The use of place-based learning as a means of improving understanding among students has been proven to be effective, as shown in the articles. Statistically speaking, more times than not, place-based learning has shown improved scores across the boards, in subjects ranging from science to social studies. The fact that this learning approach encompasses such a broad variety of subjects shows its obvious success. “Learning in Your Own Backyard” gives the example of students studying tree roots stopping erosion. The article elaborates that students “remember their own experience from this gallery and have a scaffold on which to hang their understanding,” referring to the Turtle Bay Exploration Park. The author states that her own experience of “being under dirt looking up and using the roots to climb.”

An interesting point was that this learning technique has Marxist and socialist roots, as it encourages learning outside of “institutional and ideological domination.” This echoes the ideology of private Montessori schools, which encourage hands-on learning from a very young age, going outside of the idea of a common core curriculum approach that’s sweeping the nation. In fact, this method was recently implemented in New York State, and most teachers find it tedious, as students are forced to take pointless tests at the beginning and end of the school year to catalogue their progress. Furthermore, the Montessori approach caters to the idea that different students learn in different ways- some through, listening, others through reading, and others through touch- and encompasses all of these learning styles. Place-based learning seems to do the same: being somewhere correlates to touch, reading exhibits notes to reading, and hearing a curator talk to listening.

It’s also very reminiscent of the Martin family, who sold all their belongings in order to go on a road trip with their children through all 50 states. Their children were schooled online, and were able to visit all the different memorials and historical sites that are brought up in social studies classes. This brings up the very interesting point that place-based learning not only instills a better understanding of a subject, but a greater interest. Perhaps the person who learned firsthand about preventing erosion by planting trees will be the next NGO leader fighting against habitat and critical geographic changes. Perhaps the person who visits the tenement museum will further read about social injustice in the past and even today, becoming the next champion of the working class, propelling America towards equality. Perhaps the person who visits the New York Hall of Science will play with the atomic models and be the next great chemist.

The effect that planting the seeds of interest in young minds is even greater than the effect of showing kids how planting trees can save the Earth. The broad range of topics that place-based learning can affect means children are encouraged to explore their own interests. As The Best of Both Worlds states, “Educational theory that synthesizes ecological and social concerns is, however, in an early stage of development.” These are issues that strike home, and are becoming increasingly prevalent in modern day politics. By raising concerns, raising interest about these topics in today’s students, we’re only creating the leaders of tomorrow. Improving grades is only a step towards a better educational system. Wiping away ignorance is a step towards a better America, a better world.

Education was considered to be of utmost importance during the Age of the Enlightened. Today, we look towards a more enlightened populace, a populace who we can entrust the future of our Earth to. Improved education through place-based learning won’t only serve to propagate ideas and ideals in students, but to encourage them to innovate by creating new ideas, and to instill better socially/environmentally conscious ideals in a new generation.

Today, American seeks a more educated youth in order to stay on top of the world. “Classroom-based research is inadequate to the larger tasks of cultural and ecological analysis that reinhabitation and decolonization demand.” As Peter F. Drucker said, “If you want something new, you have to stop doing something old.” Maybe the “new” is the implementation of the ideologies of critical pedagogy of place.

Chapter four discusses the importance of interactivity in an informal learning environment. The chapter explains how interactions with parents and teachers when in a museum or even while watching a television show can help a child learn more about the subject. The chapter goes on to further explain the importance of social conversation and how it also enhances science learning in an environment such as a museum. The Frog exhibit allowed for researchers to distinguish between different type of conversation; perceptual talk, conceptual talk, connecting talk, strategic talk and affective talk. The differences in the type of conversation can also be related to the strands of learning in which each talk can increase interest and lead to the next conversation. Furthermore, they type of conversations also present the viewers understanding and interest in the topic.

The chapter mainly focuses on the role of the parent in science learning. I believe that parents play a great role in engaging their child in science. Parents can help foster interest in the field and help invoke the child to draw conclusion and make connections through questions. However, the parents can also discourage learning if they become too involved in the activity as mentioned in the chapter. If a parent begins to take over during the activity, the child suffers, as he/she is not able to understand the concepts as well as the parents who are actively participating. The child becomes an observer and therefore learns less during this process. I believe this also the case with many other group activities, in that if the all the members do not share an equal role, some members may gain more from the experience than other members. This would affect the interest of members of the groups in the topic that is being studied and also affect the desire to continue to learn regarding subjects similar to the topic.

In Chapter 3, the author states that informal learning allows for a person to develop an understanding of the topic even in as a child. The chapter mentions how informal science should be used to foster one’s own thoughts and opinions about the matter, helping a person draw conclusion of their own, while delving deeper into the topic. This can be accomplished by juxtaposing the learner’s understanding of natural phenomena, which will make the learner reflect on what he/she has learned and gage how much he/she has learned. Another strategy mention is providing multiple mediums in which the learner can attain the information. This appeals to the learner, as there are multiple ways to engage in topic and therefore increases the amount of knowledge gained by the learner. The last strategy is interactivity and allowing the learner to be actively involved in the learning process. This increases interest in the topic as well as develops a deeper understanding of the topic, as learners are able to experience what would normally be written in a textbook.

I believe that these methods are very effective in engaging the learner and increasing his/her understanding of the topic. Furthermore, these methods do not isolate a certain group of people. A child is able to pick up the same amount of information as an adult would through the methods mentioned in the reading whereas if a child may not be able to grasp the same amount of knowledge as a scholarly adult if they both were to read the same science journal. Furthermore, most people learn through experiences and hands on training and therefore being able to be actively involved in the field of study will further enhance the amount of information retained. However, age will still play role, in that an adult brain is much more developed and may be able to understand abstract topics as opposed to a child who has not yet been exposed to such.

Citizen scientists are those who volunteer as field assistants in scientific studies. These people are not scientists and are not paid for their work; rather they do it out of passion for the topic of the field they are volunteering in. Citizen scientists are very much found in the field of research and contribute greatly to studies and advances in research. Furthermore, depending on volunteers to perform research is more cost effective and also allows scientists to gather data over a longer period of time. In addition I believe by using citizen scientists it also inspires others to become much more involved in the scientific world and opens the field to others instead of it seeming like a closed off community.

Being a citizen scientist allows a person to gain the experience and knowledge through hands on experience in the field. Citizen scientists are taught how to use the equipment and collect data accurately so they can be studied. Furthermore, according to the article the data collected by citizen scientists are pretty good. Being a citizen scientist is an interactive way for people to learn about a field in science of their interest without having to go through a formal training process. It said that the efforts of the citizen scientists have led researchers to be able to track the progress of conjunctivitis in house finches and follow trends in diseases in animals. Although these people are amateurs they have led to advancement in knowledge in the field of research and I believe that people should be encouraged to take on projects as such and explore their interests. It makes scientific knowledge to all people since the young and the old can become involved and learn from the experiences of participating in the study.

This chapter touches base on the strands of learning science. The first strand of learning is sparking interest. The chapter states that people’s interests are initially sparked through engagement and activities in an informal setting. Although this somewhat true, I also believe that interest can be sparked through a formal setting. Many of us who are pre-med and aspire to become doctors interested in science because of what was taught to us in school, rather than because of what we have experienced in museums.

The second strand relates to using the knowledge learned. The chapter discusses how a video on the Galapagos Island can challenge viewers to apply what they have learned in the video about natural selection to their daily life. However one fault I see in this is that, some viewers may not easily see this connection and therefore be able to see it only in the context of the video or experiment.

The third strand is engaging in scientific reasoning. This is when people use their own understanding of science and are able to form questions and build upon it. People are able to draw conclusions from their own observations. The chapter states the visitors to science centers have the opportunity to do this. However, I believe that even real life experiences at work allow this. Yet for those who are not exposed to science, visiting science centers is probably the best way.

The fourth strand is reflecting on science. Science is always changing and the chapter states that the best way to be exposed to this change is through an informal setting. I agree with this statement in that, people are able to experience the change and therefore learn from it as well as understand it. The fifth strand is using the tools to understand science. Science has its own language and the only way to understand it is by being involved in the science community.

The last strand talks about science as an enterprise. Science can become career and the chapter states that by being involved in the science community can increase people’s interest in science. Although this may be true, I think that people can also gain interest in the field and want to pursue a career in science through formal learning as well.

The article brings up many points. One fact that the article brings forwards is that the percentage of science teaching in America is much less than of other countries. This is mainly because most of the learning occurs in school, however students do not get proper lessons in science until they reach high school. Most elementary teachers do not major in science education nor take any science classes in college and therefore they spend very little time over the week focusing on science in the classroom in comparison to other subjects. I find this surprising and I believe that science lessons should be incorporated into the curriculum at a younger stage so that when the child reaches adolescence he/she will have a better understanding of the world around them.

Another point that the article addresses is that a lot of science learning takes place out of the classroom. Research has shown that after visiting a science center many people believe that they have a better understanding of science as well as a greater interest in it as well. I agree with this theory, in that many of us learn from experiences rather than through words on a textbook. When something becomes applicable, it becomes more understandable in a sense. For this reason I agree with the article in that science is more effective taught through out of the classroom methods.