While I read this article, a Mark Twain quote continued to pop up in my mind: “I have never let schooling interfere with my education.” While I respect Mark Twain and believe that this quote is fundamentally true, I believe schooling is also necessary because it provides structure, especially in terms of science education.

When I read the article, I was surprised to find out how little time people spend in school. 95% of any person’s life is spent living and learning from real life experiences. I wholeheartedly agree that science education should be supplemented by outside experiences at science institutions. Because I am interested in pedagogy and becoming a teacher, especially for those of lower socioeconomic backgrounds, this article was eye-opening. It’s completely unfair that children from less fortunate backgrounds lack the resources that their more affluent peers take for granted. Public institutions such as the Natural History Museum here in New York do a great job of making their resources more widely available, but I personally believe more could be done. As the article stated, it’s important to integrate the sciences into more aspects of society besides school. A greater public appreciation and understanding of the sciences would most definitely help improve science literacy in our society.

Additionally, I think the sciences should be a greater part of the public school system across the country. I think it’s unacceptable that K-5 teachers in some areas spend “60 minutes or less per week on science” (487) and that 16% spend no time on science (487). Elementary education plays an integral part in a child’s development. How else are children supposed to broaden their horizons and discover their interests? I was always fortunate enough to have a solid science education throughout my years in public school. Even minor, playful science-related activities in school could do a great deal to increase a child’s interest in the subject, especially because young children learn a great deal through play and physical motions.

I believe the future of education will gradually shift towards an increase in the use of technology, and this can be taken advantage of in terms of science education due to all of the applications that are related to the sciences. Educators should take advantage of the accessibility of technology and the Internet to teach children and further increase their interest in the sciences.

Daniel Bibawy

09.05.13

As I read “The 95 Percent Solution,” I came up with one conclusion on my own. You only really learn anything when you are interested in it. This may seem obvious to you, but to me I did not really understand this until I started college. Even the things that we are taught in school, we do not really embrace and understand unless we care about them and care to learn them ourselves. For example, I would not say I am the type of person who takes an interest in many things, let alone things of a more educational nature, yet I do find myself interested and even fascinated by psychology. One of the few books I read in high school for my own leisure was a psychology book that I was so engrossed in that for a couple of years after I finished reading it, I felt I had a decent grasp on psychology until I started my first semester in college and took an intro to psychology class that furthered my knowledge of psychology and increased my admiration for it. My point is that you will not actually learn anything unless you care to take an interest in it yourself. Otherwise it will be memorization and useless jargon that has no meaning to you. For this reason I think the amateur astrology students in the club had more knowledge than the undergraduate college students who majored in astrology. I also think this is the reason that older Americans performed more highly than international adults in science: because the things they learned in science were of their own interest and volition.

Ilanit Zada

Professor Adams

Science and Technology in NYC

9-1-13

Reflection on “The 95 Percent Solution”

          The article entitled “The 95 Percent Solution” by John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking raises several interesting ideas. Flak and Dierking argue that contrary to what many people believe, the knowledge children and adults attain (in science and mathematics) is primarily due to the extracurricular activities done outside of the classroom-not the learning done in the classroom. The authors also argue that “internet exceeded even broadcast media as a source of public science information” (5). That specific sentence triggered a memory from seven years ago.

          At a young age of 12, a close friend of mine was diagnosed with cancer. She was hospitalized immediately and placed in the Intensive Care Unit. I was extremely concerned about her well being and wanted to help her in any way possible. However, being so young, there was little that I knew about the disease so I turned to the computer to provide me with the information that I was looking for. I was pleasantly surprised to find so many results. I sat at the computer screen for hours digesting all the information.

The information that I learned that day is still fresh in my mind leading me to agree with Flak and Dierking. I believe that when one does an activity or research on their own they gain more than they would if they were sitting in a classroom and being bombarded with information that they are forced to remember.

Jennifer Mikhli

Professor Adams

Science and Technology in New York City

08/28/13

Reflection on “The 95 Percent Solution” 

      The article entitled “The 95 Percent Solution”  by John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking ventures into controversial territory, as it presents mounting evidence that point to the ability of free-science learning opportunities to surpass academic settings in their ability to educate the public about science. This evidence comes in the form of a “U-shaped pattern of Americans’ comparative performance on science literacy measures,” (488). At the point of an American adolescent’s life where science instruction increases in an academic environment, their scientific literacy declines, allowing only younger and adult U.S. citizens to outcompete their international equals. Non-academic, informal, or free-science settings are the only valid way to explain these findings.

     This evidence made me question the scientific world around me, as I examined my relationship with science, along with how my peers approached this evolutionary field as well. Upon trying to trace back to the start of my  draw to science, the medical field in particular, I came  upon a startling realization. I remembered my nine year old self stationed before a television screen staring in admiration at the doctors depicted on the latest episode of Grey’s Anatomy, and starting to recognize the various medical terminologies that sprouted from their mouths. I knew at a very young age what an LVAD wire was and that a malignant tumor was fatal. I also remember watching How It’s Made on the Discovery channel, as my interest in how the human body operated built upon the elaboration of the inner-workings of everyday objects. Albeit it was not an after-school program or a museum that piqued my interest in the medicine field, but it sure did not spark in the classroom either. I did not need to delve any deeper, as I was living proof  to the findings of researcher Robert H. Tai, as presented in the article, “that attitudes toward science careers, formed primarily during out-of school time in early adolescence, appeared to be the single most important factor in determining children’s future career choices in science” (490). Overall, the article allowed me to recognize the importance of informal science opportunities and the tremendous impact that they can have on our minds, especially upon the impressionable mindsets of adolescents. Ultimately, more informal science opportunities need to be granted to children at a young age. This could level the growing educational disparity that sprouts amongst the advantaged and disadvantaged children as they get older. Instilling such “”complementary learning’ opportunities,” (491) as is quoted in the article, amongst youngsters could potentially transform the nation’s rising generation’s approach to science, evolving scientific fields along the way.