Chapter four discusses science learning in the context of interactions within groups. The chapter starts off with the interesting statement that discussions had between parents and their children without the goal of learning science, helped children learn about topics related to science. The chapter goes on to give the example of television, while watched alone is a solitary activity, when watched with others it become a social activity that is conversational.

I think chapter 3 was a good expansion on what we learned in chapter 2. It was very insightful to see how strands are incorporated into real life science learning activities.

The chapter starts off with three main strategies used to support learning. I could personally relate to having experienced many of these methods myself. The first, juxtaposing a learners understanding with actual science facts about the idea, is an interesting one because it creates a bridge between informal knowledge and formal knowledge. The second strategy, providing multiple ways to engage and learn with science, helps create a comprehensive approach, allowing people who learn differently and of different age groups and interests to benefit. The third strategy, interactivity, is in my opinion one of the most important because it directly involves the learner in the learning process and helps them become part of the experience. The chapter goes on to compare the last strategy to Strand 2, Understanding Scientific Content and Knowledge. A museum exhibit contained a bicycle that, when pedaled, displayed a corresponding moving skeleton in the mirror next to them. After the experience, 97% of children could draw a skeleton correctly versus only 3% of children who did not attend the exhibit. The difference is astounding in these two examples and while it is possible that there were confounding variables, many people will agree that being part of interactive experienced does help them learn and reflect on material better.

The chapter goes on to  stress that too much interactivity shows no additional benefit, showing how important it is to keep expanding and testing on knew teaching methods.  The chapter continues on discussing interactive exhibits by talking about the Cell Lab at the Science Museum of Minnesota. Participants in this lab use wet-lab biology techniques to perform simple science experiments while they are dressed as scientists. This activity touches upon many strands, including the strand of helping the citizen-scientist identify as a scientist, albeit at an early stage. This experiment exemplified several important characteristics: engagement, accessibility, and integration of past and new  knowledge.

Next, we learn about Active Prolonged Engagement (APE) exhibits. These experiments tend to be more open ended, for example, the experiment The Mind. Exhibitors were given a variety of exhibits to attend (Strand 1). These exhibits were more ‘personal’ and unusual, causing them to be more fun for people, but at the same time they explored  diverse bodies of knowledge (Strand 2). One thing the museum learned form these was that many of these experiments became a social process, fostering social learning.

Next we learn about long-term formal activities. Teens from the St. Louis Science Center worked to plant flowers in a homeless shelter but were faced with environmental obstacles. They brainstormed and improvised a shoeholder to use for planting. They worked in this program for two years, learning how to conduct scientific investigations and skills needed to work with children. A side effect was that their school grades improved. Because the program was so long, the instructors could tailor methods and approaches to face the unique areas of difficulty the students faced, and the students gradually developed an identity. When asked to demonstrate their knowledge, the instructors found that the students had a deep knowledge of the subject. Another example of specific teacher influences was that the students kept fish which died and they wanted to inquire about why they died. The instructors directed them to search for information by themselves and as a result, they gained researching skills. All this was part of Strand 5, learning the tools and vocabulary of science.

Finally, we learn about non-interactive learning via television. The children in the show underwent a methodical procedure to solve the problem of finding out the size a hot air balloon needs to be to stay afloat. When children were tested on what they learned from the show, the results showed an overall understanding of the problem and process used. The show appealed to the children by going at a slow pace, choosing an interesting topic, keeping things clear and as simple as possible, and summarizing everything. This all shows that design is just as important in deciding whether a informal learning method will be effective as whether or not the experience is interactive.

I found the relationship between the researchers of Cornell Lab of Ornithology  and the citizens in Project FeederWatch very interesting. The results of surveys showed that the majority of those who participated felt they learned more about birds than what they knew before, including specific aspects such as species diversity. The participants also proved the scientists’ hypotheses wrong on several occasions. This goes to show that if you empower people to contribute to science research and data collection, and to not be scared of science, they can be of great value. If those scientists alone tried to survey the whole area, they might have missed important information or might have lacked the necessary resources to cover such a wide area.

Another interesting concept I learned from this chapter is the “culture of science”. I was surprised to find out science is such a social and collaborative field.  Each field has its own unique approaches, tools, and views. The FeederWatch project served as a good example of how scientists could try to assimilate people into this culture of science and resolving the prejudices and stigmas people have of science due to popular culture and media. This ties in with the last piece we had to read, science is more than what is learned in the classroom, and it is more than what is done in the lab. This out of school/academia experience introduced the “culture of science” to layman and the results showed that it is entirely possible for people unfamiliar with science to take up habits and lessons from science.

I think the “Strands of Informal Science Learning”  are very important to understand for anyone who wants to teach science informally or structure something for a layman audience. I have personally experienced several of these strands at public areas I have visited such as Museums and Aquariums. Even though science is multi-faceted, the “Strands” part of the name implies that they are all part of one larger whole. Personally, I feel strands 1 and 6 to be the most important, strand 6 depending on the strands before it.  Strand 1 is “Sparking Interest and Excitement” and strand 6 is “Identifying with the science enterprise”. Strand 1 is important to get people to create a spark of interest which keeps them going through the other strands. However despite all this progress, they cannot progress further than citizen-scientists if they do not identify as a scientists and use that identity to advance and find their own place in the science world.

I thought that this article was thought provoking. I knew that the United States was lacking in educational performance compared to other countries, but it surprised me to learn that younger American children actually performed better on science literacy measures compared to other countries. Another surprising fact was that hobbyists in certain fields knew more than their academic counterparts.

When I first started reading the article I found it strange that out of school knowledge could actually be more important than that learned in school. In school you learn with well-paced lessons and examples, with incremental tests. But, outside of school most people, I assumed, would just absorb information but never really find a use for it. After reading it though, my opinion changed because of the well put arguments it makes. It actually does seem more logical that children would be better motivated though direct outside of school activity, and that activation of interest can carry on through their lives, filling them with curiosity and a desire to interact and study what they find. However, I disagree with the article that a school-run out of school activity wouldn’t be as effective because it would be pedagogical. I think relating things back to the books an prove useful and make people more interested in what they learn. I went on school fieldtrips after learning about certain subjects and I feel that the learning part complemented the interactive part very well.

I also found myself agreeing with the article more because of our recent Bioblitz. I think it was a great experience out of the realm of textbooks and Powerpoint slides. At that event, previous knowledge did help, but ultimately at the end of it, everyone was on the same page and came out with the same knowledge than those who are bad at or didn’t take biology courses. Many of the people who thought it was going to be a waste of time, including me, changed our minds at the end and I think we all will be much more open to science learning and open learning events like that. Finally, I agree with the article that more funding needs to go towards free choice science learning opportunities to see how much it could help.  We can’t know it’s impact if all we do is try in school pedagogy.