Today we are looking at the connection between Art and Science, and possibly combining the two into an awesome combo (the whole is greater than the individual parts). The first article is titled “Art as a Way of Knowing.” Just as place-based education was the thing in the previous reflection, now it is art+science. The article asserts that ‘art is a fundamental part of being human,’ whereas ‘it is rarely part of discussions for teaching and learning.’ The argument of the article is that learning through art is a serious form of interacting with the world. In fact, removing this element from primary school education is said to have compromised children’s learning potential. Whether or not this is true is debatable, but in many cases the presence of diversity (in learning and in the sciences) results in a more healthy and resilient environment.

The second article, called “Art of the Brain,” is an exploration into what makes art ‘art’ and what makes science ‘science’. The cover picture depicts the brain of a genetically-modified mouse that is able to give off a spectrum of colors, very much resembling abstract or modern art. It is debated whether this is truly art, since it was intended for scientific purposes. The author comes up with four hypotheses and the corresponding conclusions. The first is this: science is done for a scientific purpose; art, for an artistic one. What does it mean for something to be art? One way is if the artist declares it so. On the other hand, the scientist does not set out to make art; he sets out to do science. The distinction of purpose, though present, is blurry.

The second hypothesis is that science uses a prescribed method, whereas art does not. It’s obvious that an artist does not have to repeat the same work over and over before viewers see truth in it (meanwhile an experiment must be repeated many times before it can be said that the hypothesis truly supports the results). Another point about truth is that art doesn’t set out to prove or explain things – it is all about different viewpoints, ideologies, and systems of belief. However, it has been shown that artists have methodologies that they follow, and scientists don’t all follow the same method, so this hypothesis is not very well-founded.

The third hypothesis is that science simplifies things, whereas art renders their complexity. If science was so simple, then why are primary school students having so much trouble with it? On the other hand, some modern art is pretty darn simple (anyone seen the black box?), and on occasion seeks to obfuscate the subject.

The accepted hypothesis by the author is that: Science always deals with reality. Art does not always. In fact, Descartes proved that everything we experience through our senses is an illusion; that all images are a figment of our imagination. The colors that we see are not special; they are just a small segment of a broad spectrum of electromagnetic frequencies. It may be instead that science and art really are the same; they seek to explore the limits of what we can sense, what we can experience, what we can explore. In that sense, they just cover different regions of the same space. The bridge between them is what’s left to be established.

The article, Learning in Your Own Backyard, is all about the merits of place-based education. First of all, what is place based education? The authors note that it “focuses on the built, natural, and cultural environments of a location as a unifying concept for a content area.” In simpler words, being in a certain place lets you learn more about a certain thing. The article goes one to give multiple examples of such place-based learning environments, and it also lists many of the benefits that were found. For one thing, they increased student achievement. They improved reading and math scores. The increased performance in science and social studies. They developed the ability to make connections and draw conclusions. There was a shift from learning about science to “doing it”. Perhaps best of all, discipline problems declined, and every student had the opportunity to learn at a higher level. What’s there not to like about place-based eduction?

The thing is that there’s a lot of talk and not a lot of action. If it is as good as they say, then why hasn’t place-based education swept the nation? The issue seems to be the politics. Making changes in what is pretty-much an established educational system is near-impossible, and nobody is going to allow just anyone to experiment in children’s education without at least a Phd and a background check (e.g. fingerprinting, etc.). It is the common tale of ‘something needs to be done but nobody is man enough to step out and do it’. For anyone passionate enough about changing the way children learn, you can bet that they won’t be so passionate about it after 8 or more years earning the necessary credentials to do so. More than likely these people will find some other field that they are passionate about and apply themselves there. It’s unclear what can be done to make the most positive changes in this environment, but I believe it’s best to start small, and then work your way up.

I think reading through this answer on Quora will give a lot of insight on how people learn: this

It’s lengthy so make sure you have some time to spare!

Chapter 4 of Surrounded by Science touches on a very important piece of science education: communication. Science has never been a solitary act and sometimes the way it is taught goes against the way it was discovered. Investigations into the conversations amongst those who went to informal science institutions revealed what is called ‘perceptual talk,’ or the process of identifying significant information. It consists of identification, naming, pointing out a feature, and quoting form a label. These are the major ways that people communicate what they see in an exhibit. In order to maximize social interaction, it may help to have labels and easy-to-read descriptions on exhibits, or interactive exhibits that are designed to be experienced with others.

One form of communication elaborated upon in Chapter 4 is that between parent and child. It was found that the parent-child interaction played a key role in the amount of time and the quality of type spent exploring the exhibit. Outside the informal learning institution, this interaction was also found to improve retention of letters and numbers in 3 and 4-year olds who saw Sesame Street with adults. On the other hand, it is also possible that while doing certain activities that parents do most of the conceptual work while relegating the logistics to their children, resulting in the children making fewer gains in understanding.

Personally, I find communication important to my understanding of science. Being able to talk it over with somebody allows me to flesh out what I truly believe about the concept and also iron out the kinks in my conceptual understanding of the underlying phenomena.

Chapter 3 of Surrounded by Science goes over some insights gained from research on informal learning environments. These are 3 strategies thought to be key in supporting learning and they are:

• Juxtaposition
• Multiple Modes
• Interactivity

The first is the way in which people’s ideas about science combine with what is being presented to them. It has been found that during a lot of passive learning (where no juxtaposition takes place), people reinforce their initial ideas instead of identifying the differences between their understanding of science and what is presented. In other words, their misconceptions take precedence over what has been established by the scientific community for hundreds of years. Therefore, it is vital when presenting a scientific idea to be aware of the preconceptions that people have and juxtapose it with the correct and scientifically accepted way of thinking.

Additionally it is important to also have multiple ways for people to engage with scientific concepts. It is unlikely that people learning Newton’s first law for the first time would believe it to be true, as it goes against everything that they have experienced thus far. On the other hand, putting these people into a weightless environment, such as the ‘vomit comet’ or a free-falling elevator, will make them learn about this concept pretty quickly. For a safer approach, a near-by air hockey table equipped with puck and mallet may suffice.

A third tool for supporting learning is called interactivity; allowing a person to physically interact with the phenomenon. It is a specific case of the second strategy (multiple modes), and to continue using the example of Newton’s first law, a person could be taken into space and given a little push. The fact that the person (now in motion) will not stop should solidify his/her faith in the new knowledge that he/she has grasped. Alternatively, a clip from the new movie Gravity may suffice: this. Observe how not only is Sandra Bullock’s linear motion conserved, but also the rotation acquired when she detached from the robotic arm.

The article describes the role of citizen scientists in collecting valuable data. The citizen scientists are usually volunteers who are passionate about fields like zoology or botany and want to contribute to the science knowledge. Several questions arise about citizen scientists. For one, how can we gauge the accuracy of the observations that citizen scientists gather? One way is to pair together trained staff with the citizen scientists to compare data and determine reliability. Also the roles of citizen scientists may be limited to, say, counting 5 or 10 easily identifiable plants. The development of specific protocols for citizen scientists may affect the overall accuracy of their data.

One thing I’ve noticed about citizen scientists is that they’ve thus far been predominantly utilized for such fields as zoology or population ecology, and almost not at all for biology, chemistry, or physics (the ‘harder’ sciences). I think this is due the fact that research in these fields requires extensive knowledge and equipment than a hobbyist possesses. Also, population ecology and the like benefit much more from having a large number of people gathering data, because populations sizes cannot be easily determined. I think if I were conducting an experiment, it would have to be quiet large in scope before I would consider recruiting citizen scientists for the job.

Chapter 2 of Surrounded by Science discusses “Science Learning”: a new model for designing a scientific learning experience using 6 “strands,” or core concepts/goals. The chapter also features a case study of amateur bird-watchers participating in a scientific research project called Project FeederWatch.

I’m not sure what to think of this. In some ways, it reiterates what I already know about science. In other ways, I feel like something simple is being obfuscated. Granted, I’ve never experienced what it is like assuming the teaching role in either the classroom or a FCSLE, but I believe that learning about science doesn’t require a new approach; the old one just needs to be tweaked.

Here’s my take on the core ‘strands’ of science learning:

1. Understanding the common misconceptions that people may retain with regards to basic scientific concepts, and creating a new perspective.
2. Introducing the correct idea through the various senses (hearing, sight, touch)
3. Reinforcing the idea and “drilling it” into the mind with problem sets

A big difference between what I’ve written and the textbook version is that there is a large emphasis on experimentation and a hands-on approach to science in the textbook. On the other hand, I’ve found that doing experiments in the lab is often very frustrating, as it’s never as precise as what I imagine in my mind; consequently I don’t trust the results fully, and I’m afraid that the experiment will not follow the predictions made by the theory that I’ve learnt or developed. Honestly, for me it’s a bit of a turn-off, as I would much rather stick with the hypotheticals and leave the experimentation to those with the proper equipment (imagine the difference between designing a spacecraft and building one!) Despite all that, I still find experimentation a valuable tool for scientists, and it may even be the thing that drives others to learn more about the topic at hand.

A summary of the Strands in Chapter 2

1. Interest helps people retain and remember what they learn.
   Engagement can trigger interest.
2. Learning to understand the links between scientific concepts.
3. Learning to reason about evidence.
4. Learning to evaluate new evidence and reassess old ideas.
5. Science is a social process.
6. Developing the identity of a science learner.

The article written by John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking asserts that there is more to be gained from out-of-school learning experiences vs. in-school learning experiences. The evidence comes from several sources, one of which finds that American students are on an equal level with the rest of the world when they are not yet old enough for school; on the other hand, as they get older Americans start to fall behind their global counterparts. It is suggested that reduced exposure to free-choice science learning experiences (FCSLE) in the school years is the cause of this trend.

Reading the article, there seems to be a strong-negative connotation associated with learning done in schools. The idea is that the public spends so little of its time in the classroom, and a smaller fraction of that learning science, that any amount of science learned in class is practically inconsequential. This is surely based on each individual’s own experiences, as I am quiet proud of the knowledge I received in high school, and am gracious for the teachers that endowed me with it. Still, I could see how many others may not have had the same experience, because the factors that lead to success in school and learning may not be present for many individuals. These are:

• An enthusiastic teacher
• A supportive family
• The proper resources for learning
• A highly motivated, disciplined student

Notice the emphasis I put on the last item, as I feel that without it, no (real) learning can be done. Also notice that I didn’t include any FCSLE, because I don’t attribute my knowledge of science to them. That is, the museums, parks, botanic gardens, aquariums, science centers, etc. It’s not that I don’t value these experiences. It’s that, as the article says, I believe that “it only supports superficial science learning.” That’s not a criticism on the FCSLE. It’s the fact that FCSLE can only provide me with qualitative information. The real quantitative knowledge; the equations and their application to the physical universe, can only be drilled into the mind with time and a well-designed problem set. I have no doubt that someone could design an FCSLE that rivals the classroom in the [concrete] knowledge that it provides, but I don’t think anyone has done it yet. However, if anyone plans to do that, I would love to be a part of it.

PS: I don’t depend on schooling for all my science learning needs. The fact is that most of the stuff I learn comes from resources that I find on the internet, which may count as an FCSLE. However, if I were to make maximum gains from these kinds of resources, I would have to invest the same kind of focus/concentration that I do when working on school work, which doesn’t really make it any different from school, does it?