Reference Publications

Formally clearing the air: A response to Simmons and colleagues

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

We are pleased that some of our readers have taken the opportunity to respond to our January 1998 editorial on informal education. Open discussion of critical issues in mathematics and science education among our membership is critical to our organization.

We have chosen to respond to the comments offered by Simmons and colleagues by reprinting appropriate excerpts (which have been numbered) from the original editorial. We have taken this approach for two reasons: First, it is more efficient in terms of journal space than an elaboration of new prose to address each of the concerns and comments. Second, and more importantly, virtually every concern, comment, and assertion offered by Simmons and colleagues had already been addressed in the original editorial and was either misrepresented or misunderstood in their response.

Please read each of the excerpts carefully with respect to each of the concerns and comments voiced by Simmons and colleagues. Naturally, we strongly encourage you to read the original editorial so that you may discern whether the removal of our excerpted items from context has in any way changed their original meaning.

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.

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.

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.

It is important to realize that informal educators are doing the best they can within the constraints imposed by the nature of exhibits and informal settings. The Exploratorium in San Francisco has long recognized the limitations of stand-alone exhibits and developed an extensive docent program. However, this is an exception to the general rule within the world of informal education. We need to recognize that exhibits ARE NOT replacements for experienced teachers.

To be fair, we must acknowledge that there are some practical (or should we say business/financial) considerations limiting exhibit design as well. Informal settings, such as those we have mentioned, need to appeal to a wide audience. Most do not have the luxury of focusing on a particular segment of the population. Doing so would limit use and attendance, which would defeat the purpose of the museum, zoo, nature center, etc. There are children's museums, but even these settings must appeal to a wide range of ages and abilities within the category of what is considered a child. In short, informal educators have the unenviable task of trying to develop educational experiences for all, without the ability to attend to specific ages, abilities, or many of the other factors shown to be critically important by research on teaching and learning.

It seems that the recent efforts of informal educators (if published evaluation and research reports are any indication of what is occurring in the field) have not been informed by the volumes of research on teaching and learning in mathematics and science. The published evaluation and research reports continue to focus on the quest for the "perfect" exhibit or, more appropriately, the Holy Grail.

So what are we saying? Are informal settings too restricted to play a significant role in the vision of the educational reforms? Should museums, zoos, planetariums, and nature centers return to a mandate of being a cultural opportunity that some members of our society will be able to experience? We think not. We believe that informal educational settings can significantly improve the quality of mathematics and science education by assisting teachers and students to achieve the goals stated in the various educational reforms.