Table of contents:
Introduction
Aims and Purposes
The primary purpose of the Center for Informal Learning and
Schools (CILS) is to strengthen the learning of K–12
science, mathematics, and technology. This aim will be achieved
through undertaking research, consisting of both theoretical
and empirical studies on informal learning, by improving professional
practice in informal settings, and by increasing interactions
between formal systems of education and informal science institutions.
Our work seeks to explore the nature of informal learning
in a diversity of linguistic and cultural contexts and the
appropriate instructional practices that might support such
learning. In particular, we are interested in the contribution
that informal learning might make to formal learning.
Our interest lies, therefore, in museums, science centers,
families, and schools as sites of informal learning. In addition,
another major aim of our work is to train and prepare the
next generation of leaders in the field, either as researchers
who will investigate the nature of informal learning, or as
individuals who will become senior figures in science centers
and museums. Our works seeks to build on the body of research
that already exists, developing our understanding of how and
when informal learning occurs.
The significant features of informal learning that distinguish
it from formal learning are that learners choose, control,
and collaborate in their own learning. Thus it builds on the
learners’ and their partners’ interests with purpose
or curiosity; and it provides freedom to determine and share
both the goals and the means of any learning activity. Moreover,
given the growing diversity, importance, and means of informal
science communication, formal science education is increasingly
drawn to the nature, principles, and practices of informal
learning.
CILS researchers, doctoral and postdoctoral students are,
therefore, examining the ways in which such informal learning
processes and structures could enhance the learning of science
and mathematics.
CILS’ vision of informal learning is that it is more
than a set of unstructured ephemeral experiences outside of
school. Rather, we believe that informal learning has a major
and growing educational role in contemporary society in a
growing number of contexts. Informal learning can offer experiences
both within and out of school that enable learners to develop
a deeper understanding of disciplinary content; recognize
and comprehend the nature of scientific inquiry; appreciate
the value of everyday understanding of science and mathematics;
and provide unique and stimulating learning experiences that
are informed by expert practitioners.
Addressing such aims requires an examination and exploration
of the relationships between formal and informal learning
contexts from social, cultural, cognitive, epistemic, and
policy perspectives.
What are the major themes
of the CILS research?
CILS’ focus on existing practice and the design of interventions
to promote more effective use of informal settings is concentrated
on four overarching and interconnected themes:
- the means and structures of participating in informal
learning
- the use of explanation, communication, and discourse
in informal contexts in a range of settings
- the organizational structures, policies and agencies
of those engaged in informal learning and their implications
for practice
- learning environments and their design
These strands of theoretical and empirical research will,
we hope, inform what is intended to be a major outcome of
CILS, a better knowledge of the design of informal learning
environments that will incorporate our best thinking and will
promote student learning about science, mathematics, and technology.
CILS intends to use knowledge generated about informal learning
to strengthen its role and value in formal institutions, as
well as to better understand the complex nature of learning
that occurs in schools.
How will this work be approached?
The researchers engaged in this work bring a variety of conceptual
lenses, all of which will serve to illuminate different aspects
of the research tasks we have set for ourselves. These include
exploring the nature of learners’ activity and conversation;
the epistemic commitments and assumptions that give rise to
current practices and approaches; the development of communities
of practice in which individuals, educators, teachers, and
students work together to understand the nature of scientific
endeavor; and the institutional and cultural traditions that
shape the nature of people’s engagements with informal
learning.
CILS
Research Themes
1. The Means and Structures of Participation in Informal
Learning
The research on participation examines how social interaction
is sequenced and organized in recognizable patterns, such
as how turns to speak are regulated, or how collaborative
learning is orchestrated. For example, a structure that is
common in schooling is for the teacher to manage and control
the opportunities for student talk. Commonly the teacher will
initiate dialogue with a question to elicit a student response
which, in turn, is followed by an evaluative response from
the teacher. The cycle then repeats and the interaction is
solely between teacher and the student with little opportunity
for student-student interaction. However, there is a large
body of research that shows the authoritarian nature and structure
of such discourse limits the role and value of dialogue in
the learning of science.
Our belief is that the practice of science education in classrooms
would be enriched by alternative models of participation.
For instance, the structure of interaction commonly seen in
a variety of informal learning scenarios is much more conversational,
permitting student initiated questions and the critical evaluation
of argument. Such a form of discourse is encouraged by apprenticeships,
inquiry in and around exhibits, collaborative problem solving,
and “intent participation.” In the latter, experienced
people play a guiding role, encouraging learners’ involvement.
Often they participate alongside learners—for example,
a mother showing her child how to cook, or a parent helping
an adolescent learn how to drive. In such situations, the
learner takes the initiative in learning and contributes to
a shared endeavor of importance to their social group, sometimes
offering leadership in the process. Intent participation involves
learning information or skills in the service of accomplishing
socially valued goals such as learning to use a new computer
program in order to create a classroom newspaper desired by
the class.
Our theoretical focus and interest in such "structures
of participation" also encompasses the ways in which
forms of participation and learning become institutionalized
in the structures and procedures of groups such as families,
museum educators, and other "communities of practice."
Moreover, we are interested in how these forms of participation
embody historical, cultural, and epistemic practices of communities.
Thus research here may examine the structures that facilitate
informal learning in diverse communities, the nature of users’
interactions with exhibits, and the structures that facilitate
collaborative educational partnerships between schools and
other communities [Example 1]. Those researching participation
may also examine how interventions in the structure of participation
affect learner motivation in informal settings.
|  Example
1
A pressing issue that faces science and math
education in the schools is how to reach the growing
proportion of students whose families have little history
of schooling. Currently, about 70 percent of the students
in the 100 biggest school districts in the US are African
American, Latino, and Native American children, and
their families often have relatively little history
of schooling. The science and math curriculum is often
especially inaccessible to these students.
Research indicates that attention to the participation
structures of informal learning can help to engage these
students (and the others too!) in science and math,
developing their interest and expertise. Many of the
students, coming from communities where schooling has
not been prevalent, have experience and great success
in learning situations that are structured informally.
One key aspect of a successful structure is a collaborative
arrangement between adults and children, where children
are expected to contribute to the direction of an activity
in which adults are involved as well. Another aspect
is having a clear purpose for the activity that is valued
(or even chosen) by the children, with clear steps to
the goal for all participants. These features of informal
learning involve a structure of participation that contrasts
with the formats that often prevail in schools, but
some schools employ informal structures, with success
for students of color as well as mainstream students.
CILS research examines contrasting structures of participation
that are traditional in schools as well as those in
other institutions and in communities where schooling
has not been prevalent.
|
This focus on "participation" enables the advancement
of a principal concern that underpins much CILS research—that
is an analysis of the highly flexible and contingent forms
of interaction that arise within informal learning of individuals,
classrooms, groups, institutions, and organizations, and its
contribution to learning. In addition, we are interested in
how practical interventions in these institutions and organizations
serve to preserve or initiate particular patterns.
Finally, this particular lens of participation also enables
important structural investigations. With the goal that the
design of exhibits and informal learning environments engage
or interest a greater range of social groups, studies could
consider how more design approaches might be developed.
2. Explanation, Communication,
Discourse
Research has begun to tie the learning of science and mathematics
to the nature of the discourse, both in and out of classrooms.
From this perspective, language is an essential tool for creating
scientific explanations, arguments, narratives, metaphors,
and analogies. Through language and discourse people explore
and convey scientific and mathematical ideas. When learners
engage in constructing and communicating explanations, whether
they be scientific claims, mathematical conjectures, theories,
interpretations, or representations, they are forced to externalize,
clarify, and restructure their knowledge. It is this process
that stimulates individuals’ understandings and presents
opportunities for learning.
For these reasons CILS’ research includes studies of
the role of explanatory conversations between individuals
(e.g., parents-children, children-children) in out-of-school
settings to investigate the developmental processes in scientific
understanding. The rich and complex settings offered by out-of-school
contexts enable us to examine the manner in which argument
and explanation are enabled, and scaffolded, by peers, exhibits,
and technology. Another focus of interest here is the potential
of narrative as a mode of communicating science in both formal
and informal contexts.
By examining the nature of conversations and explanations—and
the ways in which those are constructed and communicated—we
hope to develop an understanding of the impact on learning
of particular forms of discourse. In addition, we hope to
learn how exhibits, texts, and scientific and historical artifacts
can promote discourse and shared engagement. A fundamental
premise in looking at forms of discourse is that small, everyday
social interactions accumulate to greater consequences for
learning about science and mathematics.
Hence, by studying what is explained, by whom, to whom—that
is, in what ways, under what circumstances, and with what
evidence—we hope to gain deeper insights and understanding
of the potential of informal contexts to promote learning.
In particular, we are interested in what permits, or inhibits,
particular types of conversations to occur within different
contexts and institutions.
| Example
2
Many informal science institutions offer discourse-based
events for their visitors. My research interest lies
in the delivery and benefit of these programs for learning.
Relying on the research that has been used to promote
science understandings through discussion and argumentation
within the school classroom structure, what kind of
learning and engagement do these programs develop for
the individuals and families that visit? This research
plans to examine ways in which discussion-based activities
(stand-alone or added to existing activities) enhance
programs in informal science institutions and how this
may improve science learning.
|
3. Systems and Structures
That Support Informal Learning
Our study here is on organizational systems and structures
of informal science institutions. While schools and informal
science institutions are both educational institutions, they
have different pasts, organizational structures, management
practices, histories, and traditions. This third focus seeks
to investigate the political landscapes, decision-making processes,
leadership models, and everyday practices that prevail in
informal museums, aquaria, and science centers, as well as
in after-school programs, community organizations, and families.
Understanding how to make an informal science institution
a learning organization both for itself and for schools requires
an examination of the belief systems, policies, institutional
relationships, and mechanisms that exist in informal learning
systems and K–12 institutions. Essential questions include
what kind of learning is valued and what is the conceptualization
of learning itself? How do they differ between and within
institutions?
Answers will hopefully reveal the values that underlie decisions
of both the institutions that arrange, manage, and evaluate
learning, and the people who interact with learners. The insights
gained will enable us to identify those practices that support
learning.
Improvement in K–12 instruction also requires understanding
the processes of organizational change and making explicit
those structures to a diversity of stakeholders (teachers,
administrators, funders, voters, legislatures)—in particular,
the forms and models that successfully enable innovative designs,
robust learning, and effective instruction to occur. The process
also requires identifying the principles and characteristics
of such programs and practices. In addition, the political
and economic issues that surround decision-making about opportunities
and environments for children’s learning are key aspects
for investigation here and, in turn, the promotion of effective
learning organizations and partnerships.
| Example
3
Museums, science centers, and schools are quite
obviously very different kinds of places. Uniting these
established institutions in a common purpose is not
particularly easy. Each “world” has developed
its own ways of doing things, and outsiders may not
comprehend those practices. Museums employ educators
who serve as liaisons with schools. If the museum is
a “community of practice,” that is, a group
of individuals engaged in a joint enterprise who share
a repertoire of ways of doing things, have a common
understanding of the nature of their work, and together
have an identity as belonging to the museum world, then
the job of these museum educators is to broker interaction
between the two worlds. This study will carry out a
limited ethnographic study of museum educators—that
is, observe and participate in their work for an extended
time (several months at least). In particular, the study
is interested in the brokering function, as well as
what are termed “boundary objects,”—that
is artifacts (such as exhibits) that are particularly
effective in helping to bridge the gap between schools
and museums.
This research will be collaborative; that is, it will
work with museum educators to answer questions they
might have about their work with schools. Very often
busy people have little time to reflect and think critically
about their work, and participating in this research
will provide them that space. The overall purpose of
the study is to add to our understanding of ways in
which schools and museums can work together.
|
4. Learning Environments and
Their Design
In the 1999 National Academy of Science’s report How
People Learn, substantial attention was paid to the importance
of the implicit and explicit design of learning environments.
Drawing on the expertise of the CILS partners and using the
research themes, we are examining the designs for learning
in informal science institutions for science and mathematics.
In addition, we hope to explore intentional and experimental
interventions that may lead to effective change.
Learning environment design looks at creating "usable
knowledge"—knowledge that can inform the design
of educational innovations and, as a corollary, improve educational
practice. Our inquiry here is tied to a "theory of action"
that sees research about practice as a process conducted for,
by, and with practitioners, in a partnership that involves
researchers and practitioners working closely on the same
learning problem in the same setting.
Our work here will explore the design of information, new
media designs, exhibits, curricular materials, simulations,
and other representations and learning tools. For example,
why does a learner’s conception of science phenomena
(such as how a light bulb works) change when the information
is represented by a photograph versus a schematic drawing?
Design of learning environments also examines the design of
effective inquiry-based activities and professional development
programs that might support rich, epistemic understanding
of science and mathematics.
A goal is to generalize the results of research that takes
place in one context for use in new contexts, whether from
that of a museum to that of a school, or from one classroom
to multiple school classrooms. Our aim is to help understand
how innovative designs for education can help us develop better
theories of learning and better educational practice.
In approaching this work, we will explore different spatial
and temporal arrangements for exhibits, instructional formats,
and modes of interaction. Our interest lies in the relationships
that may or may not exist between the design of assessment,
opportunities to learn, and the development of an individual’s
understanding and skills.
| Example
4
My work examines the nature of social interaction
and talk that occurs between students and Explainers
within Investigate—the hands-on gallery in The
Natural History Museum, London. My particular focus
is on the support provided by the Explainers for scientific
reasoning and reflective discourse in a space that while
rich in stimuli, scientific tools, and reference materials,
offers little in the way of structured guidance.
To support the development of scientific reasoning,
I am working with the Explainers on a series of interventions
designed to help students to adopt scientific practices
and construct scientific explanations. The interventionist
strategy follows a design-based research methodology
whereby Explainers are encouraged to develop and refine
interventions to their existing practice whilst evaluating
the impact on the students’ behavior. My research
thus articulates CILS view of research as a partnership
between researcher and practitioner in order to improve
educational practice.
This research also resonates with the theme of "participation"
in that the analysis of the Explainer-student discourse,
before and after the practical interventions, will serve
to describe the types of interaction that arise within
informal learning institutions, and thus highlight particular
patterns that foster learning.
|
Summary
To conclude, the work of CILS researchers, doctoral and postdoctoral
students, is a unique opportunity to participate in a cross-institutional
research program supported by a partnership of faculty, researchers,
practitioners, scientists, artisans, and other CILS participants
who endeavor to understand how informal science institutions
can support and improve K–12 schooling and schools.
We hope the outcomes of our work will be research that contributes
to the following:
- improved informal learning in informal settings
- more informal learning in formal settings
- improved use of formalized learning in informal settings
|
