Gina's Comments on the Falk et al.

For this week, I read the article titled, "Investigating public science interest and understanding: evidence for the importance of free-choice learning," by Falk et al. In general the authors argue that there are many "places and contexts" in which people learn about science, i.e., the workplace, museums, science centers, school, civic organizations, etc. These places known as "leisure science learning" locations are the context in which the public engages in science, but the authors are more concerned with the intrinsic motivations of why, where, how and with whom this type of learning occurs (p456.). They focus on an asset based approach of science learning stating,

"This approach suggests that free choice science learning - the learning that individuals engage in throughout their lives when they have the opportunity to choose what, where, when and with whom, to learn - can and does make a significant contribution to public understanding of science" (p456).

Further, the author’s state,

"For if we are to communicate and teach about science effectively, we should do so in a language and a form that people are willing to listen to, which means knowing where people tend to learn about science, why they pay attention to the topic in the first place, and how they stay engaged in science throughout their lifetimes" (p457).

The authors present some interesting points and raise some interesting questions, but it's in their methodology and results that I feel uncomfortable with their statements. Their first survey is a self-report survey asking participants to rate their "interest in science and technology" and their "knowledge of science and technology." Their second survey assessed people's use of community resources for learning science. Their results show that people report a “very high interest in science and technology,” and a “moderate to slightly greater than moderate knowledge of science and technology” (p459). The authors contend that,

“While school classes or courses, and thus formal education, played a significant role as sources of science and technology learning, free-choice learning opportunities, in the aggregate, seemed to be a more important resource for lifelong science learning than school” (p461).

The important factor to remember is that these surveys are self-reporting. What does learning mean to you? How do we define having “learned”something? How much interest in S&T do you have? How much knowledge of S&T do you have? The authors state that their approach is an alternative to the science indicator tests, which we have previously discussed in class. Clearly, the science indicators have their limitations, but so too does this approach in this paper. Anyone can self-report learning some science, but how do you know if they actually learned, or took away a general scientific understanding? How many people would openly, and honestly, admit that they have “no knowledge of S&T?”

On the other hand, just as the contextualist approach was an alternative (or addition) to the science indicators, this “assets based” approach is an attempt to understand the public’s view of their own understanding and interest in science rather than the science or researcher top down approach. The author’s write, “We would argue that the key to future success in public science education depends upon achieving a more accurate understanding of the where, when, how, why, and with whom of the public’s science learning, across their lifespan and the myriad settings in which they learn science” (464). Their point emphasizes that it does not matter if they learned something or not by scientific standards, but that the public believes that these particular locations with these specific people, etc, are a conducive environment to learn science. Is it possible that the museum is not the preferred location?

Food for thought! =)