing in science. Literacy 58(2): 167–177.

95.

Yadav

Good

Voogt

, et al. (2017) Computational thinking as an emerging competence domain. In: Technical and Vocational Education and Training, 1051–1067.

96.

Yates

Szenasi

Smedley

, et al. (2022) Children as experiencers: increasing engagement, participation and inclusion for young children in the museum. Childhood 29(1): 58–74.

97.

Young

Eadie

Suda

, et al. (2022) LEARN: essential elements of museum education programs for young children. Curator: The Museum Journal 65(1): 209–223.

98.

Yun

Olsen

Quigley

, et al. (2023) A review of augmented reality for informal science learning: supporting design of intergenerational group learning. Visitor Studies 26(1): 1–23.

99.

Zimmerman

Land

Jung

(2015) Using augmented reality to support children’s situational interest and science learning during context-sensitive informal mobile learning. In: Liu

Popescu

(eds). Emerging Issues in Smart Learning: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Cham: Springer, 101–119.

Beyond museum walls: A transmedia approach to fostering multimodal literacy and STEM engagement in Science Discovery Children’s Museums

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical framework

Multimodal literacy and transmedia learning

Intergenerational learning and collaborative meaning

Computational thinking as a literacy practice

Literature review

Experiential foundations and long-term impact in informal contexts

Transmedia learning and early childhood education

Science discovery children’s museums and computational thinking

Parent-child interactions and digital meaning-making

Participatory co-design in museum-based transmedia programs

Research context and methods

Research approach

Program context

Participants

Data collection

Analysis and narrative vignettes

Findings

Vignette 1: Family togetherness: Scaffolded scientific inquiry

Vignette 2: Parallel discoveries: Learning and growing together

Vignette 3. Flight path: Creating connections that strengthen family bonds

Vignette 4: From exhibit to everywhere: Rory’s sustained STEM engagement

Discussion

Literacy practices, participant context, and program implications

Transmedia as a bridge between contexts: Extending museum learning

Multimodal literacy development through transmedia engagement

Identity formation, scientific thinking, and computational thinking

Intergenerational learning

Limitations

Recommendations

Cultural adaptation and future research

Equity and accessibility

Implications

For practice

For theory and policy

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical considerations

Consent to participate

Consent for publication

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Data Availability Statement

References