How informed are informal educators?

School Science and Mathematics, Jan 1998 by Lederman, Norman G, Niess, Margaret L

The current reforms in both mathematics and science education emphasize the importance of learning in informal settings. The view, in particular, is that achievement of the visions set forth by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards, National Science Education Standards, and Project 2061 are not the sole responsibility of K-12 teachers and schools. Rather, the improvement of mathematics and science teaching and learning is the concern of all members and aspects of our society: the private sector, government, local communities, parents, teachers, school administrators, etc. Within this realm of responsible stakeholders are community resources such as museums, aquariums, planetariums, zoos, environmental centers, parks and other venues commonly labeled "informal settings." Informal settings have always had a mission that is at least partially educational, but the current reform efforts are clearly depending upon these resources to play a more significant role.

Informal education has been defined in a variety of ways, but it commonly refers to the learning that takes place in other than formal school settings. Some, however, choose to include all learning occurring outside of classrooms, whether intentionally facilitated or occurring by chance, under the rubric of informal education. With respect to the visions of the mathematics and science reforms, it is our belief that informal education must include planned and purposeful attempts to facilitate students' understanding of mathematics and science in community settings other than the local school.

Informal educators are those individuals responsible for the educational programs, regardless of how extensive, at the various informal settings found in communities across our nation. The education curator at Paul Jensen's Arctic Museum in Monmouth, Oregon, is as much an informal educator as the director of educational programs for the Smithsonian Institution. Although informal educators may be former K-12 teachers, they are more typically educated in museum studies or subject matter specialties. Nevertheless, informal educators have been thrust into a more prominent role with respect to the education of our nation's youth in mathematics and science.

We are all aware of the long history that museums and other informal settings have as educational resources. However, it has only been recently that informal educators have begun the task of systematically evaluating the educational effectiveness of the experiences they present to visitors. By "educational effectiveness" we are referring to cognitive outcomes, as opposed to the affective outcomes of popularity and positive attitudes. Traditionally, informal educators have assessed their educational offerings with surveys that amount to little more than popularity measures. Although the promotion of positive attitudes and popularity is probably a good predictor of an individual's tendency to return to a particular informal setting, educators have known for several decades that positive attitudes are not consistently related to achievement of cognitive outcomes at an educationally meaningful magnitude. Informal educators (i.e., primarily those at museums, aquariums, and zoos) have recognized this problem and have recently been assessing the quality of exhibits and/or experiences in terms of a variety of variables believed to be related to the achievement of cognitive outcomes.

In particular, much attention has been given to exhibit-related variables such as frequency of visits, length of time at an exhibit, interactive level, quality and nature of explanatory text, quality and nature of questions posed, and novelty effect. Most published research and evaluation studies have attempted to derive correlations between the aforementioned variables and student learning, in the hopes that future exhibit design can be informed by empirical data. More "ambitious" investigations have attempted to compare the educational effectiveness of programs not involving informal settings with those that do. Unfortunately, these investigations are too simplistic and result in little more than the knowledge that students achieve more if they are given more time to study a topic.

Although informal educators should be applauded for their recognition of the importance of evaluation, we have some serious concerns about the usefulness of the research agendas currently being pursued. In our opinion, the overriding quest for the "perfect" exhibit is simply a modem-day pursuit of the all-too-familiar "teacher-proof curriculum." We say "exhibit" because most of the published research has been performed in zoos, aquariums, and museums.

No matter how interactive exhibits are made, they remain relatively static and sterile when compared to instruction by an experienced teacher, in or out of the classroom. In particular, an exhibit cannot interact with students in a flexible and meaningful manner as an experienced teacher can. At best, exhibits can pose questions or tasks and react, in a programmed fashion, to individuals' responses. The highly prized human interactions that characterize effective teaching are simply not present. Furthermore, there is no opportunity for instructional follow-up on possible learning, whether it be days or even hours later. Even the research on effective museum exhibits clearly shows that the best exhibits are those that engage parents and their children in conversations about subject matter. In essence, the exhibit is capitalizing on an interactive, interpersonal teaching situation.