The chapter mentions the importance of relating one’s intuitive ideas of natural phenomena with actual explanations. I find this to be very relevant since many people develop ideas and explanations to things they see. When the learner sees this new idea, he/she will make connections or in some cases corrections to previous knowledge.

Interaction is a very important aspect of engaging the learner. This can be seen with the bicycle riding skeleton and the follow-up analysis of the amount of information retained and the Cell Lab. Although the interactive exhibits attracted more visitors, I found it surprising that the viewers of the interactive Glowing Worms exhibit had the same experience as the ones who viewed the moderately interactive and non-interactive versions of the exhibit.

It is impressive to see how well the Cell Lab experience fits into the Learning Strands framework that we spoke about for the past few classes. It included engagement and excitement, learning new knowledge, observing different phenomena and questioning it, using tools such as microscopes and of course wearing lab coats and goggles that adds a greater feel of involvement by the learner. The author mentions the ideal of having more open-ended experiments that challenge that experimenter but do not frustrate him. Relating back to the TEDtalk video we watched in class two weeks back about researchers hitting a cloud, the previous ideal seems like a paradox. If the experiment is open-ended, it will frustrate youngsters that do not understand the concept of the “cloud” since they would not know what to look for. Also, ensuring that the exhibit stays within an allotted time of 15 minutes would leave the learners frustrated since nothing would have been accomplished during those 15 minutes if the experiment were open-ended.

I agree with the arguments made by this chapter that prior knowledge has a lot to do with how learners in informal settings process new information. In a lot of ways, prior knowledge is how novice learners become motivated as well. For example, we saw that with the boy who visited the physics exhibit on the first page. He says that he expected the air stream to die down and the weight to overcome the air pressure. He knows beforehand that air is not a solid, and that oftentimes movement streams decay over time. Because he had that knowledge of air, he was able to commit to memory the fact that the air didn’t do what he expected, and the reasons why. In that way, as well as others, prior knowledge can serve as an important tool in informal science learning.

I think interactive exhibits are the most conducive to learning, especially for people who prefer hands-on methods of study. I think the Citizen Science project I construct is going to have to be as hands-on as possible in order to keep people interested. That being said, the textbook makes a good point in saying that too many interactive features can overwhelm the participant. Ergo, instead of adding more and more features, it’d likely make more sense to provide the participant with responsibilities. I’d have to immerse the participant fully in the investigation, possibly by making them solely responsible for the administration of the experiment and the collection of its data. The more one trusts a participant with responsibility for an activity, and the more directly hands-on one makes the activity, the more fun it’ll likely be for the participant.

Furthermore, perhaps adding an element of competitiveness is important to motivating, engaging, and interesting participants. When discussing the Downhill Race project, I was surprised that the text didn’t address that. The level of intrigue that comes from studying the physics of the rolling disks can’t go ignored, but it’s the competitive element that will most likely draw in children. If we were to create a Citizen Science project that were oriented towards children, competition might be a useful tool to use.

Jeffrey P. Cohn wrote this article in hopes of convincing the reader that citizen scientists are indeed a crucial part in scientific research. He believed that collaboration between scientists and volunteers has the potential to broaden the scope of research and enhance obtainable data. Not only will these volunteers be learning about different aspects of science in their local communities, but they will also be providing researchers with valuable and critical information.  David Helms, a retired accountant and chief financial officer, is a perfect example of this as he hikes through a portion of the 2175 mile Appalachian Trail, collecting and replacing video cartridges that keep track of the wildlife surrounding the trail. Being retired, Helms does not have a lot of work to focus on, which is why he has time to be the president of the Natural Bridge Appalachian Trail Club, so a simple task like switching out a couple of cameras, while hiking a trail that he loves to spend time on is overall rewarding for both him and the researchers that he volunteered for.  The researchers not only get their data, but also save money that they can be spending on more important research related material, since Helms happily volunteered. On top of that, Helms learns more about the kind of animals he can encounter on his beloved trail.  The beautiful thing about people like Helms is that there is many more like him out there, most likely in the millions. People who would happily like to offer up their free time to learn more about the world around them, a giant pool of resources with great potential that scientists can utilize to achieve new and more exciting levels of science.

The great thing about projects that use citizen scientists is that the number of them is growing. A good example of this would be the North American Amphibious Monitoring Program, which has scientists coordinating state projects that utilize volunteers to monitor frog populations. On top of that there was also a point where the NPS recruited volunteers to help park staff and scientists to monitor coastal waterbirds. Now that I have had time to think about it, I came to realize that the bioblitz was exactly the same thing, we were volunteers who came together with a large group of scientists, trying to determine the biodiversity of central park. Not only did we as students learn a lot about central park’s wildlife, but we also aided scientists in gathering crucial data. I was actually quite baffled at how I did not notice it before. In the end, I believe Cohn and I have the same idea, that the work put in by citizen scientists has indeed helped advance scientific knowledge. With our help scientists have been able to do the impossible, such as track the progress of disease in wild life. Not only have we collected important data, but we’ve also helped establish guidelines for land managers to preserve the habitats. I have a feeling that there will be a greater demand for citizen scientists and informal learning in the near future.

The article describes the role of citizen scientists in collecting valuable data. The citizen scientists are usually volunteers who are passionate about fields like zoology or botany and want to contribute to the science knowledge. Several questions arise about citizen scientists. For one, how can we gauge the accuracy of the observations that citizen scientists gather? One way is to pair together trained staff with the citizen scientists to compare data and determine reliability. Also the roles of citizen scientists may be limited to, say, counting 5 or 10 easily identifiable plants. The development of specific protocols for citizen scientists may affect the overall accuracy of their data.

One thing I’ve noticed about citizen scientists is that they’ve thus far been predominantly utilized for such fields as zoology or population ecology, and almost not at all for biology, chemistry, or physics (the ‘harder’ sciences). I think this is due the fact that research in these fields requires extensive knowledge and equipment than a hobbyist possesses. Also, population ecology and the like benefit much more from having a large number of people gathering data, because populations sizes cannot be easily determined. I think if I were conducting an experiment, it would have to be quiet large in scope before I would consider recruiting citizen scientists for the job.

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.

“Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research?” by Jeffery P. Cohn addresses the growing importance of the role citizen scientists play in scientific studies. The term “citizen science” is itself a very interesting phrase. According to the reading it “refers to volunteers who participate as field assistants in scientific studies” (193) but I think that this phrase means so much more than that. It represents the boundary between the two opposite views about the accessibility of science and shows the broadening perception of what it means to do science. These volunteers who work together are citizens of the scientific community and are citizens of the outside natural world. They are the bridge in the relationship between everyday people and professionals.

This article also underscores the shift in the roles of volunteers in science. They are playing an increasingly significant role in collecting data and participating in studies that are used in academia. All age groups are involved in these projects from “grade-schoolers to grandmas” (193) and these different people bring varying contributions to the research. The increasing number of citizen science projects over the years also creates a cascade effect, where more projects are being initiated using previous citizen science projects as models. And as thousands of volunteers are getting involved in citizen science projects and telling their acquaintances about it, this phenomenon and its value to science is expanding.

The skeptics of amateur scientists participating in research are also addressed in this article. Some people are hesitant to trust the data collected by non-professionals. But the author and many experts argue that with proper training, it is definitely possible to gain valuable data from citizen scientists. These volunteers learn skills just like scientists do and experts in the field check the results that are collect for reliability too. It is also important to remember that people who volunteer genuinely care to obtain accurate results because they are passionate about the field of study. And those who have not yet obtained the skillset necessary for some parts of research are given easier tasks. For example, some more experienced birders count all the birds they find, while less experienced volunteers will count five easily identifiable species. Therefore, people with different levels of skill are sometimes involved in different aspects of gathering data.

The part of the article that shocked me the most was the fact that little children were able to very accurately identify crabs. It is adorable that even third-graders correctly identified the crabs 80 percent of the time. This helps prove just how accessible science is and how important it is to not be afraid to become involved at any age.

I think the article addressed a very important issue facing the research world today. Research is an expensive and costly field of science. Many experiments take many years to watch and record results. It is very competitive to have the chance to work in a lab, and those who do sometimes do not reap the benefit of seeing their research come to fruition. I have a very close friend who plans on going to medical school who was lucky enough to work in a lab for the past two summers. She enjoyed it, and felt that she was gaining some very useful experience, but she also felt like she wasn’t contributing much. She told me that nothing had changed from one summer to the next, and that she was still collecting the same data on a different level than she had the previous summer. With “Citizen Science”, research is turned into something anyone can do, not just pre-med students. It is accessible outside of a lab, and does not require the monetary backing that labs do. It also yields results quickly and effectively.

Of course, as the article so aptly brings up, trusting the general public with data collection has its risks. At first, one would presume data collected by the public would be faulty and not specific enough for data interpretation. But the article states “even seventh graders got them right 95 percent of the time.” With these sorts of statistics, scientists organizing the data trust the public. Im sure the margin of error is larger than it would be if someone who was trained effectively would do it, but the cost and time effectiveness of it overrules.

I was very impressed with the article. I like how informal science enthusiasts can so easily change into formal scientists, helping to create new data and research.

Saul Betesh

The article on “citizen scientists” or data collecting volunteers really brought to light the vast amount of research that relies on people willing to spend their time to either simply perform a hobby of theirs or to do what they think is right in helping a greater cause. Of course, this system is not perfect. Citizen scientists can make mistakes that would have no idea about because of their less-trained eyes. They might mistake two different species, for example. The only reason citizen-scientists are relied upon so much is because of the lack of funds needed to hire trained technicians and because of the vast amounts of ground that has to be covered for the increasing amounts of research projects. For example, an Appalachian trail that extends from Virginia to Pennsylvania would be impossible to cover with a small group of people. That is why so many citizen scientists are encouraged to participate and help out.

In the end the problem of using untrained citizen scientists balances out with parts of the goals of using them for research. Although there might be a few mistakes, which can either be discerned as bad data and thrown away or can be insignificant enough to incorporate it in the broader research project, volunteers are enjoying themselves being outdoors. More importantly, they become interested in scientific research and they feel accomplished that they contributed to a great project that involves important environmental issues.

Mohamed Adnan

09-23-2013

Professor Adams

Seminar 3

Reflection on “Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research?”

           “Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research?” by Jeffrey P. Cohn focuses on the importance of citizen engagement and interactions in scientific studies. The article discusses the issue of reliability of the data that the citizens collected. I initially believed that this data would contain inaccuracy and inconsistency. Similarly, I believed that Project Feeder Watch would have likely had numerous inconsistencies. However, I was surprised at some of the statistics given for how accurate the citizen scientists were when collecting data. For example, “Even seventh graders got them right 95 percent of the time” and “third graders were right 80 percent of the time, an acceptable accuracy rate for most ecological studies.” Moreover, I was pleased to hear that many of the participating institutions took great measures to enhance the skill sets of the volunteer citizens, resulting in a much more accurate data set. The institutions would train the volunteers or even have a specialist along side to compare data with for accuracy. Through this method, the institutions are able to acquire massive amounts of accurate data at a low relative cost.

Another aspect of the article I found interesting was the motivation and interest that the volunteers had for the studies. These volunteers were not getting paid and were not writing research papers. They conducted the studies just for their own thirst for knowledge and to aid the environment. Moreover, the citizen science program is possibly the backbone for thousands of research papers and discoveries found annually. The reason for this is because they are collecting a massive amount of data and with a minimal cost in comparison to hiring a field researcher. The article stated that each field researcher would have taken over $30,000 each year just to conduct similar studies and procedures to what the unpaid citizen scientists were doing. Additionally, what makes the citizen scientists even more astonishing is the fact that it is their own interest that drives them. Often times, students in PhD programs feel under pressure or may not have the same drive in the field of study as a citizen scientists. The citizens are volunteering because they care and they want to actually learn up close in the outdoors. This was truly astounding because of the fact that the students were studying and were almost experts in scientific research, but the citizen scientists were able to produce quality quantitative data in a similar fashion.