While reading chapter 2, I came upon an interesting quote, “Learning to communicate in and with a culture of science is a much broader undertaking than mastering a body of discrete conceptual or procedural knowledge.” Essentially, the idea of  working as a community within science is more important than certain people mastering a certain field and not being able to communicate about it. I completely agree with this, since science reflects the cultural principles of those who engage in it. What society deems important to focus on and provides various solutions for are determined by cultural values that scientists impose. That is why communication is essential, for if we work as a community, we can bring importance to certain problems such as global warming and possibly find a great solution. Project Feederwatch was a great example of this, when a group of birdwatchers teamed up with scientists from Cornell to collect and study data on birds. Not only did the participants have a chance to learn from the data they gathered, but the scientists as well. There was an even a point where the participants were able to disprove the scientist’s hypothesis. Overall, by working together the relationship between the scientists and the citizen scientists evolved, resulting in the overall gain of crucial knowledge for both groups.

Chapter 2 also made mention on 6 strands, which made up the process behind informal science learning. The strands were essentially statements that reflected on the process of what people do when they engage in science. Those 6 strands can provide an average learner with the means of engaging in informal learning, which is quite beneficial. They are guidelines and means for achieving a desired outcome, when it comes to learning outside of an establishment. By utilizing these steps, society can develop a means for making science more accessible for people of all age groups, and essentially help us achieve a plethora of scientific breakthroughs.

In this article, John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking argue that that free-choice science learning experiences currently contribute more to public understanding of science than in-school experiences. While they don’t have sufficient data to fully support the claim, they do make an interesting point. Their two leading facts are that average Americans spend less than 5 percent of their life in classrooms, and an ever-growing body of evidence demonstrates that most science is not learned in school, but in places outside the school such as museums, parks, and media.

Personally, I was shocked that the average American spends 5 percent or less of his or her time in class. This is, probably, because I hope to be a cardiovascular surgeon, so I expect most of my time to be dominated by lectures and various lab work. However, I can see that being true, especially with the way our government deals with education. Schools are dependent on funding  which provides them with the opportunity to expand their educational programs. With constant budget cuts, however, schools are forced to limit the number of subjects they can offer and,  as a consequence,  the volume of science being taught at schools is significant;y reduced.

I was also quite surprised to find out that most science is not learned in school classrooms, but in places such as museums or parks. Although I can definitely see that being an acceptable place to learn some basic facts since human beings possess the cognitive capabilities of carrying out simple variations of scientific method and, by observing their surroundings are able to reach logical conclusions. However, while this is essentially how people come to learn about science, the amount of information one can gather from observation lead to knowledge on the surface level. To fully understand any scientific subject, we must ask endless questions, which, as the knowledge deepens, become more and more complex and can only be answered by performing extensive research. Since this opportunity is being denied to the vast majority of Americans, I am surprised, that Americans outperformed adults from many other countries at later stages of their life. This makes me question the legitimacy of the measure of the performance level, and what was exactly defined as science in that case.