Chapter 9 wrapped up what we have been talking about all semester: combining informal science learning with formal science learning.

In one of my first reflections, I remember including that informal science learning was simply insufficient towards having a firm grasp of scientific concepts. Nearly all of the knowledge of science that I have today is a result of formal science learning. That being said, formal science learning just doesn’t get the job done sometimes. The knowledge gained from formal science learning is not always practical. I personally learn more interesting material when I watch a TED talk or something of that nature. The chapter discusses some of the struggles between linking formal science learning to informal science learning. It talks about how the kind of learning that is done in informal settings such as museums, parks, and zoos is very different from the kind of learning that is done in formal settings such as a classroom or library. I think perhaps the biggest challenge to linking formal science to informal science is the rigid curriculum schools have to follow. I’m sure schoolteachers would love to teach in a more informal manner that their students would enjoy and have more interesting course material but strict and rigid guidelines to not allow for such freedom. Furthermore, the book speaks about how informal science learning is free-choice and I think this is a very important aspect as well. When you choose to walk up to something that you want to learn and make a decision to learn independently, this is when the material is retained best. However, when you are forced to learn something in school, even if it is interesting and of value, you will not retain it as well because you did not freely choose to learn this topic.

As I reflect on this topic of science and communication, I am reminded of something we talked about very early in the semester. For some reason, when I think about scientists communicating their findings, I imagine the pictures of the scientists in their lab coats that we thought about early in the semester. I think a big reason that this is on my mind is because of the jargon I always come across reading a scientific finding from a peer-reviewed journal. While I understand that this is not the way that most people come across their science learning, I have always had a very difficult time understanding anything being said in these journals. I believe that there needs to be improvement editing these journals or perhaps summarizing the findings of these papers so that the layperson like myself can understand what is being said without having to read it several times.

Another reason this image comes to mind is something discussed in class and in one of the articles which is the issue of Science and Religion. For the most part, science views religion as simply a hindrance to growth. Of course religion is something that is based on belief and not evidence, but I think if the scientific community made a more concerted effort to see eye to eye with the religious community as opposed to giving off more of a superior, elitist attitude that religion is simply false and childsplay, more people would be sympathetic to the scientific community and would accept what they are told from the scientific community.

I enjoyed reading this chapter because I feel it hit a point that many of us neglect inadvertently when we think about science or education, or most topics for that matter. This chapter discussed trying to make science learning environments, specifically museums, more compatible for those who are not of the dominant culture. A lot of people that are not of the dominant white culture in America do not feel comfortable going to a museum for several reasons. There may be a language barrier that would almost ensure that if such a person went to a museum, he or she wouldn’t be able to learn anything. There may be a cultural discrepancy in the learning environment. For example, the chapter discussed how in Vietnamese culture, learning and play are considered two completely separate entities (124). Going to a museum would not be an enjoyable outing because in their minds, it would be going to a boring place where they would have to learn science in a mundane fashion.

The chapter discussed 3 steps by which one would create a more compatible experience for those who come from nondominant cultures: Draw on cultural practices of the learners, Develop bi- or multi-cultural labels, and build relationships with the community (129). It is important to remember that simply changing the label of an exhibit from English and adding another 2 or 3 languages to it does not make a museum more cultured and tailored to other nondominant cultures. One would have to do some research and understand what it is that draws, for example, the Vietnamese into their museums. In some cases it might require hiring someone from the native culture who understands what will make the museum more compatible for people of his culture. For example, the Children’s Diversity Museum (CDM) added an exhibit about the Vietnamese round boat, a staple of Vietnamese culture (124). This exhibit naturally caught the attention of many Vietnamese visiting CDM because it made them feel at home and perhaps even surprised them that the museum had knowledge of this boat. One visitor remarked, “The round boat reminds me of the area where I used to live in Vietnam. This kind of boat is popular in the middle of the country. In the mornings, I used to walk to the beach to see the fish, shrimps, or crabs unloaded from these boats. The bamboo, the pulley, and the rice sieve on the wall all remind me of the good times in Vietnam” (124). I thought this was a great example of drawing the culture of the people and making them feel remembered.

Naturally, I think there are many challenges. It is not cheap to go out and try to make specific exhibits for people of different cultures, and it also brings into question which cultures you want to tailor your museum to. I think it is also difficult to do this without making the people feel like subjects. It is difficult to make evoke a genuine response out of people because I think most people would be suspicious that this is just being done for the sake of money. Lastly, I do not think this will be commonly practiced because of the society we live in. Nowadays, it is difficult to do something like this because even if you have the right intentions, it has to be something that will have a high reward and I think the highest reward will always come from tailoring to the dominant culture, not the nondomninant ones.

Daniel Bibawy

The assigned chapters in NPS discuss the changes in Jamaica Bay: how it has become more diverse in wealth, education, population, ethnicity. Over the years, Jamaica Bay has become much more well-off than it was in the past. I am happy to see this, truthfully. Although I did not even know of the existence of Jamaica Bay prior to this weekend, I developed an affection for it. It is a beautiful natural environment that is far larger than many of the other well known and loved parks in New York City, such as Central Park or Prospect Park. If taken care of properly, we can bring the world’s attention to Jamaica Bay and make the world realize how wonderful of a natural environment we have in Brooklyn. Most people in the United States know about Central Park and how beautiful it is and how large it is, but Jamaica Bay is larger than it and has the potential to be more beautiful, not to mention that it is natural rather than the man-made Central Park.

The diversity that has come into Jamaica Bay has not come without its struggles. Religious groups often clash with one another and it is not always the most amicable place to live. However, I think most would agree that it is better to have struggles among different groups living together in a community than to have a community dominated by one ethnic group that lives without any problems.

Daniel Bibawy

My idea of art has always been a little different than what most people view art as, I think. I’ve always thought of art as subjective, meaning what a person thinks is art can be art to that person. There is no definition of art and it cannot be something that is set in stone. What one person thinks art is, another might not consider to be art at all.

I think what I really learned from these articles is the methods to how science and art is created. One thing I learned is the reason most people don’t view science as art is because they think of science as some complex, formal process and art as a free-flowing, easy process. I personally do not agree with this view at all. Growing up, I’ve always had a much harder time in my art classes than my science classes. In elementary school and junior high, I never received a higher mark in my art classes than in my science classes. In fact, I thought of the two with opposite views than the ones of the general public shown in these articles. I thought of art as a tedious process where everything had to be done systematically and science was an easier process where you can just imagine everything and flow through it. For example, in “On the Art of the Brain,” one portion of the article discusses the hypothesis how science has specific methods it follows and art does not and I don’t agree with this at all. Science is the one that doesn’t have a specific pattern. It’s different every time. Art has to follow a guideline. However, neither is as one dimensional as I’m making it out to be. Science can easily be viewed as art, and it often is to me. A perfect example of this is the “Brainbow.” Few people would argue both the scientific and artistic characteristics to this.

Daniel Bibawy

Reading through the article, I’ll be honest: I did not really understand what place-based education was or entails. However I believe these few sentences summed it up best.

“(a) it emerges from the particular attributes of place, (b) it is inherently multidisciplinary, (c) it is inherently experiential, (d) it is reflec- tive of an educational philosophy that is broader than “learning to earn”, and (e) it connects place with self and community. Perhaps the most revolutionary characteristic of place-based educa- tion—one that connects it to the Freirean tradition of critical pedagogy—is that it emerges from the particular attributes of place. This idea is radical because current educational discourses seek to standardize the experience of students from diverse geographical and cultural places so that they may compete in the global economy. Such a goal essentially dismisses the idea of place as a primary experiential or educational context, displaces it with traditional disciplinary content and technological skills, and aban- dons places to the workings of the global market.” (Grunewald, 7)

Based on this description, it seems to me that place- based education involves an experience in which the learner does most of the learning on his or her own, with guidance from the educator. Furthermore it seems that learning is done in an interactive setting and not necessarily sitting in a classroom listening to a teacher give a lecture. Lastly it seems that the learning is done through the inherent nature of the environment. The learner approaches whatever it is he or she would like to learn about the environment and learns through his or her interactions with it, while the teacher gives some input and aids the learning process without controlling it.

In my English 1012 class, I recently read the Paulo Freire’s “The Pedagogy of the Oppressed” which was frequently referenced in this article. In his piece, Freire describes the many problems with the way education is presently conducted, which he calls the “banking concept.” The teacher deposits the information into the students and withdraws it on exams, with little to no input from the students on the material being taught, the way it is taught, or the setting in which it is taught. The teacher is all knowing and the students are ignorant and listen meekly. His alternative method of teaching, which he dubs as the “problem-posing” method of teaching, seems to be much more effective to me. The teacher comes to class with a question or problem and students give their input on what the best way to go about this problem is. Students are much more interactive in class and they frequently give their input and are more aware of what is going on in the class as opposed to not paying attention when the teacher is giving a lecture. It seems to me this is the direction place-based education attempts to be going in. The educators take a step back and allow the students to teach themselves and each other and learn through an active process as opposed to a passive one.

Daniel Bibawy

I really liked several of the points that this chapter brought up, the first of which was the was the idea that to really understand what you’re learning you need to reflect and discuss it with others so that you remember it better and understand it better. They did a study with several children while they were watching Sesame Street.They interrupted the show in the middle several times (which I’m sure the kids didn’t appreciate and, if anything, you would think it would break their focus and make them absorb less information from the show) and asked them questions about what they had just watched and had a short discussion with them. They had another group of children who also watched the show uninterrupted and they found that the first group absorbed the information much better. This tactic of discussing what you’re attempting to learn is extremely helpful and important to the learning process. Often times I realize that studying with friends and discussing the material we’re studying helps me absorb the information much better than if I just try to study on my own.

I also liked the methods by which you communicate information discussed in this chapter. The first is perceptual talk, which is simply just pointing out what you see in front of you. The next is conceptual talk, which is wondering about what you see in front of you and discussing this. For example if you’re observing animals, you wonder about what the purpose of what they’re doing at any given moment is. The next is connecting talk, which is connecting what you see in front of you with what goes on in your own life and trying to relate to the science in front of you. Strategic talk is discussing with those learning with you the best way to go about interacting with a specific exhibit. The last is affective talk, which is discussing how the exhibit made you feel and what you took out of it. I think these methods go further than specifically science learning and they affect all kinds of learning, especially conceptual and connective talk. When you begin to wonder about why things that you’re trying to learn are the way they are and can relate to them in your life, you will have a memorable and emotional attachment to them and will retain the information better.