Learning Science in Informal Contexts – Epistemological Perspectives and Paradigms

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 24)

Abstract

The term “learning” means different things to different people. There is not a single comprehensive definition of learning in the field of science education or in other disciplines. Rather different definitions and views suit different contexts, worldviews, and research questions. Definitions of learning are strongly aligned with researcher paradigms, embedded in their ontology (belief about the nature of truth and reality) and epistemology (belief about how knowledge comes into being). What one believes about the nature of truth and the nature of knowledge are key influences on one’s definition of learning and what counts as learning in the museum or in any other context. Moreover, values are embedded within paradigm and epistemological stance, thus what one values profoundly shapes and influences how one sees the world. This is particularly true of educators and researchers, since what one values about learning and knowledge profoundly influences the way in which education is practiced and the aspects of learning that become the focus of research studies. This is the case in the field of informal science education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allen, S., Gutwill, J., Perry, D. L., Garibay, C., Ellenbogen, K. M., Heimlich, J. E., et al. (2007). Research in museums: Coping with complexity. In J. H. Falk, L. D. Dierking, & S. Foutz (Eds.), In principle, in practice: Museums as learning institutions (pp. 229–245). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, D. (1999). The development of science concepts emergent from science museum and post-visit activity experiences: Students’ construction of knowledge. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2007). Predators of knowledge construction: Interpreting students’ metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Science Education, 91, 298–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ash, D. (2003). Dialogic inquiry in life science conversations of family groups in a museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 138–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits (Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments). Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  7. Borun, M., Dritsas, J., Johnson, J. I., Peter, N. E., Wagner, K. F., Fadigan, K., et al. (1998). Family learning in museums: The PISEC perspective. Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Briseno, A., Anderson, D., & Anderson, A. (2007). Adult learning experience from an aquarium visit: The role of social interaction in family groups. Curator, 50, 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Jipson, J., Galco, J., Topping, K., & Shrager, J. (2001). Shared scientific thinking in everyday parent-child activity. Science Education, 85, 712–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crowley, K., & Jacobs, M. (2002). Building islands of expertise in everyday family activity. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 333–356). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Ellenbogen, K. M. (2002). Museums in family life: An ethnographic case study. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations: Explanation and identity in museums (pp. 81–101). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Ellenbogen, K. M. (2003). From dioramas to the dinner table: An ethnographic case study of the role of science museums in family life. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(3), 846A. (University Microfilms No. AAT30-85758)Google Scholar
  14. Ercikan, K., & Roth, W. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L.D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.Google Scholar
  16. Falk, J. H., & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89, 744–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henze, R. C. (1992). Informal teaching and learning: A study of everyday cognition in a Greek community. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Hilke, D. D., & Balling, J. D. (1985). The family as a learning system: An observational study of families in museums. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  19. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. McManus, P. M. (1987). It’s the company you keep: The social determination of learning-related behaviour in a science museum. The International Journal of Museum Management & Curatorship, 6, 263–270.Google Scholar
  23. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Popkewitz, T. (1984). Paradigms and ideologies in educational research. London, UK: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  27. Screven, C. G. (1976). Exhibit evaluation: A goal-referenced approach. Curator, 19, 271–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Screven, C. G. (1992). Motivating visitors to read labels. ILVS Review: A Journal of Visitor Behavior, 2(2), 183–211.Google Scholar
  29. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive consequences of formal and informal education. Science, 82, 553–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schauble, L., Leinhardt, G., & Martin, L. (1997). A framework for organizing a cumulative research agenda in informal learning contexts. Journal of Museum Education, 22(1 & 2).Google Scholar
  31. Silverman, L. (1995). Visitor meaning-making in museums for a new age. Curator, 38, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum StudiesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Science Museum of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations