Science+Education

All three articles are set in informal settings. We thought it would be fun to explore frameworks used outside of the classroom.

Roth, W.-M. and Eijck, M. V. (2010), Fullness of life as minimal unit: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning across the life span. Science Education, 94: 1027–1048. ** Abstract ** Challenged by a National Science Foundation–funded conference, 2020 Vision: The Next Generation of STEM Learning Research, in which participants were asked to recognize science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning as lifelong, life-wide, and life-deep, we draw upon 20 years of research across the lifespan to propose a new way of thinking about and investigating the topic. We propose //Fullness of Life// (or //Total Life//) as the minimal unit of analysis that allows people generally and researchers specifically to make sense of cognition. This move reverses traditional perspectives: Rather than understanding life from the position of STEM activities, we understand STEM learning from the perspective of life taken as a whole. We propose three attendant concepts that do not focus on stable knowledge content but on (a) the ability to mobilize and augment knowledge (knowledge//ability//), (b) the necessity to develop the disposition of the //débrouillard/e// and bricoleur, and (c) the necessity to conceive knowledge//ability// as //collective// property, outcome of //collective// praxis. We conclude by commenting on five dimensions suggested as need requirements for implementing a 2020 vision for STEM learning research.

Gutwill, J. P. and Allen, S. (2010), Facilitating family group inquiry at science museum exhibits. Science Education, 94: 710–742. ** Abstract ** We describe a study of programs to deepen families' scientific inquiry practices in a science museum setting. The programs incorporated research-based learning principles from formal and informal educational environments. In a randomized experimental design, two versions of the programs, called //inquiry games//, were compared to two control conditions. Inquiry behaviors were videotaped and compared at pretest and posttest exhibits. Family members were also interviewed about their perceptions and use of the inquiry games. Results indicated that visitors who learned the inquiry games improved their inquiry more than those who did not. Effect sizes ranged from 0.3σ to 0.7σ, depending on the assessment measure. Visitors who learned the collaborative inquiry game showed even more improvement than those who learned the individualized game, spending more time investigating the posttest exhibit, making more frequent and more abstract interpretations of their experiments, building more collaborative explanations, and engaging in more coherent inquiry investigations than controls. Qualitative analysis suggested that the collaborative inquiry game was superior because it required all family members to participate, work together, and explicitly articulate their interpretations. Visitors in all conditions enjoyed their experience, varied in what they liked and disliked, and reported applying what they had learned at new exhibits.

Zimmerman, H. T., Reeve, S. and Bell, P. (2010), Family sense-making practices in science center conversations. Science Education, 94: 478–505. ** Abstract ** In this paper, we examine the interactional ways that families make meaning from biological exhibits during a visit to an interactive science center. To understand the museum visits from the perspectives of the families, we use ethnographic and discourse analytic methods, including pre- and positivist interviews, videotaped observations of the museum visits, and coding and analysis of utterances from naturally occurring conversations. We employ an Everyday Expertise framework to understand how families use ideas and materials to make meaning from the scientific content presented in exhibits. We argue that individual and cognitive aspects of learning are fundamentally connected to the social and cultural aspects of learning; therefore, we analyze the intertwining role of individual cognitive resources, situated activities, and cultural toolkit resources that support learning interactions and processes. Findings indicate how families use a variety of knowledge types (epistemic resources) to make sense of exhibit content, how they make sense of biological content by transferring cultural epistemic resources from prior experiences, and how families use two types of scientific epistemic resources—biological facts and perceptual descriptions—as the primary means to make sense of biological exhibits.