Chapter 9 concludes our topic by reminding us of the principles of informal learning: that learning should be constant and available in all settings. A key point the chapter touched upon was the need for a connection between formal and informal settings.

I agree that it is essential to connect new technologies with informal learning settings. Cellphone applications and interactive websites allow students to continue their learning experience outside of the museum or classroom. It is also beneficial that whenever someone has a spark of interest, the information can be at his or her fingertips. Students can look up information before this sudden curiosity dissipates. By using Twitter and Facebook, students can show their friends cool new things that they learn. At the rate that people read social feeds, they can be reading and sharing their learning experiences with their friends.

Field trips are an important tool for connecting informal and formal setting education. A topic that is introduced on a field trip might excite the students about a certain subject and entice them to learn about the topic when it comes up in a formal setting. When the field trip host organization provides ways to continue learning after the day of the field trip, the excitement experienced can continue to influence the way the student treats the topic. However, simply going on a field trip does not accomplish this goal. The field trip itself has to be planned and prepared. Out of what I noticed on my trips to various museums, the most effective way to excite students was to provide either demonstrations or tour guides to talk to the students about what they are looking at. Without these features, I have noticed, students do not focus much about what is learned. Rather they simply get excited for the games or random little buttons on the exhibit without really understanding the purpose behind them. A teacher, parent or guide can direct that excitement towards the knowledge presented in the exhibit.

Communicating scientific research is vital for its correct application in today’s modern world. If scientific research is misunderstood by those dealing with policy (lawmakers and voters), the wrong decisions will be made. A precedent we have seen for this can be learned from the way forensic science was treated in its early development (learned in my Bioethics course): When forensic science first came into the picture, prosecutors thought they had found the unbeatable method of catching criminals. They would use the DNA of the crime scene and match it with any DNA they had found in the data base assuming that they had caught the criminal. The science was still developing and yet the courts thought it was a perfect system. Long story short, many mistakes were made and many were falsely convicted despite the scientists’ warnings against only using these methods. Instead, DNA should be used to support already existing evidence, and not as the only evidence. This example of failure of communication between scientists and those that utilize the product of the science has caused many problems in individuals’ lives.

In relation to Alan Leshner’s “Capably Communicating Science,” I agree with the idea of utilizing a “translator” to explain what scientists are doing. Scientists often do not have time to write in ways for the masses to understand because what a scientist can say in one sentence would possibly need an entire book for the layman to understand. A personal example: when a friend of mine lost his grandmother, the doctor spent fifteen minutes explaining to the family what had happened while he only needed 30 seconds to explain it to a doctor of another field entirely. However, problems with this “translator” might come up when dealing with law making since the translator might present the facts in a biased way. And it is difficult for a scientist to keep tabs on whatever a translator says to his audience.

Chapter 5 portrays an interesting outline of different levels of identity and motivation. Its nice that the 6 forms of keeping interest can be remembered as the 5 C’s + play. I agree that all of these are needed in an informal learning setting. However, caution must be taken that all of these need to be balanced and that too much of a ‘good’ thing can be bad. In the example given with the light experiment, the button feature gave the visitor too much control and caused them to lose track of what was supposed to be learned. Confidence and challenge seem like direct opposites that must be balanced. Allowing the visitor to be correct to avoid frustration is very important while keeping interest also depends on the learner being challenged. This challenge has to be a slight one. A solution I’d propose (I’m confident it’s been done already) is to have different levels of challenges since some challenges for a certain group might be too easy to keep an older group interested.

The identity category labels cannot have strict boundaries. What I mean is that one can fall under multiple categories within one zoo/aquarium/museum trip. For example, I see that it is very probable for a “Professional/Hobbyist” acting as a “Facilitator.”

Chapter 8 alludes to what I mentioned previously (chapter 5 reflection) that exhibits have to cater to different levels of understanding and interests. This includes how challenging the different groups requires different level tasks. It is extremely important to allow all ages proper exposure to new concepts and ideas. Knowledge always renews itself and new concepts are developed very frequently in almost all fields of study. Keeping up with new information keeps sharpens the mind’s skill at critically analyzing any topic at hand. This applies to all ages: young children, adults and the elderly. However, there is definitely a stronger need for the children to access all of the information in order to develop his or her interest and ability in the future.