{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033268858800773696, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014700193423597678, 'mean_word_length': 5.706874189364462, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Locating the Development of Interest: Tools for Studying the Mutual Constitution of Persons and Cultural Practices in Places

In this paper, we propose a practice-based theory and new methods for the study of interest development. The theory incorporates individual psychological perspectives, but it also theorizes the place-based nature of interest development and seeks to give an account of how persons and practices are mutually constituted. It also identifies roles researchers can play in diagnosing inequity and informing efforts to improve coordination and enactment of opportunities to generate and develop interest in particular content areas. We describe how the Synergies project, a longitudinal study of elementary-aged children’s changing science-related pursuits and interests in a single community, is a context for developing this theory. Psychological theories frame the problem of interest development principally from an individual perspective. Hidi and Renninger’s (2006) four-phase model of interest development, for example, articulates a potential trajectory from situational interest in a topic toward a well-developed individual interest. They define the latter as “a relatively enduring predisposition to reengage with particular classes of content over time” (p. 115) that is accompanied by positive feelings toward engagement and supported by a strong knowledge base in the topic. Their own and others’ measures of interests, moreover, focus principally on individuals: they include self-report measures designed to locate students’ level of interest within the four-phase model (e.g., Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2010) and case studies that combine interviews with direct observations (e.g., Renninger & Hidi, 2002). Though psychological theories tend to focus on individual experience, these theories do assign a prominent role for social processes and context in interest development. Psychologists who study interest note that at all phases, interest can be generated, supported, and sustained by others (Hulleman, Durik, Schweigart, & Harackiewicz, 2008; Renninger & Hidi, 2002). The nature, depth, and longevity of interest, psychologists have observed, depend in part on favorable environmental factors, including social support (Nolen, 2007). Adults— including teachers, parents, and unrelated adult guides—play an important role in supporting interest development by brokering access to opportunities to pursue interest and creating opportunities for rich social interaction around specific topics (Pressick-Kilborn & Walker, 2002). Peers and siblings also are significant in supporting interest development (Azmitia & Hesser, 1993) What psychological theories tend to miss, however, is how individuals’ access to social supports for developing particular kinds of interest varies from place to place in ways that are consequential for, and constitutive of individuals’ developing interests. Interest develops within particular ecologies of support (Barron, 2006), and within what Azevedo (2011) calls “interest relationships” embedded in networks of practices. Within the institutionalized social practices of communities, Azevedo (2011) argues, individuals construct and pursue “lines of practice” in which their participation varies over time, and in which they participate with others to constitute these very practices. By foregrounding interest relationships within lines of practice, argues Azevedo (2011), the central problematic of research on interest development becomes to trace how the joint contributions of individuals and community practices within particular institutional contexts support persistent participation in elective pursuits (see also Pressick-Kilborn & Walker, 2002). In this reformulation of interest development research, one important question becomes how peoples’ participation simultaneously reproduces and changes those lines of practice. When the focus is on schooling practices, changes to those practices may be barely visible, and the timescales of radical change are long (Lemke, 2000). But lines of practice in communities associated with out-of-school–time offerings, programs and services for youth and with voluntary activities, such as sports teams, may transform more frequently the opportunities they provide for interest development (e.g., Falk & Needham, 2011). For example, when sciencerelated museum exhibitions or library programs change in a community, they may introduce new topics and opportunities for families to engage with science, which may or may not develop into more enduring interests. As young people “vote with their feet” by choosing to engage in some activities and not others, they shape what happens within particular settings for learning (McLaughlin, Irby, & Langman, 1994). Young people involved in the arts and media production, for example, shape activity by their choices of performance and production topics. Even in places where youth have less formal authority to alter lines of practice, the constitution of the practice is still a joint accomplishment with those who design and lead activities (O'Connor & Allen, 2010). ICLS2012 Volume 2: Short Papers