Category Archives: Theory and Frameworks

Schools out…forever!

Posted on by | 1 Reply

The semester is ending, and as I will be graduating the end of next week, it’s finally sinking in that my time in grad school is coming to a close. The final copy of my dissertation was handed in at the end of the last month, and ever since I have been considering what types of publications I would like to work on while transitioning back in the real world.

Deciding on publications is really more tricky than it seems. I’m trying to find opportunities that reflect my approach as both a researcher and an educator. Of course, my choices will be job dependent (a matter I am still diligently working on) due to time and project constraints, however I have been thinking about writing articles that both highlight the theory I generated around docents in science museum settings, and are able to communicate the practical implications for the field. Myself and Michelle are considering an article together that links our two pieces of work (mine on existing docent practice, hers on training methods), and myself and Susan on interpretation in museums. Both will be equally interesting to pursue. I’d particularly like to write something that is useful to informal science education settings, in terms of docent preparation and interpretive strategies in museum, as I am an advocate for promoting the visibility of free choice learning research to those that develop programming in the field. Just like scientist engagement in education and outreach is an important part of science education, as researchers we are also part of a community that should attempt to engage the free choice learning field in educational research. Outreach works both ways.

What’s interesting about this process is trying to work out which journals are also most fruitful to pursue. I was encouraged by both my committee to attempt to publish in the Journal of Interpretation (National Association for Interpretation), but I have also been thinking about Current (National Marine Educators Association), American Educational Research Journal (American Educational Research Association) and Visitor Studies (Visitor Studies Association), but there are a lot more to consider. It’s a little overwhelming, but also exciting. For me, this is where the rubber hits the road – the avenues where the outcomes of my work can become part of the larger free choice learning community.

Encouraging Communities of Practice

Posted on by | Leave a reply

Over the last couple of months, we’ve been reading about communities of practice (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) for our Friday theory meetings. In that time, I have been busy with Project SEAL. The Model Classroom Team and I were going out to the schools to check in on the teachers and hear about their projects. There are some wonderful teachers doing wonderful projects with their students. Teachers and students are creating a thought-provoking, interactive play space, learning about beach pollution and its impact on the environment, and building a school garden.

While it was exciting to hear about how teachers and students were using the iPad minis available with the grant and to see differences students were making in their school environment, there was something that seemed to be mentioned in each meeting: the teachers needed a community. A community to share and learn within. A community where they could figure out which apps to download, how to download them, and how to use them. A community to collaborate with.

Having this experience came at a great time with reading the book. All of a sudden, I had a framework in which to think about communities of practice. Something that I’ve struggled with as the evaluator of Project SEAL is how I (and the project team) can encourage teachers to develop a community of practice without it seeming like a top-down approach.

To help me think my problem through, I turn to the part in the book about the challenge of distributed communities. Project SEAL is a distributed community – teachers are at 9 different schools throughout Lincoln County. We have a webpage, where teachers post assignments and can find resources, but as the authors write,

“Members cannot see how many other people are reading – and benefiting from – a threaded discussion. Unlike in-person meetings, teleconferences and Web sites don’t offer easy opportunities for informal networking. Because of these barriers, it takes more intentional effort for members to consult the community for help, spontaneously share ideas, or network with other members” (p. 117).

I think the key word there is easy. It can be done but needs to be encouraged and supported. As an evaluator I would recommend the project team, including the Model Classroom Team, to act as coordinators and facilitators on the Web site “to shepherd the process of connecting, passing on the request to people in the network who are likely to have helpful information or insight… Once they have found each other, members talk by phone, in person, via email, or through the community bulletin board…” (p. 127).

Hopefully, we can help build a community of practice over the second year of the project.

 

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

P-PhD (post-PhD): Now what?

Posted on by | Leave a reply

I finished the edits and all the various fee-paying and archiving that come along with completing a dissertation. My transcript finally reflects that I completed all the requirements … so now what? I have a research position waiting for me to start in July, but as I alluded to before, what exactly do I research?

In some ways, the possibilities are wide open. I can stick with visualizations, sure, and expand on that into animations, or continue with the in situ work in the musem. I may try to do that with the new camera system at HMSC as a remote data collector, as there is not a nearby spherical system of which I am aware in my new position.

I could also start to examine modeling, a subject that I danced around a bit during the dissertation (I had to write a preliminary exam question on how it related to my dissertation topic). Modeling, simulation, and representation is big in the Next Generation Science Standards, so there’s likely money there.

Another topic of interest dovetails with Laia’s work on public trust and Katie Woollven’s work with nature of science, broader questions of what is meant by “science literacy” and just why science is pushed so hard by proponents of education. I want to know how, when, and most importantly, why, adults search for scientific information. By understanding why people seek information, we can better understand what problems exist in accessing the types of information they need and focus our efforts. A component of this research also could explore identity of non-professionals as scientists or as capable consumers of academic science information.

Finally, I want to know how all this push toward outreach and especially toward asking professional scientists to be involved in or at least fund outreach around their work impacts their professional lives. What do scientists get out of this emphasis on outreach, if anything? I imagine there are a range of responses, from sheer aggravation and resentment to pure joy at getting to share their work. Hopefully there exists a middle ground where researchers recognize the value and even want to participate to some extent in outreach but are frustrated by feeling ill-equipped to do so. That’s where my bread and butter is – in helping them out through designing experiences, training them to help, or delivering the outreach myself, while building in research questions to advance the field at the same time.

Either way, it’s exciting! I hope to be able to blog here from time to time in the future as my work and the lab allows, though I will be officially done at OSU before my next turn to post on my research work. Thanks for listening.

Where does science come from?

Posted on by | 1 Reply

As I work towards a coherent research question for my dissertation, I find myself challenging assumptions that I never dealt with before. One is that visitors trust the science that is being presented in museums. There is lots of talk about learning science, public understanding of science, public engagement, etc., but trust is frequently glossed over. When we ask someone what they learned from an exhibit, we don’t also ask them how reliable they feel the information is. Much like the various fields of science, there is an assumption that what is being presented is accurate and unbiased in the eyes of the visitor.

In accordance with this, it is also frequently assumed that visitors know the difference between good science, bad science, pseudo science, not science, science in fiction, and science fiction; and that this is reflected in their visitor experiences in science museums. Especially in the internet age, where anyone can freely and widely distribute their thoughts and opinions and agendas, how do people build their understanding of science, and how do these various avenues of information impact trust in science? Media sources have been exposed in scandals where false “science” was disseminated. Various groups deliberately distort information to suit their purposes. In this melee of information and misinformation, are science centers still viewed as reliable sources of science information by the public?

Metal and culture

Posted on by | Leave a reply

This post will be a light one, as most of my waking—and non-waking—hours are now occupied by a very small person who emerged from my wife recently. This very small person falls asleep when I play a certain type of music at a low volume, which got me thinking.

What makes a thing or circumstance “metal?” I’m not referring to metal in the material sense, but in the cultural and aesthetic sense. “Metal” as in “Slayer,” not “metal” as in “aluminum.” It’s a tough question I often amuse myself with, but it does have some relevance to my work as I wait to collect data.

The target audience for my game project is adult tabletop gamers, and I’ve observed a significant overlap between the tabletop gamer/metalhead communities of practice. I think it has something to do with an affinity for dragons and medieval imagery, but that’s conjecture on my part. I’m a very enthusiastic but somewhat peripheral participant in both areas.

I’ve found difficulty identifying the exact criteria used to determine if something is metal, but it’s fairly easy to reach consensus as to what is or is not metal. It would be easy to say it’s a subjective assessment, but this doesn’t appear to be the case. The criteria are difficult to pin down, but there’s a high degree of intersubjectivity here nonetheless. This is what intrigues me.

“Metalness” is a valuable—if not strictly necessary—aesthetic attribute to a large potential audience segment for my work. Ian Christe’s “Sound of the Beast” is a good primer on metal music and culture. Sam Dunn has done some work on metal as a cultural force and musical form, constructing a handy “heavy metal family tree” and several documentaries:

Aquarist Sid defined it rather succinctly: “Metal is black. Metal is contrast.” He elaborated that contrariness is an important aspect of a thing’s metalness. Volunteer coordinator Becca noted the importance of pain, while her husband cited common elements like death, depression, long hair, distorted guitars, double bass drum work and “long Scandinavian winters.”

What do you think? How would you define metal, musically and aesthetically? Can you give an example? What purpose do metal and its meanings serve to the audience(s)?

Let’s talk.

The discourse of the many “literacies”

Posted on by | 1 Reply

Hello everyone,

In the light of this week’s lab discussions on defining the many “literacies” there are and search for perhaps a more appropriated term (such as the the term “fluency” suggested by Katie Stofer), I would like to stretch the debate to discuss Environmental Literacy (EL) in particular. So, since I wasn’t in lab this week, here is my two cents on the literary definitions of the term:

Generally, a “desired outcome” of environmental education (EE) is to create a public that is environmentally literate (whatever that means). Many EE programs and materials have this as a stated purpose. However, the definitions and measurement tools of environmental literacy (EL) has remained elusive. Some national surveys have been conducted that attempt to measure literacy of the general public. A few states have attempted to periodically survey their citizenry to gather EL data. While these are important attempts, I believe that many of the questions asked in the instruments used still lack in accurately measuring some “degree” of EL as defined in their proposals. Further, I believe that these important instruments fail to account for cultural and educational system differences and don’t always take into consideration accepted benchmarks for EE.

As the term “literacy” first appeared, it was solely associated with the idea of being able to read and write. Michaels & O’Connor (1990) attempted to provide a better understanding of the concept, proposing that “… we each have, and indeed fail to have, many different literacies. Each of these literacies is an integration of ways of thinking, talking, interacting, and valuing, in addition to reading and writing … [literacy] is rather about ways of being in the world and ways of making meaning…” 

Dinsinger & Roth (1992), in their Environmental Literacy Digest, gave credit to Charles E. Roth as the one who coined the term “environmental literacy” in 1968. They reviewed various definitions of EL, and suggested that it should be based on an ecological paradigm, which includes interrelationships between natural and social systems. A person who is environmentally literate relates his/her values with knowledge to generate action. Here is a brief list of EL definitions given by various authors and organizations since then (some referring to it as Ecological literacy), and that highlight the complexity of such discourse:

“[EL] is the capacity of an individual to act successfully in daily life on a broad understanding of how people and societies relate to each other and to natural systems, and how they might do so sustainably. This requires sufficient awareness, knowledge, skills and attitudes to incorporate appropriate environmental considerations into daily decisions about consumption, lifestyle, career, and civics, and to engage in individual and collective action.” ( Elder, 2003) 

 “Ecological Literacy presumes a breadth of experience with healthy natural systems… a broad understanding of how people and societies relate to each other and to natural systems and how they might do so sustainably… the knowledge necessary to comprehend interrelatedness… an attitude of care or stewardship… in a phrase, it is that quality of mind that seeks out connections… Ecological Literacy is driven by the sense of wonder, the sheer delight in being alive in a beautiful, mysterious, bountiful world… to become ecologically literate, one must certainly be able to read… to know what is countable and what is not… to think broadly, to know something of what is hitched to what… to see things in their wholeness… to know the vital signs of the planet… to know that our health, well-being, and ultimately our survival depend on working with, not against, natural forces…” (Orr, 1992) 

“EL is a set of understandings, skills, attitudes, and habits of mind that empowers individuals to relate to their environment in a positive fashion, and to take day-to-day and long term actions to maintain or restore sustainable relationships with other people and the biosphere … The essence of EL is the way we respond to the questions we learn to ask about our world and our relationship with it; the ways we seek and find answers to those questions; and the ways we use the answers we have found.” (Roth, 2002) 

 “Ecological Literacy is the ability to ask: And now what?” (Garret, 1999) 

“EL should aim to develop:  

  • Knowledge of ecological and social systems, drawing upon disciplines of natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities; 
  • Go beyond biological and physical phenomena to consider social, economic, political, technological, cultural, historic, moral, and aesthetic aspects of environmental issues; 
  • Recognize that the understanding of feelings, values, attitudes, and perception at the center of environmental issues are essential to analyze and resolve these issues; 
  • Critical thinking and problem-solving skills for personal decisions and public action.” (Dinsinger & Monroe, 1994) 

“EL should aim for: 

  • Developing inquiry, investigative, and analytical skills; 
  • Acquiring knowledge of environmental processes and human systems; 
  • Developing skills for understanding and addressing environmental issues; 
  • Practicing personal and civic responsibility for environmental decisions.” (NAAEE, 1999; Archie, 2003) 

 

Even though all of the definitions above have some common attributes, based wholly or in part on the AKASA (awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills and action) components listed in the Tbilisi declaration, some different aspects and considerations are arrived at through different perspectives:

Orr and Elder’s definitions are very similar (Orr uses the term “ecological literacy” instead of “environmental literacy”). However, Orr clearly emphasizes the importance of intrinsic values and abstract feelings, as do Dinsinger and Monroe. Dinsinger and Monroe, as well as NPEEE, mention “interdisciplinary” in their definitions; The NPEEE standards and others do not include the latest thoughts and advances in EE, such as notions of sustainability, or even locally-based educational issues. Roth takes these notions into consideration when implying the necessity to understand changes. The NAAEE definition refers not only to personal action but also goes further to mention “civic” obligation.

The question about what Environmental Literacy is and what it should approach at its core are still far from being answered in a common agreement between scientists and practitioners in the field. Morrone et al (2001) reaffirm that the study of environmental literacy is relatively new, and no definition has been given to it that is universally accepted, and consequently the attributes of an environmentally literate citizen are still subject to discussion and investigation. However, what has been discussed so far in the literature, and in the thousands of meetings of the “real world of practicing Environmental Education”, are very important for the understanding of what environmental literacy should be aiming for, even if a widely accepted definition is never agreed upon.

 

Sorry for the long post if you are interested in the literature cited here visit the link and you can see my entire thesis.

http://www.iowadnr.gov/portals/idnr/uploads/REAP/files/literacy_thesis.pdf

If you are interested, my next post can be about the applied research in environmental literacy.

Hope I didn’t bore to death with this. To me is still a fascinating subject.

Thanks!

Susan