The two articles on art and science attempt to do something revolutionary: to combine art and science into one genre. We’ve always categorized art and science as distinct, and even opposing fields to pursue. Part of this is because the English language distinguishes the two disciplines into two separate words. However, these articles have the power to change our view of this into thinking that our perception of the world is actually a conglomerate of the art and science we see. Art can provide scientific hypotheses, and science can be displayed as a work of art understandable to many people, as Jonathon Wells does.

There are numerous examples one can come up with of art used in science and science used in art. The articles provide a few of them, such as the “Brainbow” picture, the building of beautiful structures such as the pyramids, or depicting geology through a photographic artform, as Jonathon Wells does. I can even come up with several examples myself. Editing my videos requires the use of software designed by programming scientists. Textbooks contain colored pictures of the human body to allow us to differentiate between different organs. Drama therapy and music therapy are up and coming methods of treatment for psychological disorders. Even arts such as acting and stand-up comedy can be boiled down to a science. Constantin Stanislavski came up with a hugely successful method for training actors, and stand-up comedians arrange their jokes in a certain order to generate the most laughs from the audience.

But the most profound statement is made by Jeffrey Lichtman, who blurs the lines of science and art when he explains that our perception of the world is inaccurate. We only understand the world through the filter of our brain’s processing. Color’s don’t actually exist. We just see color because our brains filter wavelengths of light into distinct colors that it perceives. How am I to know that my red is the same as your red? We have methods of testing for colorblindness, but our language and our scientific method fails to test our perception. Even if a friend of mine can perceive a full range of colors, I’ll never know if he perceives red the way I perceive green, and he might perceive blue the way I perceive brown. Therefore, even science isn’t completely based on reality. What is reality? Perhaps art and science are just two different methods of trying to make sense of reality.

This discussion of perception is a philosophical one, and is explained very well by Michael Stevens’ videos on his YouTube channel, Vsauce:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju08

The first article, Learning in Your Own Backyard spoke about place-based education, and how research has shown that it results in higher grades in students as well as a better understanding of their subject material. I agree that it’s a good idea to be learning subjects on-location, especially if that subject can be explored in the physical world.  This makes sense because we believe what we can observe with our senses. If you can see an object and hit it with a hammer, and hear it make a clang, then you can be positive it’s there. Anything beyond that type of learning is conceptual and requires a stretch of the imagination. Even babies and children learn through tactile exploration. They travel through their space, touch everything they see, and manipulate items that grab their curiosity. They don’t listen to lectures. For this reason, it would be much more interesting to learn about the evolutionary relationship between raccoons and bears by feeling their pelts (or synthetic pelts) and making a judgement off of that. Or rather than first explaining how and why plants lean toward the sun, one can be planted indoors next to a windowsill, to display how it will lean toward the window no matter which direction you turn the pot.

I went to the Tenement Museum myself in my junior year of high school, and I remember many of its details very vividly. First we had a lesson on immigrants in the Lower East Side (of which I don’t remember so vividly), and then we explored the apartments they lived in, which are preserved in the most original state as possible. Actors portray the immigrants as we walk into these apartments, and we get to see the cramped living conditions, speak to the “immigrants” about their lives, and even see a lot of the different tools they used back then, such as a heavy clothes iron made out of metal that doesn’t even run on electricity. The point of all this description is to display how much more I was able to remember from an experiential memory rather than from lectures I received in class.

Once our interest in a subject is sparked however, we need to be able to explore deeper as humans. This is where critical pedagogy comes in. David Gruenewald explains in Best of Both Worlds how teachers need to challenge our thoughts with new information. This reminds me of the concept of juxtaposition in Surrounded by Science, where misconceptions about science are challenged as a method of sparking interest, as well as teaching more accurate information. A lecture setting is necessary after initial exposition to explain the subject matter. Eventually, a student needs to learn about what goes on at the cellular level that causes a plan to lean towards the sun. This can’t always be observed, and would require an animation and an explanation. It’s only through a mix of critical pedagogy and place-based learning that we can fully understand a subject.

This chapter, ironically, broke down the teaching of science into a science. I was surprised to find out that people record conversations at museums in order to figure out how to better design their museum, and to figure out the most optimal way to convey their knowledge. I also wondered if any of my conversations at museums have been recorded (probably not, since a waiver is needed to be signed). But it’s great to know that there are people out there whose sole job it is to listen to conversations had by people at an exhibit, and engineer the most favorable museum design based off of those conversations. Social sciences such as these are gaining more ground nowadays, and it’s one of the new and great ways we’re expanding our knowledge. This in itself is an example of our use of metacognition and points to our higher intelligence. Very exciting stuff.

I also found myself agreeing with the section about how parents can reinforce and develop their children’s knowledge. The example of  a mother clarifying information about dinosaur eggs was a perfect scenario that demonstrates this. Similarly, it speaks to how having an expert in the field conducive to learning without introducing a discomfort factor. The discomfort factor, as I experienced, usually occurs when an expert in a field (usually much older than I am) lingers after his explanation as I try to play with the tools in an exhibit, or talk with my friends about my thoughts of it. It doesn’t allow me to freely brainstorm and experience the exhibit with privacy. This factor is eliminated if the expert is somebody who I know well or is close to my age.

Another great method of encouraging learning brought up by the text is positive reinforcement. The text spoke about how girl scouts receive a badge every time a favorable behavior has been performed. For example, if a child constantly expresses curiosity, this action might earn them a badge. Psychologically, this method has been proven to work. However, one pitfall to this method is that the subject might then be encouraged to continue performing this behavior solely to continue earning that reward (the badge) and not because they honestly wanted to react that way. Museums eliminate this constraint by allowing visitors to freely explore whichever exhibits they feel drawn to.

Adults must also be careful when teaching children. In the boat-building example, we see the parents doing most of the challenging problem-solving tasks, such as building differently shaped boats, while leaving the logistical tasks to their children, such as setting off the boats into the water. The child might end up missing the point of the activity or feeling insulted that the parent doesn’t allow them to think on their own. This is one of the ways an aversion to learning is often developed. Although sometimes the problem might be too challenging for a child to solve and an adult’s help is necessary, other times it’s necessary to let them have a go at it. It’s very easy to become absorbed in an activity so much that you forget your purpose is to have your children learn too. I speak from a psychological perspective as well as from experience, since I find myself guilty of sometimes doing this with my seven year old sister.

What I found most striking in this chapter is the amount of angles from which education can be looked from. Typically, I judge my education based off of three things:

1. How much did I learn?
2. Was it interesting?
3. Was it interactive?

After reading chapter three, however, I realized that there is much more to educating than just those three factors. There is the importance of having multiple modes of learning. There is even importance in assessing a student’s prior knowledge, and if it’s faulty, to correct that knowledge. This is referred to as “juxtaposition” by the text. Having all these new aspects to consider makes me appreciate the multifaceted nature of educating. It’s a complex field to understand, and I have a deeper understanding of how educators need to account for many variables to make sure their teaching is on par.

I believe that juxtaposition is one of the most important of these variables to include in education. Having the element of surprise in teaching can keep students on their feet and constantly interested in what they’re learning. One of the most boring things for a student to experience is learning something that they already know or don’t care about. But if you surprise them with information which contradicts their preconceived understanding, it wakes them up and alerts them. In essence, a surprising juxtaposition to prior knowledge is a stimulant.

Humans tend to fall into a phenomenon known as “hedonic adaptation,” which means we quickly grow accustomed to pleasure from the external world. We lose the excitement of having a new television within a few weeks of its purchase. Look at an amazing view every day, and after a while the view will cease to be as amazing. We build tolerance and constantly need new stimulation to excite ourselves. In a way, this breeds progress. Within the context of hedonic adaptation, juxtaposition is a great tool for education. It finds a way around our tendency to adapt to stimuli by constantly surprising us with new facts.

The same can be said for making learning interactive, hands on, and social. Each of the case studies in the chapter spoke to how alluring science with these qualities can be, with the participants getting much enjoyment. One of the most interesting case studies was the skeleton exhibit. As you cycled a stationary bike, a mirror to your side would overlay your skeleton onto your reflection, allowing you to see its movement in real time. According to Surrounded by Science, “Of the 93 children in the sample, 96 percent correctly drew skeletons whose bones began or ended at the joints of the body.” This is proof of how engaging and effective hands-on science is.

As a child, I was always taught that science is defined by the steps in the scientific method: observation, hypothesis, experiment, analysis, conclusion. Chapter two of Surrounded by Science gives a different take on what science is. It summarizes science learning into six strands. These strands are revolutionary in that they broaden the confines of the definition of science, and allows the common citizen to be a participant in science.

I noticed that the strands also follow the typical process by which a person involves himself in science. First, interest in a particular subject is sparked. Then, a person would explore this subject. Through their exploration, they would learn vocabulary words, scientific terms, and scientific processes. If a person persists in the exploration of a scientific field and contributes to a study, they would eventually identify themselves as a member of the scientific community. Similarly, Surrounded by Science constructs a parallel series of events in its strands.

The example of citizen scientists contributing to the field of ornithology is a great example of these strands put into action. A person who is watching a robin might have his interest sparked (strand 1). This person might proceed to do online research on birds, and become well versed the scientific content he reads (strand 2). He might want to get more involved in ornithology, and therefore participate in a study such as Project FeederWatch. He would catalog and report the different birds he observes in his community, and then reflect on the methods he used and the information he learns (strands 3 and 4). As he sharpens his skills, he will be able to have conversations with other ornithologists about the science (strand 5), and would feel like part of the scientific community (strand 6). Interestingly, although the strands are not designed to be in any particular order, it seems as if they are already in chronological order.