Jennifer Mikhli
Professor Adams
Science and Technology in New York City
08/28/13
Reflection on “The 95 Percent Solution”
The article entitled “The 95 Percent Solution” by John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking ventures into controversial territory, as it presents mounting evidence that point to the ability of free-science learning opportunities to surpass academic settings in their ability to educate the public about science. This evidence comes in the form of a “U-shaped pattern of Americans’ comparative performance on science literacy measures,” (488). At the point of an American adolescent’s life where science instruction increases in an academic environment, their scientific literacy declines, allowing only younger and adult U.S. citizens to outcompete their international equals. Non-academic, informal, or free-science settings are the only valid way to explain these findings.
This evidence made me question the scientific world around me, as I examined my relationship with science, along with how my peers approached this evolutionary field as well. Upon trying to trace back to the start of my draw to science, the medical field in particular, I came upon a startling realization. I remembered my nine year old self stationed before a television screen staring in admiration at the doctors depicted on the latest episode of Grey’s Anatomy, and starting to recognize the various medical terminologies that sprouted from their mouths. I knew at a very young age what an LVAD wire was and that a malignant tumor was fatal. I also remember watching How It’s Made on the Discovery channel, as my interest in how the human body operated built upon the elaboration of the inner-workings of everyday objects. Albeit it was not an after-school program or a museum that piqued my interest in the medicine field, but it sure did not spark in the classroom either. I did not need to delve any deeper, as I was living proof to the findings of researcher Robert H. Tai, as presented in the article, “that attitudes toward science careers, formed primarily during out-of school time in early adolescence, appeared to be the single most important factor in determining children’s future career choices in science” (490). Overall, the article allowed me to recognize the importance of informal science opportunities and the tremendous impact that they can have on our minds, especially upon the impressionable mindsets of adolescents. Ultimately, more informal science opportunities need to be granted to children at a young age. This could level the growing educational disparity that sprouts amongst the advantaged and disadvantaged children as they get older. Instilling such “”complementary learning’ opportunities,” (491) as is quoted in the article, amongst youngsters could potentially transform the nation’s rising generation’s approach to science, evolving scientific fields along the way.
