Editorial pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
A New Chemistry Education Research Frontier Brittany N. Christian and Ellen J. Yezierski* Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 45056, United States ABSTRACT: Chemistry education research (CER) has predominately focused on enhancing learning and instruction in classrooms. However, a host of unexplored research opportunities in informal learning environments can contribute to more effective communication of chemistry to the public. The current lack of chemistry-centered materials in informal science is beginning to change, thus, creating key questions about how learning occurs in these unique, unstructured, and dynamic environments. Science centers are one particular area of focus for informal learning. How to best incorporate chemistry in museum environments as well as how chemistry learning is best facilitated in museums are open areas of investigation. CER in informal environments can use similar theory and methods as CER in formal settings to explore various dimensions of chemistry learning. KEYWORDS: Public Understanding, General Public, Graduate Education/Research, Chemical Education Research
O
learner. The freedom provides a unique environment for learners while creating distinct challenges for examining learning in informal environments.12 The informal science education community frequently evaluates science learning from exhibitions in five main areas: (i) Knowledge, (ii) Engagement, (iii) Attitude, (iv) Behavior, and (v) Skills.13 These areas overlap with established research agendas in CER present in formal education (Figure 1). While
ne initiative of ACS President Bassam Shakhashiri this year has been to effectively communicate science to the public. As chemistry’s representation in informal science increases, key questions arise about chemistry learning in these out-of-school environments. Historically, chemistry education research (CER) has focused primarily on formal classroom environments and has, with a few exceptions, neglected the study of chemistry learning in informal sectors. The National Research Council’s report on informal science learning environments1 highlights that people spend the majority of their time in informal (nonschool) learning environments. Furthermore, while the primary focus of academic institutions is on gaining knowledge, learning in informal arenas is unstructured and expands beyond knowledge acquisition to include developing awareness, motivation, and interest. By researching learning in informal science environments, more insight can be gained about the process of lifelong science learning. Informal science learning can be present in many forms, such as in watching television and movies, as well as reading books, magazines, and newspapers.2 Science centers are one type of informal learning environment that is expanding nationwide.3 Unfortunately, compared to the other major sciences, chemistry is underrepresented within the informal learning sectors, including science centers.4−7 The relatively lower number of chemistry-focused exhibits may be in part due to concerns with safety, supply costs, and the need for a knowledgeable facilitator to conduct demonstrations.6 Another barrier is the public’s commonly negative outlook of chemistry such that the term chemical is often synonymous with toxicity.5,7,8 Furthermore, exhibit design poses difficulties in displaying chemical representations that seamlessly connect macroscopic to submicroscopic domains.7 For exhibits and programs addressing chemistry, there is still a great deal to be explored and understood in these free-choice learning environments. Freechoice learning is directed by the individual’s unique interests and intrinsic needs, and is voluntary.10,11 What sets free-choice learning distinctly apart from learning in a classroom is that it is not predetermined or assigned by someone other than the © 2012 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Figure 1. Overlap between the five areas of impact for informal science learning and chemistry education research areas.
knowledge gains have been a prominent focus for CER, there has also been substantial interest in understanding students’ changes in attitude14 and measuring long-term effects on changing students’ behavior, especially in reference to environmental issues through green chemistry initiatives.15 Furthermore, several approaches to chemistry instruction strive at increasing the level of student engagement and interest16 and increasing students’ inquiry17 and technological skills.18 CER expertise and previous research provide a strong foundation for studying chemistry learning outside of the classroom. Published: September 18, 2012 1337
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300629y | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1337−1339
Journal of Chemical Education
Editorial
appropriate instruments for CER in informal sectors provides even more opportunities for basic research and development carried out by scholars with CER expertise. As an example, we created an instrument28 and carried out a study blending formal and informal environments to understand the learning outcomes and attitudinal effects of a physical and chemical change exhibit.29 Reciprocally, applied research findings from this study yielded recommendations to improve chemistry exhibit design. Ideally, CER scholars could make the foray into informal chemistry education by collaborating with scholars with expertise in museum studies, curators and program directors at science centers and museums, and informal science evaluators. These collaborations would not only open the doors to a new laboratory for CER scholars, but also improve the knowledge base on chemistry learning in museums and science centers to increase the number and quality of chemistry learning experiences outside of the classroom.
In the past decade, research within the area of informal science learning has begun to increase quickly.2 However, questions remain about how learning, specifically about chemistry, occurs in these unique, unstructured, and dynamic environments. How to best incorporate chemistry in museum environments as well as how chemistry learning is best facilitated in museums are open areas of investigation. Chemistry education researchers can make valuable contributions because of having strong disciplinary backgrounds in addition to expertise in education research methods. Informal science environments are underexplored, yet have great potential for CER that simultaneously investigates human learning and promotes practices that advance the public perception of chemistry. For the work to benefit CER as a discipline as well as informal science education, it is crucial that informal CER begins at the intersections of the two fields. The potential for rigorous and transformative research and applications is great because of the commonalities among theory, methods, and support. Learning theory that plays a central role in CER may also be tantamount to CER carried out in science centers. The contextual model of learning (CML) proposed by Falk and Dierking is a framework that characterizes free-choice learning in the context of an individual’s personal, sociocultural, and physical contexts.19 This model has much in common with learning theories frequently employed in CER, such as constructivism; however, the CML incorporates how learning is mediated by the unique social, physical, and free-choice dimensions characterized by science centers and museums. It provides a theoretical starting point for the study of chemistry learning in spaces outside of the classroom. The CML also is a foundation for the development of new theories to explain how visitors experience chemical phenomena in museums and what helps or hinders chemistry learning in such settings. Common methods employed in CER are regularly used in the evaluation of museum exhibits and programs. Readers will notice these methods are in published works in journals highlighting informal science education, such as Visitor Studies, a journal devoted to out-of-school environments, as well as appearing in the International Journal of Science Education (e.g., refs 20, 21) and Science Education (e.g., refs 22, 23). Moreover, the crossover of chemistry and informal science centers has been published in this Journal.6,9,24−26 Interviews, surveys, and observation are among the common approaches to collecting data on the quality of exhibits from the perspective of the visitor. Rather than evaluation, data generated in CER experiments could be used to answer questions about how visitors understand chemistry and how participants’ learning outcomes may be attributed to interactions with exhibits. In addition to commonalities among theory and methods, informal CER could be supported by federal grants in the same tradition as CER. The National Science Foundation program known as Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL), formerly Informal Science Education,27 “invests in research and development of innovative and field-advancing out-ofschool STEM learning and emerging STEM learning environments.” AISL supports moderate- to large-scale informal science research and implementation and calls for a specific content focus. Why not chemistry? CER scholars can form mutually beneficial relationships with science centers. The science center provides a novel lab for CER, and CER scholars can conduct basic and applied research on informal chemistry learning. The significant need for
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
■
REFERENCES
(1) National Research Council (NRC). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2009. (2) Dierking, L.; Falk, J.; Rennie, L.; Anderson, D.; Ellenbogen, K. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2003, 40, 108−111, DOI: 10.1002/tea.10066. (3) Association of Science Technology Centers (ASTC). About Science Centers. http://www.astc.org/sciencecenters/index.htm (accessed Sep 2012). (4) Zare, R. Where’s the Chemistry in Science Museums? J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, A198−A199; DOI: 10.1021/ed073pA198. (5) Stocklmayer, S.; Gilbert, J. Informal Chemical Education. In Chemical Education: Towards Research-Based Practice; Gilbert, J. K., et al., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; pp143−164. (6) Silberman, R.; Trautmann, C.; Merkel, S. Chemistry at a Science Museum J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 51−53; DOI: 10.1021/ed081p51. (7) Masciangiolo, T. Chemistry in Primetime and Online: Communicating Chemistry in Informal Environments; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2011. (8) Evans, D. A. Chem. Int. 2006, 28 (4), 12−15. (9) Domenici, V. The Role of Chemistry Museums in Chemical Education for Students and the General Public: A Case Study from Italy J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 1365−1367; DOI: 10.1021/ed085p1365. (10) Falk, J. H. Free-Choice Science Learning: Framing the Discussion. In Free-Choice Science Education: How We Learn Science Outside of School; Falk, J. H., Donovan, E., Woods, R., Eds.; Teachers College Press: New York, 2001; pp 3−20. (11) Falk, J. H.; Dierking, L. D. Lessons Without Limits; AltaMira Press: Lanham, MD, 2002. (12) Fenichel, M.; Schweingruber, H. A. Surrounded by Science: Learning in Informal Environments; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2010. (13) Allen, S. Chapter 5: Evaluating Exhibitions. In Framework for Evaluating Impacts of Informal Science Education Projects; Friedman, A., Ed.; National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 2008; pp 45−59. http://insci.org/resources/Eval_Framework.pdf (accessed Sep 2012). (14) Bauer, C. F. Attitude toward Chemistry: A Semantic Differential Instrument for Assessing Curriculum Impacts J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 1440−1445; DOI: 10.1021/ed085p1440. 1338
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300629y | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1337−1339
Journal of Chemical Education
Editorial
(15) Karpudewan, M.; Ismail, Z.; Roth, W. M. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2012, 13, 120−127; DOI: 10.1039/c1rp90066h. (16) Vaino, K.; Holbrook, J.; Rannikmae, M. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2012, Advance Article; DOI: 10.1039/C2RP20045G. (17) Bruck, L. B.; Towns, M. H. Preparing Students To Benefit from Inquiry-Based Activities in the Chemistry Laboratory: Guidelines and Suggestions J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 820−822; DOI: 10.1021/ ed086p820. (18) Nakhleh, M.; Polles, J.; Malina, E. Learning Chemistry in a Laboratory Environment. In Chemical Education: Towards ResearchBased Practice; Gilbert, J. K., et al., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2003; pp 69−94. (19) Falk, J. H.; Dierking, L. D. Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning; AltaMira Press: Lanham, MD, 2000. (20) Stavrova, O.; Urhahne, D. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2010, 32, 2291−2310. (21) Hohenstein, J.; Tran, L. U. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2007, 29, 1557− 1580. (22) Falk, J.; Storksdieck, M. Sci. Educ. 2005, 89, 744−778. (23) Dohn, N. B. Sci. Educ. 2011, 95, 337−357. (24) Calascibetta, F.; Campanella, L.; Favero, G.; Nicoletti, L. An Aquarium as a Means for the Interdisciplinary Teaching of Chemistry J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1311−1313; DOI: 10.1021/ed077p1311. (25) Ucko, D.; Schreiner, R.; Shakhashiri, B. An Exhibition on Everyday Chemistry: Communicating Chemistry to the Public J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 1081−1086; DOI: 10.1021/ed063p1081. (26) Meissner, B.; Bogner, F. Enriching Students’ Education Using Interactive Workstations at a Salt Mine Turned Science Center J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 510−515; DOI: 10.1021/ed1006103. (27) National Science Foundation. Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL). http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ. jsp?pims_id=504793 (accessed Sep 2012). (28) Christian, B.; Yezierski, E. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2012, 13, 384−393; DOI: 10.1039/C2RP20041D. (29) Christian, B. Improving Outcomes at Science Museums: Blending Formal and Informal Environments to Evaluate a Chemical and Physical Change Exhibit. M.S. Thesis, Miami University, Oxford, OH, 2012.
1339
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed300629y | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1337−1339
