Communication is a very important aspect of informal science learning. Simply by virtue of bouncing ideas off another person, one can come to really assess and analyze the information before them and create new ideas about it. We see this in the example of the Frogs exhibit, wherein the visitors discuss the possibility of the frogs camoflauging themselves or burying themselves. They bring their own knowledge of what some animals do to the present conversation and, as a result, they formulate new inferences and ideas about the exhibit they see before them. This ties back to the previous chapter’s discussion about the importance of prior knowledge. When studying the way these kids converse, it’s probably important for the experiment conductor to be able to differentiate between when the kid expresses prior knowledge, when the kid makes an observation, and when the kid makes an inference based on either one or some combination of both. This is probably where “Perceptual Talk” comes into play. By paying attention to it, you can tell that the kids are making observations and thoughtufully synthesizing them to form new ideas about what they’re looking at. This then becomes committed to prior knowledge, and will help them understand the next exhibit.

There were parts of this chapter where I hoped they’d perhaps get more in depth about what they were discussing. For example, when they were talking about people having pre-existing variables that change the way they talk about science. The argument was that the disparity in educational backgrounds between people will cause people to think about data in different ways, create different inferences, come to different conclusions, and most of all, discuss science and science information in different ways. The chapter went on to discuss how this can make it difficult for conversation observers. Now, this may be because I’m a Humanities student to the core, but this led me to wonder about the sociological implications of this argument. If we’re discussing people’s “backgrounds”, then where do race, class, and gender come into how we discuss science? In an earlier chapter I discussed how these things might affect how we learn science. Then, by extension, shouldn’t they also affect how we talk about it? Is this something scientists commonly think about when listening to how people discuss science? It’s fine if they don’t, I’m just curious.

I got confused when the chapter started talking about “supporting learning”. The chapter started by discussing how people learn best when they learn together. For example, a child and an older sibling watch an educational television show and the older sibling explains what they just learned to the younger sibling, and now they both understand what they’ve seen. How does this differ from “supporting” the younger sibling? I assume it means that the older sibling would take a more peripheral role, not directly telling the younger sibling what’s happening but instead guiding them to make the conclusion themselves, but it doesn’t seem that much different. If we’re talking about in an activity or classroom setting where the parent or teacher creates an environment that supports creative science thinking, doesn’t that remove the conversation element, unless the parent is speaking directly with the student? Or am I just not reading closely enough? Perhaps the distinction between “conversation” and “support” is that “conversation” implies concurrent learning (both parties learning at the same time), while “support” means one person helps the other learn. Does that mean that the supporter already knows the material? Or do they not have to?

The beginning of the chapter brought back great memories of me being in the New York Hall of Science. I used to love coming there for the multitude of their extremely interactive exhibits and their Science playground. As a matter of fact, any museum with a lot of science-oriented interactive exhibits was a place to go for me. Now that I am reading the chapter, I realize how my natural curiosity was developed into a strong interest in science by all those informal science teaching experiences throughout my childhood and I see now how much research goes into creating such an exhibit in a museum.

It is true that, whenever we see an expert, we immediately think that this person knows everything about the subject of their expertise, but we usually view this “everything” only as remembrance of the facts. It was surprising for me to read that expertise requires a systematic organization of these facts in order to reflect on our own thinking and make predictions or conclusions. Of course, I should have known that – for years I have felt that a traditional way of teaching, which consists of passing down the facts and asking questions leading to reflection on the learned, was not very effective for me. I am a visual learner and additional modes of learning, provided by interactive reaching experiences, are very important in my case. If I just read the book or listen to a lecture, my interest in a topic can waiver very fast but when I an engaged in the learning visually, it prompts me to reflect on what I just learned and the material sticks with me. Therefore, it was interesting for me to find out that different ways of how people learn about science are researched and then implemented in the learning experiences such as interactive museum exhibits which support learning across six different strands. What I had known instinctively, was explained to me by this chapter in a very detailed way.

Interactivity is an essential part of learning any topic or skill. It’s the bridge between studying theory and executing confident practice. By keeping a student involved in learning, you can keep their attention focused on the lesson at hand and ensure that they’re truly committing it to memory. It’s another level of interaction deeper than a lecture.  I found the information that Chapter 3 provided on the role of interactivity in learning very fascinating for this reason, and I wasn’t altogether surprised that interactive exhibits were found to be more effective than conventional lessons.

In the arena of science, immersion is especially important at a young age. Cell Lab was especially enlightening in regards to the importance of immersion. The reality of science at higher levels is that it’s often unclear, with weeks and months without any solid progress. New learners can be demoralized by this and need evidence of clear progress in an experiment, or they may lose interest in scientific participation. What interactive exhibits like Cell Lab offer are a sort of distilled scientific experience – they allow students to “step into” the mindset of a scientist by putting on lab uniforms. The exhibit also gives them a clear goal and steps required to reach their objectives. This kind of immersion has students excited about participating in the process and culture of science. I wish there was a sort of sister exhibit that had students collect the culture in a less formal setting, so that they’d see the lab coat as another uniform scientists wear, instead of the uniform scientists wear.

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.

Chapter 3 was particularly interesting to me because it discussed interactivity and the learning process involved with interactive engagement. It makes sense that interactive activities, especially those that engage senses beyond our ability to see and hear by encouraging learners and participants to touch and becoming physically involved in their learning process, make for effective and interesting learning experiences. Being able to turn knobs and push levers to make something happen is far more interesting and makes information about a certain phenomena easier to understand than merely reading an explanation of it.
The Cell Lab activity not only encouraged student participants to use their sense of touch to engage their learning of scientific phenomena and allowed them to conduct experiments, but also gave students lab coats and goggles. This encouraged students to imagine themselves as capable science learners and even as scientists. In class we discussed the general image that came to mind when people and children in particular thought of scientist: a solitary male with wild “mad scientist hair,” wearing a lab coat, surrounded by beakers with cool colored chemicals. Giving children lab coats and goggles makes them feel included in the often-considered exclusive  field of science, and participating with their peers shows them that science is a group effort and that learning and engaging with scientific ideas is more meaningful and easier to learn when scientific experiences are shared with others.

Chapter 3 was especially interesting to me as a future educator because it taught me a lot about how people learn and process new information. It was not particularly surprising that the interactive exhibits were more effective in reaching students– it’s really hard to retain information from short paragraphs or videos, especially when you don’t give them your undivided attention. In a museum, hands on exhibits are definitely a solid way to make students feel involved and in charge of their education.

Reading about Cell Lab was especially sweet and eye opening because of the reactions children had to putting on lab uniforms. In class, when we discussed how people viewed scientists, it was evident that children strongly associated lab coats and goggles and scientific equipment with the science field. This very cold, sterile image associated with scientists makes science seem intimidating and exclusive. Cell Lab is such a unique exhibit because it helps students understand what it’s like to work in a lab and conduct experiments, and makes the field seem much less intimidating. I think it’s funny how we want students to see scientists as regular people in order to make them more approachable, but children are actually excited to don traditional science outfits to make themselves feel like “legitimate” scientists.

Another part of the reading that struck me was the short piece on the teens who taught children about botany. Towards the end of the reading, one of the participants said something about how he must indeed be smart because he was able to participate in a scientific venture and teach others about something he was knowledgeable in. It seems as though we, as a culture, put scientists on a pedestal and measure intelligence against people’s occupations. While it’s true that those who enter scientific fields are generally intelligent (I would hope my doctor knew what he was talking about…), other occupations and hobbies shouldn’t be deemed as any less capable and intelligent. In the future, I hope that there is no stigma attached to any field and instead, students are taught to embrace their natural abilities and be proud of what they can accomplish through hard work and dedication.

“Thus, a major implication for thinking about informal science learning is that what learners already understand about the world is perhaps as important as what one wishes for them to learn through a particular experience” – Surrounded By Science, pg. 38

I thought this quote from Chapter 3 was really interesting, and it made me think about the way I view science and learning as a whole. The idea is that science should not be taught as a stand-alone subject. Informal science should take prior knowledge and connect or enhance it with new science and knowledge. This prior knowledge is a crucial aspect in the learning process. Without the prior knowledge, there is nothing to base the new knowledge on. I think this can be explained in two ways. One is that without the prior knowledge, the new knowledge wont make sense. You should not teach someone multiplication without teaching them basic addition. You can, but it would be three times as hard, and not make as much sense. You need a foundation of knowledge, which can be built on and solidified. Without it, the concepts are shaky, and can be misconstrued. Secondly, and more importantly, is that you need prior knowledge to be interested in new knowledge. I relate to this theory very personally, because this is my relationship with science. I am not premed, nor do I have any interest in studying science in a formal setting anymore than is required to obtain my degree. But that doesn’t mean that I am not still interested in things that pertain to science. I am, only just in things that I had small prior knowledge and interest of. For example, I took Earth Science in high school, and really enjoyed it. I like nature, and enjoy learning about how it works on a daily, monthly and yearly schedule. Fast-forward four years, and the group leader of my BioBlitz walk mentions something about Pleistocene mega fauna. I know what the Pleistocene Epoch is, and knew that that topic interested me. So I asked her what that was, and was so curious that afterwards, I went home and did some independent study on my own. If I did not have the interest before the BioBlitz, I can assure you that I would have let that big word fly right over my head. But I knew that I was interested in that topic, and because of it, I went on to learn something new in an informal setting.

Chapter 3 of Surrounded by Science highlights the benefit of interactive exhibits as a way to actively engage in scientific experiences. What many don’t appreciate is the amount of thought and planning that goes into creating interactive experiences that would be of benefit to the participants. It is an entire design process that tries to build on prior knowledge and spark questions. A major point that is emphasized is that these exhibits not only supplement the learner’s knowledge about the topic but also transform their understanding about it. They begin to truly understand the inner workings behind the facts they learned and continue to garner their interest in the topic. As part of the design process, it is also crucial to establish the optimal point of interactivity. Simply adding more hands-on features will not necessarily enhance the participant’s learning. What was surprising to me was that an extra amount of features proves detrimental to the learner’s understanding of the topic because it makes them feel overwhelmed. Locating this optimal degree of interactivity becomes a challenge to informal science programs but by using resources such as visitor feedback, the experts can design programs that are both fun and educational.

A very interesting exhibition they discuss is Cell Lab, which is an introductory experience where participants use the tools and practices of science. Many people are scared of laboratory equipment mostly because of their innate fear of the unknown. For example, when little children go to the dentist’s office they cringe at the sight of his tools even before knowing what each one does. The dentist I went to growing up explained each tool to me and even let me hold some of them in my hands. This is why I was never scared of going to the dentist’s office and am still interested in pursing a career in the medical field. Conducting these experiments not only allows these kids to learn about topics such as biology, but also makes them feel a part of the scientific community. Through these different projects and procedures, they interact with other students their age and collaboratively engage in lab experiences. Even the small things such as wearing lab coats, goggles, and gloves make these kids feel like scientists and therefore not feel excluded from the scientific culture.

As a pre-med student I can definitely agree that reading material from the textbook is effective but not necessarily the most engaging way to learn certain topics. As part of my Anatomy class in high school, my teacher encouraged us to play little games to help us memorize the bones of the body. Playing a simple game such as Simon Says made the memorization process much more interesting. Saying “Simon says touch your scapula” or things such as “touch your femur” encouraged us to really learn the skeletal system, be able to respond quickly, and still retain the information years later. Active participation and creativity is the key to truly be successful science learners.

Chapter three mentions three different methods to support informal learning; Juxtaposition, Multiple Modes, and interactivity. The first method requires “juxtaposing the learners’ understanding of a natural phenomenon with the formal disciplinary ideas that explain it” (41). This causes the learner to actively reflect on the meaning of that idea. another way is to provide multiple ways that a person can engage in talking about and learning about a phenomena in the same setting. The last one and probably my favorite is being interactive. Allow the learner to actually perceive the phenomena hands on and quite possibly carry out some sort of scientific investigation.
I think that interacting in the scientific world is the best way to learn because hands on experiments can teach people more when they actually see something taking place rather than learning about it in theory. The “Cell Lab” project is one of the many great ways that informal science learners can take advantage of the resources and equipment found in a laboratory, such as centrifuges and expensive microscopes that would not readily be found outside of the lab. Interested participants would learn about how to
use the popular scientific tools and would be exploring one of the six strands of learning. I also believe that interaction is the more interesting and captivating method of the three and it is especially more effective for the younger generation of interested science learners because hands on experiments are more interesting than just learning about it in a mundane classroom setting.