It’s often said that learning shouldn’t stop at the classroom – and that’s where informal science steps in. Chapter 9 discussed how we can extend the learning experience beyond informal science settings, beyond museums and exhibits. Computers and cellphones improve the learning experience, connecting visitors to apps and websites designed to enhance the exhibit. I found this especially interesting as this shows the increasing relevance of augmented reality. Augmented reality refers to “live, direct or indirect, view of a physical, real-world environment whose elements are augmented (or supplemented) by computer-generated sensory input such as sound, video, graphics or GPS data” (Wikipedia). In an informal science learning context, this means that someone can look at an object of interest and access important information about it as they’re observing.

This can also mean informal science participants can give live feedback and results if they’re participating in a study. In a present context, we can see this already happening in exhibits. Visitors are sometimes to asked to scan QC codes and see something relevant to the display. Augmented reality is the next step in that engagement process. I’m reminded of how certain students were also given Google Glass during BioBlitz. They used it to take pictures of the species they were supposed to observe. Ostensibly, in the near future, they’ll be able to seamlessly look at those species and cross-reference them with known species. This should make the process of discovering new species far easier. I’m excited to see how Google Glass and other augmented reality interfaces will influence informal science learning in the future.

Effective communication of scientific information is essential to dissemination of scientific knowledge to the public. I remember watching shows like Bill Nye the Science Guy and Cyberchase, which really instilled a love and fascination of science from an early age. The information presented in those shows had a lot of complicated information behind them, but it was explained in a very simple manner. It’s this distillation of concept that’s so important to spreading scientific knowledge, and that’s why I found “Framing Science” so interesting. As I learned in Seminar 1, our own perceptions and biases naturally influence what meaning we receive. Our political and religious identities inevitably influence our scientific identity as well. The average person will not be able to understand a scientific paper, but they will learn from any summary made from a common source such as a newspaper or a magazine.

It’s this third, or fourth, or fifth-hand science learning that really worries me. There are often so many levels of abstraction between the informal science learner and the source of information when learning in a casual setting. People who learn their information from content aggregators like Reddit, Facebook, and Tumblr, unless they’re connected to specialized scientific communities, may not be getting truly accurate information. What scientific information they may be getting may be skewed and skewed again by incorrect interpretations of data and conclusion. The clearest direction of a solution I can think of is on both ends of the process. The scientist who makes the discovery should take the time to explain it in an easy to understand way. The learner should be skeptical of any claims made by second/third/fourth hand sources, and do their best to learn from the source itself or trustworthy sources.

The inspiration for any process of learning always starts with curiosity. It’s especially important for informal science learning, as the entire point of it is that it’s something you choose to be continually immersed in. It was really cool to learn about the 5 C’s + P mentioned in the reading for this reason. The way interest is broken down makes a concrete amount of sense. Curiosity, Confidence, Challenge, Control, Communication – when they’re laid out like that, it’s fairly easy to see how they’re all intertwined.

You need to get people curious about the topic. Then you need to make all age groups feel like they’re capable of learning it. I know that while many scientific topics can seem very daunting, mindset is a huge part of making learning something you can deal with. Some of my friends studying organic chem view it as a huge, unbeatable challenge, and struggle accordingly. I firmly believe that if you can inspire confidence in students, they can learn material much more quickly. Challenge is a huge part of learning as well. Nothing should seem impossible. Additionally, challenge implies that theres a sense of engagement from the educator’s part as well. Not only should they take pains to involve the student, to make them learn on their own instead of spoon-feeding them, but they should see that the student isn’t just blackballed by an overwhelming amount of material either. This naturally leads into Control – the student/learner should feel as if they can influence their own direction of education and performance, that they’re an active participant. Communication helps students know that their educator really cares about their opinion, and validates the “active participant” aspect that makes informal science education so engaging.

One of the things I love about science is its inherent neutrality. It’s a process that anyone, anyone at all can participate in. All levels of learning, at any age, with any identity – all science cares about is your willingness to work and your willingness to learn. Chapter 7 was excellent in making me consider how ideas of equity are applied in science learning settings. I do see how museums try to appeal to multiple demographics. They may try to add accomodations for sense-disabled people, or have interactive exhibits. Museums – or just informal places of learning, in general – are supposed to be a sort of communal gathering to take place in scientific or humanities oriented education.

The issue for me is the association some people have with museums. The key issue is a perceived sense of exclusivity. To some, museums are only open to anyone in theory – in reality, they’re really for people with some background in the area of interest for the exhibition, as those people have something to gain.

That being said, I did like reading about methods to incorporate multiple demographics – drawing of cultural practices , developing multi-cultural labels, and building relationships with the community. Of the three, the strongest method was the last one. Museums, when they become not just an exhibit, or an exclusive place of learning, but an actual part of the community, with outreach programs and exhibits tailored to the community – they can truly become equitable. That connection allows for a dynamism of presentation and contribution that is valuable to both parties, as visitors feel empowered to contribute and museums have a stronger method of educating.

Bodies of water have a significant place in many religious traditions. They often represent a variety of motifs – rebirth, cleansing, purity, to name a few – and they have a strong place in Hindu religious traditions. Reading about Jamaica Bay Ethnographic Overview and Assessment really was fascinating – religious rituals regarding local bodies of water are something of a blank area in my cultural awareness. I’ve often associated religious traditions involving bodies of water with places outside of America, such as India, the Philippines, etc. It was very surprising to read about the religious and cultural practices surrounding Jamaica Bay. Bodies of water in the vicinity of New York City were sort of removed from religious traditions – my reason for doing so bears some reflection at a later date.

I have a particular interest in how cultural traditions interact with government policy, so I was personally fascinated to see how prominent Hindu religious officials and  NPS government employees compromised about the leaving of offerings in the bay. I recognized the importance of leaving offerings to the dead within the river for the Hindu religious practitioners, but I also understood the NPS’ concern about pollution. The resolution, the dipping of offerings into the river a set amount of times and then burying it/giving it to charity, was fascinating. It represented a middle ground between culture and public health policy. I’m reminded of what happens when there’s a failure to communicate between the two in issues like these – the case of the Ganges in India. The Ganges, which is very significant in many Hindu religious practices, is very polluted as a result of years of these practices. I’ll be interested in seeing what potential future solutions officials devise to deal with that issue.

It’s certainly a knee-jerk reaction to say that science and art have nothing in common. I’m reminded of Richard Feynman’s opinion on this. An artistically-inclined  friend of Feynman’s told him that a flower to an artist is so much more beautiful than a flower to a scientist. Feynman’s retort was, as a scientist, he understood the various processes behind the flower, and it became all the more beautiful for it. Science is about understanding our environment. But for many, it’s a difficult process to internalize and when a student is faced with paragraphs and blocks of words, they quickly lose interest. Art, on the other hand, is something intuitively grasped. It speaks to the viewer on an emotional level and inspires them.  I loved “The Art of The Brain: “Brainbow” and the Difficulty of Distinguishing Science and Art”  for talking about whether or not aesthetically-pleasing scientific data can be considered artwork.

The difficulty with statistics is they are hard to empathize with. If you stare at numbers for a significant amount of time, they devolve into meaningless digits. By presenting findings in a pleasing manner, you can inspire those reviewing your data. Art can inspire an interest in science, and science can enhance the aesthetics of art.

I went on a guided tour of the Metropolitan Museum of Art this morning, and when the guide talked about the perfect balance and proportions of a statue, it really made me wonder how closely interrelated science and art were. A sculptor can look to the anatomy of the human body to enhance their work, making better artwork. A casual observer can be inspired by the artwork to understand the math and proportions behind the masterpiece. Art can inspire understanding of science, and science can enhance artworks. It’s a symbiotic relationship.

The surest way to marry theory to practical knowledge is through practice and real-world reference. If you can see the information you’ve learned in action, then you can internalize the lesson and inspire yourself and others. Learning in Your Own Backyard: Place-Based Education for Museums was fascinating for this reason. I was especially interested in her account of the Turtle Bay Exploration Park and the Tenement Museum.

Place-based education focuses on using environments to reinforce lessons. By showing students that their lessons can be found in the real world, they lend gravity to the information taught. By walking through a museum, students can start to bridge that gap from classroom to reality – that the things they learn are real, and they do matter in the real world.

I visited the Tenement Museum last year with my Seminar 2 professor. Immigration in New York was something that existed on the peripherals of my perception. I was vaguely cognizant of it, but I never appreciated the human struggle that they went through. The Tenement Museum changed all that from my first step inside. As I went through each floor, I remembered that people lived, breathed, ate, and cried in this building. A young boy practiced boxing on his own to kill time, as I saw from a boxing manual and some weights in a bedroom.  The Tenement Museum was absolutely beneficial in making the lessons I learned in The Peopling of New York real. It absolutely aided in reflection, as I thought about the experiences people back then went through and then what my own mother and father went through when they came to America. The sense of alienation and the need to stick with your own people is something I’ll never quite get – but the Tenement Museum certainly made me think about it in a way I hadn’t quite before. Place-based education makes students care about their subjects by reminding them that this isn’t knowledge for a test – its knowledge for real life.

Science doesn’t take place in a vacuum. It requires mutual discussion and dissemination of information, and cooperation to verify and improve upon results. Chapter 4 was especially ingratiating to read as a result, as I loved learning about how communication and interaction aid science learning. You can memorize lots of theoretical information in any science by yourself, but in order to verify the truth and to build upon your knowledge, it’s necessary to communicate with others. It’s often said that you don’t really understand something unless you’re able to explain it effectively. By exchanging what we know with others, through teaching and being taught in turn, we can reinforce our knowledge of the sciences and help others build upon their own. From personal example, this is especially true with biology and organic chemistry. The former requires knowledge of multiple processes and facts – by repeating them to others you reinforce and repeat the knowledge in your own mind. In organic chemistry, it’s extremely important to verify with others what you’ve learned and the solution to a problem. Solutions are multi-layered and can be very complicated, so the viewpoint of others are required to ensure that your very process of thinking is correct.

At the same time, some degree of moderation should be kept in mind when interacting and communicating with others. As crucial as it is to learn from others, one shouldn’t ask information from others when it would be detrimental to their own learning or the learning of others. It’s a maxim oft-repeated – if you learn it yourself, you learn it forever. With this in mind, we should remember to respect the role initiative has in learning science. Not only shouldn’t we needle others to explain things to us, but we should also take care not to spoon-feed knowledge to science learners.

Interactivity is an essential part of learning any topic or skill. It’s the bridge between studying theory and executing confident practice. By keeping a student involved in learning, you can keep their attention focused on the lesson at hand and ensure that they’re truly committing it to memory. It’s another level of interaction deeper than a lecture.  I found the information that Chapter 3 provided on the role of interactivity in learning very fascinating for this reason, and I wasn’t altogether surprised that interactive exhibits were found to be more effective than conventional lessons.

In the arena of science, immersion is especially important at a young age. Cell Lab was especially enlightening in regards to the importance of immersion. The reality of science at higher levels is that it’s often unclear, with weeks and months without any solid progress. New learners can be demoralized by this and need evidence of clear progress in an experiment, or they may lose interest in scientific participation. What interactive exhibits like Cell Lab offer are a sort of distilled scientific experience – they allow students to “step into” the mindset of a scientist by putting on lab uniforms. The exhibit also gives them a clear goal and steps required to reach their objectives. This kind of immersion has students excited about participating in the process and culture of science. I wish there was a sort of sister exhibit that had students collect the culture in a less formal setting, so that they’d see the lab coat as another uniform scientists wear, instead of the uniform scientists wear.