Honestly, even with all of the graphs and charts proposed, I could not find a way to internalize the numbers of different populations that inhabit the area. It seems meaningless to me possibly because of the extreme amount of numbers presented. The only statistic that seemed important and relevant is the fact that there are currently more immigrants in the area, which implies that the area is culturally diverse. After reading about the anecdotal accounts of Jews visiting the Canarsie Pier to perform a specific religious ceremony called Tashlikh, I was able to relate since our elementary school used to take us to the bay by Toys R Us to do the same. I would explain what that ceremony is, but Jennifer already elaborated. I was not aware of the once vibrant Jewish community that inhabited the area. It was interesting to note how many different religions had ceremonies involving bodies of water and therefore practice these customs at the Jamaica Bay. Since water is vital for life, it makes sense that many religions regard it at the highest esteem. However, some ceremonies may bring pollution into the bay, such as the “puja” in which the Hindu community send offerings into the bay expecting them to sail out to sea but they come right back to the bay’s shores. In the other examples given, most do not harm the bay. The group that had been cutting down willow branches that originally thought of the area as public property regarding its resources had stopped since of the introduction of the idea that they might be stealing. Regarding the ceremony of Tashlikh, some include throwing bread into a body of water, while others simply recite a few passages near it. Although it might look ugly, the bread would either be eaten by birds and fish or degrade in the salty waters. If in fact, it is harmful to the animals eating the bread, maybe since it is only a symbolic ritual (either throwing “sins” away- being done on the holiday of repentance, or to fulfill a biblical verse that mentions a king that was anointed near a body of water; in this case, God being the king – one of the themes of the holiday) and is not a very old tradition, it can be altered to leave out the bread-throwing part (nothing to do with the second interpretation of the custom). Other problems may be posed against those that light bonfires since it attracts crowds that leave messes that can stay for a longer time if not cleaned up properly.

In order to answer the question of indigenous knowledge, its definition must be explored. However, based on Wikipedia’s definition, I will posit that through indigenous knowledge, people feel they have a right to utilize natural resources as long as these natural resources do not belong to any particular being. If there is a fence around it or it seems like it was planted with intent of personal use (i.e. a large orchard organized in rows), it would be off limits, while if not, the resource can be taken. However, most religions would give importance to nature and not destroying it. Looking at both angles, indigenous knowledge would suggest that using a resource in a way that can guarantee the replenishment of that resource would be permissible.

The article, Art As a Way of Knowing, talks about a conference that was held, under the same name. Its purpose was to gather artists, scientists and educators to think about history and art as conduits into inquiring and questioning about the natural world.  It was a conference that was interested art practice relating to public engagements with science, including programs for children in community based organizations, schools, museums and other learning environments.

I liked that the conference was a discussion about the role of art in learning and in science learning, that it can be used as a form of inquiry and that it discussed on ways that artists are working in science and interdisciplinary contexts presently, including that of informal public learning environments. I liked that the conference was one that shifted away from comparing art and science and instead concentrated on how the arts expands our engagement and comprehension of the natural worlds. Its good to hear that conferences about art and science are doing more than just discussing what the similarities and differences are between the two areas and are actually trying to think how this may be a medium through which science learning can be improved and enhanced.

I agreed with the article when it said that art is rarely talked about in conversations about learning and teaching and when it is, it is discussed in relation to something artistic.  There are many people that believe art as something that does not actually teach anything or is not something that someone can learn something from. There is less and less funding for the arts in schools as more money is being used to fund scientific education. However, I think people should really think about the potential benefits that art can have on learning and science learning. One thing I like about this conference is that it sought to understand and articulate how art as a tool to advance human insight can be used to support learning and in particular learning in science.

I like the list towards the end of the article that demonstrates the benefits of art and how essential it is to learning. This list includes that art challenges habits and certitude, frames familiar problems in new ways, invites participation and engages all the senses. I think what struck me the most that artists and scientists pursue the big questions of their times. This is true, just that these two groups may pursue them in different ways, and perhaps, at times in similar ways.

It was interesting to learn about art and science in the article, The Art of the Brain, by Ashley Taylor. I enjoyed learning about the different hypotheses and the conclusions drawn from them. The first one is that science is done for scientific purpose; art is done for an artistic one and the conclusion is that the distinction becomes blurry.  Lichtman makes an argument that artistic and scientific purposes are equivalent. In one way, they both seek to try to understand something. Artists, like scientists, are focused on a particular idea that they want to understand and their art is about a particular thing.

The second hypothesis in the article is that science uses a prescribed method and art does not. This is false because artists also have methods, perhaps not set method like the scientific method, but they do follow some rules. It is also false because sometimes scientists don’t follow prescribed methods.

The third hypothesis is that science simplifies things and art renders their complexity. This is a false hypothesis because science can also appreciate complexity. Often times, when one is trying to learn something in science, more questions are raised than answered. Science is not always so simple. We may find answers to some things, but in finding those answers we also may have more questions.

The fourth hypothesis that I learned about is that science is some notion of right and wrong, whereas art is just art. In the article, it seems to say that there right and wrong hold much over science.  In science, everything is up for debate. However, in art, according to the article, it seems that right and wrong don’t particularly belong. It seems that the author tends to shift away from logic and reasoning and more towards instinct and feeling.

Overall, it was very fascinating to learn about science and art bases on someone else’s point of view. The article was constructed in an interesting way; it was formatted so that there were hypotheses, information that was against or supporting that hypothesis and then a conclusion after each one. In the end, the author states that this may not be the best approach to this topic because it leaves the author unsatisfied. There are just some things that are not explained well enough using hypotheses and conclusions.

I really enjoyed the article on the “Brainbow.” I found it to be written in a very interesting, engaging, and thought provoking manner. After reading these two articles, I found it very strange that art  isn’t such a part of science education. If the two have such a strong connection to each other, then why isn’t art a constant participant in the way we learn about and understand science? But, maybe it is. When one mixes certain chemicals that combine to create a new color or one looks at the magnificence of a plant cell or DNA- is that not art in and of itself? Regardless, I think that art should play a stronger role in science education, whether formally or informally. This allows for the child or student that is more creatively inclined to also enjoy the more mathematical side that is very much present in science. Connection to art is much more open and abstract and so many have a connection to some aspect of art, be it dance, music, or paint. And, then, via this connection, they can then find themselves a connection to science. And, they can use their art connection to comprehend and express their scientific understanding. In grade 11, we used a math program to create “sine art”. The various graphs of different “sine” numbers in different colors created a beautiful display. And, in grade 9, we had to use algebraic equations and graph paper to create a picture (lines, parabolas, circles, etc.) In this manner, math became “fun” and even those who hated math found a connection and a manner in which they can enjoy certain aspects and concepts of math. In the same way, art can be applied to the various fields of science in a very important, participatory, and beneficial manner.

The two articles on art and science attempt to do something revolutionary: to combine art and science into one genre. We’ve always categorized art and science as distinct, and even opposing fields to pursue. Part of this is because the English language distinguishes the two disciplines into two separate words. However, these articles have the power to change our view of this into thinking that our perception of the world is actually a conglomerate of the art and science we see. Art can provide scientific hypotheses, and science can be displayed as a work of art understandable to many people, as Jonathon Wells does.

There are numerous examples one can come up with of art used in science and science used in art. The articles provide a few of them, such as the “Brainbow” picture, the building of beautiful structures such as the pyramids, or depicting geology through a photographic artform, as Jonathon Wells does. I can even come up with several examples myself. Editing my videos requires the use of software designed by programming scientists. Textbooks contain colored pictures of the human body to allow us to differentiate between different organs. Drama therapy and music therapy are up and coming methods of treatment for psychological disorders. Even arts such as acting and stand-up comedy can be boiled down to a science. Constantin Stanislavski came up with a hugely successful method for training actors, and stand-up comedians arrange their jokes in a certain order to generate the most laughs from the audience.

But the most profound statement is made by Jeffrey Lichtman, who blurs the lines of science and art when he explains that our perception of the world is inaccurate. We only understand the world through the filter of our brain’s processing. Color’s don’t actually exist. We just see color because our brains filter wavelengths of light into distinct colors that it perceives. How am I to know that my red is the same as your red? We have methods of testing for colorblindness, but our language and our scientific method fails to test our perception. Even if a friend of mine can perceive a full range of colors, I’ll never know if he perceives red the way I perceive green, and he might perceive blue the way I perceive brown. Therefore, even science isn’t completely based on reality. What is reality? Perhaps art and science are just two different methods of trying to make sense of reality.

This discussion of perception is a philosophical one, and is explained very well by Michael Stevens’ videos on his YouTube channel, Vsauce:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju08

Science and art have an interesting relationship. The first thing that comes to mind is that science can be depicted in an artistic way, which can spark interest and attract attention. Cells are mostly colorless when looked under microscopes (except for naturally green chloroplasts). However, most slides are dyed before they are viewed. This enhances the viewers ability to distinguish different parts of the cell but at the same time, it makes it attractive to the eye to the point that one might want to take a picture of it and display it by a museum exhibit. Although the fluorescent colors one might see on an electron microscope image are artificial, they still represent science. Ashley Taylor in her article “The Art of The Brain: “Brainbow” and the Difficulty of Distinguishing Science and Art” brings up the question of whether or not an eye-pleasing representation of scientific data can be called art.

Another connection that is apparent between science and art can be seen when analyzing characters in history such as Leonardo de Vinci. Artists such as de Vinci used their knowledge in science to create works of art. It is no coincidence that the development of sculptural depictions of the body advanced as knowledge of medicine and the human body increased. Another common aspect of art and science is that there are steps in analyzing each. When one sees an artwork or a certain natural phenomenon, he or she has an option to inquire further. A distinction must be made between what is seen and what its implications are. One can ask why the artist used that specific technique or why did that specific phenomenon occur. However, arriving at a solution is entirely different between the two fields. Despite both having the ability to sustain multiple interpretations, art is subjective since there isn’t necessarily a correct answer even if the artist states his or her intentions. Other viewers are free to interpret the art as they feel. Science on the other hand even though multiple answers are presented, the correct answer is defined. It can be a combination of the answers given so in a way both answers can be partially right but at the end of the day there is a correct answer. Taylor concludes at the end of her paper that art and science are similar in multiple aspects.

For me, art has a significant role in science since seeing visually pleasing images enhances my interest in different types of science and in some cases might also help me understand the contents of images in a scientific diagram.

The first article, Learning in Your Own Backyard spoke about place-based education, and how research has shown that it results in higher grades in students as well as a better understanding of their subject material. I agree that it’s a good idea to be learning subjects on-location, especially if that subject can be explored in the physical world.  This makes sense because we believe what we can observe with our senses. If you can see an object and hit it with a hammer, and hear it make a clang, then you can be positive it’s there. Anything beyond that type of learning is conceptual and requires a stretch of the imagination. Even babies and children learn through tactile exploration. They travel through their space, touch everything they see, and manipulate items that grab their curiosity. They don’t listen to lectures. For this reason, it would be much more interesting to learn about the evolutionary relationship between raccoons and bears by feeling their pelts (or synthetic pelts) and making a judgement off of that. Or rather than first explaining how and why plants lean toward the sun, one can be planted indoors next to a windowsill, to display how it will lean toward the window no matter which direction you turn the pot.

I went to the Tenement Museum myself in my junior year of high school, and I remember many of its details very vividly. First we had a lesson on immigrants in the Lower East Side (of which I don’t remember so vividly), and then we explored the apartments they lived in, which are preserved in the most original state as possible. Actors portray the immigrants as we walk into these apartments, and we get to see the cramped living conditions, speak to the “immigrants” about their lives, and even see a lot of the different tools they used back then, such as a heavy clothes iron made out of metal that doesn’t even run on electricity. The point of all this description is to display how much more I was able to remember from an experiential memory rather than from lectures I received in class.

Once our interest in a subject is sparked however, we need to be able to explore deeper as humans. This is where critical pedagogy comes in. David Gruenewald explains in Best of Both Worlds how teachers need to challenge our thoughts with new information. This reminds me of the concept of juxtaposition in Surrounded by Science, where misconceptions about science are challenged as a method of sparking interest, as well as teaching more accurate information. A lecture setting is necessary after initial exposition to explain the subject matter. Eventually, a student needs to learn about what goes on at the cellular level that causes a plan to lean towards the sun. This can’t always be observed, and would require an animation and an explanation. It’s only through a mix of critical pedagogy and place-based learning that we can fully understand a subject.

David Gruenewald in his article, “The Best Both Worlds,” is determined to combine the concepts of critical pedagogy and place-based education into what he calls “a critical pedagogy of place.” After reading and re-reading the first paragraph, I still did not grasp a clear understanding of what critical pedagogy actually is. I then only associated the term with the “emphasis of social and urban contexts“ and with challenging premade assumptions. However, giving the context of this term’s development (Page 4) helped improve my understanding of the word. The author writes with the assumption of the reader’s knowledge of these concepts. That said, the other assigned article, “Learning in Your Own Backyard,” seems to be giving an example of “critical pedagogy of place.” The Lower East Side Tenement Museum combined place-based learning with an urban setting. Those visiting the museum share the experience of walking into old tenements and are given the opportunity to understand what the immigrants of the Lower East Side went through when they first arrived in New York. It gives perspective on how certain communities developed and in turn, might affect how communities can be developed further.

I agree with Gruenewald’s argument that in order to understand a situation, its spatial context must be studied along with the situation itself. Reading the world has to be placed alongside reading the word and vice versa. It is interesting to see how connections can be made between cultures and ecosystems and how the term “ecology” can be related to an urban environment, referring to overpopulation and pollution.

The first article I read, Learning in Your Own Backyard: Place-Based Education for Museums by Janet Petitpas, was very interesting.  It was nice to see what museums are doing to incorporate place-based education tactics to maximize their benefits and fulfill their own institutional goals.  The article focuses on three particular places that encourage the practice of using place-based education in order to provide real experiences that are relevant to its visitors that come to the sites.  Two of these institutions, Turtle Bay Exploration Park and The Bay Area Discovery Museum, take place in what many people deem the site of typical place-based institutions, the natural environment. However, interestingly enough, there is such a thing as having place-based learning  for those that are not surrounded by the natural world. Place-based learning can occur in an urban setting, as demonstrated in the example at the Lower East Side Tenement Museum.

Place-based education is defined in the article as a process that uses local environments to teach concepts in  various subjects, such as social studies and science. This type of education tends to focus on hands on experiences that apply to the real world. This type of approach also helps one to develop stronger community ties, enhances one’s appreciation for the natural environment and even fosters a sense of commitment service. The three institutions mentioned in the previous paragraph all demonstrate this definition; however each institution has done and achieved it in different ways.

Turtle Bay Exploration Park located in Redding, California, tells the story of its people and about the area it is located. It emphasizes on the relationship between people and nature. Here the exhibits are meant to encourage exploring and questioning. It hopes to change the way you see a familiar object. For example, a visitor can see the roots of an oak tree and their extent so hopefully next time the person sees it above ground, they will think about or view the tree in a different way. An important statement made in this section was that people are better able to understand new ideas when they can connect them with an earlier experience. This is definitely true for me. I often learn and remember things better if I can connect to them somehow in my own life or to an experience I had. This is also true for many other people because it is much easier to remember something that you experienced or did personally than it is to just remember and understand an extraneous fact that has no meaning or context for you.

The Bay Area Discovery Museum is also set in the natural environment. It is located in a National Park beneath the Golden Gate Bridge.  The mission of the museum is to engage and educate children through the exploration of the local environment.  They had to present an authentic exhibit while still taking into account that it was targeting young children. They provided an authentic experience by offering real protective gear and real plant material to build with.  I liked that this museum took into account the audience it was targeting when designing its exhibits and had the understanding that kids like and need to be outdoors.  Children need to discover things on their own and they often will if given the opportunity to observe and think for themselves.

The Lower East Side Tenement Museum presents and interprets the history of a specific place and seeks to engage visitors in the richness of the neighborhood presently.  At this museum, place-based education is not focused on a local ecological setting, but rather on a local socio-cultural and economic setting. Here, visitors can make connections between the past and the present, challenge their assumptions about immigrants today, while also think about questions like why people immigrate.  I thought an interesting statement in this section was place connect people over time, which I think is true.  No matter how many generations of people will come and go to a particular place, they will all be connected through that one place. This particular place provides a connection to the past as well as to the present. I liked the way that this place engaged people and allowed them to reflect on their perceptions and thoughts.  The visitors’ impressions were used to engage them personally with the neighborhood and to help them learn more about the socio-cultural and economic factors that have shaped the neighborhood.  It was interesting to learn that this experience is designed to help people learn outward, first focusing on issues close to home, neighborhood and community and then focusing on issues on a larger scale. Ultimately, place-based learning in an urban setting can help students better understand the issues in their community and perhaps even play a role in shaping how those issues are dealt with locally, nationally or globally.  A very important aspect of place-based learning in an urban environment is that very different people can come together to build and improve their communities.

All these institutions provide unique environments and create experiences that that help people to learn more about a particular area or a particular issue. They offer learning experiences that focus on what is relevant to us and allow us to make connections and reflect on our ideas and thoughts.

The second article, The Best of Both Worlds: Critical Pedagogy of Place by David Gruenewald, was a challenging read. What I understood from reading is that critical pedagogy, and place-based education should be blended together, to form a critical pedagogy of place.  The article discusses several things; it analyzes the critical pedagogy, which focus the spatial parts of a social experience. It later states that a critical pedagogy of place includes reinhabitation, which is learning to live in an area that has been previously exploited, and decolonization, which is learning to recognize when an area is injured or disrupted and attempting to find the causes of the disruption.  I also learned that this critical pedagogy of place calls us to reflect on the kind of education we seek and the places we choose to live and later leave for others in the future. I hopefully learn more about what the author has to say on this topic as I read the article over and as we discuss it in class.

When I was in eleventh grade, I took a course called JHMT (Jewish History Museum Tours). The unique factor in this course was that as we learned about the 5 waves of Jewish immigration to America, we  visited a variety of places and museums that were relevant to the topic. Through this method of education, we were really able to understand and connect to the material that we learned. Having the visual and experiential aid enabled us to get a much fuller picture of the people, time, and place we were learning about. One of the places we went to was The Tenement Museum, which is discussed in the article. Through this experience, we were able to imagine for a couple of hours what it was like to live in such conditions day in and day out for quite an extensive amount of time. I recall feeling slightly cramped in the tight space, and tried to imagine what it would be like living in that small room with a whole family or in that building with 20, not 5 other families. This course was one that I immensely enjoyed and gained the most from. This interaction of formal and informal learning really benefited the students and enhanced the learning experience, effectiveness, and value.

I very much agree with Gruenewald’s argument. The point of education and schooling is not just simply to amass knowledge and memorize facts. Rather, the goal of learning is to take it a step further and bring it to a level of understanding, comprehension, and connection. By connecting what is learned inside a classroom to what is lived outside the classroom, schools and teachers have really maximized the potential that education holds, and have benefited their students to the utmost degree.