Reading these two articles, specifically The Art of the Brain, made me think a lot more about science as a creative discipline. I consider myself more of an artist than a scientist and so reading Taylor’s point of view on the role of science was enlightening. Like she mentions in the article, most of us who have a basic education in science only learn about fundamentals such as the scientific method. In my mind, the science my peers study has always seemed very rigid and structured, with concrete procedures and answers. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it was unfair to generalize science as such a cut and dry field.

One example of a creative science that came to mind was the technology Apple has been coming out with over the past few years. The science and technology that Apple engineers have created are results of an extremely creative and ingenious process. Someone had to come up with the idea of the iPhone and iPad (two pieces of technology that are not only powerful but extremely beautiful and creative), and make it come to fruition. Additionally, someone had to design the beautiful operating system that is used with the items. Creating something in science, regardless of whether it’s a piece of technology or new scientific discovery, requires a lot of creative thought and experimentation. There’s no rigid structure that can be followed in regard to the frontiers of science, as they haven’t been created yet.

At the same time, I find it insulting that people think of science as a kind of frivolous self-expression. Certain types of art require many years of classical training that must be practiced. It’s not like artists can immediately pull paintings out of their minds- there’s a certain thought process that accompanies the creation of art.

Both art and science require a degree of flexibility and creativity, as well as structure and procedure. While the two subjects seem to serve different purposes, it can also be said that they compliment one another. Art is useful in science because it helps individuals to create visual, tangible representations of their work and science is helpful in art because art sometimes requires a structure. Not to mention, creative expressions of science through art make science learning and understanding possible for other types of learners who may not feel comfortable with traditional science education.

When I first started reading these articles, I didn’t really understand what the difference was between critical pedagogy and place-based education. I found that the article by David A. Greuenewald was a little hard to read; it seems as though it was directed towards those who were already familiar with the concepts discussed in the article. One aspect of the article I really enjoyed was the discussion on spatialized critical social theory in regard to pedagogy of place. I’ve read about spatialized critical social theory in other aspects (such as the LA race riots of the 90’s), but not in education.

Reading “Learning in Your Own Backyard: Place-Based Education for Museums” helped me understand that place-based education was a lot more simple than Mr. Greuenewald made it seem. Seeing the Tenement Museum as an example of a place-based educational center really helped. Because it is an institution I frequent often, I could better understand what a model of place-based education was. Simply put, it is a type of pedagogy that utilizes the environment it is located in to better teach subjects that are related to it. The Tenement Museum does a fantastic job teaching not only about tenements and NYC history, but the community it is located in.

When I think about my own experiences with place-based education, the first thing that comes to mind is the Hudson River Estuary Program. In elementary school, my class went on a trip to the program base (located right downtown on the Hudson!) to learn about the Hudson River estuary as an ecosystem and about the local wildlife that depended on this unique location. We got to touch some of the fish that were native to the estuary, learn how to clean the water in the Hudson, and experienced the daily activities of a volunteer in the program. I think place-based education is extremely helpful in piquing interest in the general public and informing people about an environment or topic they wouldn’t have learned otherwise. Being able to go and learn about the physical environment you are in is extremely interesting because hands-on experiences help people to recall what they are learning. By incorporating physical movement and stimulation of the senses, more of the actual information is taken in and retained which I believe is important.

One thing Chapter 4 makes very evident is how important human interaction is in learning. It made me think of Vygotsky’s theories on childhood development. He believed that children developed through social interactions and cultural influence, as opposed to his peer Piaget who believed that children were solitary learners who had preset stages of learning and development they were supposed to progress through. Vygotsky asserted: “learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of developing culturally organized, specifically human psychological function.”[1]

Our science textbook seems to subscribe to a very Vygotskian point of view on childhood development, learning, and understanding. In chapter 4, it constantly repeats how necessary social interaction is to aid in childhood learning. Children are portrayed as apprentices (to borrow a theory from Vygotsky) who learn from older guides who have more knowledge. This relationship fosters a strong learning community in which a child can “engage with others in questioning, explaining, making predictions, and evaluating evidence.” (SBS, 64).

Another interesting part of the textbook was the discussion of the frog exhibit and the staff reflection on their experience. When Allen discussed visitor reactions and pointed out that visitors choose which exhibits are most interesting to them, it was a reminder that informal science learning can’t force people to learn what they don’t want to learn. When people choose to go to museums, they naturally pay attention to what attracts them the most. Although museum designers and curators can try their best to create educational exhibits, humans will do as they please and pay attention to what they want to. I believe that people learning anything, no matter how big or small, is what’s important. I guess it can be said that museums play the role of facilitators to inspire people to take charge of their own interests.

Chapter 3 was especially interesting to me as a future educator because it taught me a lot about how people learn and process new information. It was not particularly surprising that the interactive exhibits were more effective in reaching students– it’s really hard to retain information from short paragraphs or videos, especially when you don’t give them your undivided attention. In a museum, hands on exhibits are definitely a solid way to make students feel involved and in charge of their education.

Reading about Cell Lab was especially sweet and eye opening because of the reactions children had to putting on lab uniforms. In class, when we discussed how people viewed scientists, it was evident that children strongly associated lab coats and goggles and scientific equipment with the science field. This very cold, sterile image associated with scientists makes science seem intimidating and exclusive. Cell Lab is such a unique exhibit because it helps students understand what it’s like to work in a lab and conduct experiments, and makes the field seem much less intimidating. I think it’s funny how we want students to see scientists as regular people in order to make them more approachable, but children are actually excited to don traditional science outfits to make themselves feel like “legitimate” scientists.

Another part of the reading that struck me was the short piece on the teens who taught children about botany. Towards the end of the reading, one of the participants said something about how he must indeed be smart because he was able to participate in a scientific venture and teach others about something he was knowledgeable in. It seems as though we, as a culture, put scientists on a pedestal and measure intelligence against people’s occupations. While it’s true that those who enter scientific fields are generally intelligent (I would hope my doctor knew what he was talking about…), other occupations and hobbies shouldn’t be deemed as any less capable and intelligent. In the future, I hope that there is no stigma attached to any field and instead, students are taught to embrace their natural abilities and be proud of what they can accomplish through hard work and dedication.

I really enjoyed reading about the Citizen Science project because I fully support sparking a public interest in the sciences. What was interesting to me was that the article mentioned most volunteers were interested in science casually- whether they enjoyed hiking or bird watching or studying plants. It seemed almost silly that the Citizen Science project attracted those who were already interested in science, rather than the public as a whole. Whether the project merely happened to create circumstances that attracted those already knowledgeable in the fields or it was intentionally made to attract those who already had a casual background in the topics, it would be nice to see what can be done to appeal to the general public. Can science ever be truly universal? That’s something that I would like to read more about and discuss. Because science can be so multifaceted, perhaps there could be more done to include the general public. Informal science institutions do a great job of drawing the general public into the sciences and exposing them briefly, but I’d like to see more people from all walks of life participate in Citizen Science projects.

Another aspect of the article I found so interesting was the data collection. Data collection seems to be something that is extremely important in science and for scientists to rely on regular people for their information is so interesting. Because the data scientists use needs to be accurate for scientists to make reliable findings, I feel as though the Citizen Science projects do a good job of checking up on the volunteers and ensure reliability in the data they collect. While I know that utilizing volunteers can be cost effective for projects, I still think that it’s so amazing for people from all walks of life to be able to collect accurate and usable data. It really takes away from the exclusive feeling of the sciences and promotes science for all.

While reading Chapter 2, what stuck out to me the most was how flexible science was as a subject, and how it was fundamentally a social pursuit. It was really helpful for me to read how the textbook defined science as a “commitment to gathering and using empirical evidence derived from examination of the natural world” (19).  I never realized how much communication and active social collaboration is necessary to the scientific field. Whenever a new theory comes out, it needs to be reviewed by scientists from all over the world. Science isn’t just men sitting in laboratories looking into microscopes, but instead a huge network of a diverse group of people studying common subjects.

I really enjoyed reading about the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and its efforts to involve the community in the study of birds. By involving citizen scientists, the lab was able to gain more information that it would have as a private study. Being able to not only includes the members of the community in scientific research but having them collect data that actually contributes to the database is amazing. This project does an excellent job of taking advantage of informal science teaching opportunities to spark interest in others.

Chapter 2 was also interesting because it provided a framework for science learning that helped break down the subject into understandable and logical sections. The six strands of science learning were each important in their own way but provided a solid foundation for science education as a whole. In thinking about my future as an educator, the strands provided me with a solid idea of what it takes to not only spark interest in a child but to foster and cultivate it into usable knowledge.

While I read this article, a Mark Twain quote continued to pop up in my mind: “I have never let schooling interfere with my education.” While I respect Mark Twain and believe that this quote is fundamentally true, I believe schooling is also necessary because it provides structure, especially in terms of science education.

When I read the article, I was surprised to find out how little time people spend in school. 95% of any person’s life is spent living and learning from real life experiences. I wholeheartedly agree that science education should be supplemented by outside experiences at science institutions. Because I am interested in pedagogy and becoming a teacher, especially for those of lower socioeconomic backgrounds, this article was eye-opening. It’s completely unfair that children from less fortunate backgrounds lack the resources that their more affluent peers take for granted. Public institutions such as the Natural History Museum here in New York do a great job of making their resources more widely available, but I personally believe more could be done. As the article stated, it’s important to integrate the sciences into more aspects of society besides school. A greater public appreciation and understanding of the sciences would most definitely help improve science literacy in our society.

Additionally, I think the sciences should be a greater part of the public school system across the country. I think it’s unacceptable that K-5 teachers in some areas spend “60 minutes or less per week on science” (487) and that 16% spend no time on science (487). Elementary education plays an integral part in a child’s development. How else are children supposed to broaden their horizons and discover their interests? I was always fortunate enough to have a solid science education throughout my years in public school. Even minor, playful science-related activities in school could do a great deal to increase a child’s interest in the subject, especially because young children learn a great deal through play and physical motions.

I believe the future of education will gradually shift towards an increase in the use of technology, and this can be taken advantage of in terms of science education due to all of the applications that are related to the sciences. Educators should take advantage of the accessibility of technology and the Internet to teach children and further increase their interest in the sciences.