“Thus, a major implication for thinking about informal science learning is that what learners already understand about the world is perhaps as important as what one wishes for them to learn through a particular experience” – Surrounded By Science, pg. 38

I thought this quote from Chapter 3 was really interesting, and it made me think about the way I view science and learning as a whole. The idea is that science should not be taught as a stand-alone subject. Informal science should take prior knowledge and connect or enhance it with new science and knowledge. This prior knowledge is a crucial aspect in the learning process. Without the prior knowledge, there is nothing to base the new knowledge on. I think this can be explained in two ways. One is that without the prior knowledge, the new knowledge wont make sense. You should not teach someone multiplication without teaching them basic addition. You can, but it would be three times as hard, and not make as much sense. You need a foundation of knowledge, which can be built on and solidified. Without it, the concepts are shaky, and can be misconstrued. Secondly, and more importantly, is that you need prior knowledge to be interested in new knowledge. I relate to this theory very personally, because this is my relationship with science. I am not premed, nor do I have any interest in studying science in a formal setting anymore than is required to obtain my degree. But that doesn’t mean that I am not still interested in things that pertain to science. I am, only just in things that I had small prior knowledge and interest of. For example, I took Earth Science in high school, and really enjoyed it. I like nature, and enjoy learning about how it works on a daily, monthly and yearly schedule. Fast-forward four years, and the group leader of my BioBlitz walk mentions something about Pleistocene mega fauna. I know what the Pleistocene Epoch is, and knew that that topic interested me. So I asked her what that was, and was so curious that afterwards, I went home and did some independent study on my own. If I did not have the interest before the BioBlitz, I can assure you that I would have let that big word fly right over my head. But I knew that I was interested in that topic, and because of it, I went on to learn something new in an informal setting.

I think the article addressed a very important issue facing the research world today. Research is an expensive and costly field of science. Many experiments take many years to watch and record results. It is very competitive to have the chance to work in a lab, and those who do sometimes do not reap the benefit of seeing their research come to fruition. I have a very close friend who plans on going to medical school who was lucky enough to work in a lab for the past two summers. She enjoyed it, and felt that she was gaining some very useful experience, but she also felt like she wasn’t contributing much. She told me that nothing had changed from one summer to the next, and that she was still collecting the same data on a different level than she had the previous summer. With “Citizen Science”, research is turned into something anyone can do, not just pre-med students. It is accessible outside of a lab, and does not require the monetary backing that labs do. It also yields results quickly and effectively.

Of course, as the article so aptly brings up, trusting the general public with data collection has its risks. At first, one would presume data collected by the public would be faulty and not specific enough for data interpretation. But the article states “even seventh graders got them right 95 percent of the time.” With these sorts of statistics, scientists organizing the data trust the public. Im sure the margin of error is larger than it would be if someone who was trained effectively would do it, but the cost and time effectiveness of it overrules.

I was very impressed with the article. I like how informal science enthusiasts can so easily change into formal scientists, helping to create new data and research.

After reading Chapter 2 in “Surrounded by Science” I am even more confused as to what the study of science really is all about. The chapter begins trying to describe the different types of scientists and how they form a community of education and learning. On one hand, the community is unified and strong in its commitment to research and exploration of all fields of science. On the other, the community is divided by different methods of communicating and practices. They are further divided by culture and political values, something that I never knew to define science and the way it is taught and understood.

The chapter then tries to sort itself out by going through six strands of science learning. The strands are interesting, with strands one and three resonating with me in a more personal way than the rest. But the organization of the lesson is scientific in itself. When I was in second grade, and was asked to explain a word, I was not allowed to explain it using the word itself. My teacher said that that is not a true explanation. Reading the strands, I felt that way about the explanation that it tried to give. It was using scientific method to teach about method. This may be the best way to teach it, and convey the lesson, but something felt lacking in the chapter, perhaps for this reason.

“A growing body of evidence supports the contention that the public learns science in settings and situations outside of school” – page 488

This line in the article really resonated with me. Even in elementary school, science was not my favorite subject. But the things that I recall the most were things that involved us getting out and actually doing something based in the physical world that surrounded the classroom. Two examples come to mind, one that took place in the classroom but was taught in a way that it felt like it wasn’t, and one that took place primarily at home. The first was in 5^th grade. We were learning about ecosystems and the symbiotic relationships that take place in nature. My teacher ordered tanks, and seeds and bugs, and we created living terrariums in our classroom. It was so fun, and so educational. Our class time was spent caring for our terrariums and documenting what was happening within. My teacher brought the outside world in, and to this day I recall the lesson. The second example is the annual school science fair that took place in school. One year I did my experiment on wasps. The reason I chose this as my topic was because we had just found and dealt with a wasp’s nest right outside my house. I was able to take it down, study it and exhibit it at the fair. I was very proud of it, and was really able to learn about the nest and the wasps because I saw the nest and the wasps in the real world.

I think this article highlights the importance of showing the public, specifically younger children that science extends beyond the textbook assigned for the year. It’s also much more fun and engaging, and can really prove useful in teaching a lesson and making it stick.