I thought that this article was thought provoking. I knew that the United States was lacking in educational performance compared to other countries, but it surprised me to learn that younger American children actually performed better on science literacy measures compared to other countries. Another surprising fact was that hobbyists in certain fields knew more than their academic counterparts.

When I first started reading the article I found it strange that out of school knowledge could actually be more important than that learned in school. In school you learn with well-paced lessons and examples, with incremental tests. But, outside of school most people, I assumed, would just absorb information but never really find a use for it. After reading it though, my opinion changed because of the well put arguments it makes. It actually does seem more logical that children would be better motivated though direct outside of school activity, and that activation of interest can carry on through their lives, filling them with curiosity and a desire to interact and study what they find. However, I disagree with the article that a school-run out of school activity wouldn’t be as effective because it would be pedagogical. I think relating things back to the books an prove useful and make people more interested in what they learn. I went on school fieldtrips after learning about certain subjects and I feel that the learning part complemented the interactive part very well.

I also found myself agreeing with the article more because of our recent Bioblitz. I think it was a great experience out of the realm of textbooks and Powerpoint slides. At that event, previous knowledge did help, but ultimately at the end of it, everyone was on the same page and came out with the same knowledge than those who are bad at or didn’t take biology courses. Many of the people who thought it was going to be a waste of time, including me, changed our minds at the end and I think we all will be much more open to science learning and open learning events like that. Finally, I agree with the article that more funding needs to go towards free choice science learning opportunities to see how much it could help.  We can’t know it’s impact if all we do is try in school pedagogy.

“The 95 Percent Solution,” by John Falk and Lynn Dierking, proposes an innovative idea to improve science education in America; it proposes that out-of-school science learning has a greater impact on a child’s scientific knowledge than in-school learning. I find this to be a very daring proposition, but was satisfied by the evidence presented in the article.

I especially like the point saying, “A wide range of adolescents and adults are engaged in hobbies that involve science, including…star gazing” (“95 Percent” 488). I find that personally this is what increases my knowledge of science as well. I own a fish. I have to feed it and change its water. But in order to know how to properly take care of the fish, I had to research how much to feed the fish, and how often the water has to be changed. This led me to research the Nitrogen Cycle that goes on in a freshwater tank. That led me to look up other scientific data, and so forth. This goes to show how “free choice learning experiences” really do increase scientific knowledge.

Another compelling bit of evidence in the article is how low-income students do just as well in elementary schools as high-income students, and that it was during the summer that the disadvantaged children fell behind. I found this very surprising. That is a statistic that can’t be ignored, since it proves that something goes on outside of schools that can drastically impact education.

My one problem with the article is how it fails to commend the usefulness of in-school learning. A lot of science that we learn in school is specialized, and would be difficult to learn outside of school. For example, my biology professor had me read complicated research papers for his biology lab class on neuroendocrinology, and toxoplasmosis. These papers were difficult to decipher, and often had to be reread in order to obtain a full understanding of them. Despite the difficulty, I’m thankful for these assignments because they’ve greatly improved my scientific literacy in very specialized and technical subjects within the field of biology. Yes, a visit to the museum or a google search can improve my general knowledge of a scientific topic, but collegiate courses allow one to understand science in depth. I doubt people look up scholarly articles about scientific issues on their own accord. They usually read condensed versions that they find online. However, I definitely agree that funding for out-of-school science institutions would have a great impact on education, especially for the layman who isn’t trying to become a science brainiac anyway.

“A growing body of evidence supports the contention that the public learns science in settings and situations outside of school” – page 488

This line in the article really resonated with me. Even in elementary school, science was not my favorite subject. But the things that I recall the most were things that involved us getting out and actually doing something based in the physical world that surrounded the classroom. Two examples come to mind, one that took place in the classroom but was taught in a way that it felt like it wasn’t, and one that took place primarily at home. The first was in 5^th grade. We were learning about ecosystems and the symbiotic relationships that take place in nature. My teacher ordered tanks, and seeds and bugs, and we created living terrariums in our classroom. It was so fun, and so educational. Our class time was spent caring for our terrariums and documenting what was happening within. My teacher brought the outside world in, and to this day I recall the lesson. The second example is the annual school science fair that took place in school. One year I did my experiment on wasps. The reason I chose this as my topic was because we had just found and dealt with a wasp’s nest right outside my house. I was able to take it down, study it and exhibit it at the fair. I was very proud of it, and was really able to learn about the nest and the wasps because I saw the nest and the wasps in the real world.

I think this article highlights the importance of showing the public, specifically younger children that science extends beyond the textbook assigned for the year. It’s also much more fun and engaging, and can really prove useful in teaching a lesson and making it stick.

John Falk and Lynn Dierking’s article titled “The 95% Solution” seeks to provide insight into the idea that science is not a concept that can solely be learned in the classroom. In fact, according to the article, “Average Americans spend less than 5 percent of their life in classrooms, and an ever-growing body of evidence demonstrates that most science is learned outside of school” (1). I have to admit that when I first read this article, I was surprised to learn that Americans gain most of their scientific knowledge outside of an academic setting. After all, most parents consider it a priority to send their kids to school so that they can be properly educated and prepared for graduate school.

 However, after pondering the idea of a “free choice learning experience”, I came to realize the truth behind this phrase. I have known that I wanted to become a doctor my whole life, but that decision was never based on anything I had learned in school. I decided to choose a career in the medical field because science and the world around us is something that has always interested me. I still remember watching documentaries on the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet with my dad when I was younger, and I recall bombarding him with scientific questions that even he could not answer. It was then that I decided to do research on my own and learn about the science behind what makes us who we are.

While I believe that school is a crucial and necessary component of every person’s life, I agree whole-heartedly with the idea that kids learn more when they are given the chance to conduct research on their own and have a hands-on approach in doing whatever interests them. When kids are introduced to certain subjects in a way that makes them fun and appealing, they are more likely to find interest in that subject and pursue it further on in their lives. The passion and zeal that comes from learning something new in a fun and interesting manner is something that can never be compared to how students approach certain subjects in school. When kids are younger, they pursue certain topics that are interesting and enjoyable to them, and most kids often tend to make a career out of whatever interests them. However, when kids get older, they begin learning and studying certain topics only to do well on tests and forget the material later on. Education that is rooted in interest and enjoyment stays with a person even after he or she does not necessarily have to remember the material.

The main point of the article, “The 95 Percent Solution” really appeals to me. I have felt that throughout my elementary school years, science seemed irrelevant in the classroom despite the fact that I had loved the subject more than any other. However, outside the classroom, science was given a significant role. Every year we had the “science fair” in which we were taught and encouraged to pick any topic and create an experiment to test a hypothesis. I remember many of the experiments my groups designed (a pizza box oven, soda bottle tornado… etc.). Mastering our experiments as elementary school students and observing our peers’ experiments kept our interests alive.

I have recently had a discussion with a friend of mine about a similar topic. Throughout one’s school years, his/her brain is constantly developing whether in or out of school. This of course includes the summer. For much of my elementary and middle school summers, I was given summer homework to complete. I was only required to read one or two books and complete a small book of math problems. The math book was completed typically two days after it was received and the required reading was often started and completed less than a week before it was due. For two months, learning is at a minimum. This is where fun learning needs to step in. Anything mandatory has a bitter taste no matter how fun it might be. On the other hand, spending a day at a museum or zoo can be just as educational. During times of the year when there is vacation from school, it is often the parents’ responsibility to encourage this extracurricular learning.

After reading this article, I was reminded of my experiences in 10th grade. I helped  my neighbor, a 3rd grader, with her homework a few nights a week. We usually did some math worksheets and once in a while some grammar or English assignment. As I was leaving her house one evening, I recall pointing out the beautiful moon in the clear night sky. I told her what the moon was up to in its cycle. I remember her inquisitive expression as she asked to explain the other names and why the moon looks the way it does throughout the month. I also remember a different night when I was over and I mentioned something about a girl I knew that was suffering with cancer. Her innocent face begged for an explanation as to what this disease is.

I was also reminded of the many times I spend with my younger sister helping her out with her homework and reports. Aside from the science knowledge she accumulates while writing a research paper on the Circulatory System or taking a test on cells and matter, she is always asking me questions on various things she comes across daily.

I think the article proves a very important and strong point. Children, many a time, only focus their brain energy and desire to learn and question while involved in school activities. This occurs because that is the time that they are encouraged to ask and to know. However, children are full of questions if they were only given the opportunity and were to receive enthusiasm and encouragement along with the response.

The article entitled “The 95 Percent Solution” by John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking definitely convinced me of the great importance of informal education in science learning. I fully agree with the main argument of this article – they are not trying to devalue the importance of school but are rather trying to say that the free-choice experiences that constitute 95% of our lives are equally important. As science learners, it is our responsibility to try to benefit from both approaches and put emphasis on the day-to-day activities that are crucial to appreciating science.

The “U-shaped pattern” (488) of American science literacy is attributed to the lack of informal learning in the lives of teens. A way to remedy this lagging-behind, I believe, is to really encourage teens to pursue out-of-school activities. More funding should be allotted for school trips to museums so that children would want to come back on their own time. From my experience, older kids need more of a push to go out of their way to engage in learning outside of the school setting. Childhood curiosity depletes with age. Adults want to understand the world around them and be able to explain the world to their children. But middle-schoolers and high-schoolers get into the regime of learning science to pass standardized exams. Some teachers even teach specifically for tests because of the school officials’ aim to improve test scores. Instead of learning for tests, teachers should try to spark curiosity in students and more funding should be put into informal science resources. Like the article argues, much of the responsibility lies in the parents to encourage these kinds of behaviors in their children. The family outings to museums, parks, and aquariums really did strengthen my love of science when I was younger. Falk and Dierking also point out that attitudes about science are formulated at a very early age and affect later career choices. This is why I also believe that parents should start early and hope that mentality stays with the children as they mature and go onto secondary schooling. One thing that really surprised me was that “80 percent of K-5 multiple-subject teachers…reported spending 60 minutes or less per week on science; 16 percent…spending no time at all on science” (487). I definitely remember having more than 60 minutes per week of science classes. Mrs. Goldberg, my elementary school science teacher, definitely helped spark my interest in science and from early on I loved the subject.

I really like the term the article used “free-choice learning experience” as a way to describe informal science learning. Doing science on your own accord, without the pressures of tests, and doing what interests you is the key to a successful understanding of the broader idea of science. It is definitely true that a hands-on and entertaining approach is much more interesting than reading a textbook for a class. It allows you to remember the material for a longer period of time. Educational television helped me tremendously when I was a child because it made learning fun. This is the benefit of educational programs such as Myth Busters and interactive exhibits such as Tess, the animatronic body simulator, from the California Science Center. The amazing power of the internet is also crucial to science learning and works in ways most wouldn’t have imagined possible a few decades ago. Tools such as Wikipedia and Web MD have revolutionized how science is learned and just how accessible it is. After Hurricane Sandy, I spent a great deal of time trying to learn about the origins of hurricanes, their patterns, and necessary precautions. I learned more about hurricanes then than I could have ever learned in my 8^th grade Earth Science class.

The best quote of the article I thought was that “much of what is learned in school actually relates more to learning for school, as opposed to learning for life” (489). While it is true that students do learn about life during the schooling process much is learned through the out-of-school activities they are involved in. Informal science learning doesn’t only help children’s education, but also helps them learn about life. It is absolutely necessary to have a nice balance of both.

Adriel Paderanga 

On the whole, I found this article fascinating as I focused on two points in particular – the “U-shaped pattern of Americans’ comparative performance on science literacy measures,” (488) and the importance of “free-choice learning” (486), which is credited for supplying the scientific education for the other 95% of our lives.

Science, in its simplest definition and form, is an ordered line of questioning designed to answer why “something” happens in the environment. It requires a curiosity that comes with early childhood, but is quickly quashed in many as they approach their tweens. I believe that after a certain age, many children disassociate that intrinsic curiosity from the results it produces. Science becomes something to be memorized and discarded at semester’s end, not internalized for the satisfaction of learning. The focus shifts from “learning for its own sake” to “learning for the grade”. It’s for this reason I think that elementary U.S. students outperform their counterparts on TIMSS and PISA, perform at a mediocre level in middle school/high school, and do better in college. Relative to how I learned in elementary and how I’m learning now, in college, I struggled to finish my work in any science-related courses such as biology and mathematics. Before, I’d read my textbook for the pleasure of it, and then it became a chore, work to be avoided until absolutely necessary.  Science in school was divorced from reality.

In college, I had the freedom to choose my own courses, and with that came a sense of ownership and subsequent responsibility regarding the course matter.  In making that choice, I started to regain some of the curiosity I possessed in childhood. Learning was still work, but my fascination with the information I gained made it much more bearable. I’m reminded of Tom Sawyer and his fence. He managed to make his friends enjoy the drudgery of fence painting by pretending it was fun. Mindset is everything when it comes to learning, and if we can change the K-12 education system to incorporate more freedom in course selection with regards to science, I imagine we’d see an increase in performance. Which shouldn’t be the end goal, but is a nice bonus all the same.

“The 95 Percent Solution” by Falk and Dierking seeks to open our minds to different ways of learning science, focusing on free-choice  science learning that includes resources such as educational television and radio, science museums, zoos, aquariums and national parks. The authors discuss and explain the growing importance of free-choice learning as a way for the public to understand science in the long-term, countering the commonly held assumption hat traditional school is the best way to achieve this. The article includes examples, data, and studies that demonstrate that free choice learning is beneficial in increasing the public’s understanding of science. Ultimately, the article does not dispute schooling entirely, but rather seeks to encourage us to think about the 95 percent of time that is not devoted to the classroom and how that time may be more important than the little time spent in school in trying to increase the scientific understanding of the public.

The most important thing that I learned from this article is that free-choice learning is successful because of the nature of it. It is not like school, which many of us may think is boring and tedious. It actually may be very fun, exciting and engaging. This is due in part to the fact that we have the opportunity to choose what we want to learn and how we want to go about learning it, whether it be going to a museum, park, or watching a television program. It is often easier to learn what we choose.  We put in more time and effort into things that intrigue us or challenge us. It is the fact that we want to learn about a particular thing that makes us want to increase our knowledge and understanding of that topic. I know that this is true for me when I began studying the heart. I was shadowing a surgeon in the Cardio Thoracic Intensive Care Unit at NY Methodist and I found the topics they talked about and the medical terminology that they used to be very interesting. I didn’t need to research extensively about the different heart diseases and illness and I didn’t need to ask my dad for one of his books about the heart; I would eventually learn all this stuff in medical school. However, I wanted to know more about the heart and how it works and the things that affect it; therefore I put extra time and effort into trying to learn everything about it.

Free-choice science learning definitely has its benefits. It works in large part due to the fact that we have the freedom to choose what we learn and the way we want to learn it. However, I still believe that a classroom setting does have its benefits in imparting knowledge to people and increasing their understanding of science.  At times, it may not be as exciting as going to a museum or watching an interesting television program, but there may be a topic, process or method introduced in class that we might find interesting and want to research on our own. Ultimately, a balance between free-choice learning and schooling is needed, one in which both resources are utilized in a way that maximizes the benefits and leads to an increased understanding of science among the public.

Larry Markel

Professor Adams

9/8/2013

“The 95 Percent Solution” Reflection

I thought that the article “The 95 Percent Solution” by Falk and Dierking was a very interesting read that not only caught my attention but also took me by surprise.  The first paragraph mentions a point that not only gives the article its name, but also plays a large role in the issue. “Average Americans spend less than 5 percent of their life in class-rooms” ( 1). It is amazing that most of what I know about science primarily comes from that 5 percent portion. Dierking and Falk state that while such formal learning is very important, it is also a good idea to gather information from other places such as parks, museums, and other community activities.

I agree with both of them in the regards to learning outside of the classroom. I believe that it is important to be smart in both settings. Later on in the article, it is mentioned that science learning in America is far more prevalent as the students get older and that 16 percent of K-5 teachers have never taught a single thing related to science in their classrooms. I think that students from an early age should be brought up to understand the world around them and at least be taught to some degree the science behind it and how to think more scientifically.

After reading the article, I thank Macaulay for giving me and my classmates the opportunity to be part of the 95 percent solution during the bioblitz. I went out to a famous New York City park and observed various species of organisms and was taught by the guide expert how to think scientifically about what I saw and ask the right questions about what I observed.