While reading Chapter 2, what stuck out to me the most was how flexible science was as a subject, and how it was fundamentally a social pursuit. It was really helpful for me to read how the textbook defined science as a “commitment to gathering and using empirical evidence derived from examination of the natural world” (19).  I never realized how much communication and active social collaboration is necessary to the scientific field. Whenever a new theory comes out, it needs to be reviewed by scientists from all over the world. Science isn’t just men sitting in laboratories looking into microscopes, but instead a huge network of a diverse group of people studying common subjects.

I really enjoyed reading about the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and its efforts to involve the community in the study of birds. By involving citizen scientists, the lab was able to gain more information that it would have as a private study. Being able to not only includes the members of the community in scientific research but having them collect data that actually contributes to the database is amazing. This project does an excellent job of taking advantage of informal science teaching opportunities to spark interest in others.

Chapter 2 was also interesting because it provided a framework for science learning that helped break down the subject into understandable and logical sections. The six strands of science learning were each important in their own way but provided a solid foundation for science education as a whole. In thinking about my future as an educator, the strands provided me with a solid idea of what it takes to not only spark interest in a child but to foster and cultivate it into usable knowledge.

This chapter begins by knocking down the stereotype of science and scientists. A scientist is not just an individual with wild hair, a white lab coat, and large glasses. The scientist is your everyday individual who is striving to learn something new about the world through observation and empirical evidence. And, science is not limited to the lab and only inclusive of biology and chemistry. Rather, science is the study of how and why things in the world function and work the way they do. And this widens science to psychology, music, language, sociology, etc. In a way, we are all scientists. As we go about our daily life, we are constantly observing, conducting virtual experiments, and creating hypotheses.

As the chapter continues, we learn about ways that each of us are involved in science in our lives. There is a way for that initial tad of attachment to science to grow into something much larger. If we nurture our interest and begin to explore more opportunities to learn about this particular field, then we can become a true scientist. We can discover resources, places, and people to help us in our endeavor. And, the end result is that now one can be a part of the science world, even without the lab coat.

In order for us to understand how we can promote informal science learning, Chapter 2 of Surrounded by Science examines what it means to learn and to do science.  Many people in society believe that to do or learn about science is to be a scientist isolated in a lab and doing experiments. Some people believe that what scientists do is something they cannot do and that science is something for people with “higher knowledge.” Some people feel that whatever scientists are learning or trying to understand contains too much recondite information that they could not possibly comprehend.  In reality, scientists are just trying to understand and learn more deeply about things that surround all people. Doing this requires cooperation and collaboration between many different scientists.  As the text explains, science is very much a social and collaborative experience between scientists. There is a network of people that work together to share information and ideas. Scientists communicate with each other, formally and informally, through emails,  participating in conferences, and presenting ideas in journals and books.  As a result of science being collaborative, scientists must be receptive and open to the ideas of others in order to strengthen what they are working for.

Science can also be considered cultural, as stated in the chapter, because it reflects the values of the people who engage and participate in science. We are all different people and we go about learning things in different ways. We all have things that interest us and we decide what we want to spend our time on and how we want to approach a certain issue. As a result of our different values and interests and also the choices we make, science is an area that becomes one that is so broad and diverse at the same time.

Although we may not be scientists working in a lab with high-tech equipment, we, too, can be scientists, and a part of this chapter focuses on how nonscientists can still be engaged in the scientific world. An example in the chapter is Project FeederWatch, in which birdwatchers were able to interact with scientists and tools of science in order to fine-tune their observational skills and collect data about what kinds of birds they saw, sometimes even making some new findings and discoveries. I had a similar experience doing the Bioblitz in Central Park. I had the opportunity to work with experts and learn about the diverse environment of Central Park. I had the chance to learn about some of the birds, like  Mallards and Domestic Poultry Ducks, that exist in the park as well as learn about some other animals that were there, including raccoons, rats and bats, an animal I did not know inhabited the park. Some of us even logged in the data we collected onto iNaturalist so that other people can see our observations and so that we can see the observations of others. Both of these examples demonstrate an informal learning experience that provided people with an enriching way to learn science. These type of experiences allow people, including me, to become more familiar with the culture of science and its processes as well as become engaged in it.

Further discussed in the chapter are the strands of informal science learning. In a nutshell, these strands state that we should: experience excitement and interest in learning about the natural world, understand facts relating to science, engage in scientific reasoning by questioning and observing things in the world, reflect on science and how we come to understand the natural world, and learn to use the tools and language of science. Hopefully, by doing these things, we will begin to think of ourselves as science learners. These strands demonstrate what we do when we learn science and also provide a way to design informal learning experiences so that they will benefit the people that participate in them and allow them to learn about science in a positive way. Perhaps with these ideas in mind we have a better understanding of what science is, what it can be, how we can learn science and what kinds of environments will provide the best opportunity to learn about science. Informal experiences may be a great way to get people to learn about science and participate in science, at least it was for me when I did the Bioblitz.  Hopefully by understanding “what it means to do and learn science” (19), we will be better able to design and promote informal experiences such  as Project FeederWatch and Bioblitz, that will increase our own understanding of science and encourage us to think of ourselves as science learners.

Ilanit Zada

Professor Adams

Science and Technology in NYC

9-14-13

          In the second chapter of Surrounded by Science by Marilyn Fenichel and Heidi A. Schweingruber, there are several valid and interesting points being made. However, before the authors go into detail about “science learning” and the different aspects that play into it, they introduce their topic with sub-categories. In doing so, they make reference to science as a “cultural and social enterprise” (19). When I first read that sub-heading I was extremely confused. I could understand the reason that science would be referred to as a social enterprise: a large part of the purpose of learning science is to benefit humans and the environment we live in. However, how does science have any relationship with culture? To me, the two terms seemed like completely different entities that would never cross paths or have anything to do with one another.

          As if Fenichel and Schweingruber were reading my thoughts, they answered the question that was brewing in my mind by stating that “science reflects the cultural values of those that engage in it” (20). I had to read that sentence several times before I fully understood what they meant by it.

          After doing the everyday science project and collecting the data, it became evident that this statement was very true. Although the people I have interviewed were not scientists and have not made any monumental changes in the science field, they still each saw a way in which science applied to their lives, a way that was unique to them. Each of the interviewees, based on their personal interests, decided what in science was worthy of their attention, what they wanted to study and investigate further, and the way in which they wanted to expand their knowledge on the topic. By making these decisions, the interviewees were learning science in a way that reflected their cultural values, and validating what Fenichel and Schweingruber meant when they referred to science as a “cultural enterprise.”

Jennifer Mikhli

Professor Adams

Science and Technology in NYC

09/11/13

Reflection on Surrounded by Science

            The reading selection of Surrounded by Science: Learning Science in Informal Environments, by Marilyn Fenichel and Heidi A. Schweingruber, truly touched on the cornerstones of informal science learning that contribute to its success amongst adults and adolescents. It is the informal science opportunities’ emphasis on the learning process that transpires within a human mind that allows these experiences to resonate deeply with its participants. Through a formulation of a systematic approach to how individuals learn and approach scientific information, the informal science experiences are tailored to sparking interest and maintaining an engagement with the scientific information at hand. For instance, the first strand of science learning involves the sparking of interest within its participants. It is at this point within the framework of the informal science activities, that a huge disparity mounts between its academic science counterpart. Formal science opportunities pay no heed to whether or not the scientific facts at hand are garnering interest or engagement within its forced learners. Rather, more attention is paid to the imbuement of facts and theories within the indifferent or, unfortunately, averse pupils. This inattention to interest and failure to accommodate the curriculum to meet the curiosity of its listeners, is what continues to debilitate the middle and high school science programs within the United States. Thus, in order to give a scientific boost to this age group, academic environments should seek to emulate the informal science activities, in their accommodations and tailoring to meet the interest of its participants. Activities such as Project FeederWatch go so far as conducting regular participant surveys, which they use to “develop a profile of the participants,” (23) ensuring that participants are able to partake fully and engage themselves in the bird-feeding and watching. This is because igniting this interest and tailoring these activities allows individuals to feel like they are becoming a part of the scientific culture and community. Essentially, accommodations must be made in the classroom to foster an engaged and motivated science learning within its students. Students should not feel as if science is a foreboding body of facts and figures. They, however, should feel attached to the subject and view it as the evolving force that it truly is.  Teachers must provide an anchor for science within the fortress of the student mind. This anchor, I truly believe, will allow students to pull themselves along the tedious postulates and theorems, holding on to the hope of themselves becoming a part of the growing body of science one day.

“The 95 Percent Solution” was an eye-opening article because it further clarified what’s always sort of been in the back of my mind. Ever since I was a child, I knew there was a key difference between formally learning science in school and learning science in an informal environment. My mom would take me to places like the Museum of Natural History, the New York Aquarium, the Prospect Park Zoo, the Hall of Science, and never once did it occur to me that I was actually learning something about science. Although I have absolutely no complaints about my formal science education, I can’t help but remember how much more fun it was to learn about science in a place other than at school. And when I ask myself why I had more fun, I can only think of one thing: tests. As the article repeatedly states, free-choice learning was not a part of the formal eduction that school provided, at least for me. We all grew up in a society where you had to pass a certain exam to demonstrate that you could recall what you had learned in that class in order to move on to the next grade. But I feel like these tests were doing the exact opposite of what they were designed to do. Instead of actively learning and/or studying the material that was supposed to be on the exam, and actually retaining it even after the test was over, I found myself discarding the information as soon as I could. In fact, I am constantly hearing people complaining about a specific topic in a specific subject because it has no value in real life applications. I believe that our education system would definitely improve if people of the younger age groups had more reasons to learn, not just to pass a test and get it over with. On a side note, I found it pretty funny that, according to the article, people who pursued astronomy as a hobby were more knowledgeable about the subject than undergraduate astronomy majors. It only shows that you can’t force someone to do something unless they are truly interested in it.

In this article, John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking argue that that free-choice science learning experiences currently contribute more to public understanding of science than in-school experiences. While they don’t have sufficient data to fully support the claim, they do make an interesting point. Their two leading facts are that average Americans spend less than 5 percent of their life in classrooms, and an ever-growing body of evidence demonstrates that most science is not learned in school, but in places outside the school such as museums, parks, and media.

Personally, I was shocked that the average American spends 5 percent or less of his or her time in class. This is, probably, because I hope to be a cardiovascular surgeon, so I expect most of my time to be dominated by lectures and various lab work. However, I can see that being true, especially with the way our government deals with education. Schools are dependent on funding  which provides them with the opportunity to expand their educational programs. With constant budget cuts, however, schools are forced to limit the number of subjects they can offer and,  as a consequence,  the volume of science being taught at schools is significant;y reduced.

I was also quite surprised to find out that most science is not learned in school classrooms, but in places such as museums or parks. Although I can definitely see that being an acceptable place to learn some basic facts since human beings possess the cognitive capabilities of carrying out simple variations of scientific method and, by observing their surroundings are able to reach logical conclusions. However, while this is essentially how people come to learn about science, the amount of information one can gather from observation lead to knowledge on the surface level. To fully understand any scientific subject, we must ask endless questions, which, as the knowledge deepens, become more and more complex and can only be answered by performing extensive research. Since this opportunity is being denied to the vast majority of Americans, I am surprised, that Americans outperformed adults from many other countries at later stages of their life. This makes me question the legitimacy of the measure of the performance level, and what was exactly defined as science in that case.

The article brings up many points. One fact that the article brings forwards is that the percentage of science teaching in America is much less than of other countries. This is mainly because most of the learning occurs in school, however students do not get proper lessons in science until they reach high school. Most elementary teachers do not major in science education nor take any science classes in college and therefore they spend very little time over the week focusing on science in the classroom in comparison to other subjects. I find this surprising and I believe that science lessons should be incorporated into the curriculum at a younger stage so that when the child reaches adolescence he/she will have a better understanding of the world around them.

Another point that the article addresses is that a lot of science learning takes place out of the classroom. Research has shown that after visiting a science center many people believe that they have a better understanding of science as well as a greater interest in it as well. I agree with this theory, in that many of us learn from experiences rather than through words on a textbook. When something becomes applicable, it becomes more understandable in a sense. For this reason I agree with the article in that science is more effective taught through out of the classroom methods.

Mohamed Adnan

Professor Adams

Science in the City Seminar 3

09-08-2013

The 95 Percent Solution Reflection

In “The 95 Percent Solution”, John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking point out that knowledge and learning is not limited to only the classroom. They believe that “School is not where most Americans learn most of their science” (486). The authors think that free-choice science learning through external resources such as parks, libraries, or museums exposes students to a stronger learning experience.

I completely agree with what the authors had to say in the article. Science should be learned through doing, not just reading and sitting in a classroom. As I child, I believed that if I crammed, memorized, and studied different scientific topics that I would truly grasp them. I learned that through that method, I would forget all the topics I learned within a few months. Exposing myself to a more practical method of learning that was more handson allowed me to form a stronger long term memory of each topic. I placed myself in a chemistry research laboratory and applied the concepts I had learned. This helped enforce the knowledge I learned and exposed me to a “real world” experience that made me consider every decision I made in order to obtain desired results in an experiment.

The article promotes free-choice learning and that in itself has many benefits in comparison to school based learning. In school, we go to lecture, we are assigned homework, we read textbooks, but we do not enjoy every topic as much as we would like to. However, free-choice science learning is all about going out and serving your thirst for knowledge. For example, going out to a zoo to observe species interactions is much more interesting and memorable than just reading about it.

However, learning in the classrooms is still necessary to build a foundation. Free-choice learning is just an extension of knowledge that should reinforce what we learn in our classrooms. I believe that the quality of the science education can also be improved through the teachers. As a child in elementary school, I felt that my science education was highly neglected. This is further reinforced by  “a 2007 study of San Francisco Bay–area elementary schools found that 80 percent of K–5 multiple subject teachers who are responsible for teaching science in their classrooms reported spending 60 minutes or less per week on science; 16 percent of teachers reported spending no time at all on science. ” (487). Many students attribute schoolwork of being jaded, but I believe that if your teacher is passionate and interesting, then you will be interested in learning. Free-choice learning is essential for the development of better scientists, teachers, and a scientific community. A combination of improved teaching and free-choice learning can build great scientific minds.