I had never heard of Jamaica Bay before reading this article, and I didn’t realize certain Brooklyn and Queens neighborhoods were considered part of it, or at least close enough to be important to the community (for example, Howard Beach).  The ethnic changes in the area are interesting, especially after completing the Peopling of New York City (seminar 2).  The signs of white flight and the new communities should be interesting to see develop; will new cultural practices help or harm the preservation of the Bay Area?  This question reminds me of an observation Saul and I made after watching the short documentary about preserving the Bay in Monday’s class: all the people advocating the preservation of the Bay were older people.  After reading the article, “older people” becomes narrowed to “older white men.”   In addition, possible conflicts are mentioned in the reading; for example, “Despite… efforts, Hindu offerings continue to wash up along the shores of Jamaica Bay…” (pp. 128).  However, this particular problem has been improving.  “In addition to organizing several beach clean-ups, The Federation of Hindu Mandirs and the USA Pandit Parishoners, along with leadership from the Shri Tamurti Brahvan temple, have taken action to educate devotees about the ecological consequences of puja offerings. Conse- quently, Dr. DhanPaul Narine and Mr. Naidoo Veerapan believe that religious remnants on the shores of Jamaica Bay have declined as a result…” (pp. 128).  So with education, problems such as these may be prevented or resolved.

The religious uses of Jamaica Bay connect with culture.  As aforementioned, some of Jamaica Bay’s Hindu population leaves puja offerings in the Bay’s water, which while a hazard to the Bay’s ecosystem, shows how community members connect with their environment; if they had moved to, say, Harlem, these Hindus would not have a nearby water source to practice their beliefs.  But because Jamaica Bay is so close, they utilize their habitat.  Formerly, the Jewish community would use the willow branches in Jamaica Bay for a certain practice, but recently that use has declined, because it is often considered stealing (which is against Jewish law).  This brings the question of ownership to mind: who really owns the park/public land?  By law, yes, the government.  But since many parks are made with their users (the public) in mind, what efforts should be made to accommodate the different cultural groups of Jamaica Bay (and other parks)?  If, for example, the use of willow branches was not harmful to the Bay area, should the Jewish population be able to use said branches, or at least a certain number of them?

(Also, I didn’t know that Jamaica Bay was where Floyd-Bennet Field is located, so I did not realize my brother and friends had just participated in the “Run For Your Life” zombie race this past weekend.)

In “The Art of the Brain”, author Ashley Taylor attempts to discover the separation of art and science, which, according to the conference report of “Art As A Way of Knowing”, have been intertwined for ages, citing Leonardo DaVinci as an example (pp. 6).

I do agree that art – which was not defined in either article (so I’m going to assume it’s the arts, or “artsy” things) – is helpful to science learning.  I remember being told as a child that learning an instrument made you smarter (or made other areas of learning easier for you).  This is similar to the ideas explored in the conference summary; “We sought to understand and to articulate how art as a cultural tool to advance human insight and understanding operates to support learning, particularly in the domain of science” (pp 6).  The conference members are looking to see if art Art can provide you with a mindset that contributes to learning science and math.  In particular, music is very creative and emotional, but by learning musical notation, rhythm, and the technical aspects of using an instrument, one is thinking in a more scientific manner.  By combining the two (the art and science sides of music), the perhaps the players brain is learning to use both types of thinking, perception, or action simultaneously.

In Taylor’s article, she tries to find the dividing line between science through the classic method of deduction (hypothesis-based).  At the end of her article, she concludes, “….fundamentally, the distinction between art and science is so difficult [because i]t deals with the nature of reality.  Despite all the exceptions, and imagination required to come up with hypotheses about the unknown, we think of science as being grounded in reality… we associate art with creativity and the imagination” (pp. 10).   This is a good observation; there seems to be a belief that science is straight-edged, factual, and about provable truths, whereas art is a product of molding make-believe.  This could correlate with the hypothesis I though Taylor would have tried: The arts convey more emotion through their output than science does.  Emotion can drive science; for example, researchers who search for cures may be driven by their love for humanity.  However, it is not so much in the output.  I find it difficult to believe that people look at a bottle of Tylenol and think about their emotional link to it, except maybe relief or gratitude.  While “Brainbow” can be considered an exception, it can also be considered a combination of art and science, therefore being more emotionally accessible than products of “strict” or “pure” science.

In response to the questions:

1. What are some commonalities between art and science?

Science and art both require technique, as mentioned in Taylor’s article (pp. 7 – 8).  as well as recognizing that art contributes to learning and is not some dumb hobby, or that creativity is not unintellectual, as discussed in the conference summary.  These notions were wonderful to read.  As somebody who identifies more with the arts, it can be annoying to have people view my creativity as something that does not need any technique or intellect, that creativity and its products are just natural.  Sure, writing is natural to me, but if I simply wrote without thinking of characters, plot arcs, how to utilize literary elements, which words have the right connotation in what context, whether or not the medium and length I’ve chosen is good for a particular story, and of course, the dreaded proofreading.  Writing – or painting, or drawing, or singing, or dancing – is not just emotion.  It is emotion channeled, and even most of that “raw emotion” you see in artistic works is not raw, it’s powerful after working on its delivery multiple times.  Yet, the technique and the smarts for an art is not required to produce something; it is just better if they’re involved.  Similarly, simple science – for example, observing nature or using common technology – is accessible to most people; but technique and knowledge are required to produce complex research and experiment.

2. What are your connections to art and how might this connect you to science?

I am a storyteller; that is, I am a poet, a filmmaker, a prose writer, and a novice urban word performer.  I do not think that most of my storytelling techniques are intertwined with science, although they may involve or relate to science sometimes.  However, filmmaking is definitely more scientific than I anticipated.  I expected to deal with technology when editing film, but cinematography – and I assume sound – is a difficult field.  I have to keep track of the aperture, the amount of light in the room, the light sensitivity of the film, the rate at which we’re shooting, and the relationship between all these factors.  Cinematography has been more “science-y” than I thought it would be, and I am in an introductory class!  As I continue to learn more about cinematography – and as I mentioned, sound production – I should learn more about the science behind the field.

Before I end this reflection, I would like to share this urban word poem that, while not a fusion of science and art, takes inspiration from science and uses scientific facts to create this piece:

http://youtu.be/ef734H0eosU

Last semester, for our “The Peopling of New York” Macaulay Seminar, Professor Napoli took our class on various tours, including one of the Lower East Side, where the Tenement Museum is located.  I found myself particularly engaged in the tour because I related to the area; it is an area that my Italian ancestors probably inhabited, and it is an area I frequent for food.  So when Professor Napoli explained the immigrant life in the area, I took special interest because this area is where my family lived.  When he mentioned ethnic tensions between two groups of Chinese immigrants, it left a mental imprint because I never noticed it when in the area, and wondered if I would from now on.

Similarly, place-based learning takes the location of  a person and teaches them through it; from my understanding, it is slightly different than sparking interest because the learner is learning about their surroundings and therefore learning about a topic, not just because they find something random interesting.   For example, in “Learning in Your Own Backyard”,  Mary Jo Sutton talks about the (San Francisco) Bay Area Discovery Museum and its efforts to teach about the Bay Area itself.  “The mission of the Bay Area Discovery Museum is to engage, delight, and educate children through the exploration of and connection to the local environment and the diverse communities that live here.  The local environment is central to the institution and is reflected in our programs and our new exhibits” (pp 53).  By emulating their setting, the museum members create an environment of learning fueled by the idea that it is the learners’ natural setting, therefore they will have a natural desire to learn about it, and according to David A. Gruenewald’s “The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place”, should know about.  “[Critical pedagogy/learning] must embrace the experience of being human in connection with the others and with the world of nature, and the responsibility to conserve and restore our shared environments for future generations” (pp. 6).  According to Gruenewald, learning about community and environmental balance is essential to place-based learning as humans.  While I do believe that environmental protection is important, and that education provides people with the answers that they need to make better decisions about their environment, I do not know if this is as much of an education issue as it is an issue of capitalism, social structure, and the effects of human “progress”.  I found it interesting, however, that the article spoke about education as a tool for social and environmental change, which is good, but can be dangerous if it is used to cram beliefs down learner’s throats rather than have then be more open minded about the government.

For New Yorkers and other Americans, I think a prevalent issue right now is fracking.  This is an area in which informal science learning about fracking is useful in deciding whether fracking is worth its results and repercussions.  It also brings up a good point about Gruenewald’s article: people should be taught to be open-minded, and, in some cases cynical.

This chapter explored the notion of social learning, which has been important to learning since ancient times; in ancient Athens, philosophers would have seminars to discuss their philosophies and further their ideas; it is odd that such an part of learning has been dropped so much from the spectrum of learning.  I am glad informal science recognizes group learning as an integral part of learning because it is so effective in learning, and it helps reinforce many of the learning strands.  For instance, as noted in the reading, “…as highlighted in Strand 5, science itself involves around specialized norms for interacting and specialized forms of language.  Learning science therefore involves learning those norms and language” (pp. 64).  If a learner is expected to or wants to interact with their peers or field experts, she is more likely to learn the terms either through conversations she has or on her because she wants to better understand said conversations.  It’s like film production; if you want to make a movie, you must know the terminology; otherwise, you cannot direct a crew, take directions, or get much respect.  While there is less pressure in informal science, the principle still applies: if you want to further your knowledge of a topic you find interesting, you need to gain the vocabulary and behavior.  A learner will probably be more likely to do this if she is interested, so Strand 1 is important here.

One of the specific examples in the book is the use of television.  “Even an intrinsically passive medium such as television can become interactive when a social, conversational element is produced” (pp. 65); if conversation is added, science television programs can have more value as a learning tool.  Once again I draw a connection between the science world and the “geek” world, because the “fandoms”, or fan bases of different television shows, are an excellent example of this.   Sometimes I see posts on tumblr lamenting how the user knows the gamut of Television Show X or Book Y, but not about a subject they are learning about in school.  But if one applies the book’s stance on social interaction’s contribution to learning, then it makes sense.  Viewers of television or other media series tend to join fandoms, in which they discuss, speculate, and analyze the television show, absorbing different ideas from one another.  There are even conventions  dedicated to these fandoms, with legitimate panels and guests.  People use specialized terms and have their own behavior code (Strand 5), have an interest in the series (Strand 1), use their knowledge from and about their series (Strand 2), and tend to identify as a member of their fandom (Strand 6).  If fandoms for fictional televisions series can exhibit several learning strands, with social interactions contributing to strands 2, 5, and 6, I do believe that science learning can and will benefit from a more social atmosphere.  The original scientists – philosophers – learned so much from interaction, it would be a shame if informal science experiences did not incorporate the social aspect of learning into their programs.  (Although, from the reading, they have been doing very well.)

Two Side Notes:

(1) The textbook mentions the importance of parents in a child’s learning experience.  So why do many seem to believe that teachers (and students, sometimes) are the cause of all the learning issues in school and rarely ever the parents?

(2) The part about social learning at the dinner table is true.  I learn(ed) a lot from good family conversations whilst eating dinner.

After reading Chapter 3 of Surrounded by Science, the first thought in my mind was:

Formal science learning is like DC Comics’ movies.

DC Comics has a myriad of superheroes.  These superheroes fill many different roles, run the gamut as far as powers go, and many of them have strong – or at least decent – fan bases.  Yet when it comes time for DC to make movies, they keep pouring their money into the same two projects: Batman and Superman.  Even with their newer ventures – the upcoming Flash adaptation and the rumoured Justice League – DC remains faithful to superheroes who are more popular and more easily written with Batman and Superman.

Formal science learning is DC Comics.  There are so many approached to learning that have data to support their success, yet formal science learning keeps using the same formulas and book learning year after year.  Formal science learning is afraid to take chances; it sticks to its versions of Superman and Batman to give the public.

This weary cycle is why I prefer informal science learning, which is willing to take chances, engage the public, and try untraditional or less popular types of education.  For example, The Mind exhibit at the Exploratorium sound like a fun exhibit; I want to go test the limits of my brain with new technologies.  The exhibit – as well as the Cell Lab and the  St. Louise Science Center group – enable participants to have “challenging but not frustrating” (pp. 48) experiences without forcing people to learn from books or formal classrooms; rather, the actual experience is given a go, which encourage the learning strands.  Allowing people to interact through various modes of learning (interactivity and  multiple modes being key to supporting learning) is different from the lecture hall or textbook lessons.  Informal science is involving people, hoping to teach citizens through their activities.  And according to the textbook, it seems to be working.  This is why Formal science learning should take more risks; students could have higher success rates in science if they use the strategies for supporting learning (pp. 41).  (And DC might make more money and fans if they were to make a Wonder Woman film… but I digress.)

Speaking of the strategies, the one that surprised me the most was juxtaposition.  Bringing prior knowledge wasn’t surprising, but the fact that it plays such a large role in determining the way in which people approach things did surprise me.  Also, the idea of including a sort of “fun fact” about the topic is a method I’ve experienced before but never thought about.  I love hearing little tidbits of information and then researching further into the information… if the subject interests me, of course.

Citizens in another profession can do science.

They can do real science.

It surprises me that these volunteers and hobbyists are adding to the professional science studies and other sources of information.  Maybe it was due to a stereotype about the exclusivity of science, but I did not expect science (or most professional fields, actually) to take unprofessional practitioners seriously, due to the risks for mistakes.

It is wonderful to see that not only does the scientific welcome outside input, it is trying to foster it.  For example, the bird watching program is a good example of a citizen science venture that educates the public and gathers data across a wide sample area for scientists.  Not only do such projects allow for informal science, they give scientists more with which they can work.  I personally found the activities limited, though, because they were all centered around biology/nature, which is not something I find interesting enough to write down statistics about birds I see pass  by.

Of course, there is a catch.  The catch that I should have realized was there.  One of the first things listed in the article: money.  Organizing citizen research events is cheaper than hiring interns.  Why it is great that people’s greed has become a reason for them to invest in the public’s education, it is also satisfied my cynical side.  I wonder how much effort would be put into citizen science outings if they weren’t cost efficient, as cost efficiency is sighted numerous times throughout the article.  For example, the American Bird Conservatory “…[saves] about $30,000 a year” (pg. 196).  While it is wonderful that these organizations are financing wisely as well as involving the community, how important would the citizen science events be if they were more expensive than hiring well-trained interns?  While the benefit of a wider study range probably cannot be matched by interns, the professionalism might be exceeded, despite the rather well done work of the citizens.

This chapter introduces the strands system, which, quite ironically, has not yet been proven by empirical evidence.

Strand One: Sparking Interest & Excitement

Similar to the article from last week, Strand One discusses the importance of the learner’s interest in an area of science.  “Recent research shows that emotions associated with interest are a major factor in thinking and learning, helping people learn as well as helping them retain and remember” (p. 26).  If people are to engage in science on their own time, then it should interest them.  Interestingly enough, Strand One is not one of the strands used in formal learning environments, namely schools; hence, students would not be pursuing the topics or retaining the information they’ve learned in school if they are not personally invested.  If this Strand system is widely recognized, and if the strands are truly interdependent on each other, then it is a shame that widespread education policy does not relate classroom learning to students’ lives.

Strand Two: Understanding Scientific Content & Knowledge

This strand proposes that if one engages in science, they should comprehend the basic “language” or “culture of science” (p. 20) and use said knowledge to make connections and inferences from one area of study to another, similar area of study.  At first I thought this was a little silly, mostly because of the example of seeing a movie about natural selection and then thinking about natural selection with other animals in one’s environment.  I couldn’t picture such a moviegoer really thinking about the ancestry of squirrels and moths and house pets.  But applying it to my own experiences, the idea of applying scientific understanding to similar content makes sense.  For example, I’ve read a lot of informal feminist blog posts throughout the last year, and I’ve learned a lot of terms specific to feminism, such as “slut shaming” (judging a woman based on her promiscuous appearance or sex life).  After learning about slut shaming, I began to see it in the media without having a blogger point it out to me.  Similarly, an informal scientist can learn about scientific content and apply it to her life.

Strand Three: Engaging in Scientific Reasoning

This strand was also odd but very sensible.  Using scientific reasoning in everyday life – “[for example], looking at nutrition labels to decide which food items to purchase” (p. 28) – seems odd when exposed so blatantly; but upon further examination, it makes sense that by participating in more science-related activities, one will approach other activities with an analytical mindset.  In turn, when she resumes her science learning, her scientific-thinking is fresh and ready to analyze data.  Thinking scientifically becomes an ouroboros that enables the user to learn and apply said learning in her life.

Strand Four: Reflecting On Science

This strand is great to combat the stereotypes of current establish science being rigid and unchangeable.  For example, the reading mentions stories of past discoveries, such as Galileo Galilei, are a good way to show the ever-changing nature of science (p. 29).  Galileo is a wonderful reminder that at one point, the world was “flat”, but because Galilei explored other scientists’ findings and used them to fuel his own, he proclaimed that the Earth was round.  This step of reflection is important to show learners that they can contribute to the general body of knowledge if they follow scientific procedure and gather evidence, as well as reminding them that a “fact” they know today could be different in a few years.  (Oh, Pluto, how I miss thee.)  While the other strands are important to engage people in science, this strand prepares them for the future of science by exploring its nature.

Strand Five: Using Tools & Language of Science

As the saying goes, “Practice makes perfect,” and it applies to science learning as well.  In addition to Strand One, Strand Five seems to be the most obvious of the strands; if people participate in science activities that require them to know the tools and the lingo, they are more likely to retain that practical knowledge and use it in future endeavors or discussions.  Also, it is great to see that this step encourages team work, which makes science seem less “exclusive,” which could encourage people to further pursue their areas of interest.

Strand Six: Identifying With the Scientific Enterprise

Strand Six seems the least important.  While science learning does inspire people to pursue science-related careers or proclaim themselves as die-hard hobbyists of an area of science, identity is not as important to learning as the learning itself, especially for older people who are more likely to have solidified their identities and careers.  While there is nothing wrong with adding one’s love for science to her identity – whether it be through an engineering career, pyrotechnics hobby, or tweeting with #i<3physics on every post – it is equally fine to be the writer who’s enjoyment of casual science comes up in conversation, but not on her facebook profile or resumé.