In this chapter, the merging of informal and formal learning is discussed, as well as the continuation of informal learning in learners’ lives.

In the beginning of the chapter, the use of cell phones as up and coming museum tools is a realistic suggestion for the new digital age.  With many people having smartphones, apps could be a useful way of offering a personalized informal learning experience using the technology.  For example, if one were to go to the Museum of Natural History’s exhibit about poisons, and had already been to the biology hall, in which they had seen some of the animals (or their relatives) relevant to the poison exhibit, they could use the app to connect their former learning experiences at the museum to their new ones, reinforcing their older knowledge while connecting it to their newer knowledge.

Also important in the chapter is the discussion of informal environments’ connection with formal institutions.  How does one connect the informal science learning with the science taught in school?  First, the book mentions field trips, which are usually planned by the teachers and help reinforce or introduce classroom ideas.  Second, the book talks about various out-of-school-time programs, which sometimes have similar goals as field trips, but other times are unrelated to the classroom experience at all.  The book mentions three common levels out-of-school-time programs have with schools:

(1) “In some cases, the out-of-school curriculum is closely connected to the school curriculum.  In such programs, the program coordinators and staff know on a week – by – week basis of the materials teachers are covering in class…” (pp. 176) – This program can be a good for reinforcing the student’s knowledge, and possibly making them interested in the knowledge if they were not before.  However, some argue it does not introduce the children to a wide enough range of topics.

(2) “In other cases, the out-of-school science programs connect their activities to the general school science curriculum and standards but not to what students are learning in class on a daily or weekly basis ” (pp. 177) – This type of program works well to reinforce knowledge children are learning in school, while possibly introducing them to new knowledge.  It is also a positive because if the program is based off general curricula, then it can take in kids from different schools, providing the children with new insights from new peers.

(3)”…in some programs, out-of-school science is entirely disconnected from school science” (pp. 177) – This program is not always good for reinforcing school learnt ideas, but is good for general informal learning.

“…scientists must learn to ‘frame’ information to make it relevant to different audiences” (Nisbet & Mooney).

Here in “Framing Science”, as well as in Leshner’s “Capably Communicating Science”,  the authors talk about making science relevant and marketable to common readers unfamiliar with jargon.  Certain complicated terms or concepts may confuse the average reader, including policy makers who should know about the science behind the policies they are making (for example, as the article mentioned, stem cell research).

However,  one thing that worries me is this concept of “being marketable.”  While I understand making science information clear and accessible, should it be a commercial package?  Should scientists be so worried about an audience?  This concern could make science less objective.  Why should society need everything packaged for them?  Yes, science should be relevant, and it should be understood at different levels.  Yet to market science towards specific groups – framing science to “sell” – is a dangerous idea.  Selling science to people could have a negative effect if the science does not become relatable.

This brings to attention McNutt’s article, “Improving Scientific Communication” in which she discusses how the peer review process allows for scientific information to be viewed as credible by different readers, especially those who are not scientists.  However, she proposes the current peer review process be improved, including individuals paying for their reviews.   I agree that the peer review process should itself be reviewed to fit the digital age in which information is readily available, and to fit the age of “marketable” science.  I do not agree with having individuals pay for their own reviews, however, as it could cause a class gap in the people who have articles published.

Chapters 5 and 8 of Surrounded By Science concentrated on the factors of identity and age, respectively.  In Chapter 5, Deborah L. Perry’s six-component model is discussed.  The components are curiosity, confidence, challenge, control, play, and communication (pp. 83).  These components fit well with the different factors that played into the informal science learning across age groups:

(1) Curiosity – “The visitor is surprised and intrigued” (pp. 83) – While all age groups may – and should – be curious about what they’re learning, children seem to be especially curious.  “[Knowledge] is derived from the child’s own experimentation with objects, rather than through planned learning by adults” (pp. 140).  Children are still developing their knowledge base and understanding of the world, which correlates nicely with the curiosity component.

(2) Confidence – “The visitor has a sense of confidence” (pp. 83) – Again, this is a component that should be present for all ages, but may be more important for children and adolescents.  Children are still learning about the world, and if their confidence is built during this learning process, it may encourage them to pursue science or scientific thinking.  Adolescents “tend to express a desire to pursue activities independently of adults” (pp. 142).  Adolescents are at the stage of life in which they want to learn or experience new things on their own or with their peers.  To reinforce their sense of competence and their decisions to participate in science related activities, it is important they have confidence.

(3) Challenge – “The visitor perceives their is something to work toward” (pp. 83) – Challenge is important for all age groups; if the learning is not challenging, then the learners are probably taking in less information.  It also makes the activities seem less relevant or “fun”.  Because different age groups find different things challenging, it is important to find a range or a balance of challenging levels, or else one group may feel over- or underwhelmed

(4) Control  – “The visitor has a sense of self-determination and control” (pp. 83) – Having control is important to all learners.  It relates to the first strand of learning (interest), because giving control of what one learns allows her to pick what interests her, and what she is more likely to continue exploring.  Also, if one is in control, they are more likely to perceive themselves as having some independence and confidence (component 2), which is important to forming their science identities.

(5) Play – “The visitor experience sensory enjoyment and playfulness” (pp. 83) – While important to all groups to experiment and involve as many of their five senses as possible, play may be one of the components targeted more towards children – and possibly adolescents, too – with a lack of attention to the play aspect for adults.

(6) Communication – “The visitor engages in a meaningful social interaction” (pp. 83) – This is important for all age groups, though it may differ across them.  For parents and children, it may be the parents serving as mentors or relayers of information that children have a difficult time grasping.  For groups of adults, it may be discussing, analyzing, and applying the information, especially in the context of their lives.  For example, older adults may talk about medical breakthrough in Alzheimer’s because they have a higher risk for it.

Before getting into the “outreach” for “non-dominant” peoples and their cultures, I would like to note that I am impressed that the textbook acknowledges people with different types of disabilities.  It is important to remember that not everyone is able-bodied, and so planning an informal learning environment that is inclusive to people with disabilities is important, and, as the book says, “Exhibit and program designs that serve visitors who face physical, sensory, or cognition challenges tend to benefit all visitors” (pp. 128); for example, it mentioned larger font sizes for those with poor vision are helpful to visitors regardless of their vision, as it is less likely to tire their eyes (pp. 128).  While it is important to accommodate learners with disabilities regardless of benefits for the able-bodied, the effects on everybody are often raised when money is involved, and getting funding could be more likely if those effects are mentioned.

Now unto the merging of “non-dominant” cultures and science:

First, I share the negative feelings of the Vietnamese visitors of the Children’s Discovery Museum (CDM) about the use of Chinese cloth hats to replace straw Vietnamese hats.  If CDM is trying to make an exhibit using Vietnamese cultural items, it should not incorporate other Asian elements into the exhibit as being Vietnamese, or without a proper explanation of the differences in origin.  “Vietnamese” is not synonymous with “Chinese,” or “Asian,” or any of the other East Asian cultures.  If the distinctions are not made, then the dominant group (CDM staff) is assuming that Asian cultures are alike, and it is easy to exchange between them.  While there is no problem including more than one (Asian) culture, the Vietnamese visitors are right: there needs to be a respectful distinction between cultures that may become confused by groups not familiar with them; otherwise, the institution ends up diminishing Vietnamese culture to a stereotypical Asian culture.

It is respect and open-mindedness that are most important in the pursuit to approach non-dominant cultures with Western science.  There are tensions and histories between dominant (formerly imperialist) Western white culture and the non-dominant cultures.  As I mentioned above, the grouping of geographical areas is not fair to different ethnic groups; while Latino cultures may share common characteristics, they are also unique.  To think otherwise would be similar to saying a Frenchman must wear lederhosen just because he’s Western European, except neither group has historically been oppressed.  The textbook groups people on several occasions, and whether it is for simplicity’s sake or ignorance, I cannot tell; for example, “…museum staff recognized how little they knew about both the Latino and Asian communities…” (pp 129).

Despite this, I seem to like the outreach to Native American communities.  For one, the book recognizes the fact their are different tribes/groups within the overall community; “…to be most effective, learning environments must be connected and relevant to each particular Native American tribe” (pp. 32).

Also, in the activity itself, it seems that the particular tribe’s traditions are incorporated with science; the program has the two complement each other, and while being science-based, incorporates the traditional spiritual elements.  For instance,

…the group huddled in a circle, recited a prayer in their language, and held hands while making an offering of tobacco… the youth are learning that this is the respectful way to proceed before picking plants.  By practicing this tradition, students learn that they have a reciprocal relationship with Mother Earth and that they should take only what they need (pp. 133).

By using the tribe’s traditions with science, the learners’ culture is respected, and not treated inferior to Western science, which is important if Western scientists and educators would like to spread their knowledge without being imperialist.