Studies in Science Education, 28 (1996) 87-112
87
Bridging the Gap Between Formal and
Informal Science Learning
AVI HOFSTEIN and SHERMAN ROSENFELD
The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
INTRODUCTION
In the teaching of school science, curriculum material and instructional
strategies ideally should be tailored to the abilities and aptitudes of
different types of learners. The overall objective should be to create
learning environments which allow students to interact physically and
intellectually with instructional materials through 'hands-on'
experimentation and 'minds-on' reflection. Effort should be made to
provide materials and instruction that give reality and concreteness to
scientific concepts. Ideally, teachers should use a variety of instructional
strategies and learning materials with the aim of increasing the impact
and the effectiveness of their teaching (Tobin, Carie & Bettencourt 1988;
Hofstein & Walberg 1994). The importance of varying instructional
techniques has been investigated recently (Hofstein & Kempa 1985;
Kempa & Diaz 1990a, 1990b). It is suggested that a strong relationship
88
Avi Hofstein and Sherman Rosenfeld
exists between a student's motivational characteristics and his or her
preference for particular modes of instruction.
This finding is important and should be taken into consideration in
the design and implementation of instructional techniques and content.
In practice, it is difficult to respond appropriately to students'
motivational characteristics and preferred modes of instruction. Informal
science learning environments (e.g., science museums, zoos and outdoor
settings; science youth programs; science media) could be utilized to
maximize this end. Therefore, it would be useful if science educators
would consciously utilize (1) a wide repertoire of instructional strategies
in their work with learners in schools, as well as (2) a wide range of out-
of-school environments which foster science learning.
Human beings learn science from a variety of sources, in a variety of
settings, and for a variety of reasons. For the sake of simplicity, we assume
that the two complementary contexts for science learning are formal and
informal learning. In this article we focus our attention on informal science
learning and examine how it might be better integrated into formal science
learning. We first define this term and consider why assessing such learning
would be valuable. After presenting commonly-asked evaluation and
research questions, we relate them to appropriate evaluation and research
methods. Finally, we present and integrate findings from selected research
and evaluation studies of informal science learning in several settings:
school-based field trips, student projects, community-based science youth
programs, casual visits to 'free-choice learning environments' such as
museums and zoos (including the design of educational exhibits), and the
press and electronic media. We conclude that informal science learning
experiences can make significant contributions in providing appropriate
learning opportunities to diverse learners and in motivating them to learn
science, both within and outside of schools.
DEFINITION OF INFORMAL SCIENCE LEARNING
There is no clear agreement in the literature regarding the definition of
informal science learning. Part of the problem is that such learning can
take place in many environments, e.g., natural history parks, geological
sites, zoos, botanical gardens, industry, science museums and nature
Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Science Learning
89
centres. The major difficulty in defining informal science learning is
determining whether or not informal science learning can take place
within formal settings. In other words, does the term have distinct, clear-
cut attributes of its own (in which case it may occur in formal as well as
informal settings) or must this term be understood as necessarily
contrasted with formal learning (in which case it cannot occur in formal
settings)? We can identify two approaches to this definition problem.
The first type of definition of informal learning draws a sharp
dichotomy between informal and formal learning. As an example,
consider the following comparison between 'informal learning' via
field trips and 'formal learning' via school (Wellington 1991). The
problem with this approach is that it is overly simplistic. For example,
visits to museums can be voluntary or compulsory, structured or
unstructured, sequenced or unsequenced, etc.
TABLE 1
Features of Formal and Informal Science Learning
Informal learning - field trips
Voluntary
Unstructured
Unsequenced
Nonassessed
Unevaluated
Open-ended
Learner-led
Learner-centered
Out-of-school context
Non-curriculum-based
Many unintended outcomes
Less directly measurable outcomes
Social intercourse
Nondirected or learner directed
Formal learning - school
Compulsory
Structured
Sequenced
Assessed
Evaluated
Close-ended
Teacher-led
Teacher-centered
Classroom context
Curriculum-based
Fewer unintended outcomes
Empirically measured outcomes
Solitary work
Teacher directed
Modified from Wellington (1991, p. 365), based on Rommey and
Gassert (1994).
90
Avi Hofstein and Sherman Rosenfeld
In contrast, the following definition, taken from a comprehensive
research review of informal science learning (Crane Nicholson & Chen
1994), has taken a 'hybrid approach', which includes formal and
informal learning. The term is first defined in contrast to formal learning:
'Informal learning refers to activities that occur outside the
school setting, are not developed primarily for school use,
are not developed to be part of an ongoing school
curriculum, and are characterized by voluntary as opposed to
mandatory participation as part of a credited school
experience. Informal learning experiences may be structured
to meet a stated set of objectives and may influence attitudes,
convey information, and/or change behavior.' (p. 3)
However, the same definition continues by allowing informal
learning to include formal learning, under certain conditions:
'Informal learning activities also may serve as a supplement to
formal learning or even be used in schools or by teachers, but
their distinguishing characteristic is that they were developed
for out-of-school learning in competition with other less
challenging uses of time. . . . There are many informal learning
media including exhibits and demonstrations in museums,
aquariums, and zoos; television, radio, and community-based
programs, books, magazines, hobbies, and newspapers.' (p. 3)
These two different types of definition highlight the importance of
understanding what we mean by formal and informal science learning.
In this article, we have adopted the 'hybrid' definition, namely that
informal learning experiences can occur in formal learning
environments (e.g., schools) as well as informal learning environments
(e.g., museums, zoos).
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
We take the view that the research methods to be employed in a given
educational study need to be chosen on the basis of (a) the context of
Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Science Learning
91
the setting, (b) the intended readers of the study, and (c) the specific
questions to be investigated. This 'problem-driven' approach differs
significantly from a 'method-driven' approach, in which the evaluation
or research methods are given from the outset, and appropriate
problems are selected for investigation.
While it may be simplistic to categorize evaluation and research
studies in science education as 'problem-driven' or 'method-driven',
the distinction is useful to underscore a practical problem: the same
evaluation and research methods used to investigate formal classroom
lessons may not be appropriate methods to investigate school field
trips, casual visits to a museum, community-based science youth
programs and science television programs. In the words of Lucas,
McManus & Thomas, (1986):
"The major difference between classical studies on learning
and learning from informal settings is that the context of
informal learning must be preserved if the results are to have
validity. Classrooms are places where interactions between
teachers and pupils are expected, and the replacements of the
teacher by the researchers will have much less effect on the
validity of the conclusions than the introduction of a
researcher into the interaction between museum visits and the
exhibit'. (p. 5)
Why conduct research of informal learning? Based on the literature
reviewed in this article, it appears that such research serves three
purposes:
Practical: Informal Research Goals. This goal is aimed at
individuals who work in informal science learning environments; these
individuals are interested in knowing how to design and evaluate
educational programs and exhibits which interest and hold the
attention of the relevant 'consumers', and which impart meaningful
science-related content and attitudes.
Practical: Formal Research Goals. This goal is aimed at
individuals who work primarily in the context of the formal school
92
Avi Hofstein and Sherman Rosenfeld
environment and who are interested in knowing how to adapt and
evaluate informal science learning methods (e.g., field trips) within the
formal school environment.
Theoretical Understanding. This goal is aimed at finding out how
and under what conditions learners learn science within informal
science learning environments.
The questions which are of interest to each of these audiences are
varied. The following questions, which can be applied to each of the
informal science learning settings presented in this paper, are
representative of those which interest these three overlapping
audiences. Clearly, in order to bridge the gap from research to practice,
all of them are relevant for research and evaluation.
What do children, adults and family groups do and find
interesting in (field trips, casual visits, science projects,
community-based science programs, the science media)?
What do children, adults and family groups learn from (field
trips, casual visits, etc.)?
What are the factors that influence what and how much they
do and learn?
How do (field trips, casual visits, etc.) influence children's
perceptions and attitudes about science?
How could (field trips, casual visits, etc.) be designed and
implemented to better achieve important learning goals?
How might (field trips, casual visits, etc.) be integrated into
the formal science curriculum?
In a 'problem-driven' approach, the researchers must adopt and
adapt appropriate research methods to provide the data needed to
answer their research questions. In other words, the methods chosen
for use in evaluation and research studies must be appropriate not only
to the chosen setting but to the research questions as well.
A wide variety of methods has been employed in such studies.
These methods have been adapted from various research traditions,
such as the physical sciences, (e.g., controlled experiments), natural
Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Science Learning
93
history (e.g., naturalistic observations and studies), ecology (e.g.,
correlational analysis of different factors in a complex system), the
anthropological sciences (e.g., participant observation, in-depth
interviews, content analysis), the social sciences (focus-group
interviews, questionnaires), the cognitive sciences (e.g., the clinical
interview, task-analysis, protocol analysis, etc.), animal behavior (e.g.
quantitative as well as qualitative observational studies, tracking,
unobtrusive measures), as well as educational research.
REVIEW OF RESEARCH FINDINGS OF INFORMAL SCIENCE
LEARNING
Our discussion about the methodological issues leads us to recognize
the importance of distinguishing between two contexts of learning: the
compulsory context and the free-choice context. However, in
accordance with our 'hybrid' definition of informal learning, we view
these two contexts as existing on a continuum. In the following
discussion, we present five learning modes which exist on this
continuum (from compulsory to free-choice): (1) school-based field
trips, (2) student projects, (3) community-based science youth
programs, (4) casual visits to museums and zoos, and (5) the press and
electronic media.
1. School-Based Field Trips
On the basis of the suggested hybrid approach to informal learning, we
adopted the following definition of field trips (Krepel and Durall,
1981):
A trip arranged by school and undertaken for educational
purposes in which students go to a place where the materials
of instruction may be observed and studied directly in their
functional setting. (p. 7)
Such visits are standard practice in science education and much has
been written concerning their educational desirability (e.g., Koran &
94
Avi Hofstein and Sherman Rosenfeld
Baker 1979). In contrast to the conventional environment of the
classroom, field trips take place in a more open, flexible and
democratic environment. The field trip (e.g., museum, zoo, science
centre and geological field trip) has a potential for providing for
instructional techniques that are more 'student centered', in which
participants usually are able to move around at their own pace and to
explore and experiment on their own (Feher, 1990). Furthermore, the
field trip can provide students with concrete experiences, allowing
them to interact physically and to manipulate objects (e.g., biological
specimens and physical phenomena) which are usually unavailable in
the formal science classroom.
Surprisingly, little research evidence regarding field trips is
available (Falk 1983a; Orion & Hofstein 1994). We present a
summary of this research in terms of methodological issues, cognitive
outcomes, affective outcomes, and an organizational principle known
as the 'novelty factor'.
Methodological Issues
Falk, Koran & Dierking (1986) wrote that 'it is probably safe to
conclude based on anecdotal and increasingly empirical evidence that
informal science settings are extremely important learning situations
for conveying certain kinds of cognitive and affective science
information to students' (p. 507). But there are several methodological
issues in conducting evaluation and research regarding the educational
effectiveness of field trips: (1) definition of terms, (2) logistical
problems, (3) teacher confidence, and (4) identification of the relevant
variables.
The first methodological issue is defining what is meant by 'field
trip'. A field trip may be part of a day, a day long, or a weekend long
excursion; it can be a simple guided tour to an area of interest, or it
may include the conducting of an active research oriented (inquiry
type) field project (Beiersdorfer & Davis 1994). The field trip could be
educationally ineffective, it may be just moving a classroom lecture to
the outdoors, or it may be extremely effective when the tasks are clear
and structured.
A second methodological issue is logistics. Field trips are most
difficult to implement and are often expensive. As a result, they are
Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Science Learning
95
often seen (by teachers and administrators) as disruptions to the
normal school program.
A third methodological difficulty is that many teachers do not feel
confident enough to lead outdoor activities since they lack background
knowledge as well as training in field techniques (Yaakobi 1981); this
is due to the fact that most preservice and inservice programs for
science teachers tend to avoid training teachers in this area. In
reviewing the literature published since 1930, Mason (1980) found 43
empirical studies that dealt with the cognitive and affective outcomes
of outdoor education. Most of these studies compared field trips to
another teaching method. Several articles reported that teachers tended
to avoid outdoor experiences because of their unfamiliarity with the
philosophy and logistics of field trips (Fido & Gayford 1982;
McKenzie et al. 1986). Hickman (1976) and Mirka (1980) found that
teachers avoid outdoor activities because of a lack of curriculum
material (for both teacher and student) relevant to this type of activity.
A fourth methodological difficulty relates to identifying, isolating,
and controlling the relevant variables which impact on the field trip.
McClafferty & Rennie (1992), on reviewing 39 studies conducted
between 1974-1992, found that only a few studies investigated factors
that influence students' ability to learn in the outdoor environment and
that only limited information exists on the conditions for an effective
implementation of such experiences.
Cognitive Outcomes
A review of six studies (summarized by Falk 1983a) suggests that
significant cognitive learning can and frequently does occur during
field trips. He also reported that information acquired on a field trip
may be remembered for a long time. This is an important addition to
the notion that visits to museums, zoos and science centers are
enjoyable and result in long-lasting positive memories. Several studies
investigated the learning of certain concepts in informal science.
settings. For example, a study utilizing a phenomenographic approach
to investigate the amount of learning in an interactive science event
regarding the concept of sound, was conducted in Australia by Beiers
& McRobbie (1992). In the preparatory phase, before visiting the
center, students underwent a structured interview and a concept map
96
Avi Hofstein and Sherman Rosenfeld
exercise. After the visit, students were asked to draw a concept map
regarding the concept sound.
In the U.S.A., a series of studies (Rice & Feher 1987; Feher &
Rice 1988; Feher 1990), that were based on behavioral psychology,
suggested that meaningful learning could occur provided that the
exhibits are interactive in nature. The work by Feher & Rice (1988)
focused on the concept light (i.e. vision, image formation, shadow
formation and color). The methodology that the researchers adopted
was a 'field version' of the Piagetian task-based clinical interviews. In
this method, the interviewer engages the child in a dialogue using
questions from a protocol.
In Singapore, two studies were conducted by Lam-Kan 1985, and
Finson & Enochs 1987 in the Singapore Science Center. In order to
assess the attainment of science concepts, the co-operation science test
was used. It was found that by and large, students who interacted with.
the exhibit at the center outperformed students who had no experience
with the exhibition regarding the concepts that underlined the exhibits.
The learning opportunities provided by informal science settings
are difficult to replicate in formal traditional learning in schools.
Studies which compare learning science in schools and in museums are
rare. McClafferty & Rennie (1992) reported on a study conducted by
Javlekar (1989) in the Nehru Science Center in India. In this study, 7th
grade students (age 12-13) were involved. The measures used were: (a)
a cognitive aspects inventory of the exhibits; (b) an exhibit evaluation
instrument: and (c) teacher interviews. Javlekar found that students
who visited the exhibits out-performed the control group in the
understanding of scientific concepts that underlined the exhibits. He
also found that interactive techniques are the best approach to achieve
a better understanding of concepts underlying the exhibits in the
science center.
Affective Outcomes
The question can be asked whether field trips are effective in
attaining goals beyond knowledge. Several studies have revealed the
importance of the outdoors in the development and improvement of
affective characteristics in the student (Koran & Baker 1979; Kern &
Carpenter 1986). Falk (1983a), on reviewing five studies conducted in
Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Science Learning
97
informal settings, e.g., visits to museums, zoos, geological sites, etc.,
found that in general, they resulted in enjoyable and long-lasting
memories. The issue of 'structured' or 'unstructured' exhibits was
addressed by Stronck (1983) and Wright (1980). Wright (1980) found
that students' attitudes toward the exhibits when they were structured
were significantly better than towards those that were 'unstructured'.
Dyamond, Goodrum & Kerr (1991) assessed students and visitors
with an instrument to ascertain attitude in several science exhibits in
science centers. Their findings indicated that the attitudes towards
science of grade 6-8 (age 11-13) students were enhanced by these
visits.
Koran & Baker (1979) reviewed many comparative studies
conducted between 1950-1976. In these studies, outcomes of field trips
were compared with other instructional techniques. Most of these
studies (e.g., Bennett 1965; Brady 1972; Reed 1972) resulted in no
significant differences between the two approaches regarding affective
outcomes.
A review of the literature shows that, in most of the studies,
student attitudes towards informal activities formed part of a more
comprehensive study in which both cognitive and affective outcomes
were assessed (e.g. Orion & Hofstein 1994). Only a small number of
studies were specifically designed to assess affective variables only. For
example, a study aimed at answering the question whether field trips
will influence scientific attitudes was conducted by Harvey (1951;
reported by Koran & Baker 1974). In this study, an experimental
group underwent a series of geological field trips while a control group
discussed ecological concepts in a regular classroom. Those who
underwent the field trips out-performed the control group on the
standard Caldwil & Curtis Scientific Attitude Test. This effect was
attained even after short field visits. This result may suggest that well-
prepared and well-designed field trips could have a significant impact
on students' attitudes. Support for these findings was obtained 40
years later by Orion & Hofstein (1991) who developed a Likert-type
scale aimed at measuring student attitudes towards various
components of the field trip. (A Likert scale measures the degree of
agreement with given statements). Their analysis revealed that the
attitude towards the field trip was not unidimensional and consisted of
98
Avi Hofstein and Sherman Rosenfeld
five unique dimensions: the field trip as an 'instructional tool', as
'individualized learning', 'social events', 'adventure event' and
'environmental aspect'.
The Novelty Factor'
Several studies (Falk Martin & Balling 1978; Martin Falk &
Balling 1981; Falk & Balling 1982; Falk 1983a; Kubota & Olstad
1991) focused on the psychological aspect of the field trip. These
studies demonstrated that the ability of students to conduct cognitive
tasks during a field trip depends on their familiarity with the field trip
setting. They called this variable environmental novelty. Falk Martin &
Balling (1978) suggested that: 'The novel field situations produce an
adaptation or adjustment process on the part of the student which
direct their behavior toward the environment and away from the
structured learning activities' (p. 128). Kubota & Olstad (1991)
showed that children, after visiting informal learning settings,
demonstrated a considerable amount of non-exhibit related learning if
the setting was novel to them. Kagan & Fasan (1988) (also supported
by Falk et al. 1978) suggested that an unfamiliar environment may
cause anxiety in a child which, as a result, may cause inhibition of
achievement and standard learning. Falk & Balling (1980), Kubota &
Olstad (1991), and Orion & Hofstein (1994) explained ways to reduce
this 'novelty factor'.
The study by Kubota & Olstad (1991) involved 6th grade
children (age 11). An experimental group received vicarious exposure
(slides) before the actual visit to the museum aiming at reducing the
novelty of a field trip while a 'placebo group got an informative but
not a novelty reducing treatment. Following these treatments, the two
groups were taken to the science museum. The children were observed
using video cameras. The videos were qualitatively analyzed. The
results have clearly indicated that the novelty reducing preparation
resulted increased on-task exploratory behavior and greater learning in
boys but no effects were observed with girls. Kubota & Olstad (1991)
explained this finding by arguing that since most of the exhibits were
physics-oriented, girls demonstrated only limited interest.
Orion & Hofstein (1994) suggest that a 'novelty environment'
consists of three factors: the cognitive novelty, which depends on the
Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Science Learning
99
concepts and skills that students are asked to deal with during the field
trip; the geographical novelty, which reflects the acquaintance of the
students with the field trip area; and the psychological novelty, i.e. the
students' previous experiences with the outdoors as a social
adventurous event (rather than a learning activity). They found that
proper preparation prior to the field trip and the proper placement of
the field trip in the science curriculum helped in remedying the novelty
factor. It was suggested that preparation for the field trip, addressing
all three novelty factors mentioned above, can maximize familiarity
and thus facilitate meaningful learning during the field trip.
In summary, it is suggested that the knowledge regarding novelty
environment (suggested by Falk, Martin & Balling 1978) and the
novelty factor (suggested by Orion & Hofstein 1994) have important
implications for the learning conditions of field trips and other
informal science learning events.
2. Student Projects
Student science projects involving individual investigation are well-
known student learning activities. The principles underlying the idea of
student research projects can be applied to a wide range of curricular
methodologies. A project may be an individual or a small group effort
aiming at understanding in depth a given question in the sciences. In a
research project, students can follow their interests, and develop
themselves as social-minded, self-governing persons exhibiting self-
respect, self-direction, initiative, self-criticism and persistence
(Kilpatrick 1951). The intended goal of the independent research
project is to develop a more independent and autonomous learner. The
research literature is limited regarding information on the assessment
of such research projects. In Israel, students choose an independent
ecology project called Biotop in the context of the biology curriculum
(Tamir & Friedler 1994). The project is usually related to structure,
function and interaction of plants and animals in a particular
ecosystem. Projects are carried out outdoors, sometimes using the
school laboratory as well (Bakshi & Lazarowitz 1982). In addition,
Israeli high school students are invited to conduct scientific research
under the assistance of practicing research scientists, as part of their
100
Avi Hofstein and Sherman Rosenfeld
formal education. One of the challenges regarding this work is the
proper training of teachers to support such research (Rosenfeld,
Pundak & Luria, 1995).
Similarly, a geological project called Geotop, which takes place in
both geological sites and laboratory, was developed in the ecological
project. The main objectives of the Geotop are (based on Orion 1994):
The application of knowledge and skills learned in the
classroom, laboratory and outdoors.
Learning and exercising scientific investigation processes.
The development of individual study skills.
Enhancing students' intellectual curiosity.
Development of positive attitudes towards the Geotop.
Tytler (1992) in Australia explored the value of independent
research projects. His study was conducted among students who
participated in a Science Fair in Australia (Victoria Science Talent
Search). His population consisted of 365 prize winners, who were
administered a questionnaire. The questionnaire probed the students'
ideas for their projects and the sources of help they obtained during
the project. Interestingly enough, the most common answer was ��. .
it came out of the top of my head.' In order to obtain more
comprehensive information, a naturalistic investigation was
conducted in which a selected number of students were interviewed.
Despite the wide range of topics, some attributes were evident in all
the cases:
Interest and motivation, rather than intellectual capabilities,
are the key ingredients for accomplishing such projects.
The home environment is an important ingredient in
cultivating and guiding interest and in accomplishing such a
project.
Students demonstrated commitment while undertaking the
independent research projects.
Self-reliance was shown in the pursuit of background
knowledge and in the arrangement of experimental
procedures or the design of innovations.
Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Science Learning
101
In conclusion, one of the biggest problems regarding student
projects is the difficulty of reliable assessment. This is because projects
vary in difficulty, scores tend to have low reliability (Boud et al. 1986;
Clemenson 1977) and there is a lack of valid criteria for assessment.
On the other hand, such projects have a very high validity and provide
significant learning opportunities for students (Woolnough, 1994).
3.
Community-Based Science Youth Programs
Extracurricular science clubs can be found all over the world. These
clubs exist in such centres as the British Association of Young
Scientists (BAYS) in the UK (Lucas 1983), the Youth Activities Section
at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel (Eylon, Hofstein, Maoz
& Rishpon 1985), and organizations such as nature reserves and
parks, which host meetings of youth clubs for scientific purposes. (A
more comprehensive list of science activities is described by Lucas
(1983)).
On the whole, little research has been conducted in such settings
and the information regarding their impact and educational
effectiveness is rather limited. Eylon, Hofstein, Maoz & Rishpon (1985)
conducted a study at the Youth Activities Section in the Weizmann
Institute of Science in Israel aimed at finding reasons why students enrol
in extracurricular science courses, their scientific ability and some of the
affective outcomes of these courses. Using the Test of Enquiry Skills
(TOES) developed by Fraser (1979), it was found that students who
enrolled in such out-of-school courses differ from the formal school
population in their scientific thinking, i.e., they out-performed a control
school group on all the skills measured by TOES. A standard semantic
differential questionnaire (Osgood, Suci & Tenenbaum, 1975) was used
to measure the science club students' attitudes towards the concepts
'science' and 'school science'. It was found that student attitudes
towards school science are significantly less positive than their attitudes
towards science. Factor analytic investigation conducted on the
semantic differential scales indicated that students enrolling in science
clubs perceive 'science' and 'school science' differently. Thus, it is
suggested that science clubs could provide an important addition to
scientific literacy for students who are interested in a science
102
Avi Hofstein and Sherman Rosenfeld
environment beyond school science. These students are more inquiry-
oriented, and they prefer activities which are more student-centered
(rather than teacher-centered). It seemed that for some high-ability
students, science clubs can provide an important opportunity to meet
their needs. Support for the notion that science material is used
differently by school teachers who tie the material directly to the school
curriculum and by science club leaders who emphasize the 'fun' aspect
of the same activities, was presented by Yaakobi (1981).
4.
Casual Visits to Museums and Zoos
The caveat stated above that the context of informal learning must be
preserved if the results of evaluation and research studies are to have
validity (Lucas, McManus & Thomas 1986), is especially relevant
when studying casual visits to informal learning settings, such as
science museums, zoos, botanical gardens, and outdoor parks. These
settings, when seen from the point of view of casual visitors, can be
defined as 'free-choice learning environments' (Laetsch, Diamond,
Gottfried & Rosenfeld 1979). The history of research in these settings
is long and varied, though such efforts have not been well-represented
in the traditional science education literature (Bitgood, Paterson &
Benefield 1988; Diamond 1992; St. John 1992).
One of the most common findings of casual visits is that they are
often framed as social experiences that encourage group learning.
Informal settings such as science museums and zoos are popular
largely because many of the activities that take place there are socially-
mediated and involve social-groups. (Orion & Hofstein 1991;
Diamond 1986; Rosenfeld & Terkel 1982). This finding has promoted
numerous studies of family groups, which constitute a major
proportion of casual visitors to settings which enhance informal
science learning (Kropf 1992; Diamond 1982; Laetsch, Diamond,
Gottfried & Rosenfeld 1980).
Another common finding relates to the direct relationship between
the interactivity level of an exhibit and the time spent visiting it (Bitgood
et al. 1988; Rosenfeld 1980). Since time spent at exhibits can be used as
a predictor of learning (Falk 1983), exhibit designers at science museums
generally try to create exhibits with a high level of interactivity.
Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Science Learning
103
It is interesting to note that a great deal of exploratory behavior
occurs within these 'free-choice' science learning settings. This
behavior was investigated by Gottfried (1979) who studied the open-
ended exploratory behavior of elementary-school students to a science
center's 'Biology Room,' and derived a general model for 'free-choice,
exploratory behavior.' This study and others like it (e.g. Diamond,
1986; Rosenfeld, 1980, Rosenfeld, 1982) can be applied to design
effective exhibits for these types of learning settings.
The Educational Design of Exhibits
The conception and design of exhibits in settings such as science
and technology centers, zoos, botanical gardens and geological sites
play an important role in the educational effectiveness of such informal.
settings (Madden 1985). Formative exhibit evaluations, based on
visitor participation, can lead to the improved educational design of
such exhibits (McNamara 1987; Borun 1989; Oppenheimer 1986).
Research studies have also been used to investigate the relationship
between exhibit characteristics and learning-associated behaviors
(Boisvert & Slez, 1995).
Studies that focused on the variables that increase the educational
effectiveness of educational exhibits have shown that:
Participatory exhibits attract more attention (Koran, Koran
& Longino 1986), and hold the attention of visitors longer
(Boisvert & Slez, 1995; Rosenfeld, 1982; Gottfried, 1979) in
comparison with non-participatory exhibits.
The amount of time spent at an exhibit is positively related to
learning. Longer visits can be encouraged by providing
objects for manipulation (Falk 1983b).
Most students do not learn from exhibit labels. Objects,
specimens and animals at an exhibit and information and
guidance by a docent becomes the predominant instructional
method in the field trip (Falk, Koran & Dierking 1986). Yet
the improvement of a label's text can improve the learning
impact (Falk, Koran & Dierking 1986).
Computers used in exhibits attract young students (Screven
1990).
104
Avi Hofstein and Sherman Rosenfeld
Feher (1990) suggested that the exhibits should be designed as
teaching/learning devices and should consist of four distinguishable
levels:
Experiencing.
Exploring.
Explaining.
Expanding.
The exhibit shows the user that certain phenomena
occur in nature.
The users discover new features of the phenomena
by interacting and manipulating with the object.
This is a conceptual level that deals with cognitive
issues (mental models).
This involves the user with the generalization of
ideas through the involvement of other related
exhibits.
Fehr suggested that these levels may be used as a taxonomy for
the preparation of both paper and pencil (written) as well as
observational measures aimed at assessing the educational effectiveness
of a certain exhibit in museums or informal settings.
Bitgood, Paterson & Benefield (1988) conducted a study of 13
zoos around the US, in order to identify patterns that suggest general
design principles. They measured the time spent near each of the zoo
stations. They found that much time is spent near certain animals, big
animals and infants. Less time is spent near places where visibility is
limited and/or where visitors had to compete for visibility. Rosenfeld
(1979, 1980, 1982) studied family groups visiting a metropolitan zoo
and a interactive mini-zoo. On the basis of his findings, a number of
design guidelines were proposed and have been implemented (e.g.
animal exhibits should be enhanced to promote interactions between
the family visitors and the animals, via educational exhibits and
activities which invite visitors to compare themselves with the
animals).
5.
Press and Electronic Media
The press and electronic media carry great potential for informal
science learning. This conclusion is based on the notion that life-long
learning largely depends on stimulation and encouragement which
Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Science Learning
105
originates outside the formal school system. In this respect, the press
and television play an important role. The last decade has seen a
tremendous growth in the distribution of science videos, cable
television, CD-ROM, video discs, live computer broadcasts and the
internet. All these play an important role in providing scientific literacy
beyond the formal education setting. Unfortunately, however, there is
still a lack of substantial research-based evidence regarding the
educational effectiveness of the media and its influence on students'
scientific literacy. Chen (1994) summarized the reasons for this:
Such research is complex and difficult to design. The
television stimulus is complex and there is a lack of simple
assessment categories and schemes: also, the sample is usually
very diverse (regarding age, interests and backgrounds).
The complexity of the home-viewing environment. The
audience does not always understand the scientific concepts
the way which was intended by the producer. Thus,
addressing research questions regarding long-term learning is
rather complex.
Science in the media is a result of the interpretation and
filtration of journalists, audio-recorders and/or TV and video
producers. Thus, the 'picture' we get is not always the
objective one but an interpretive version (Wellington 1990,
1991).
Limited funding exists for assessment and evaluation in this
area.
Despite these limitations, there is some evidence (Lucas, 1985)
that the media do have an impact. For example, in the area of
environmental issues, there is evidence showing that 16 year old
students obtain their knowledge of the environment from both
electronic and written media rather than from formal schooling
(Lucas, 1983). Fortner & Teafes (1983) found that knowledge of
marine biology in 10th grade (age 15-16) students was positively
correlated with reading and recall of National Geographic
Magazine articles and of viewing and recall of Jacques Cousteau
TV Specials.
106
Avi Hofstein and Sherman Rosenfeld
From the limited amount of research based information, it is seen.
that well-produced television programs have the potential to enhance
scientific knowledge.
SUMMARY
We began this article with a discussion of the importance of
motivation and varying instructional techniques in school learning. It
was suggested that a strong relationship exists between a student's
motivational characteristics and his or her preference for various
instructional techniques.
We have presented evidence from the research literature that
informal science experiences in school-based field trips, student
projects, community-based science youth programs, casual visits to
informal learning settings, and the press and electronic media
be effectively used to advance science learning.
can
Our hybrid definition of informal learning highlights an important
distinction between learning contexts and learning methods. As described
above, we recognize a continuum of learning contexts, from the more
compulsory to the more free-choice contexts. In the past, there was a
strong linkage between learning contexts and methods; for example, it was
assumed that the compulsory school context was tightly linked with
formal learning methods, while the free-choice (out-of-school) context was
linked with informal learning methods. We suggest that this linkage is at
best artificial and at worst harmful to the pedagogy of science teaching
and learning. It is artificial because a person's knowledge of science cannot
be limited to what is learned in schools, and it can be harmful by limiting
the
types of learning opportunities available to students.
Based on this perspective, we suggest that learning contexts and
learning methods should be mixed, in order to provide a good blend of
learning experiences. In particular, compulsory school contexts should
include informal learning experiences, such as those described in this
article.
Why should informal and formal learning experiences be blended
together in school science? We believe that in addition to enriching the
repertoire of learning opportunities, such blending can help meet the
