Jennifer Mikhli

Professor Adams

10/31/13

Chapter seven in Surrounded by Science brought an important point to the foreground, as it linked up the issue of cultural diversity with informal learning environments. It illustrated the importance of recognizing various cultures in the facilitation of learning amongst those who do not belong to dominant groups. This is a vital notion to consider as we traverse the field of informal science learning. Until now, we have examined the importance of informal science learning and its ability to expose the adolescence to new scientific concepts. However, while this may be so, and while informal science learning opportunities have the potential to equalize scientific education amongst various economic groups in our society, there is a fundamental ingredient that is lacking. A quote that sums up this lacking component goes as follows: “simply exposing individuals to the same learning environments may not result in equity, because the environments themselves are designed using the lens of the dominant culture” (120).  While all ethnic groups have access to institutions of informal science learning, there will be a disconnect in this experience due to the lack of these exhibits catering to the needs of these various cultures. For instance, such factors include the lack of diverse staff and content that is not available multi-linguistically. Thus, while there may be a myriad of exciting new facts to be learned on behalf of everyone, only select groups are able to consume the information. Translating exhibit labels and program content to various languages has the ultimate capability of fostering conversation amongst several generations, thus enhancing learning. This ties back to our previous discussion pertaining to the importance of social interaction and conversation in informal learning environments. If the information is presented in one’s native language, then perhaps the parents accompanying this adolescent can ease the learning experience for the child. This would also encourage parents from non-dominant groups who have not in the past, to now venture out into these institutions of learning.

This particular link between culture and informal learning institutions got me thinking about my friends’ interactions with museums throughout their youth. While my parents had chauffeured me around form one museum to the next throughout my adolescence, my friends had not experienced the same. I believe this can be traced to the fact that my friends’ parents were thwarted from accessing these institutions because of the language barriers that were at play. While their children were proficient in the English language, they were not and thus going to such institutions must have been thought of as an intimidating and daunting experience. Thus, these rich learning experiences were denied to my friends, solely because of a lack of cultural tailoring on behalf of these places of learning.

I was pleased to note the progress currently began made to adjust this problem and bring equity back to these valuable resources.  While these adjustments are extensive and will be fiscally demanding, the payoff will be tremendous. There is a resounding hypothesis that informal science learning can finally be the equalizer in science learning amongst disparate economic circles; however, this cannot be realized if the aforementioned component continues to go missing. Essentially, much attention must be made towards making these informal learning environments culturally friendly and without cultural barriers.

Both of the articles seek to ascertain a link between the evolving forces of science and art. “The Art of the Brain,” by Ashley Taylor, attempts to distinguish the differences between the fields of science and art, leading to her conclusion that the two are hard to separate. She notices that both art and science follow a prescribed method that can differ from one scientist and one artist to the next. Both art and science also appreciate the complexity of the things for which they are concentrated on. While the author’s focus of differentiating the two is an interesting take on the fields, the second article, I felt, truly portrayed the relationship between art and science as I see it.

The second article entitled “Art as a Way of Knowing,” by Marina McDougall explores the interdependence of science and art. It discusses the ways in which art has allowed for the evolution of science to unfold. This happens because of the similarities lurking amongst art and science. Both allow for the interaction with the world through the asking of questions, and developing a deeper understanding of a topic. More specifically, art allows for science learning as it is “effective at engaging and distilling complex and dynamic problems,” and it “enchants and invites participation”(7). Art also allows for synthesis and it engages all of the senses of the learner. This approach to the connectivity of art and science really struck me as I tapped into my memory of witnessing the two fields intertwined.

I remember glancing through a field journal of an electrical engineer and being amazed at the elaborate sketches confined in the notebook. It surprised me as to the artistic know-how needed in order to participate in such a deeply scientific field. However, in order for him to articulate the design of the new prototype, an intricate sketch was needed to allow for the translation of his thoughtful design into a material product. During my biology classes as well, we were required to glance under a microscope and sketch the images that we were seeing. Although this was in a classroom, this represented the ways in which real biologists communicated their view of specimens to their fellows. Art, in both cases allowed for the dissemination and spread of new scientific knowledge. And even before the scientific learning can take place, art is used as a tool to enchant and engage the learner. The hand-crated planters displayed in the Midwood community gardens perfectly illustrated this idea as the bright colors were meant to catch the attention of the young children, encouraging them to learn about the various planting mechanisms that were housed in the planters. Ultimately, when trying to encourage creativity in a field of science, art is used to lure in prospective learners, causing them to tap into their wells of inquiry and perception.

Jennifer Mikhli

Professor Adams

October 12, 2013

Science and Technology in NYC

The article entitled “Learning in Your own Backyard: Place-based Education for Museums,” by Janet Petilpas, Salles Russell-Ciardi, Lori Salles, and Mary Jo Sutton explores the realm of place-based education. It describes three examples, two of them geared towards educating science, while one promotes historical learning. The Turtle Bay Exploration Park offers such a place-based curriculum, allowing people to explore the 300-acre campus and engage in activities “that interpret the relationship between humans and nature,”(50) as is noted in the article. Visitors can engage in sights such as the far-reaching roots of an oak tree. This knowledge can then be applied to future situations, such as lessons in soil erosion. The reason that educational situations like this one, along with other placed-based curriculums, are so effective is because of the tangibility that it offers for learners. This real experience of observing these sturdy tree roots serves as a connecting tool upon which other scientific knowledge can be applied. This connects back to the interactivity strategy of informal science learning, as well as the connecting category of perceptual talk.  Walking through the Turtle Bay Park Museum allows onlookers to interact with the environment around them, sparking their interest, engaging them, and providing them with sense of reasoning that they can later apply to other situations. This can manifest itself with connecting talk that could later occur in a formal setting, where the observation of the tree roots can serve as an earlier experience from which connections to the current lesson can be made.

David A. Gruenewald proposes a blending of the aforementioned placed-based curriculums with critical pedagogy in his article entitled “The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place.” Critical pedagogy from an ecological standpoint promotes the transformation and conservation of the landscapes around us. While this concept is essential, it must first be preceded by a placed-based curriculum, to instill a love for the environment within students and other citizens of the environment. This fosters a sense of empathy for the environment, which can then inspire rehabilitation of it. This is summed up with a quote from Sobel saying, “what’s important is that children […] learn to love it, before being asked to heal its wounds” (7). This relates back to the last strand of science learning: identifying with the scientific enterprise. Through an individual’s bonding with the natural environment, he/she comes to identify him/herself as somewhat knowledgeable in that field of science, allowing him/her to develop a deeper connection with the surroundings that can materialize through learning about ways to help it.

I have seen the interdependent relationship of placed-based learning and critical pedagogy in my own life. From a young age, I, along with dozens of students, have been imbed with the notion of environmental conservation. We are told time and time again, “the environment is important and we must actively promote its preservation!” As I got older, reasons for the importance of the environment were explained in my ninth grade Biology class and once again in Earth Science, as I reached eleventh grade. The message has traveled with me throughout all these years, but had I really internalized the issue? Not quite. It was not until this past summer when I began to form a bond with the outside rural environment, that I fully appreciated all the conservation efforts that were being made. I remember hiking up alongside Kaaterskill Falls and being grateful for the opportunity to gaze upon the waterfall. Along all my hiking trails, I developed an appreciation for the crew of park rangers who were responsible for their upkeep. I recognized myself developing empathy for my environment and wanting to know more about how humans can contribute to environmental upkeep. Really grappling with the dirt and soil around me has inspired me to want to learn more about how I can take a more active effort in preserving the bucolic areas around me. Since then, I have made small changes in my life to reduce my carbon footprint. I pay careful heed to the amount of water that I use daily, remembering to close the faucet as I brush my teeth, and I try to walk more when I can, trying to reduce the amount of car rides I am responsible for. Essentially, my own personal place-based curriculum has allowed me to forge an intimate relationship with mother-nature, transforming me into a “greener” individual.

Chapter four of Surrounded by Science places a tremendous importance on how learning is enhanced through social interaction and conversation. It brings up various conversations that have transpired in informal science learning environments and points out the ways in which these dialogues have facilitated learning. What I found to be most striking was the discussion of how a simple task of even watching television could be far more engaging if social interaction is at play. That notion brought me back to my own experiences as a child watching television with my older sister. Because my sister was quite older than myself, six years older to be exact, watching television with her was a learning experience within itself. Certain ideas and concepts that were presented on screen were elucidated through her comments and our dialogues with each other as we watched programming together. For example,  intricate plots on shows like Law and Order or Alias became unraveled through the ongoing comments we had with each other as we watched the shows. Upon looking back upon those fond memories, I truly understood how learning could be made better via social interaction.

I recalled yet another child experience upon delving through my mind to bring up evidence to bolster this claim. This memory had to do with an informal science opportunity as well. I recalled going to the Hall of Science in elementary school and interacting with all the different stations there. I remember my mind being pulled in so many directions and not being quite sure which exhibit to traverse next. I remember being pulled to a particular exhibit, however, because of the social interaction that lurked in its midsts. There was one stations where we were to make elephant dung paper with the assistance of a worker in the museum. I remember laughing with the staff at how ludicrous the notion of making paper out of dung was. Out of all the intricate and interactive exhibits, I had learned most and remembered most from that one due to the social component that loomed there. Ultimately, I agree with the emphasis that this chapter places on the enhancement of these learning experience via social interaction and conversation.

Jennifer Mikhli

Science and Technology in NYC

09/29/13

Professor Adams

Chapter 3 Reflection

            The third chapter of Surrounded by Science ventures into the strategies used for supporting learning in informal science environments. Creators of these informal science activities can choose to implement some or rather all of the three learning strategies, as they seek to maintain optimal engagement and understanding with participants. Juxtaposition, multiples modes, and interactivity are the three tactics that are currently being implemented in citizen science activities to enhance the overall learning experience. Via juxtaposition, a learner’s prior understating of a phenomenon is juxtaposed with the current scientific understanding of it, allowing the participant’s prior understanding to be challenged. Learners also engage with a particular concept of science through a multitude of ways, via multiple modes. Lastly, which I believe to be the most fundamental strategy of all, is the interaction with a scientific concept in a fun and interesting way.  I believe that there are two fundamental aspects of interactivity that contribute to its success amongst citizen learners: the ease of comprehension and unlocking of exclusive scientific tools.

The Cell Lab citizen science project mentioned within the chapter does a great job in unlocking access to the interaction with laboratory instruments that are not available to all in their every lives. Participants are granted access to a variety of stations devoted to performing wet-lab biology activities. Adolescents are able to gain access to microscopes, cultures, and centrifuges; tools unavailable to them in their day-to-day lives. This creation of a “sacred experience,” one that is not readily available to them on a mundane level, prompts great interest among its participants. In addition, establishing a familiarity with these exclusive scientific tools enables a breakdown of the learning barriers associated with science. Students will no longer view science and laboratory experiments as an intimating enterprise; rather, they will remember these tools as a means to unlocking fun and exciting facts about science.

If I were to create an informal learning experience, I would definitely implement the interactive component, along with the key factors associated with it. The activity would involve the use of so-called daunting laboratory equipment (i.e. centrifuges, microscopes etc.) so that participants could come away from the experience feeling at ease with these scientific tools, seeing them for the amazing devices of learning that that they truly are. Students would be able to forge a familiar relationship with these tools and perhaps view themselves as working alongside them one day in a professional capacity. The activity would have to be easily comprehensible as well, as not to discourage participants in any way. Essentially, this tactic could create a scientific relationship with its participants that could perpetuate far beyond the confines of the informal activity setting.

Jennifer Mikhli

09/23/13

Professor Adams

Science and Technology in NYC

Reflection on “Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research?”

            The article entitled “Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research?,” written by Jeffrey P. Cohn, touches on a fundamental concern that is intrinsic to citizen participation in scientific studies. A significant apprehension to citizen engagement in scientific studies lies in the accuracy and reliability of the data that they would be collecting. Admittedly, this a concern that I had when I read about projects such a Project FeederWatch where ordinary citizens were observing and classifying the birds that they would spot. I wondered as to the reliability of these data reports, as these citizens were not experts in the field of ornithology. The article puts this concern to rest as it addresses the issue and offers the methods put in place to ensure the accuracy of these data reports. For instance, training is provided prior to citizen participation in wildlife studies. “Citizen scientists are trained to read instruments and provide actual numbers,” (194) the article notes. In addition trained staff are paired with citizen scientists to ensure accuracy. To illustrate the competence of these citizen scientists, the article presents a remarkable statistic. The article notes how in a study of native crabs along the Atlantic coast, 95 percent of the time, seventh graders were able to correctly identify the various types of crabs and third graders “80 percent of the time.” (195) Essentially the article puts me at ease about the scientific contributions that citizen scientists are making to the field.

Another interesting point that the article makes is the growing number of volunteer scientists participating in studies, as well as the growing amount of studies that utilize citizen scientists. While citizen engagement in scientific studies is not something new, it has expanded greatly over the years. I believe that the balloon of these citizen-study partnerships is due to the growing availability of scientific information about the natural world and other scientific fields. Due to the internet and other forms of media, such as television programming, lay citizens are able to access and engage with an overwhelming amount of scientific information. This availability has produced a race of humans that possesses much more scientific knowledge than would an ordinary individual a few decades ago. These enlightened citizens are thus being used to infuse citizen science participations in scientific studies.  Scientists are recognizing the capabilities and know-how that ordinary citizens can bring to the scientific table and are framing more studies around citizen participation. Essentially, due to the information resting at our fingertips, ordinary citizens are ever more capable to participate in scientific studies, leading to a growing increase in the citizen-research field.

Jennifer Mikhli

Professor Adams

Science and Technology in NYC

09/11/13

Reflection on Surrounded by Science

            The reading selection of Surrounded by Science: Learning Science in Informal Environments, by Marilyn Fenichel and Heidi A. Schweingruber, truly touched on the cornerstones of informal science learning that contribute to its success amongst adults and adolescents. It is the informal science opportunities’ emphasis on the learning process that transpires within a human mind that allows these experiences to resonate deeply with its participants. Through a formulation of a systematic approach to how individuals learn and approach scientific information, the informal science experiences are tailored to sparking interest and maintaining an engagement with the scientific information at hand. For instance, the first strand of science learning involves the sparking of interest within its participants. It is at this point within the framework of the informal science activities, that a huge disparity mounts between its academic science counterpart. Formal science opportunities pay no heed to whether or not the scientific facts at hand are garnering interest or engagement within its forced learners. Rather, more attention is paid to the imbuement of facts and theories within the indifferent or, unfortunately, averse pupils. This inattention to interest and failure to accommodate the curriculum to meet the curiosity of its listeners, is what continues to debilitate the middle and high school science programs within the United States. Thus, in order to give a scientific boost to this age group, academic environments should seek to emulate the informal science activities, in their accommodations and tailoring to meet the interest of its participants. Activities such as Project FeederWatch go so far as conducting regular participant surveys, which they use to “develop a profile of the participants,” (23) ensuring that participants are able to partake fully and engage themselves in the bird-feeding and watching. This is because igniting this interest and tailoring these activities allows individuals to feel like they are becoming a part of the scientific culture and community. Essentially, accommodations must be made in the classroom to foster an engaged and motivated science learning within its students. Students should not feel as if science is a foreboding body of facts and figures. They, however, should feel attached to the subject and view it as the evolving force that it truly is.  Teachers must provide an anchor for science within the fortress of the student mind. This anchor, I truly believe, will allow students to pull themselves along the tedious postulates and theorems, holding on to the hope of themselves becoming a part of the growing body of science one day.