As someone interested in research, I honestly find the phrasing of “informal learning environments” to be a ridiculous label. For one, as each of these articles demonstrated, there is considerable planning and structure placed on experiences in museums and other places of learning. For example, Andre et al. (2017) mention how children’s museums, “realized that, in using child-centered approaches, they had overlooked the critical role of adults as members of the learning group…” (p. 58), indicating how museums intentionally structure both exhibits and experiences for students. Additionally, while each of these articles frame the learning as taking place “not-in-school,” all the articles had components that directly tied science learning to schools or required efforts from teachers and schools to either facilitate access or enhance learning. Therefore, I very much appreciated Braund and Reiss’ (2006) usage of the term, “out-of-school” because really what each article was getting at was that context matters in how students learn science.
Braund and Reiss (2006) discussed lowering the barriers between “real-life world” and “school science” (p. 1374). In making this argument, they state how student spend a lot of time outside school, school science is overall less interesting and authentic, and out-of-school contexts provide excellent additions to any science learning experience. I personally think Griffin (1998) would agree with this sentiment as they describe museums as, “ideal settings for active, contemplative learning” (p. 656), a rhetorical move that I take to mean schools are not “ideal” for those things. While I tend to agree with everything laid out about the benefits of learning in out-of-school contexts in the articles, I am left pondering two things: how out-of-school contexts are actually different from school besides the physical place and how limiting it is to think about out-of-school being something connected to an organization.
Throughout their articles, Braund and Reiss (2006) and Griffin (1998) outline benefits of learning in out-of-school contexts. Ultimately, outside of “access to rare material” (p. 1376), I could not think of one thing that would be different between the entities described in the articles and school. Again, which is why I appreciate the framing as “out-of-school” contexts because Braund and Reiss (2006) mention doing things such as launching rockets or viewing the night sky, two things that could happen in school, just not in a classroom. This is really why I think understanding these contexts as museums and organizations as being extremely limited because it pushes the idea that learning only happens in “s formal” structures and that teachers are incapable of facilitating engaging learning (a thing mentioned as a plus of informal environments). In my opinion, there is a wealth of opportunity for learning and breaking down the barriers between real world life and school science by simply leaving a classroom. As a teacher, having my students study the biodiversity of their community (Brownsville) which is seen as desolate by many of them, was powerful in showing them how much life lives around them. Allowing them to design experiments that required the use of different spaces around the school was also a way to move class outside the science room or even having them do experiments at home too. Science happens all around, not just in formalized spaces with “experts.”
The view of out-of-school being in a separate organization not called a school is limiting because of access. This is something often overlooked in my opinion when thinking about field trips. Some schools, just like some students, do not have the money or time or resources to go to a separate place to learn science. To me this is also an important question to think about when understanding out-of-school contexts because some students, contrary to what was mentioned, do spend most of their time at school and therefore, schools might be their only chance to get to enter formal out-of-school contexts. Yet, even then, I worry because these spaces are often places of privilege. For example, I took students to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the entire time my students were literally stalked by security. When I would show them a painting and we would talk about it, any time my students got closer to the painting than me, we were reprimanded. In the NYC Museum of Natural History, the same thing occurred. Griffin (1998) mentioned needing to orient students to the venue, for some students this means orienting towards a hostile environment. While it is valuable to take them to these places, I found it even more powerful to take my students to a local community garden or their local rec center rather than into white spaces that made them uncomfortable. Therefore, while these articles laid an excellent groundwork to think about informal contexts in learning, I believe attending to issues of power and privilege and what that means for learning in these spaces is extremely important to think about.
As I was reading your post, JD, you had some points and perspectives on the readings I had not previously considered. The idea that I found most intersting that you brought up in your post was access in informal learning environments. You first mention the potential financial burden of going on field trips, which I admit is a huge consideration since some schools may not have the funds, even with school discounts, to go to museums. In that case, I think it is important to look at other, non-museum, informal learning environments that are free but can still can aid students in learning about the classroom content. Examples that come to mind are parks, botany gardens, and having community members come into the classroom with technology or resources they use in their job. These out-of-school experiences, or bringing “the outside in”, can still aid students in learning about the science content they are discussing in class while not breaking the bank . The idea of privilege and power, which you also mention, was one that also intrigued me as I was reading your post. I am curious to know if other teachers and students experienced what you did at the two museums you visited, or if it was just with your students and why that would be the case. I wonder if you think that experience could potentially be due to some museums – such as art museums with more “valuable” exhibits – being stricter with their security than those that allow students to touch and play with the exhibits, such as the Please Touch Museum and the Franklin Institute. Whatever the reason, power and privilege in regards to informal learning experiences, or out-of-school experiences, is one that I am interested in would like to hear more of your thoughts about this week when we discuss it in this week’s lesson!
JD (I’m pretty sure its you), you raise some great questions about the boundaries between formal and informal learning in your post. I think that one way in which “formal” and “informal” learning environments differ is that in formal schooling, student learning is measured over time and exists in a day-to-day schedule, while informal learning environments (specifically museums, nature centers, etc.), are only visited occasionally and are generally considered “special” occasions for students. Because of this rarity, we get the idea of increased interest and motivation, mentioned by the articles. As we have seen with our discussion of learning theories, the physical space/environment/context is a key player in learning, so maybe the fact that informal learning environments differ in context is a significant difference in itself– just a thought!
This post really helped to clarify some swirling thoughts I had about informal learning, and defining what it means to learn informally, and whether this is just a form of formal (sans four walls). When you discussed the investigation of biodiversity in Brownsville, and how making use of the environment that the students have at their immediate disposal I am ultimately reminded of place based learning, and, how making use of the lived experience that students have in their immediate community both legitimises their own experiences and allows for a low cost, relevant place to pose questions, study phenomena and bring science to life for many students who do not have access to museums.
In reading about informal learning environments, I am left wondering what we can gain from them that is not merely just the argument that ‘formal schooling fails to create authenticity’, instead of offering alternative contexts to learning, should we be looking at how to make formal learning in schools more authentic and RELEVANT to the students who participate within them?
One possible solution with regard to access is to have museums/programs come to the schools. I know several people that make a living by going to schools to do wildlife programs which are usually integrated as part of something that the students are working on in their science classes.