Chapter 2 of Marilyn Fenichel and Heidi A. Schweingruber’s Surrounded by Science opened my eyes to the many different methods that scientists use to explore and examine the world around them. This is accomplished in ways many people wouldn’t think science is learned. The chapter stresses that science is a very social field and argues against the mad scientist/Frankenstein stereotype, which paints scientists as secluded and introverted individuals. Instead it highlights the importance of the culture of science which includes specialized “norms, practices, language, and tools” (20) that allows people within the scientific community to share their knowledge. Science thrives on the exchange of information, for this is what allows the field to grow. Ideas build on one another and viewpoints change as new evidence emerges that challenges existing explanations. Scientists, themselves, are shaped by their different experiences in cultural, political, and economic environments. This is why working as teams to solve scientific problems becomes much more effective. The chapter mentioned that the Human Genome Project, which I learned about in AP Biology, was actually the product of a collaborative effort. In school, we never really learned about how the information was collected for this huge scientific breakthrough. This got me thinking about how so many advances in science were possible because of the exchange of information between scientists. For example, Watson and Crick worked together to figure out the structure of DNA and arguably couldn’t have accomplished this task without important contributions from an X-ray crystallographer named Rosalind Franklin.

My favorite quote was that “Learning science is a multifaceted endeavor” (32) because it encompassed the central idea of the chapter and it was so eloquently put. Science is “multifaceted” in that there are many layers to acquiring knowledge that can be applied to everyday life. And it is an “endeavor” that requires interest and motivation to actively pursue knowledge that isn’t always easy to grasp. The “stands of science learning” framework shows that in order to become a part of science and its community it is crucial to learn more than just scientific concepts.

A nice example of these six strands of science in action was Project FeederWatch, which gives enthusiasts a fun way to learn about the accessibility of science. With ready-made materials in hand, a support staff, and helpful online resources, these citizen-scientists gained exposure to hands-on scientific inquiry which allowed them to become more comfortable with the methods of science. This activity and others like it reaps tremendous benefits for both the scientific community and for the participants. Only 6% of participants said that they didn’t learn anything from Project FeederWatch. As evident by the Seed Preference Test, citizen-scientists can even disprove scientific institutions and contribute to journals through their experimentation and collective observations. Another thing that I found very interesting is how participants of lab-organized research projects form their own research projects. Science, in turn, becomes a chain-reaction as the participants decide to take initiative and pursue their garnered interests. This chapter makes me appreciate how science is truly a collaborative effort of people who engage with science in a variety of ways.

The article entitled “The 95 Percent Solution” by John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking definitely convinced me of the great importance of informal education in science learning. I fully agree with the main argument of this article – they are not trying to devalue the importance of school but are rather trying to say that the free-choice experiences that constitute 95% of our lives are equally important. As science learners, it is our responsibility to try to benefit from both approaches and put emphasis on the day-to-day activities that are crucial to appreciating science.

The “U-shaped pattern” (488) of American science literacy is attributed to the lack of informal learning in the lives of teens. A way to remedy this lagging-behind, I believe, is to really encourage teens to pursue out-of-school activities. More funding should be allotted for school trips to museums so that children would want to come back on their own time. From my experience, older kids need more of a push to go out of their way to engage in learning outside of the school setting. Childhood curiosity depletes with age. Adults want to understand the world around them and be able to explain the world to their children. But middle-schoolers and high-schoolers get into the regime of learning science to pass standardized exams. Some teachers even teach specifically for tests because of the school officials’ aim to improve test scores. Instead of learning for tests, teachers should try to spark curiosity in students and more funding should be put into informal science resources. Like the article argues, much of the responsibility lies in the parents to encourage these kinds of behaviors in their children. The family outings to museums, parks, and aquariums really did strengthen my love of science when I was younger. Falk and Dierking also point out that attitudes about science are formulated at a very early age and affect later career choices. This is why I also believe that parents should start early and hope that mentality stays with the children as they mature and go onto secondary schooling. One thing that really surprised me was that “80 percent of K-5 multiple-subject teachers…reported spending 60 minutes or less per week on science; 16 percent…spending no time at all on science” (487). I definitely remember having more than 60 minutes per week of science classes. Mrs. Goldberg, my elementary school science teacher, definitely helped spark my interest in science and from early on I loved the subject.

I really like the term the article used “free-choice learning experience” as a way to describe informal science learning. Doing science on your own accord, without the pressures of tests, and doing what interests you is the key to a successful understanding of the broader idea of science. It is definitely true that a hands-on and entertaining approach is much more interesting than reading a textbook for a class. It allows you to remember the material for a longer period of time. Educational television helped me tremendously when I was a child because it made learning fun. This is the benefit of educational programs such as Myth Busters and interactive exhibits such as Tess, the animatronic body simulator, from the California Science Center. The amazing power of the internet is also crucial to science learning and works in ways most wouldn’t have imagined possible a few decades ago. Tools such as Wikipedia and Web MD have revolutionized how science is learned and just how accessible it is. After Hurricane Sandy, I spent a great deal of time trying to learn about the origins of hurricanes, their patterns, and necessary precautions. I learned more about hurricanes then than I could have ever learned in my 8^th grade Earth Science class.

The best quote of the article I thought was that “much of what is learned in school actually relates more to learning for school, as opposed to learning for life” (489). While it is true that students do learn about life during the schooling process much is learned through the out-of-school activities they are involved in. Informal science learning doesn’t only help children’s education, but also helps them learn about life. It is absolutely necessary to have a nice balance of both.