“The 95 Percent Solution,” by John Falk and Lynn Dierking, proposes an innovative idea to improve science education in America; it proposes that out-of-school science learning has a greater impact on a child’s scientific knowledge than in-school learning. I find this to be a very daring proposition, but was satisfied by the evidence presented in the article.
I especially like the point saying, “A wide range of adolescents and adults are engaged in hobbies that involve science, including…star gazing” (“95 Percent” 488). I find that personally this is what increases my knowledge of science as well. I own a fish. I have to feed it and change its water. But in order to know how to properly take care of the fish, I had to research how much to feed the fish, and how often the water has to be changed. This led me to research the Nitrogen Cycle that goes on in a freshwater tank. That led me to look up other scientific data, and so forth. This goes to show how “free choice learning experiences” really do increase scientific knowledge.
Another compelling bit of evidence in the article is how low-income students do just as well in elementary schools as high-income students, and that it was during the summer that the disadvantaged children fell behind. I found this very surprising. That is a statistic that can’t be ignored, since it proves that something goes on outside of schools that can drastically impact education.
My one problem with the article is how it fails to commend the usefulness of in-school learning. A lot of science that we learn in school is specialized, and would be difficult to learn outside of school. For example, my biology professor had me read complicated research papers for his biology lab class on neuroendocrinology, and toxoplasmosis. These papers were difficult to decipher, and often had to be reread in order to obtain a full understanding of them. Despite the difficulty, I’m thankful for these assignments because they’ve greatly improved my scientific literacy in very specialized and technical subjects within the field of biology. Yes, a visit to the museum or a google search can improve my general knowledge of a scientific topic, but collegiate courses allow one to understand science in depth. I doubt people look up scholarly articles about scientific issues on their own accord. They usually read condensed versions that they find online. However, I definitely agree that funding for out-of-school science institutions would have a great impact on education, especially for the layman who isn’t trying to become a science brainiac anyway.
