Before getting into the “outreach” for “non-dominant” peoples and their cultures, I would like to note that I am impressed that the textbook acknowledges people with different types of disabilities.  It is important to remember that not everyone is able-bodied, and so planning an informal learning environment that is inclusive to people with disabilities is important, and, as the book says, “Exhibit and program designs that serve visitors who face physical, sensory, or cognition challenges tend to benefit all visitors” (pp. 128); for example, it mentioned larger font sizes for those with poor vision are helpful to visitors regardless of their vision, as it is less likely to tire their eyes (pp. 128).  While it is important to accommodate learners with disabilities regardless of benefits for the able-bodied, the effects on everybody are often raised when money is involved, and getting funding could be more likely if those effects are mentioned.

Now unto the merging of “non-dominant” cultures and science:

First, I share the negative feelings of the Vietnamese visitors of the Children’s Discovery Museum (CDM) about the use of Chinese cloth hats to replace straw Vietnamese hats.  If CDM is trying to make an exhibit using Vietnamese cultural items, it should not incorporate other Asian elements into the exhibit as being Vietnamese, or without a proper explanation of the differences in origin.  “Vietnamese” is not synonymous with “Chinese,” or “Asian,” or any of the other East Asian cultures.  If the distinctions are not made, then the dominant group (CDM staff) is assuming that Asian cultures are alike, and it is easy to exchange between them.  While there is no problem including more than one (Asian) culture, the Vietnamese visitors are right: there needs to be a respectful distinction between cultures that may become confused by groups not familiar with them; otherwise, the institution ends up diminishing Vietnamese culture to a stereotypical Asian culture.

It is respect and open-mindedness that are most important in the pursuit to approach non-dominant cultures with Western science.  There are tensions and histories between dominant (formerly imperialist) Western white culture and the non-dominant cultures.  As I mentioned above, the grouping of geographical areas is not fair to different ethnic groups; while Latino cultures may share common characteristics, they are also unique.  To think otherwise would be similar to saying a Frenchman must wear lederhosen just because he’s Western European, except neither group has historically been oppressed.  The textbook groups people on several occasions, and whether it is for simplicity’s sake or ignorance, I cannot tell; for example, “…museum staff recognized how little they knew about both the Latino and Asian communities…” (pp 129).

Despite this, I seem to like the outreach to Native American communities.  For one, the book recognizes the fact their are different tribes/groups within the overall community; “…to be most effective, learning environments must be connected and relevant to each particular Native American tribe” (pp. 32).

Also, in the activity itself, it seems that the particular tribe’s traditions are incorporated with science; the program has the two complement each other, and while being science-based, incorporates the traditional spiritual elements.  For instance,

…the group huddled in a circle, recited a prayer in their language, and held hands while making an offering of tobacco… the youth are learning that this is the respectful way to proceed before picking plants.  By practicing this tradition, students learn that they have a reciprocal relationship with Mother Earth and that they should take only what they need (pp. 133).

By using the tribe’s traditions with science, the learners’ culture is respected, and not treated inferior to Western science, which is important if Western scientists and educators would like to spread their knowledge without being imperialist.

Chapter 7 in Surrounded by Science talks about closing the gaps between the values, beliefs and practices of particular cultures and communities and the values and practices that are embodies in Western science. It was interesting to learn about the challenges that informal environments face in trying to be accessible to all people. There are social, economic, ethnic, cultural and historical factors that influence the types of access and opportunities that informal environments  provide to learners.

The chapter focuses on the challenge it is to reach and incorporate members of traditionally underrepresented groups. The chapter states that these are the challenges of engaging nondominant groups in sciences that are demonstrated in studies: inadequate science instruction exists in most elementary schools, especially those serving children in low income and rural areas; girls often do not identify strongly with science or science careers; students from nondominant groups perform lower on standardized measures of science achievements than their peers; although the number of individuals with disabilities pursuing postsecondary education has increased, few pursue academic careers in science or engineering; and learning science can be especially challenging for all learners because of the specialized language involved. I never really thought about all these challenges or how one learning environment may not be equitable to all people that it caters to. It is not enough to expose individuals form a nondominant group to the same environment because that environment may be designed with the dominant culture in mind. This shows that greater consideration is needed when designing such learning environments, with cultural and contextual issues taken into account.

I liked how in the chapter discussed that in order to achieve equity a connection between home and community cultures of diverse groups to science is needed. There needs to be a connection between the life of the learner and science so that they can get the most out of the experience and so that the learning experience can provide a meaningful experience. The chapter discusses the affect of the lack of diverse staff and lack of culturally relevant content in environments has on underrepresented groups, which is that they do not feel welcome or comfortable in those environments.

In an effort to make these environments better for nondominant groups, dialogue between designers of the learning environments and the communities and people that the place targets is necessary and important as discussed in the chapter.  I enjoyed reading about the Children’s Discovery Museum in San Jose, California. It was interesting to learn about how they tried to make an exhibit that reflected the growing Vietnamese population. It took into account the opinions and ideas of the Vietnamese community as it designed the exhibit and continued to make improvements to the exhibit as more feedback came in. It even discovered a difference between first generation Vietnamese members and subsequent generations. They learned that first generation members valued their cultural tradition and liked sharing their memories of life and traditions in Vietnam while the younger generations seem less tied to Vietnamese customs and have limited reading and writing abilities. This was an example of the value of drawing participants’ cultural practices to design informal learning settings by using everyday language, linguistic practices and cultural experiences. The chapter then talks about “universal design,” the practice of accommodating all visitors regardless of their ability levels, which tends to make designed learning spaces accessible all.

It was also fascinating to learn about the hardships that institutions face in trying to implement practices that will make it more accessible to people. There are costs for translations, proofing and production. There are decisions needed to made about what languages and cultures to include when designing an exhibit. However, one solution was offered in the reading for electronic labels to be used to display multiple languages and offer even more detailed information when called for. This may be an expensive solution, however, it would address and solve some challenges that occur when creating an exhibit.

Overall, it was interesting to learn that informal learning settings should be designed in a way that takes into account the interests and concerns of the community that it is catering to. There must be considerations for variation in beliefs, values and norms of social interaction like different family structures and gender roles.  This can be done by listening to and incorporating ideas from educators and community members which the environment will serve. These types of settings should also incorporate the “cultural variability of social structures”, which should be reflected in the educational design.

One of the things I love about science is its inherent neutrality. It’s a process that anyone, anyone at all can participate in. All levels of learning, at any age, with any identity – all science cares about is your willingness to work and your willingness to learn. Chapter 7 was excellent in making me consider how ideas of equity are applied in science learning settings. I do see how museums try to appeal to multiple demographics. They may try to add accomodations for sense-disabled people, or have interactive exhibits. Museums – or just informal places of learning, in general – are supposed to be a sort of communal gathering to take place in scientific or humanities oriented education.

The issue for me is the association some people have with museums. The key issue is a perceived sense of exclusivity. To some, museums are only open to anyone in theory – in reality, they’re really for people with some background in the area of interest for the exhibition, as those people have something to gain.

That being said, I did like reading about methods to incorporate multiple demographics – drawing of cultural practices , developing multi-cultural labels, and building relationships with the community. Of the three, the strongest method was the last one. Museums, when they become not just an exhibit, or an exclusive place of learning, but an actual part of the community, with outreach programs and exhibits tailored to the community – they can truly become equitable. That connection allows for a dynamism of presentation and contribution that is valuable to both parties, as visitors feel empowered to contribute and museums have a stronger method of educating.

In chapter seven of “Surrounded by Science”, the topic is equity in learning about science. For members of non-dominant cultures, places of learning, like museums and libraries, may not cater to them, and smaller demographics in general. Many people may not feel comfortable in these places, and therefore not take advantage of them. There are some very simple solutions, like adding signs in multiple languages, and creating exhibits that are hands on and interactive.

I definitely understand the need to ensure that different groups of society can enjoy a public learning center such as a museum. A museum is supposed to welcome in an audience that is excited to learn and provide the means for proper learning. But I wonder how adequate a picture this chapter is giving us.

I don’t mean to be a skeptic, but as a museum-goer in New York City, you can hear about a million and one languages being spoken in any museum in the city on any given day. Museums in NYC are tourist spots, and the lack of proper signage or specific exhibits created for one culture does not seem to inhibit people from all over the world enjoying their visits. I think this chapter was focusing on the minutiae, and not looking at the big picture. People from all over the world enjoy museums, even if the museum is not tailor made to their learning preferences. I think museums can be, and should be, places of learning regardless of the dominant culture. It is interesting to read about and to consider, but in practicality, I don’t think it is an issue.

Equal education and opportunities was the main focus on this chapter. I come from a highly underprivileged background, with both of my parents not going to college or having enough money to support my academic needs. I completely understand the point that those with money have the opportunities to advance further. However, there is also the argument that you can only go as far as your mind lets you. If you are smart enough and have the motivation you can still get far. You will not have as many doors open, but you still have the chance to go far in life. Education and learning experiences should not be taken away from those of a certain race, class, or disability.

The chapter was also about catering towards the needs of these non-dominating groups. Since there is a gap between education and these groups, it is important to bridge these gaps by finding these needs. Some example are making making special ethnic programs,  free events, disability accessible locations. I believe that these programs not only bring the underreppresented community closer, but also allows for progress in the community as a whole as it encourages a greater congregation of ideas and learning.

After reading Chapter 7 of Surrounded by Science, which focused on promoting equity in science learning, especially in informal settings, I found myself thinking about how I’ve seen museums doing their best to appeal to all audiences, regardless of their culture, socioeconomic background, or disability. For example, the American Museum of Natural History has a suggested admission fee (meaning that you can pay whatever you want, even just one dollar), which definitely makes it more accessible to people of all different kinds of socioeconomic backgrounds. However, I feel like not a lot of people are aware that this museum has a suggested admissions fee, so I always try to spread the word about this amazing opportunity. I’ve also noticed that most exhibits are accessible to people with different disabilities, which makes me extremely happy that any problems with inaccessibility are being addressed and that everyone has a chance to completely experience an exhibit. This chapter made me think of the ramp in the dinosaur exhibit in the Museum of Natural History, which allows those in wheelchairs to see the room from the same angle as those without a physical disability.

I really liked that the educators and designers whose job it was to address the problems of inequality in science learning turned to the people who knew how it felt like to be excluded from programs, activities, and exhibits that may have been geared toward middle-class whites. Instead of trying to solve the problem on their own, they went directly to the source, like the Children’s Discovery Museum’s Vietnamese Audience Development Initiative team did when they worked with the Vietnamese community. It was a symbiotic relationship between the two communities since the Vietnamese Audience Development Initiative team was working hard to appeal to the Vietnamese community while the Vietnamese community was providing the team with both positive and negative feedback so that the exhibit could ultimately improve. The same applies to the both the Museum of Science in Boston working with people who had disabilities and the Native Science Field Center working with Blackfeet tribal communities.

Overall, I think that taking steps in order to include nondominant groups in science learning is a top priority in the science education field. If everyone is to have an equal learning experience, then there need to be no obstacles at all for any member of any audience. Science is universal, so why can’t science learning be universal as well?

I enjoyed reading this chapter because I feel it hit a point that many of us neglect inadvertently when we think about science or education, or most topics for that matter. This chapter discussed trying to make science learning environments, specifically museums, more compatible for those who are not of the dominant culture. A lot of people that are not of the dominant white culture in America do not feel comfortable going to a museum for several reasons. There may be a language barrier that would almost ensure that if such a person went to a museum, he or she wouldn’t be able to learn anything. There may be a cultural discrepancy in the learning environment. For example, the chapter discussed how in Vietnamese culture, learning and play are considered two completely separate entities (124). Going to a museum would not be an enjoyable outing because in their minds, it would be going to a boring place where they would have to learn science in a mundane fashion.

The chapter discussed 3 steps by which one would create a more compatible experience for those who come from nondominant cultures: Draw on cultural practices of the learners, Develop bi- or multi-cultural labels, and build relationships with the community (129). It is important to remember that simply changing the label of an exhibit from English and adding another 2 or 3 languages to it does not make a museum more cultured and tailored to other nondominant cultures. One would have to do some research and understand what it is that draws, for example, the Vietnamese into their museums. In some cases it might require hiring someone from the native culture who understands what will make the museum more compatible for people of his culture. For example, the Children’s Diversity Museum (CDM) added an exhibit about the Vietnamese round boat, a staple of Vietnamese culture (124). This exhibit naturally caught the attention of many Vietnamese visiting CDM because it made them feel at home and perhaps even surprised them that the museum had knowledge of this boat. One visitor remarked, “The round boat reminds me of the area where I used to live in Vietnam. This kind of boat is popular in the middle of the country. In the mornings, I used to walk to the beach to see the fish, shrimps, or crabs unloaded from these boats. The bamboo, the pulley, and the rice sieve on the wall all remind me of the good times in Vietnam” (124). I thought this was a great example of drawing the culture of the people and making them feel remembered.

Naturally, I think there are many challenges. It is not cheap to go out and try to make specific exhibits for people of different cultures, and it also brings into question which cultures you want to tailor your museum to. I think it is also difficult to do this without making the people feel like subjects. It is difficult to make evoke a genuine response out of people because I think most people would be suspicious that this is just being done for the sake of money. Lastly, I do not think this will be commonly practiced because of the society we live in. Nowadays, it is difficult to do something like this because even if you have the right intentions, it has to be something that will have a high reward and I think the highest reward will always come from tailoring to the dominant culture, not the nondomninant ones.

This week’s chapter from Surrounded by Science was particularly interesting because I have always wondered how museums accommodate the communities that surround them. In class, we have discussed how museums can sometimes give the general public a sense of exclusivity that feels inaccessible. What I never really considered was how museums could be accessible to those with disabilities. I’ve only really thought about cultural differences but those with disabilities who are often marginalized need to feel included at the museum as well.

I liked reading about the culturally relevant exhibits for people with disabilities. Using focus groups seemed like a brilliant idea that could really improve the museum experience for those who were disabled. My favorite part of the article was the paragraph about the focus group with members who had various disabilities who were all knowledgable about very specific topics that could contribute to the improvement of the museum. The discussion on the shortcomings of the exhibit was useful as well because it helped the museum improve further.

In regard to the cultural aspects of museum exhibits, I was curious about whether true collaboration could ever be achieved. It seemed as though no matter what the museum did, there was always something wrong with the exhibit. Whether it came off as condescending or ignorant, people had a lot to say about the way the exhibit was executed. Truthfully, I would think that true collaboration is impossible. There is so much that goes into each individual culture that no museum curator would ever be able to fully incorporate every nuance into an exhibit. That being said, the community outreach being done by museums is a very positive step towards better accommodating the surrounding communities. Even if they can’t attain perfection, the idea that museums are going through the effort to reach out is important and I’m sure the communities appreciate it. Awareness of cultural differences in a public domain is the first step towards change for the better.