ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

Hi Alan,  

Your comments and suggestions got me to thinking and my remarks are tangential but related.  We all want things to be better, for people to be engaged with science (understanding the natural world) and capable of critical thinking because we generally know this leads to successful understanding and capable manipulation of the world.  It's a very advantageous outcome.  Additionally, people, generally desire to feel like they're doing good and helping one another (this is a repeatable finding across hundreds of thousands of people).

So I ask a simple question, how might "Strands" other than cognitive ones be measured and assessed?  And as a follow up, suppose they were measured, but had little correlation with cognitive one's?  Ultimately, isn't it the cognitive ones that count? 

A very brief glance through a few references on the NRC document suggests a pretty narrow spectrum of research and many references to books and a focused range of authors rather than broad peer-reviewed publications with repeated verifiable evidence with testable hypotheses.  As well as a whole graveyard of failed and discarded theories.  Science builds upon and depends upon discrediting theory and overthrowing belief and assertion.

Then there's a whole realm of behavioral economics, social and eusocial biology, and cognitive psychology which is seldom included in any of these documents as best I can tell.   Such articles frequently appear in broadly read mainstream scientific publications like Science and Nature. 

In my limited experience people reference Lev Vygotsky in the same breadth with Piaget (though their views were in conflict) and neglect the work of Gopnick, which is more recent, evidenced based and speaks of a different developmental path.  This is not to argue that one is right over the other, or that insights weren't had early on, but more that the subject and field is complex and young.  

Additionally people have been learning for millions of years, it predates us as a species, and ~99.9999% has been informal.  It's universal and inescapable human drive. We're great at copying, imitating, and stealing good ideas, inventing, etc.  Our brains are frequently most active when we're doing nothing but daydreaming or sleeping.  Evolution––our biology––takes great care of ensuring that we're all pretty close in capabilities and socially we're always looking for that one extra advantage that typically, and surprisingly results in a great deal of social equity over the long run.  It's hard to claim that a social institution developed over the past couple of hundred years has revolutionized human behaviors and is essential for learning.

There's lots of movement towards home schooling and nonstandard education in today's society and culture, and it's possible to have two schools with very opposing teaching methods turning out excellent students.

There are many, many ways to achieve the same goals.  As I recall Mark St. John, once suggested that science museums were like infrastructural components of a society, like libraries and could we imagine living in a society without them?  Well, I seldom go to the physical library anymore instead we have an entire world library I access through the internet, and that fact has caused local libraries to change and appeal to new audiences and uses.

We ought to focus on the key features, that increase and promote the use of scientific experiments and the inclusion of critical thinking in social behaviors (which are intrinsically fun), and less time worrying about whether or not we've been included in programmatic documents. The documents change every few years, and are typically subject to large social factors and economic demands.  

And as a closing argument, I observe that our Maker's Faire is upcoming, it attracts the same general population, focuses on the similar topical areas and attracts at about the same visitation frequency of about once a year and turns a profit (I think), and there's not lots of worry and focus about justification and impact, nor educational claims and very popular and an informal learning environment.  Very much like the Exploratorium back in the day (with the exception of the profit part).

Clearly, economic survivability is a struggle and institutional necessity but it shouldn't obscure our vision, nor should science be used to justify its nature.

Hopefully, this is food for useful thought and comment.

Charlie




On May 6, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Alan Friedman wrote:

> ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
> Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
> *****************************************************************************
> 
> RE:  Common Core Standards for Science
> 
> As I read the documents, one aspect of the next generation science
> standards framework is that, like the last generation of science
> standards, it does not pay attention to any of the NRC's 6 strands of
> learning (LSIE, 2009) except the cognitive ones.  Interest, attitude, and
> other strands where ISE can have big positive impacts are not in the
> framework, so they will not be included in the standards themselves, and
> they will not appear in the high-stakes assessments which follow.
> 
> I'd love to hear that this reading is wrong, and also I'd love to hear if
> anyone has a strategy for countering this ongoing shortsighted view of how
> learning happens.
> 
> Alan
> ________________________________________
> Alan J. Friedman, Ph.D.
> Consultant for Museum Development and Science Communication
> 29 West 10th Street
> New York, New York 10011 USA
> T  +1 917 882-6671
> E   [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> W www.FriedmanConsults.com <http://www.friedmanconsults.com/>
> 
> a member of The Museum Group
> www.museumgroup.com <http://www.museumgroup.com/>
> 
> 
>>> 
> 
> ***********************************************************************
> For information about the Association of Science-Technology Centers and the Informal Science Education Network please visit www.astc.org.
> 
> Check out the latest case studies and reviews on ExhibitFiles at www.exhibitfiles.org.
> 
> The ISEN-ASTC-L email list is powered by LISTSERVR software from L-Soft. To learn more, visit
> http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html.
> 
> To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
> message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
> [log in to unmask]

The opinions and thoughts expressed here are my own and should in no way be construed or attributed to the Exploratorium or related organization, and do not represent an institutional position.
Charles Carlson
Senior Scientist
exploratorium
3601 Lyon St.
San Francisco, CA 94123
[log in to unmask]
Tel:   415-561-0319
Fax:  415-561-0370
http://blogs.exploratorium.edu/whyintercept/









***********************************************************************
For information about the Association of Science-Technology Centers and the Informal Science Education Network please visit www.astc.org.

Check out the latest case studies and reviews on ExhibitFiles at www.exhibitfiles.org.

The ISEN-ASTC-L email list is powered by LISTSERVR software from L-Soft. To learn more, visit
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html.

To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]