Science education in schools is frequently criticized for failing to support a sufficient proportion of its students into post-compulsory STEM education. This is broadly attributed to science being taught in ways that appear irrelevant and unengaging to students as well as inauthentic to the scientific profession (Stocklmayer, Rennie, & Gilbert, 2010). In many respects the informal science learning sector is seen as a possible solution to the flaws of formal science education but closer examination reveals that on its own the informal learning sector may not be enough to encourage students into post-compulsory STEM education.
The emergence of the informal science education sector occurred in the 20th century with
the evolution of collection based museums into settings of interactivity and inquiry based learning (Friedman, 2010; Ogawa, Loomis, & Crain, 2009). In the late 20th century the
social and economic conditions for western societies favoured a culture of enthusiasm for science education reform (Bryant, Gore, & Stocklmayer, 2015a; Ogawa, Loomis, & Crain, 2009). However successive initiatives and considerable investment of time and money has shown that large scale attempts of reforming science education in schools are incredibly difficult to do and not necessarily successful (Kahle, 2007). Ogawa, Loomis, and Crain (2009) suggest that schools are entrenched as a particular form of social institution and thus are very resistant to change. Stocklmayer, Rennie, and Gilbert (2010) also support this view, arguing that the very nature of school science resists change as it is weighed down by history and a need to cater for all students. Considerable dissatisfaction with school science has led to many educators and educational researchers turning their attention to an alternative way of teaching science, collectively known today as informal science education.
The increasing support for informal science learning over the past century has reflected a shift in educational research to a sociocultural perspective. From this viewpoint, learning is seen as situated meaning making; a product of the activity, context and culture in which it is developed and not simply the acquisition of new information (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Alongside this perspective shift there has been increasing valuation of the many ways students can participate in learning science outside of the formal school environs (Rennie, 2014). These non-school experiences of science, such as family activities or leisure pursuits, have been shown to be hugely influential on youth attitudes towards science and also to affect their decision to continue with post-compulsory STEM education (Archer, DeWitt, & Wong, 2014). It is now suggested that encouraging more students into post-compulsory STEM education will require utilizing the many ways and settings in which youths can learn science (Stocklmayer, Rennie, & Gilbert, 2010). Consequently student learning of science in out-of-school settings has been the subject of much research and is being increasingly incorporated into schools.
Out-of-school settings are frequently seen as making science accessible through their ability to make the border of science ‘fuzzy’ and more inclusive (Barton, 1998). Providing a setting that is more inclusive of types of scientific knowledge is proposed to create a more flexible, and thus accessible, role of a science learner (Barton & Tan, 2009; Bevan et al., 2010). Rahm, Lachaine, and Mathura (2014) also suggest that these settings offer a flexible interpretation of what learning science involves, allowing students agency in their learning which empowers their sense of capability in science and can inspire further participation. Experiences in these settings thus provide students the opportunity to
‘refigure’ science in ways which challenge and break down the roles traditionally available in the science classroom (Barton & Tan, 2010). Correspondingly Bevan et al. (2010) argue that by providing a flexible environment that is inclusive of different ways of learning science, out-of-school settings are better able to facilitate youth participation in science learning experiences.
Another favourable aspect of out-of-school settings is that they often feature valuable resources that schools do not have, which can assist students in their ‘refiguring’ of science. Bevan et al. (2010) suggest that informal science institutions can present tactile, visual and kinaesthetic presentations through flexible use of space and technology that may allow students to engage differently with science, leading to new interpretations. Informal learning settings often also feature the historical and cultural context of science, which can facilitate a cultural understanding of science (Bevan et al., 2010) and help youth to make personal connections to the science (Archer, Dawson, Seakins, & Wong, 2016; Ash, Carlone, & Matthews, 2015). Learning experiences which blend students’ cultural and social worlds with that of science have been shown to help students to reinterpret science in ways that were personally relevant and empowering for them, thus encouraging their ongoing participation in science (Bouillion & Gomez, 2001; Carlone et al., 2015).
An additional affordance of out-of-school settings is that learning experiences can be constructed around students’ interest in ways that schools, limited by the curriculum, cannot. This can engage students in seeking out further opportunities to participate in science based on personal interests. There is evidence of youth clubs attracting youths into science based around other interests such as animal care (Zimmerman, 2012), cooking (Clegg & Kolodner, 2014), the environment (Barton & Tan, 2010) and feminism (Gonsalves, Rahm, & Carvalho, 2013). However this interest and engagement does not necessarily translate into successful participation in the school classroom if students do not recognise their activities as science (Zimmerman, 2012), or if the science in those activities is not recognized by authoritative others (e.g. teachers) (Gonsalves, Rahm, & Carvalho, 2013). Zimmerman (2012) makes the point that when youth are free to participate in science however they want, they will focus on what is enjoyable to them and may not engage in learning the scientific practices and content that is necessary for continuing with post-compulsory STEM education. This leads to the danger of youth not recognizing their participation as science and rejecting identification as a science learner (Zimmerman, 2012).
The flexible and supportive nature of out-of-school settings are often proposed as a way to facilitate students development of a science identity and a trajectory into post- compulsory STEM education (Carlone, Scott, & Lowder, 2014; Riedinger & McGinnis, 2016). Research into informal science learning has demonstrated that it is capable of being substantial and long lasting, providing emotional experiences that are can influence an individual’s perceptions and ultimate career pathway (Bell, 2009; Rennie, 2014). The availability in out-of-school settings of multiple representations of science creates flexible norms for participation, making it more inclusive of students’ varied interests and
backgrounds (Carlone et al., 2015). This then gives students the opportunity to develop a science identity that includes their existing identities across their community and home, rather than the binary choice of either accepting the dominant science paradigm or rejecting it (Barton et al., 2012; Barton & Tan, 2009).
However research has shown that identity work in informal science learning may not be enough on its own to facilitate deep and persistent change in student perceptions of science. Gonsalves, Rahm, and Carvalho (2013) found that the cultural model of science as presented by school won out over non-school representations and Jensen and Bøe (2013) also observed that the motivation inspired by non-school learning experience decreased over time. Stake (2006) suggests that it is how the experience is interpreted and the social encouragement available once the student is back at school that could determine the impact of the out-of-school experience upon science motivation and confidence in
learning science. Incorporating this out-of-school experience in students’ science class can take considerable effort on behalf of the teacher and may not always be possible (Tan & Barton, 2010).
Further examination of many of the affordances of the informal science education sector reveals that like the formal education sector it is limited in engaging and supporting students to continue with post-compulsory science. The casual and relaxed nature of informal science learning allows multiple and flexible entry points but it also means sporadic and volitional participation is very common. Consequently many informal science education programs show minimal and fluctuating participation rates (Bevan et al., 2010).There is also evidence that these experiences only appeal to those youths already interested in science, thus limiting participation to students who are already strongly affiliated with science (Todd, 2016).
Research into student participation in informal science learning has further revealed that this participation is strongly linked to their family science capital (Archer et al., 2015).
Youth participation in informal science learning is generally associated with affluence, with families from working class or minority ethnic backgrounds often lacking the resources to facilitate their child’s participation in extra-curricular activities (Francis & Archer, 2007). Dawson’s (2014) research supported this and found that for certain population groups the cost of attending an informal science institution (ISI) was prohibitive, not just in the upfront cost of partaking in the activity itself but in the implicit financial costs of travel, food, souvenirs and the opportunity costs of the time spent. Dawson (2014) and Archer, Dawson, et al. (2016) also found that many exhibits and activities in ISIs assumed that the attendees were fluent in English and knew various western cultural and scientific
background knowledge. Thus a high level of science capital is required for families to support their children in navigating and fully participating in informal science learning. Despite their potential for engaging students in science, it is clear that informal science education in out-of-school settings is not enough to support students’ transition into post- compulsory STEM education on their own. Formal science education has the advantage of mandated attendance as well as measured learning which allows a sequential and
sustained approach to students’ science education (Bevan et al., 2010). Bevan et al. (2010) claim that the nature of non-sequenced learning in informal science learning may not afford coherent understanding of processes and relationships across phenomena.
Certainly Archer, Dawson, et al. (2016) found that despite enjoying the experience, youth who visited an ISI were unable to recall their learning afterwards, expect for one student who linked her experience to her science learning at school. Additionally informal science education programs can lack the educational expertise and bureaucratic reach of schools to facilitate ongoing and in-depth learning experiences which develop the knowledge and skills required for post-compulsory study. Lundh et al (2013) found that the lack of resources for several non-school settings, particularly regarding staff professional development, limited the effectiveness of the learning experience. Programs that were not well supported by education institutions were observed to have little inclusion of opportunities for students to reflect on their science learning, or to identify with science. These two categories are critical for students establishing an identity as science learners and encouraging ongoing participation in science education.
The immense variation in schools and out-of-school settings means it is erroneous to assume that all science classes are rigid and exclusive, or that all informal science learning is unstructured and without educational expertise. In general however the affordances of schools centre around their function as educational institutions, and out-of-school settings
emphasize their flexible nature and relevance to youth. Both the informal and formal education sectors are limited in their ability to overcome the wider social structures and perceptions of science which dictate the way that students can participate in learning science. Instead many science educators and educational researchers are now arguing that drawing from both sectors is necessary to educate the STEM professionals and citizens needed for the future (Stocklmayer, Rennie, & Gilbert, 2010). This argument has brought increasing attention and support for an emerging third sector of science
education; non-formal science education.