This chapter explored the notion of social learning, which has been important to learning since ancient times; in ancient Athens, philosophers would have seminars to discuss their philosophies and further their ideas; it is odd that such an part of learning has been dropped so much from the spectrum of learning.  I am glad informal science recognizes group learning as an integral part of learning because it is so effective in learning, and it helps reinforce many of the learning strands.  For instance, as noted in the reading, “…as highlighted in Strand 5, science itself involves around specialized norms for interacting and specialized forms of language.  Learning science therefore involves learning those norms and language” (pp. 64).  If a learner is expected to or wants to interact with their peers or field experts, she is more likely to learn the terms either through conversations she has or on her because she wants to better understand said conversations.  It’s like film production; if you want to make a movie, you must know the terminology; otherwise, you cannot direct a crew, take directions, or get much respect.  While there is less pressure in informal science, the principle still applies: if you want to further your knowledge of a topic you find interesting, you need to gain the vocabulary and behavior.  A learner will probably be more likely to do this if she is interested, so Strand 1 is important here.

One of the specific examples in the book is the use of television.  “Even an intrinsically passive medium such as television can become interactive when a social, conversational element is produced” (pp. 65); if conversation is added, science television programs can have more value as a learning tool.  Once again I draw a connection between the science world and the “geek” world, because the “fandoms”, or fan bases of different television shows, are an excellent example of this.   Sometimes I see posts on tumblr lamenting how the user knows the gamut of Television Show X or Book Y, but not about a subject they are learning about in school.  But if one applies the book’s stance on social interaction’s contribution to learning, then it makes sense.  Viewers of television or other media series tend to join fandoms, in which they discuss, speculate, and analyze the television show, absorbing different ideas from one another.  There are even conventions  dedicated to these fandoms, with legitimate panels and guests.  People use specialized terms and have their own behavior code (Strand 5), have an interest in the series (Strand 1), use their knowledge from and about their series (Strand 2), and tend to identify as a member of their fandom (Strand 6).  If fandoms for fictional televisions series can exhibit several learning strands, with social interactions contributing to strands 2, 5, and 6, I do believe that science learning can and will benefit from a more social atmosphere.  The original scientists – philosophers – learned so much from interaction, it would be a shame if informal science experiences did not incorporate the social aspect of learning into their programs.  (Although, from the reading, they have been doing very well.)

Two Side Notes:

(1) The textbook mentions the importance of parents in a child’s learning experience.  So why do many seem to believe that teachers (and students, sometimes) are the cause of all the learning issues in school and rarely ever the parents?

(2) The part about social learning at the dinner table is true.  I learn(ed) a lot from good family conversations whilst eating dinner.