Chapter 9 focuses on the ways in which informal learning opportunities can be expanded far beyond the confines of the environment in which it takes place. Many informal science institutions are developing way to do this, such as the development of a strong online and interactive presence. Thus, as individuals leave the exhibit, they can still access the important information online via their cellphones. Liberty Science Center in particular is seeking to do just that, as they endeavor to allow exhibits to be accessible through cell phones.  Wayne Labar, vice president of the center, notes that “cell phones are proving to be a way to continue to engage people with exhibits at the center even after they walk out the door.” This is a highly valuable tool as this fosters a greater solidification of the presented material within the viewers’ minds. Individuals are not solely subjected to trying to recall the information that they gathered at such an informal learning opportunity, but can now go back and look at exhibits that sparked their interest. While I greatly appreciate the value of such a learning tool, this might pose some risks as well. Labar mentions that this will engage people even after they walk out the door, but this tool may perhaps preclude individuals from entering the doors of the museum in the first place. In an age where a mound of information is readily available at our fingertips, we have become lazy. We use the web as a source for our daily inquiries and research questions, foregoing the foreboding walls of the classic library. I am just afraid that museums will be made to suffer a similar fate. Once individuals realize that they can gather as much information, if not more, about the confines of a museum with the click of a button, they may never choose to enter a museum. And that would lead to negative consequences, as the purpose of these informal institutions is to spark interest and expose one to knowledge that one would not ordinarily venture on one’s own. Thus, rather than perusing the exhibits of a museum with an open and inquisitive mind, we will limit ourselves by only choosing to investigate matters of interest that we already have. To perhaps alleviate this problem, the sites offering up information about these exhibits should only present a limited amount of information, causing us to continue to rely on the museum for engagement with these exhibits.

These sites could also serve as a further learning tool in aiding teachers to connect the field trips to classroom curriculums. Teachers would be able to know what they will find in these museums, allowing for advance preparation with the students. Teachers can then also log on these sites after the field trip visits to allow for follow-up discussions with students. Essentially, these web sites can serve as invaluable learning tools, as well as ways to foster the link between formal and informal science settings. However, careful planning must go into these sites to prevent a situation where museums themselves become obsolete.

It was interesting the read the four articles from Science magazine. Although, written by different authors, their messages are aligned – they all talk about importance of how science is communicated to the masses. It is not surprising that it is an important topic for scientists – there are so many urgent issues in our society that need scientific solution; however, since scientific research requires funding, it is very important to have public support for one or another scientific endeavor at a time when funding is cut in so many other important areas all across our country. It was interesting to read that low travel budgets (must be a result of a desire to spend the majority of given funds on the research itself) are a factor scientists need to account for when they plan conferences to discuss results of their research. Another reason communication about the scientific research to the public is very important is the growing abundance of information sources – the Internet is huge, how can scientists make sure that the population is reading information from the trusted sources and how can they make those sources trusted and understandable for a wide public. Scientific communication needs to adapt to a new technological age.

Any communication consists of three components: the idea the initiator of the communication is communicating, the way he or she communicates it and the way the intended recipient of the communication perceives it. Since the scientists are interested in the public’s proper perception of their research, it is obvious that the ways their ideas are communicated are crucial to the public’s perception. It was not surprising to read that political and religious beliefs of individuals have direct effect on the way they perceive communication about scientific research, especially in such highly contended areas like stem cell research or cloning. I was amused to read that sociological sciences help with their research to scientists in other fields to determine how to shape communication about their research. It is great that these sciences are now developing fast, so scientists in other areas can rely on vast pool of useful information in the area of scientific communication, leading to improvement of scientific communication in the near future.

“…scientists must learn to ‘frame’ information to make it relevant to different audiences” (Nisbet & Mooney).

Here in “Framing Science”, as well as in Leshner’s “Capably Communicating Science”,  the authors talk about making science relevant and marketable to common readers unfamiliar with jargon.  Certain complicated terms or concepts may confuse the average reader, including policy makers who should know about the science behind the policies they are making (for example, as the article mentioned, stem cell research).

However,  one thing that worries me is this concept of “being marketable.”  While I understand making science information clear and accessible, should it be a commercial package?  Should scientists be so worried about an audience?  This concern could make science less objective.  Why should society need everything packaged for them?  Yes, science should be relevant, and it should be understood at different levels.  Yet to market science towards specific groups – framing science to “sell” – is a dangerous idea.  Selling science to people could have a negative effect if the science does not become relatable.

This brings to attention McNutt’s article, “Improving Scientific Communication” in which she discusses how the peer review process allows for scientific information to be viewed as credible by different readers, especially those who are not scientists.  However, she proposes the current peer review process be improved, including individuals paying for their reviews.   I agree that the peer review process should itself be reviewed to fit the digital age in which information is readily available, and to fit the age of “marketable” science.  I do not agree with having individuals pay for their own reviews, however, as it could cause a class gap in the people who have articles published.

These four articles emphasize the importance of increasing the communication of science with non-scientific communities.  The most profound statement that I read was from “Improving Scientific Communication” by Marcia McNutt where she wrote, “even the most brilliant scientific discovery, if not communicated widely and accurately, is of little value.” In order for all of the science that we learn in school to be taught and the science that we apply to our daily lives to be of use to society, it must be relayed to us by the scientists who make the discoveries. Not only is effective communication of science concepts essential for the application of the findings to our daily lives, but it also bolsters support for research and inspires non-scientists to create a science identity for themselves. Communicating science in a manner in which the general public can understand it advances the idea that science is an accessible field. Science can definitely be complicated; and as we learned from our class discussions about the public perception of scientists, many feel as though the scientific community is very exclusive. This is why it is important for scientists to share the information they gather in their laboratories with people in the outside communities. This will help the public understand the concepts and be better able to formulate opinions on scientific issues. When communicating science, it is important to make the message relevant to them by making it relate to their experiences and connect with their values. This not only maintains their interest, but also helps them understand what is being explained. But it is most effective to have an objective stance when explaining science because this builds credibility with the audience. The key to communicating science is to speak simply and clearly. Someone who is well-known for popularizing physics and making physics learning much more accessible is Richard Feynman. I was first introduced to his lectures in Physics class in high school and was amazed at how clearly he explained complicated concepts to his very large audience. But in this era of technology, most of the information that people encounter about science is through media. This is why it is necessary to not only learn communication skills, like many graduate students do as part of training, but also learn how to integrate science learning into the electronic sources that we all use on a daily basis. It is essential that the scientific community spreads their knowledge with the public, and is equally essential to be sure to avoid misrepresentation of scientific information and always be respectful of other people’s personal beliefs. In one of the articles, it mentioned that genetically modified foods are a topic that is often misunderstood and misrepresented. I am glad that we chose this topic for our final project to be able to spread awareness of this issue and hope that we will be successful at effectively communicating this information to our audience.

The articles placed a large focus on the aspect of communication in the research setting. Communication is important for progress and improvements. In research, the scientist may specialize in a certain field, but the scientist will not know every single detail of the subject. The key is to communicate with other researchers and work along with them in a collaborative effort to solve problems. With communication, researchers are also able to discover if they’re projects have already been done or are being finalized. If you are working on a already discovered topic then it would be a waste of time. Moreover, communication allows for researchers to spot out errors in their methods and to pin point their routes for experimentation.

One interesting point is that communication can also lead to barriers. False information can be given or incorrect criticisms. In addition, some researchers feel as if they have to keep their information a secret in order to keep others from stealing their ideas. One example would be Rosalind Franklin and her contribution to the DNA helix structure. She worked on x-ray diffractioning and she communicated her ideas with Watson and Cricke. Watson and Cricke then used her information to complete their image of the DNA double helix model. Ultimately, communication promotes scientific discover, but it should be used with caution.

One of the things chapter 5 focuses on is the role of interest in informal environments. The first strand describes interest as the excitement, wonder, and surprise that learners may experience and the knowledge and values that make the experience relevant and meaningful. This is an important factor, because there is a direct correlation between interest and the level at which people can engage within an informal environment. Basically, people pay attention to the things that interest them, therefore interest can drive what is learned. I can relate to this quite well, because I know I have trouble learning in class or even paying attention, if the class is not engaging or interesting at all. One of the models that has been implemented to address this issue consists of 6 components: curiosity, confidence, challenge, control, play, and communication. Personally, I think that focusing on challenge and play will achieve the greatest positive results, especially if the targeted audience is dominantly children. Another interesting model involves sustained interest, which consists of four phases: situational interest, maintained situational interest, emerging individual interest, and a well-developed individual interest. Essentially this model, encourages increasing investment and meaningfulness. This is another beneficial model, since it focuses on a person’s interests in a particular subject, allowing them to not only receive base knowledge about a particular subject, but also to further pursue this subject, developing a more in-depth foundation with which they can use to discover their true passions in science. This is seen in the last phase of the second model which refers to the “well-developed” individual interest, in which an individual choses to engage in an extended pursuit in a particular area. This leads to a change in identity within the learner, such as teens who are more susceptible to influence, helping them figure out what they want to do with their lives.

Of course, we all heard “You learn all life” but it was still somewhat surprising to read about our life-long learning of science. It makes perfect sense that it is the case, if we think about it, just as the methods of learning differ throughout the lifespan. However, it was still a revelation to me that babies learn about gravity by constantly dropping objects. I always thought, they do it for entertainment, not for learning. I remembered my childhood fascination with science museums – in every city I had visited, science museum would be the one I would want to go to, sometimes returning the next day and the day after. Of course, hand-on exhibits, designed for children’s learning, were a main draw for me. Founders of Please Touch! Museum in Philadelphia knew a lot about children’s learning of science – this is my favorite science museum of all time. This is a place where a child can learn about science on many levels, making the end result stay with the child much longer than if a particular science concept were read about in the textbook or heard from a teacher in a classroom. This is especially true for visual learners, like me.  I am pretty sure that those endless museum visits put a foundation to my love of science. Reading about a program where students learn about science in Yellowstone National Park, I felt envious: I wish, I had a chance to participate in such hands-on programs as my science learning in school was quite traditional – reading textbooks (at least, there were labs!). My suggestions to the school to involve more visual aspects in our learning process were largely ignored. On the other end of science learning spectrum, as I read about science learning programs for older people, I felt gratitude that such programs exist and their number is growing. I remembered reading about research showing that learning something new every day after the age of sixty-five was very beneficial for a brain and was thought to be effective in prevention or delaying the onset of such devastating brain conditions as Alzheimer’s or dementia. It made me think that we must have been designed for a life-long learning and it is great that there are people who tirelessly think about how to make it possible for all age groups.

Chapter Seven reflects on the challenges of engaging nondominant groups in the sciences such as inadequate science instruction in most elementary schools, especially those serving children from low-income rural areas. To address this issue, we must rethink equity, striving to provide better access to opportunities already available to dominant groups. The problem however is that providing the nondominant groups with the same kind of learning experiences as the dominant groups, will still not result in equity, due to the fact that the environments themselves are designed using the lens of the dominant culture. I completely agree with this, since almost all schools follow their own course curriculum, which is usually based on how well their students score in certain areas. This is definitely a problem, since nondominant groups exposed to such curriculums will struggle to keep up, due to the fact that these programs expect children to have prior knowledge. One solution that I can think of is to implement a self-tailored program, which begins with the basics and allows students to pick and choose what they would like to focus on, slowly but surely allowing them to work at their own pace and complete the course. Another solution is the promotion of collaboration, partnership, and diversity in ownership may provide non-dominant groups with a chance to analyze their own frame of thinking based of what they have learned in informal settings.

Chapter Seven also happens to reflect on the challenges of designing informal science experiences for people with disabilities. This is another group that is often excluded in informal science settings, which is quite troubling considering that people with cognitive, physical, and sensory disabilities make up around 18 percent of the population. The two dominant barriers that people with disabilities face are cultural and physical. One solution that exhibits and programs have come up with is “universal design”, which is the practice of accommodating all visitors regardless of their ability levels. Even though the reports about the results of this design had some negative points, there was still a large amount of people with disabilities who were able to engage with the exhibits and to learn some of the science. I think that this is a brilliant idea with a step in the right direction, the only problem is that there wasn’t enough time and investment put into this design, which is why some of the disabled visitors had trouble with some of the displays. However, with due time and hopefully more careful collaboration, these “universal designs” could inspire the next Steven Hawking.

Effective communication of scientific information is essential to dissemination of scientific knowledge to the public. I remember watching shows like Bill Nye the Science Guy and Cyberchase, which really instilled a love and fascination of science from an early age. The information presented in those shows had a lot of complicated information behind them, but it was explained in a very simple manner. It’s this distillation of concept that’s so important to spreading scientific knowledge, and that’s why I found “Framing Science” so interesting. As I learned in Seminar 1, our own perceptions and biases naturally influence what meaning we receive. Our political and religious identities inevitably influence our scientific identity as well. The average person will not be able to understand a scientific paper, but they will learn from any summary made from a common source such as a newspaper or a magazine.

It’s this third, or fourth, or fifth-hand science learning that really worries me. There are often so many levels of abstraction between the informal science learner and the source of information when learning in a casual setting. People who learn their information from content aggregators like Reddit, Facebook, and Tumblr, unless they’re connected to specialized scientific communities, may not be getting truly accurate information. What scientific information they may be getting may be skewed and skewed again by incorrect interpretations of data and conclusion. The clearest direction of a solution I can think of is on both ends of the process. The scientist who makes the discovery should take the time to explain it in an easy to understand way. The learner should be skeptical of any claims made by second/third/fourth hand sources, and do their best to learn from the source itself or trustworthy sources.