Jennifer Mikhli

09/23/13

Professor Adams

Science and Technology in NYC

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

            The article entitled “Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research?,” written by Jeffrey P. Cohn, touches on a fundamental concern that is intrinsic to citizen participation in scientific studies. A significant apprehension to citizen engagement in scientific studies lies in the accuracy and reliability of the data that they would be collecting. Admittedly, this a concern that I had when I read about projects such a Project FeederWatch where ordinary citizens were observing and classifying the birds that they would spot. I wondered as to the reliability of these data reports, as these citizens were not experts in the field of ornithology. The article puts this concern to rest as it addresses the issue and offers the methods put in place to ensure the accuracy of these data reports. For instance, training is provided prior to citizen participation in wildlife studies. “Citizen scientists are trained to read instruments and provide actual numbers,” (194) the article notes. In addition trained staff are paired with citizen scientists to ensure accuracy. To illustrate the competence of these citizen scientists, the article presents a remarkable statistic. The article notes how in a study of native crabs along the Atlantic coast, 95 percent of the time, seventh graders were able to correctly identify the various types of crabs and third graders “80 percent of the time.” (195) Essentially the article puts me at ease about the scientific contributions that citizen scientists are making to the field.

Another interesting point that the article makes is the growing number of volunteer scientists participating in studies, as well as the growing amount of studies that utilize citizen scientists. While citizen engagement in scientific studies is not something new, it has expanded greatly over the years. I believe that the balloon of these citizen-study partnerships is due to the growing availability of scientific information about the natural world and other scientific fields. Due to the internet and other forms of media, such as television programming, lay citizens are able to access and engage with an overwhelming amount of scientific information. This availability has produced a race of humans that possesses much more scientific knowledge than would an ordinary individual a few decades ago. These enlightened citizens are thus being used to infuse citizen science participations in scientific studies.  Scientists are recognizing the capabilities and know-how that ordinary citizens can bring to the scientific table and are framing more studies around citizen participation. Essentially, due to the information resting at our fingertips, ordinary citizens are ever more capable to participate in scientific studies, leading to a growing increase in the citizen-research field.

While reading chapter 2, I came upon an interesting quote, “Learning to communicate in and with a culture of science is a much broader undertaking than mastering a body of discrete conceptual or procedural knowledge.” Essentially, the idea of  working as a community within science is more important than certain people mastering a certain field and not being able to communicate about it. I completely agree with this, since science reflects the cultural principles of those who engage in it. What society deems important to focus on and provides various solutions for are determined by cultural values that scientists impose. That is why communication is essential, for if we work as a community, we can bring importance to certain problems such as global warming and possibly find a great solution. Project Feederwatch was a great example of this, when a group of birdwatchers teamed up with scientists from Cornell to collect and study data on birds. Not only did the participants have a chance to learn from the data they gathered, but the scientists as well. There was an even a point where the participants were able to disprove the scientist’s hypothesis. Overall, by working together the relationship between the scientists and the citizen scientists evolved, resulting in the overall gain of crucial knowledge for both groups.

Chapter 2 also made mention on 6 strands, which made up the process behind informal science learning. The strands were essentially statements that reflected on the process of what people do when they engage in science. Those 6 strands can provide an average learner with the means of engaging in informal learning, which is quite beneficial. They are guidelines and means for achieving a desired outcome, when it comes to learning outside of an establishment. By utilizing these steps, society can develop a means for making science more accessible for people of all age groups, and essentially help us achieve a plethora of scientific breakthroughs.

Reading this chapter, I went through a range of emotions. In the beginning of the chapter, it seemed to me like the author was trying to convey the idea that science requires a lot of work to understand (an idea I will return to), when he writes about the jargon and terminology of science. However, when he gave the example of the Project FeederWatch, I understood his purpose in including the earlier idea of the difficulty of science. It contrasted nicely and helped get his point across. However, when he wrote about the strands of science, it began to seem a little unrealistic to me. Some of the strands are very difficult and require a lot out of the casual science learner who would like to learn more about science but doesn’t want to do a lot of work to do so. For example, strand 3 is “Engaging in Scientific Reasoning,” which would involve a lot of effort and time be put in by a casual science learner. Perhaps the casual admirer of science wouldn’t like to sit and discuss his findings. Perhaps he would be intimidated by the jargon and complexity of what he found. Strand 5, “Using the Tools and Language of Science,” discusses this. It says that the learner would begin to understand the language and jargon, which might be too much work for him/her. Strand 6, “Identifying with a Scientific Enterprise,” was the one that seemed most unrealistic to me. It gave an example of an amateur gardener hypothetically doing a lot of his own research and volunteering in a greenhouse or botanic garden. I just don’t think that anyone who is just casually into science would go through all that trouble, nor do most people have the time to invest in something that is just a hobby. Perhaps I am being cynical and perhaps I’m underestimating the success that strand 1 “Sparking Interest and Excitement,” would have to bring people to do all this just for the sake of a hobby. I believe some of the main aspects that made Project FeederWatch so successful was that it was anonymous, easily accessible, and quick. I think that it was anonymous was important because there was no pressure on the birdfeeder to look good or bad in front of anyone and he felt free to be honest with what he or she observed. I think it was important that it was easily accessible and quick because it didn’t ask a lot out of the birdfeeder to go online and submit their observations. I do like the idea as a whole of getting people more involved; I just think the way the book went about it was a bit impractical.

I found the relationship between the researchers of Cornell Lab of Ornithology  and the citizens in Project FeederWatch very interesting. The results of surveys showed that the majority of those who participated felt they learned more about birds than what they knew before, including specific aspects such as species diversity. The participants also proved the scientists’ hypotheses wrong on several occasions. This goes to show that if you empower people to contribute to science research and data collection, and to not be scared of science, they can be of great value. If those scientists alone tried to survey the whole area, they might have missed important information or might have lacked the necessary resources to cover such a wide area.

Another interesting concept I learned from this chapter is the “culture of science”. I was surprised to find out science is such a social and collaborative field.  Each field has its own unique approaches, tools, and views. The FeederWatch project served as a good example of how scientists could try to assimilate people into this culture of science and resolving the prejudices and stigmas people have of science due to popular culture and media. This ties in with the last piece we had to read, science is more than what is learned in the classroom, and it is more than what is done in the lab. This out of school/academia experience introduced the “culture of science” to layman and the results showed that it is entirely possible for people unfamiliar with science to take up habits and lessons from science.

I think the “Strands of Informal Science Learning”  are very important to understand for anyone who wants to teach science informally or structure something for a layman audience. I have personally experienced several of these strands at public areas I have visited such as Museums and Aquariums. Even though science is multi-faceted, the “Strands” part of the name implies that they are all part of one larger whole. Personally, I feel strands 1 and 6 to be the most important, strand 6 depending on the strands before it.  Strand 1 is “Sparking Interest and Excitement” and strand 6 is “Identifying with the science enterprise”. Strand 1 is important to get people to create a spark of interest which keeps them going through the other strands. However despite all this progress, they cannot progress further than citizen-scientists if they do not identify as a scientists and use that identity to advance and find their own place in the science world.

Chapter 2 of Surrounded by Science discusses “Science Learning”: a new model for designing a scientific learning experience using 6 “strands,” or core concepts/goals. The chapter also features a case study of amateur bird-watchers participating in a scientific research project called Project FeederWatch.

I’m not sure what to think of this. In some ways, it reiterates what I already know about science. In other ways, I feel like something simple is being obfuscated. Granted, I’ve never experienced what it is like assuming the teaching role in either the classroom or a FCSLE, but I believe that learning about science doesn’t require a new approach; the old one just needs to be tweaked.

Here’s my take on the core ‘strands’ of science learning:

1. Understanding the common misconceptions that people may retain with regards to basic scientific concepts, and creating a new perspective.
2. Introducing the correct idea through the various senses (hearing, sight, touch)
3. Reinforcing the idea and “drilling it” into the mind with problem sets

A big difference between what I’ve written and the textbook version is that there is a large emphasis on experimentation and a hands-on approach to science in the textbook. On the other hand, I’ve found that doing experiments in the lab is often very frustrating, as it’s never as precise as what I imagine in my mind; consequently I don’t trust the results fully, and I’m afraid that the experiment will not follow the predictions made by the theory that I’ve learnt or developed. Honestly, for me it’s a bit of a turn-off, as I would much rather stick with the hypotheticals and leave the experimentation to those with the proper equipment (imagine the difference between designing a spacecraft and building one!) Despite all that, I still find experimentation a valuable tool for scientists, and it may even be the thing that drives others to learn more about the topic at hand.

A summary of the Strands in Chapter 2

1. Interest helps people retain and remember what they learn.
   Engagement can trigger interest.
2. Learning to understand the links between scientific concepts.
3. Learning to reason about evidence.
4. Learning to evaluate new evidence and reassess old ideas.
5. Science is a social process.
6. Developing the identity of a science learner.

The article written by John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking asserts that there is more to be gained from out-of-school learning experiences vs. in-school learning experiences. The evidence comes from several sources, one of which finds that American students are on an equal level with the rest of the world when they are not yet old enough for school; on the other hand, as they get older Americans start to fall behind their global counterparts. It is suggested that reduced exposure to free-choice science learning experiences (FCSLE) in the school years is the cause of this trend.

Reading the article, there seems to be a strong-negative connotation associated with learning done in schools. The idea is that the public spends so little of its time in the classroom, and a smaller fraction of that learning science, that any amount of science learned in class is practically inconsequential. This is surely based on each individual’s own experiences, as I am quiet proud of the knowledge I received in high school, and am gracious for the teachers that endowed me with it. Still, I could see how many others may not have had the same experience, because the factors that lead to success in school and learning may not be present for many individuals. These are:

• An enthusiastic teacher
• A supportive family
• The proper resources for learning
• A highly motivated, disciplined student

Notice the emphasis I put on the last item, as I feel that without it, no (real) learning can be done. Also notice that I didn’t include any FCSLE, because I don’t attribute my knowledge of science to them. That is, the museums, parks, botanic gardens, aquariums, science centers, etc. It’s not that I don’t value these experiences. It’s that, as the article says, I believe that “it only supports superficial science learning.” That’s not a criticism on the FCSLE. It’s the fact that FCSLE can only provide me with qualitative information. The real quantitative knowledge; the equations and their application to the physical universe, can only be drilled into the mind with time and a well-designed problem set. I have no doubt that someone could design an FCSLE that rivals the classroom in the [concrete] knowledge that it provides, but I don’t think anyone has done it yet. However, if anyone plans to do that, I would love to be a part of it.

PS: I don’t depend on schooling for all my science learning needs. The fact is that most of the stuff I learn comes from resources that I find on the internet, which may count as an FCSLE. However, if I were to make maximum gains from these kinds of resources, I would have to invest the same kind of focus/concentration that I do when working on school work, which doesn’t really make it any different from school, does it?

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.