In their article, “The 95% Solution”, Falk and Dierking explain informal science, and argue its importance for science literacy in the general population.  Once such example of informal learning is hobbyists.  “…many [hobbyists] with little formal training, [exhibit] high levels of knowledge and depth of understanding.  Such hobbyists often have collegial relationships with experts in the field and some… have contributed scientific discoveries” (p. 489).  Here, the authors present hobbyists’ accomplishments as a finding, which surprised me.  Weren’t the original scientists hobbyists, educated men who morphed philosophy and common observations into the principles – or predecessors of such – that we have today?  Why is it surprising that people who are passionate and curious should approach a professional level of activity?

Related, they say that, “much of what is learned in school actually related more to learning for school, as opposed to learning for life” (p. 489); students learn to succeed in school rather than to retain or understand the information in their lives.  This finding related to that of the hobbyists.  If people are interested, they are likely to integrate their interests into their life.  However, if they are uninterested, as students might be by in-school science, the information does not remain with or inspire them.  This concept of interest supports informal science; public learning settings should grab its targets’ interests and relate to their lives.  For instance, if there were a science based drama, people might become more involved in the show for its plot while absorbing science at the same time, or at least spurring them to look into the science surrounding the show. For example, my friend researched the science behind dreaming and consciousness after watching Nolan’s Inception (2010).

From the article, I gather the most important part of “free choice learning” (p. 486) is the freedom.  It is the liberty to choose what one learns, and the positive experience in having that liberty, that allows a person to learn outside the classroom.  As a student a year out of high school, I can say I am more interested in linguistics than I ever was in chemistry because I am not being forced to memorize information that is not applicable to my life.  (If it was the chemistry of baking, and we did in-class baking, would I have been more interested?  Certainly.)  I learned the chemistry for school, as mentioned above, and cannot remember much aside Pb and Fe being lead and iron respectively… and that’s because I took Latin.

On A Side Note: Halfway through the article, it bothered me that science was never defined.  What do the authors consider science?  I could talk about linguistics or music, which are sciences in their own respects.  In fact, according to the Oxford Dictionary, the archaic definition of science is knowledge.  This definition adds an interesting perspective to the article’s argument: Can a wide array of knowledge be learned informally?