After reading Chapter 2 in “Surrounded by Science” I am even more confused as to what the study of science really is all about. The chapter begins trying to describe the different types of scientists and how they form a community of education and learning. On one hand, the community is unified and strong in its commitment to research and exploration of all fields of science. On the other, the community is divided by different methods of communicating and practices. They are further divided by culture and political values, something that I never knew to define science and the way it is taught and understood.

The chapter then tries to sort itself out by going through six strands of science learning. The strands are interesting, with strands one and three resonating with me in a more personal way than the rest. But the organization of the lesson is scientific in itself. When I was in second grade, and was asked to explain a word, I was not allowed to explain it using the word itself. My teacher said that that is not a true explanation. Reading the strands, I felt that way about the explanation that it tried to give. It was using scientific method to teach about method. This may be the best way to teach it, and convey the lesson, but something felt lacking in the chapter, perhaps for this reason.

One thing I learned from reading Chapter 2 of “Surrounded by Science” is that science isn’t only for scientists. Anyone and everyone is able to take part in science learning. In fact, different perspectives are very valuable in the scientific world since they are shaped by the “different cultural values scientists bring with them” (20). I really liked this idea of how easily accessible science is by anyone who is interested in it, especially because this ultimately promotes the symbiotic relationship between science and the individual. Science gives us the ability to learn something new, something perhaps we can relate to ourselves, or something we can relate to what we see, hear, taste, smell, or touch. Science is the explanation to our questions; it satisfies our curiosity and thirst for knowledge. On the other hand, by participating in science learning, we are able to contribute to science. Our observations and data help promote new discoveries and contribute to the better understanding of science itself. Project FeederWatch is an excellent example of how “citizen scientists” were able to participate in a scientific activity that they enjoyed—in this case, birdwatching—while collecting significant data about birds that was able to make contributions to the field of ornithology.

I could relate to every single strand that was discussed in this chapter. As a hopeful future doctor, I find myself applying all six strands both in formal and informal environments. Whether it’s studying the process of digestion or researching why sounds in the minor key make us sad and sounds in the major key make us happy, I’m going through the process of science learning.

In accordance with the misconception, I also imagined a scientist as a nerdy, short ghost-white guy that never leaves his lab. However, science is a field of study that requires one to be social and interact with colleagues and other experts. In essence, I supposed, I divorced the term “science” from “scientist.” Any scientific paper is written in a way that another scientist can understand the results and well as repeat the results. This allows others to test whether the experimenter’s conclusions are correct and to revise and suggest new ideas and explanations to the results.

I find it very interesting how science developed its own language and though processes. Standard English words became very specific scientific terms. In order to enter and go further into the world of science, one must learn this language and culture. I also found it very interesting that the science itself is objective but the chosen studies indicate a culture behind the science. One can learn of a scientist’s personal or political interest by just examining the subject of study.

The case study in this chapter dealing with bird watchers reminded me of the BioBlitz. Everyday, non-expert observers were able to contribute to actual scientific data. In this case they had even found experts’ hypothesis to be false. By designating time to bird watching, these citizens learned more about what they were observing with a small minority saying that they had learned nothing throughout their experience.

The strand framework seems like a very effective way of allowing people to internalize science learning. It includes fun and excitement as well as finding ones relationship to science in the world around him.

I really don’t like to be the only one in class who never has anything insightful to offer in my responses or anything good to say about the reading. That being said, I just don’t really see the value in the strands. Once I deconstruct through the endless comma chains and polysyllabic terms and understand exactly what it is I’m reading, what I essentially get out of it is: “Get interested. Know some things. Do some things. Think about some things. Work together with other scientists in scientific ways. Develop scientific identities.” Most of that seems really…obvious? Well, except for the last one. Maybe I’d develop a scientific identity if I were really interested in engaging in scientist, but then again, I’m a stubborn piece of work. And I’m also not an elderly retired man in search of hobbies. Essentially what I’m getting at is that the strands seem like a pretty basic approach to scientific learning? I mean, that seems like how most science is taught. Granted, it’s not always successful in every respect (it’s not always possible to spark excitement in someone who isn’t willing to learn).

However, it’s very possible I may be misinterpreting what was written, or more so, I may be underestimating the depth of what was written in this chapter, and the actual educational and motivational power of the strands. Motivation seems like the key issue at hand, because without motivation, it doesn’t seem like there’s any foundation for the rest of the strands. I fear that those who are unmotivated at first will simply remain unmotivated. I’ve seen it happen many times, and I’m as guilty of it as anyone else. Perhaps it requires a latent, untapped motivation that needs to be dug out and set ablaze by a certain teacher or enthralling topic? Perhaps it requires the student to stop being so stubborn for once in his/her life? Perhaps.

This chapter introduces the strands system, which, quite ironically, has not yet been proven by empirical evidence.

Strand One: Sparking Interest & Excitement

Similar to the article from last week, Strand One discusses the importance of the learner’s interest in an area of science.  “Recent research shows that emotions associated with interest are a major factor in thinking and learning, helping people learn as well as helping them retain and remember” (p. 26).  If people are to engage in science on their own time, then it should interest them.  Interestingly enough, Strand One is not one of the strands used in formal learning environments, namely schools; hence, students would not be pursuing the topics or retaining the information they’ve learned in school if they are not personally invested.  If this Strand system is widely recognized, and if the strands are truly interdependent on each other, then it is a shame that widespread education policy does not relate classroom learning to students’ lives.

Strand Two: Understanding Scientific Content & Knowledge

This strand proposes that if one engages in science, they should comprehend the basic “language” or “culture of science” (p. 20) and use said knowledge to make connections and inferences from one area of study to another, similar area of study.  At first I thought this was a little silly, mostly because of the example of seeing a movie about natural selection and then thinking about natural selection with other animals in one’s environment.  I couldn’t picture such a moviegoer really thinking about the ancestry of squirrels and moths and house pets.  But applying it to my own experiences, the idea of applying scientific understanding to similar content makes sense.  For example, I’ve read a lot of informal feminist blog posts throughout the last year, and I’ve learned a lot of terms specific to feminism, such as “slut shaming” (judging a woman based on her promiscuous appearance or sex life).  After learning about slut shaming, I began to see it in the media without having a blogger point it out to me.  Similarly, an informal scientist can learn about scientific content and apply it to her life.

Strand Three: Engaging in Scientific Reasoning

This strand was also odd but very sensible.  Using scientific reasoning in everyday life – “[for example], looking at nutrition labels to decide which food items to purchase” (p. 28) – seems odd when exposed so blatantly; but upon further examination, it makes sense that by participating in more science-related activities, one will approach other activities with an analytical mindset.  In turn, when she resumes her science learning, her scientific-thinking is fresh and ready to analyze data.  Thinking scientifically becomes an ouroboros that enables the user to learn and apply said learning in her life.

Strand Four: Reflecting On Science

This strand is great to combat the stereotypes of current establish science being rigid and unchangeable.  For example, the reading mentions stories of past discoveries, such as Galileo Galilei, are a good way to show the ever-changing nature of science (p. 29).  Galileo is a wonderful reminder that at one point, the world was “flat”, but because Galilei explored other scientists’ findings and used them to fuel his own, he proclaimed that the Earth was round.  This step of reflection is important to show learners that they can contribute to the general body of knowledge if they follow scientific procedure and gather evidence, as well as reminding them that a “fact” they know today could be different in a few years.  (Oh, Pluto, how I miss thee.)  While the other strands are important to engage people in science, this strand prepares them for the future of science by exploring its nature.

Strand Five: Using Tools & Language of Science

As the saying goes, “Practice makes perfect,” and it applies to science learning as well.  In addition to Strand One, Strand Five seems to be the most obvious of the strands; if people participate in science activities that require them to know the tools and the lingo, they are more likely to retain that practical knowledge and use it in future endeavors or discussions.  Also, it is great to see that this step encourages team work, which makes science seem less “exclusive,” which could encourage people to further pursue their areas of interest.

Strand Six: Identifying With the Scientific Enterprise

Strand Six seems the least important.  While science learning does inspire people to pursue science-related careers or proclaim themselves as die-hard hobbyists of an area of science, identity is not as important to learning as the learning itself, especially for older people who are more likely to have solidified their identities and careers.  While there is nothing wrong with adding one’s love for science to her identity – whether it be through an engineering career, pyrotechnics hobby, or tweeting with #i<3physics on every post – it is equally fine to be the writer who’s enjoyment of casual science comes up in conversation, but not on her facebook profile or resumé.

The chapter begins with the classic image of the scientist that every person imagines in their mind. “The lone scientist, usually male and usually white” (19) who works in his isolated room working like a machine, removed from the real world. However, the author quickly refutes this misconception and states that scientists have many different thought processes and that that there is no automatic set of rules that a scientist follows to get to a certain answer. I myself believed in the former version of the scientist, conducting his research alone in a dirty lab coat. However, the next paragraph mentions that science is actually more social than many thought it to be.

Many researchers and scientists keep in contact with each other and work together on their research in order to get to the solution faster and more effectively. I was surprised by this because I thought that scientists wanted to keep their findings to themselves. Because many large discoveries are kept secret until the scientists are 100% sure they are right, I would think that scientists would never be willing to spread their findings with their fellow workers.

I enjoyed reading about the Project FeederWatch because it encouraged people who weren’t originally interested in science to observe birds more scientifically and ask questions that scientists would ask on a normal basis, thus encouraging regular people to “fine-tune their observation skills” and become more in tune with their scientific side.  I like when individuals go out of their comfort zone and try out new approaches to regular activities in order to get more meaning out of simple activities like birdwatching.

While reading Chapter 2 of Surrounded by Science, two things caught my attention: the image of the stereotypical scientist, “male, white, isolated and removed from the real world” and my general impression on the strands of informal science learning. I realized that stereotypical scientist they described was identical to my initial thought of a scientist. I always thought that this image gave off a sense of unapproachability and seclusion. To some extent, I think this stereotype is responsible for the distant, closed-off impression of science that some people possess. It’s unfortunate, considering that scientists could be anyone, in any sort of place, and intensely connected to the “real world”. What comes to mind are anthropologists and other practitioners of social sciences.

Social sciences require a great deal of involvement with the community. Even traditional sciences require  some kind of physical/personal involvement. For example, environmental biologists need to get close and personal with the natural world they’re studying. In fact, it could be because of this image that some people don’t realize that they’re involved in science. The stereotypical scientist is the person they think of when asked who does science, and they don’t really recognize that they’re scientists themselves.

The six strands themselves really intrigued me. As I was looking over them, I was thinking of popular science programs such as Mythbusters, and I realized that they use these strands. Mythbusters, in particular, definitely sparks interest and excitement, uses the tools and language of science, and they utilize scientific reasoning in order to prove or disprove myths. What really makes me think is that they don’t push it as science – it just seems perfectly natural. From there, I realized that this is how science should be thought of – not as an external, isolated field, but an incredibly natural process that is so intrinsic that it’s actually odd to point it out.

Chapter 2 of Marilyn Fenichel and Heidi A. Schweingruber’s Surrounded by Science opened my eyes to the many different methods that scientists use to explore and examine the world around them. This is accomplished in ways many people wouldn’t think science is learned. The chapter stresses that science is a very social field and argues against the mad scientist/Frankenstein stereotype, which paints scientists as secluded and introverted individuals. Instead it highlights the importance of the culture of science which includes specialized “norms, practices, language, and tools” (20) that allows people within the scientific community to share their knowledge. Science thrives on the exchange of information, for this is what allows the field to grow. Ideas build on one another and viewpoints change as new evidence emerges that challenges existing explanations. Scientists, themselves, are shaped by their different experiences in cultural, political, and economic environments. This is why working as teams to solve scientific problems becomes much more effective. The chapter mentioned that the Human Genome Project, which I learned about in AP Biology, was actually the product of a collaborative effort. In school, we never really learned about how the information was collected for this huge scientific breakthrough. This got me thinking about how so many advances in science were possible because of the exchange of information between scientists. For example, Watson and Crick worked together to figure out the structure of DNA and arguably couldn’t have accomplished this task without important contributions from an X-ray crystallographer named Rosalind Franklin.

My favorite quote was that “Learning science is a multifaceted endeavor” (32) because it encompassed the central idea of the chapter and it was so eloquently put. Science is “multifaceted” in that there are many layers to acquiring knowledge that can be applied to everyday life. And it is an “endeavor” that requires interest and motivation to actively pursue knowledge that isn’t always easy to grasp. The “stands of science learning” framework shows that in order to become a part of science and its community it is crucial to learn more than just scientific concepts.

A nice example of these six strands of science in action was Project FeederWatch, which gives enthusiasts a fun way to learn about the accessibility of science. With ready-made materials in hand, a support staff, and helpful online resources, these citizen-scientists gained exposure to hands-on scientific inquiry which allowed them to become more comfortable with the methods of science. This activity and others like it reaps tremendous benefits for both the scientific community and for the participants. Only 6% of participants said that they didn’t learn anything from Project FeederWatch. As evident by the Seed Preference Test, citizen-scientists can even disprove scientific institutions and contribute to journals through their experimentation and collective observations. Another thing that I found very interesting is how participants of lab-organized research projects form their own research projects. Science, in turn, becomes a chain-reaction as the participants decide to take initiative and pursue their garnered interests. This chapter makes me appreciate how science is truly a collaborative effort of people who engage with science in a variety of ways.

Mohamed Adnan

Professor Adams

Science and Technology in NYC Seminar 3

09/15/2013

Reflection on Surrounded by Science Chapter 2

            Surrounded by Science: Learning Science in Informal Environments by Marilyn Fenichel and Heidi A. Schweingruber explores informal science learning amongst adults and children. The authors placed emphasis on the process of learning. How we approach an informal science setting is essential for learning and grasping scientific topics. The authors wrote about the logistics behind various informal studies, including community based studies.

One aspect of the reading that struck my interest was the classification of a generic scientist. They were alone in a lab and kept to themselves and their thoughts. At a younger age, I believed this to be true. As I became more involved in science, I began to understand the complexity behind the scientific method. Science became more about mystery, chasing, and discovery. Science may be fun, but it is not always conducted within our minds alone. The authors emphasized the role of community and peer based science learning. Individual learning can sometimes be very difficult, but with the help of a group, one can come to conclusions that you would have not have otherwise. Through this, a group is able to attack a problem from all possible sides. Moreover, I have worked in laboratories where some experiments would require several staff members from different fields.

Another point the authors made was that those that were interested learned more and dwelled even deeper when given the right tools and placed in the right environment. In project feederwatch, the participants learned more than they ever had. This leads to the point that limitations prevent learning and giving freedom to those that are motivated can produce extraordinary results.

The overall purpose of informal science should be to expand on and spark the interest of any individual and allow for the enhanced learning and understanding of science. This special environment can create memorable experiences that lay the foundation of a strong science background.

Malka Niknamfard

Henry David Thoreau was quoted as saying, “A man’s interest in a single bluebird is worth more than a complete but dry list of the fauna and flora of a town”. This quote is directly related to this week’s reading portion of Surrounded by Science: Learning Science in Informal Environments by Marilyn Fenichel and Heidi A. Schweingruber in that it stresses the idea that the key to successful learning is nurturing an individual’s interests and hobbies in an informal setting as opposed to merely forcing one to memorize irrelevant facts in an academic setting.

This idea was proven in the Project FeederWatch experiment conducted by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology in Ithaca, New York, in which participants fed birds and recorded the different bird species that visit each bird feeder. What was interesting about the experiment was that most of the participants bombarded the scientists and other staff members with scientific and experimental questions regarding the experiment, and were really engaged and seemed to express a lot of interest in what they were doing. This experiment proved that when people are provided with a hands-on approach when it comes to learning and conducting research, not only do they express more interest in the subject, but they also learn the topics more thoroughly because they are experiencing them in an informal manner instead of in a solely academic setting.

Before reading both “The 95% Solution” and Surrounded by Science, I must admit that I was quite skeptical about the idea that it is possible to learn more about science outside of the classroom. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that there is much truth to this idea. Informal science opportunities are crucial in today’s society because they are responsible for igniting interest in scientific topics that most people would otherwise be exposed to via memorization and the study of mere facts that have no application to a person’s daily life. Formal science learning cannot engage individuals by forcing them to memorize facts and simply does not cater to an individual’s interests. The bird watch experiment proved to be important because not only did participants express interest in the topic at hand, but it also allowed the participants to feel as though they are a part of the scientific community and that they too are capable of making an impact on the scientific world.