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.

As someone who is a firm believer in social learning, and someone who loves to talk, I found a lot of the information in Chapter 4 to be interesting, but not too surprising. Engaging in conversation about a topic of study, not just the topic of science, reinforces one’s memory on the topic through exercise of auditory and oratorical skills. It didn’t surprise me that parents who bring their children to museums, and don’t merely let them loose to explore on their own, helped their children learn more about the exhibits. In my family, I’m the one who drags my parents and brother to museums, but discussing exhibits, pointing out salient details, and identifying why a certain painting resonates with one of us or talking about a cool fact about whales serve to encourage learning in both me and my brother—the children—and our parents.

Surrounded by Science also makes  good point about how too much parental involvement and guidance limits learning. Parental participation that inhibits child participation prevents the child from engaging in the learning process. In the past, whenever I tutored my younger brother or did an activity like putting a puzzle together, and I knew the answer or figured out how to tackle the activity before he did, I immediately hinted at the answer to the question in his homework or did what had to be done. Instead of guiding him and encouraging him to think about the problem and arrive at the solution or find the matching puzzle piece on his own, I did the work. In doing so, I took away his opportunity to think critically and learn from whatever he should have been doing. Sorry, Evan! I realize now, that as his older sister who has had a few more years of schooling and whose interests and area of knowledge differ from his, I have a responsibility to encourage and guide his learning experience, not take it away from him.

Malka Niknamfard

Professor Adams

Surrounded by Science- Chapter 4

10/7/13

People are often under the impression that studying science involves isolating oneself from the outside world while reading factually- based textbooks, analyzing data, and conducting experiments. After all, a common stereotype regarding scientists depicts a man or a woman who wears a white coat and secludes him or herself in the science lab and spends the entire day conducting experiments. However, the truth of the matter is that although people are capable of memorizing different facts, ideologies and theorems, the scientific world is built on communication among different scientists and other people who study science, and the transfer of experimented data and information that supplement theorems that are being tested.

Thus, it is truly an understatement to say that the daily interactions that people have with one another directly affect what they know about the world and the environment around them. In order for people to be able to understand and digest the material that they are learning, it is crucial to discuss and engage in conversation with others in order to reinforce what was learned and even perhaps to supplement the material that was initially learned. This way, scientific information can be exchanged between people and can be learned and understood in its entirety.

For the aforementioned reason, I think that the job that both parents and teachers have is crucial to advancing society. Parents and teachers are responsible for instilling information within their children and students, and without their input, children would solely be learning things from there own experiences. Simple things like familial conversation at the dinner table or a class discussion about the environment prompt children to learn and gain insight regarding the world around them through the eyes and mouths of those who are more experienced than they are.

This chapter explored the notion of social learning, which has been important to learning since ancient times; in ancient Athens, philosophers would have seminars to discuss their philosophies and further their ideas; it is odd that such an part of learning has been dropped so much from the spectrum of learning.  I am glad informal science recognizes group learning as an integral part of learning because it is so effective in learning, and it helps reinforce many of the learning strands.  For instance, as noted in the reading, “…as highlighted in Strand 5, science itself involves around specialized norms for interacting and specialized forms of language.  Learning science therefore involves learning those norms and language” (pp. 64).  If a learner is expected to or wants to interact with their peers or field experts, she is more likely to learn the terms either through conversations she has or on her because she wants to better understand said conversations.  It’s like film production; if you want to make a movie, you must know the terminology; otherwise, you cannot direct a crew, take directions, or get much respect.  While there is less pressure in informal science, the principle still applies: if you want to further your knowledge of a topic you find interesting, you need to gain the vocabulary and behavior.  A learner will probably be more likely to do this if she is interested, so Strand 1 is important here.

One of the specific examples in the book is the use of television.  “Even an intrinsically passive medium such as television can become interactive when a social, conversational element is produced” (pp. 65); if conversation is added, science television programs can have more value as a learning tool.  Once again I draw a connection between the science world and the “geek” world, because the “fandoms”, or fan bases of different television shows, are an excellent example of this.   Sometimes I see posts on tumblr lamenting how the user knows the gamut of Television Show X or Book Y, but not about a subject they are learning about in school.  But if one applies the book’s stance on social interaction’s contribution to learning, then it makes sense.  Viewers of television or other media series tend to join fandoms, in which they discuss, speculate, and analyze the television show, absorbing different ideas from one another.  There are even conventions  dedicated to these fandoms, with legitimate panels and guests.  People use specialized terms and have their own behavior code (Strand 5), have an interest in the series (Strand 1), use their knowledge from and about their series (Strand 2), and tend to identify as a member of their fandom (Strand 6).  If fandoms for fictional televisions series can exhibit several learning strands, with social interactions contributing to strands 2, 5, and 6, I do believe that science learning can and will benefit from a more social atmosphere.  The original scientists – philosophers – learned so much from interaction, it would be a shame if informal science experiences did not incorporate the social aspect of learning into their programs.  (Although, from the reading, they have been doing very well.)

Two Side Notes:

(1) The textbook mentions the importance of parents in a child’s learning experience.  So why do many seem to believe that teachers (and students, sometimes) are the cause of all the learning issues in school and rarely ever the parents?

(2) The part about social learning at the dinner table is true.  I learn(ed) a lot from good family conversations whilst eating dinner.

Chapter four of Surrounded by Science places a tremendous importance on how learning is enhanced through social interaction and conversation. It brings up various conversations that have transpired in informal science learning environments and points out the ways in which these dialogues have facilitated learning. What I found to be most striking was the discussion of how a simple task of even watching television could be far more engaging if social interaction is at play. That notion brought me back to my own experiences as a child watching television with my older sister. Because my sister was quite older than myself, six years older to be exact, watching television with her was a learning experience within itself. Certain ideas and concepts that were presented on screen were elucidated through her comments and our dialogues with each other as we watched programming together. For example,  intricate plots on shows like Law and Order or Alias became unraveled through the ongoing comments we had with each other as we watched the shows. Upon looking back upon those fond memories, I truly understood how learning could be made better via social interaction.

I recalled yet another child experience upon delving through my mind to bring up evidence to bolster this claim. This memory had to do with an informal science opportunity as well. I recalled going to the Hall of Science in elementary school and interacting with all the different stations there. I remember my mind being pulled in so many directions and not being quite sure which exhibit to traverse next. I remember being pulled to a particular exhibit, however, because of the social interaction that lurked in its midsts. There was one stations where we were to make elephant dung paper with the assistance of a worker in the museum. I remember laughing with the staff at how ludicrous the notion of making paper out of dung was. Out of all the intricate and interactive exhibits, I had learned most and remembered most from that one due to the social component that loomed there. Ultimately, I agree with the emphasis that this chapter places on the enhancement of these learning experience via social interaction and conversation.

Ilanit Zada

Professor Adams

The fourth chapter in the book entitled Surrounded by Science by Fenichel and Schweigruber discusses the important of conversation in science learning. I was completely surprised when I read this. It is obvious that when looking at a museum exhibit or after reading a book, people are prone to discuss the ideas with others. However, how does discussing what you see or something you have learned have any effect on learning?

This idea reminded me of the seminar classes we attend every semester (and some of the other classes as well). Although the class is considered a “lecture,” in actuality it is far from that. Professor Adams, like many others, comes into class with an idea and poses it to the class. My classmates and I then discuss the ideas that have been brought up and our thoughts on it. Well, what is the point of the discussion? I believe that that is what gets the ball rolling. By listening to other peoples ideas and sharing your own, people start seeing things in a light that they may have never thought of on their own; it opens our minds to think about things critically and allows for a better though process, and the same holds true for experiences in the museum and other informal science settings. By having an adult figure guiding the topic of discussion and pushing the children to think further and share what they see at the exhibit, it allows for a more effective learning experience.

Most things people see or hear on an average day enter the brain as fast as they enter. Once they take note of what they see or hear, they remember it for a bit longer. And the longer one ponders on a thought, the more it stays with them. An even higher level of clarity is offered when one is able to enunciate his or her thoughts. But the brain does not need more than a split second to interpret the input information (unless one chooses to formulate the idea into words in his or her mind). For example, you see a pretty flower and think “that is a pretty flower” conceptually first, then in words.

In my English1 class last year, my professor said numerous times that if you cannot say something clearly, you don’t know it. You might have an idea but if it cannot be out into words, it means that it is not clear in your mind.

Both of these concepts, spending time on an idea, and enunciating an idea, are extremely important for internalizing ideas. Relating to the chapter, talking over one’s experience as they are being absorbed into the brain is vital for understanding the incoming information since it involves spending time on and organizing the new set of knowledge. Asking questions is a clear sign of understanding; understanding which part of the whole body of knowledge is missing. This is another important step towards advancing the ideas to more complicated levels. This is also the reason all of the college professors I’ve had so far for biology and chemistry have practically begged their students to study for tests in groups.

I found the way the author broke up the different types of statements during learning experiences very interesting. It makes identifying one’s level of understanding of the topic at hand easier.

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.

After reading Chapter 4 of Surrounded by Science, which focused on the communication between individuals during science learning, I was surprised at how a simple conversation can be broken down into different types of talk: perceptual, conceptual, connecting, strategic, and affective. Unlike viewing an exhibit on your own, interacting with others while looking at an exhibit is able to provoke all of these different kinds of spoken observations, whether by pointing out a feature or pointing out an association between an exhibit and a personal experience. The presence of just one other person helps an individual learn more about the given exhibit because the interactions that occur between the two members of the dyad are able to benefit both members; they are able to learn from each other by engaging in conversation about what they are seeing or interacting with. Not only does interaction have a positive effect on science learning, but it is able to help researchers observe how different people learn in different ways. According to Surrounded by Science, ” engaging in conversation and discussion promotes learning as well as provides a window into the thinking of individuals or groups. By listening to what people say, researchers can find out what learners know and understand, what emotions have been evoked by an experience, and what gaps in learning may remain” (66). By knowing how an individual responds to certain exhibits or experience, researchers are able to revamp exhibits, perhaps by making them more interactive, or more visual, or more related to other exhibits.

However, interaction doesn’t only have to occur in an informal science setting; it’s definitely effective in informal as well as formal science institutions. I often find myself in situations where those in charge of the formal learning institution (for example, a class at Brooklyn College), will start up a conversation about a certain topic, be it scientific or not (but everything relates back to science, right?). I feel like I always learn more about the topic through the conversations I have with other people in the classroom than when I think about the chosen topic to myself. It’s always better to acknowledge another person’s perspective on something, because it might be completely different than your own, which will lead you to have even more knowledge about the topic. As the great scientist Albert Einstein once said, “The mind that opens to a new idea never returns to its original size.”

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.