Collaborations Between Informal Science Institutions and Schools

Glenn F. Nyre, Nyre and Associates, LLC, Bethesda MD 301-943-9358

Introduction

Although informal education/learning routinely engages all age levels in many subject areas, this chapter provides an overview of how informal science education has the potential to impact school-age youth through partnerships between school districts and informal science institutions (ISIs)i.e., science education experiences that take place outside of traditional classroom schooling. 1 To say that informal science education is a burgeoning field is an understatement. Semper (1990) found that there were some 200 science centers and museums at the time of his writing (p. 52). Recently, the Center for Informal Learning and Schools (CILS, 2005) identified 2,597 informal science institutions (ISIs) in the United States, while admitting that the museum association member data bases from which this number was drawn tend to exclude smaller such institutions. ISIs include not only science-technology centers and science museums, but also nature centers, aquaria, planetaria, zoos, arboreta, botanical gardens, space theaters, and natural history and children's museums with an emphasis on mathematics and science. These institutions include those that are classified as traditional museums of science and technology, which emphasize collections of historical artifacts and industrial devices, as well as more contemporary science centers, housing a mixture of exhibits, educational programs, libraries, and film and computer resources. The latter are also more likely to be staffed with teaching, exhibit development, and scientific staff, in addition to curators. A fundamental feature of the newer science centers has been the development of interactive exhibits and educational programming keyed to the idea that learning is an active enterprise. Efforts to Promote and Study ISIs The National Science Foundation (NSF) has been a leader in the support of informal mathematics and science learning efforts for a protracted period of time. A discussion of ISIs is contained in a publication from NSF nearly 25 years ago: Educating Americans for the 21st Century: A Report to the American People and the National Science Board (NSF, 1983). Key findings from this report included the following:

Much that affects the quality of formal education occurs outside the classroom and beyond the control of the school. A great deal of learning takes place unintentionally and unconsciously through casual reading and experiences. The process has been referred to as informal or experiential learning and offers an important opportunity for improvement in our overall educational system. Such opportunities are particularly helpful for the sciences and technology.

The phrase informal learning environments (ILEs) is sometimes used to categorize these venues.

While out-of-school activities and informal learning provide a special enrichment value for the gifted and talented, they have an even greater significance for the average student. The child who regularly visits an ISI (e.g., zoo, planetarium, or science museum), hikes along nature trails, and builds model airplanes and telescopes is infinitely better prepared (and more receptive to) understanding the relevance of mathematics and learning about the physical and biological sciences. Formal education must be supplemented by a wide range of activities that can reinforce the lessons of the classroom and lend meaning and relevance to the rigor and discipline of formal study.

More recently, NSF provided the impetus for developing school-community partnerships through such programs as Informal Science Education and Urban Systemic Program (which engendered this NSFfunded study as part of Westats contract to develop a common core of data collection for the Systemic Initiatives). In addition, NSF has provided funding to help establish and operate the Learning in Informal and Formal Environments (LIFE) Center and the Center for Informal Learning in Schools (CILS).2 3

The LIFE Centera collaboration among the University of Washington, Stanford University, and SRI International's Center for Technology in Learning, among othersis a Science of Learning Research Center funded by NSF. Its research focus is to study how people learn implicitly, informally, and formally. Among its activities are the MAESTRo Project (Measuring Adaptive Expertise in Science Teachers' Reasoning), a study of teachers' instructional decision making processes, and the OPerETTA Initiative (Optimizing Performance and Enhancing Teaching with Technology and Assessment), which focuses on mobile electronic performance support for teachers. For example, the OPerETTA researchers conducted a study of algebra teachers' instructional practices to develop design requirements for a next-generation networked classroom that enhances teaching and optimizes classroom interaction, engagement, and learning (Crawford and Brophy, 2006; Crawford et al., 2007). CILS conducts research and other activities that inform practice and strengthen the informal science education infrastructure. To accomplish this in the nascent research domain of informal learning and its relationship to schools, CILS has initiated work at multiple levels of activityfrom the learner level to the institutional to the systemic and policy levels. Research is focused on seven areas, among which is the systemic interaction between ISIs and schools. CILS also focuses on enhancing the skills of museum staff and evaluators in the field, offering a variety of institutes and graduate programs to support research in informal settings, including certificate, graduate; postdoctoral; and practitioner programs. It also hosts the annual CILS Bay Area Institute, which gathers researchers, practitioners, and policymakers whose work involves informal learning in general, learning in informal science institutions, and bridging formal and informal systems of education. According to CILS literature, the conference is designed to develop new thinking, relationships, and methods for effectively linking informal and formal learning and learning systems. Participants reflect a wide range of expertise and perspectivesfrom ISI staff and educators working in science and

2 3

CILS also receives funding from the NEC Foundation of America and the Noyce Foundation. Reflecting the interdisciplinary makeup of the CILS staff, it has recently been named the Learning and Youth Research and Evaluation Center (LYREC) for the National Science Foundations Academies for Young Scientists (AYS) initiative, along with collaborators Harvard University, Kings College London, SRI International, University of California, Santa Cruz, and the Exploratorium.

mathematics education at all grade levels, to those with expertise in developmental psychology, social psychology, and the natural sciences disciplines. With sponsorship from NSF, the National Research Council (NRC), through its Board on Science Education (BOSE), is currently conducting a 30-month, comprehensive synthesis of research on science learning in informal environmentsThe Status of Research on Learning Science within Informal Education Settings. This study has drawn together a disparate range of expert panelists from the hybrid field of informal learning, including those experienced in one or more of the following areas: research and evaluation, exhibit design, program development, and education and learning. The National Science Board (NSB) oversees and guides the activities of, and establishes policies for, NSF and serves as an independent national science policy body that provides advice to the President and the Congress on policy issues related to science and engineering. The following is excerpted from its charge to its Commission on 21st Century Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, and reflects the recognition and importance the NSB places on informal education (emphases added):

The objective of a national action plan is to effectively employ Federal resources cooperatively with those of stakeholders from all sectors including but not limited to: Federal, State and local government agencies; parents, teachers and students; collegesincluding community colleges; universities, museums and other agents of formal and informal education outside the K-16 systems; industry; and professional, labor and public interest organizations to encourage and sustain reform of the national pre-K-16 STEM education system to achieve world class performance by U.S. students, prepare the U.S. workforce for 21st century skill needs, and ensure national literacy in science and mathematics for all U.S. citizens. The future action plan will especially focus on the appropriate role of NSF in collaboration and cooperation with other Federal agencies, State government, local school districts, gatekeepers, business and industry, informal STEM educational organizations, professional associations, scientific organizations, and parents and other citizens interested in improving education in mathematics, science and technology for our Nations children (NSB, 1996, pp. 1,2).

Common Understandings and Misunderstandings about Formal and Informal Education Bevan and Semper (2006) reported that in August 2005, a group of formal and informal practitioners and researchers met at the CILS Bay Area Institute in San Francisco to discuss what we know and need to know to better understand how informal science institutions can effectively inspire, augment, and reinforce science learning for school children (p. 1). In particular, the group sought to identify systemic and institutional structures that impede or advance opportunities for informal science institutions to strengthen science in school and after-school programs. They acknowledged that there is an active debate within the field concerning whether or not ISIs should even become engaged with the formal education system because doing so could increase dealings with bureaucracy and accountability that could constrain ISIs penchant for risk-taking and innovation. Others suggest that informal learning is too important to leave to chance, yet ask if perhaps the notion of informal learning is so vague that trying

to applying increased design is only an effort in futility (Clawson and Conner, 2004). Conner (2004) strongly cautions against changing the essence of informal learning by trying to codify too much. Perhaps one of the problems with categorizing and codifying informal learning is that such activities are commonly perceived as being conducted the way it soundsad hoc, unplanned, and unmanageable. Falk and Dierking (1992, 2002) suggest using the term free choice learning as an alternative to using the phrase informal learning, echoing the concerns of some others in the field who feel informal learning is too broad a construct. These authors pay particular attention to learning outside the traditional educational systemwatching television, listening to the radio, reading books, exploring the Internet hearing a symphony, building a model of something, and, of course interacting with museum exhibits. Falk (2001) also provides a new model for understanding and framing the museum experience, called the Interactive Experience Model, which connects personal, socio-cultural, and physical contexts together. Demonstrating the informal science educators interest in supporting school math and science learning, Bronwyn Bevan of CILS, led a 2006 Association of Science and Technology Centers (ASTC) pre-conference workshop entitled Accountable for What? Supporting School Science. It focused on the following statement and questions: In an age of accountability, our colleagues in schools are under pressure to produce results. Are we immune, or are we implicated? What is desirable, possible, and demonstrable in terms of the contributions museum educators can make to school science? In recognition of the value that its members believe ISIs can provide to student engagement and learning, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) annually honors members who are not classroom teachers and who have demonstrated their dedication to informal science education with the Distinguished Informal Science Education Award, and, along with the Discovery Channel, the annual Faraday Science Communicator Award to individuals who are not classroom teachers but who work in or have developed a compatible setting for science communication. The American Educational Research Association (AERA) also has an active special interest group (SIG) founded in 1998, known as the Informal Learning Environments Research (ILER) SIG., whose purpose is to further educational research in informal learning environmentsand to promote a community of practice interested in establishing and maintaining informal learning environments conducive to better understanding of teaching and learning. Another roundtable at this same CILS Bay Area Institute meeting explored the challenges confronting science educators in presenting and communicating science in contemporary society (Osborne, 2006), and identified the dichotomy between informal formal and formal science education. On one hand, natural history museums present collections of living objects that can tell a fascinating story about the complexity and diversity of life. Science centers offer a phenomena-based experience, providing an opportunity to engage in empirical inquiry. Formal education, on the other hand, is seen to still be deeply rooted in nineteenth-century ideas that the basic function of science education is the preparation of the next generation of scientists. Here the pedagogy is characterized by Osborne as being transmissive and authoritarian (all quotes from p. 2). Science centers exhibit scientific phenomena and ideas, as well as objects, machines and instruments. They show the activities of scientists, the consequences of technological advancement, and the state of our knowledge of the universe and ourselves. They excel at presenting examples of natural phenomena, human and animal behavior, and real-world applications of science. They provide multiple

opportunities for students to broaden and deepen their knowledge and understanding of science, technology and nature. But good science centers do more than provide specific information or a view of the scientific process. They motivate students to become more inquisitive and encourage the development (or redevelopment) of inquisitiveness. Semper (1990) reported that people comment after a visit to a science museum that they begin to notice things in the outside world that they have missed before. Clearly something basic has happened, something deeper than the mere learning of a specific fact or idea (p. 53). Evaluating ISIs Pronouncements such as Sempers, even if true, are no longer taken at face value. 4 We are in an age of accountability that requires proof that learning has taken place because of some activity with that as an end goal. In fact, a recent ED report by the Academic Competitive Council (ACC) has taken the whole of U.S. science agencies to task for doing a poor job of evaluating the combined total of $3.12 billion spent on education programs in 2006. The report (USDE, 2007) includes an inventory of all federal STEM effortssome 105 programs across 12 Cabinet departments and independent=t agencies, covering all aspects from museum exhibits to graduate research fellowships. The ACC identified a total of 11 STEM programs that primarily support informal education and outreach with a total FY 2006 funding level of about $137 million. Excluding the Smithsonian Institution, whose extensive array of informal education and outreach efforts are privately funded, five agencies have informal education and outreach programs, with most of the programs and funding concentrated in NSF ($71 million for three programs). Answerable to the annual yearly progress dictates of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, schools want to know if their students engagements with informal education venues are contributing to the progress goals that have been set by them. By the 2007-08 school year, states must have in place science assessments to be administered in addition to those in mathematics and reading. Of course, prior to and increasingly since NCLB, museum staff have joined teachers in wanting to know the learning outcomes of their efforts, but given the range of mathematics and science programs and activities to which students are introduced, both formally and informally, it is not an easy task to identify specificor even generaloutcomes from museum offerings. Evaluations within ISIs have historically focused primarily on visitor feedbackadministered to participants through surveys and interviewswhich provide clues to the effectiveness of exhibits and programs, and insights into how people learn in informal educational settings (Diamond, 2002). However, these often border on customer satisfaction measures and contribute little to an understanding of learning or ISI impacts on school-based issues such as teacher practice, curriculum implementation, or student experiences, learning or achievement. This may not have been an ISI priority in the past, but it is increasingly becoming one. According to a survey by CILS (2005), the most common methods of program evaluation used by ISIs were feedback from the participants (used for 90 percent of programs), and feedback from school/district administrators (used for 49 percent of programs). Other types of evaluation methods that might be of particular interest to schools, such as changes in student achievement and changes in student or teacher attitudes, were used to evaluate programs less than 25 percent of the time.
4

Seventeen years later, Semper would probably still write such a statement, but he would support it with research findings, as he is a leading advocate of evidence-based evidence in the field of informal learning research.

Indeed, providing compelling evidence for learning from museums has proven challenging over the years. Falk and Dierking (2000) maintain that this is not because the evidence did not exist, but rather because museum learning researchers, museum professionals, and the public alike historically asked the wrong questions and searched for evidence of learning using flawed methodologies. They go on to suggest that recent research using an appropriate search image and set of assessment tools strongly supports the premise that museum learning experiences facilitate some degree of learning in virtually all participants. Students come into a classroom or museum with their own experiences and a cognitive structure based on those experiences. These preconceived structures are either valid, invalid or incomplete. The learner will reformulate his/her existing structures only if new information or experiences are connected to knowledge already in memory. Inferences, elaborations and relationships between old perceptions and new ideas must be personally drawn by the student in order for the new idea to become an integrated, useful part of his/her memory. Memorized facts or information that has not been connected with the learner's prior experiences will be quickly forgotten. In short, the learner must actively construct new information onto his/her existing mental framework for meaningful learning to occur. Types of Collaborations between Schools and ISIs Collaborations between science museums schools can take many forms. A CILS study (2004), referred to in the literature as the Landscape Study, found that 73 percent of ISIs that responded to a mail survey were providing some form of supporte.g., through programs, workshops, materials, or curricula supportto K-12 schools in science-related subjects. Using data obtained through the survey, CILS estimated that ISIs were serving approximately 73,000 schools (or 62 percent of the total schools in the United States); directly or indirectly impacting 9,000 districts, 2 million teachers, and 36 million students. In addition, more than half of the ISIs were providing at least one form of teacher professional development, with elementary school teachers comprising 62 percent of the teachers served through these programs. It is worth noting that, at the time the survey was conducted, the programs offered by these ISIs were not filled to capacitywith respondents indicating that 53 percent of their programs could handle a greater number of participants. The CILS survey also found that the most common forms of support were structured and educationally supported field trips (55 percent), outreach programs (e.g., van programs, traveling demonstrations, support for school science fairs) (52 percent), collaboratives or partnerships with local educational networks (45 percent), teacher special events (e.g., one-day workshops, special gatherings that take place on a single day) (44 percent), materials and kit-based support (33 percent), curriculum development and support (27 percent), teacher multi-day workshops (25 percent), pre-service and formal teacher education connections (23 percent), and teacher coaching and classroom support (21 percent). With this range of practices in mind, this section describes a broad framework for categorizing the primary types of collaborations that typically occur between K-12 districts/schools and ISIs The mission of most ISIs is to support public engagement with science. Perceptions of science are largely formed by school-age experiences with science. Thus, by working with schools, ISIs have the potential to contribute toward building a more interested and receptive audience for future and lifelong science learning. Furthermore, work with school and after school programs enable ISIs to reach lowincome and minority populations, who are underrepresented in both the sciences and among ISI

audiences. The study by CILS (2005) showed that that 40 percent of the schools with which ISIs are involved serve low-income and minority students. Beginning in the 1980s, museums were challenged by the American Association of Museums (Commissions on Museums for a New Century, 1984) to increase their collaborative involvement with other museums, schools and community organizations. The Commission argued that such partnerships would help museums ensure their financial survival by allowing them to increase their staff, expand their resources, build public support, and realize their educational roles (King, 1996). Nonetheless, until the 1990s, most museum/school collaborations consisted of museums providing elementary schools with predesigned museum visits and outreach materials that were tangential to the existing curricula (Commission on Museums for a New Century, 1984; Hicks, 1986; St. John, 1996; Price, DiRocco, & Lewis, 1981). School teachers had little or no input into the design of the activities; and museum educators had little insight into the school curriculum. As a result, these collaborations were often fraught with the conflict that comes from lack of understanding and communicating across two different cultures. Museum educators understood their institutional needs and their exhibitsbut were unfamiliar with school curricula and formal learning. Conversely, teachers were familiar with their state mandated curricula, but had limited knowledge of the museum exhibits, or of informal learning. Consequently, many practitioners complained of a "me" versus "them" attitude. Specifically, museum educators protested that teachers viewed the museum field trips as a day off from work, and did not participate or monitor their students' behavior (Hamm, 1991; Jabbawy, 1989; Sheppard, 1994). Teachers faulted museum staff for failing to inform them about their services (Hicks, 1986). What Bevan and Semper find particularly noteworthy in this regard is that ISI professional development programs for teachers are targeted to the elementary level, while there is a paucity of programs targeting middle and secondary science teachers (p. 8). Given NCLBs qualified teacher mandates, this may represent a need that ISIs could meet. But they will need to work with the schools to ensure that ISI-oriented programs and courses support the goals, frameworks, and content for which they schools are being held accountable. ISI education staff are very experienced at creating learning materials such as exhibits, programs, study guides, and on-line materials, and teachers and ISI staff are both experienced at developing curricula. Working together, materials that complement the schools traditional offerings will ensure that the objectives of both institutions can be served. Many ISIs have long histories of partnerships with formal education institutions, and of providing programs and support that are explicitly targeted to teachers, students, schools, and districts, but are underutilized, according to the Landscape Study referenced above (CILS, 2004). This study also found that, despite the fact that about 75 percent of the responding ISIs reported offering structured programs for schools (beyond standard field trips), more than one-half of these programs were not being taken advantage of by local school systems.5 For example, teacher workshops were not filled, curriculum kits were not checked out, and classroom demonstrations remained unbooked (p. 2). Other findings were that more than half of the ISIs provide at least one form of teacher professional development, such as one-day teacher special events, teacher coaching and classroom support, or teacher institutes, and they mostly sever elementary schools72 percent of the schools being served. As a result, elementary school teachers make up 62 percent of the teachers served by ISI professional development programs, according to this survey. Furthermore, many of the programs designed for schools are not paid for by schools. They are paid for either by grants obtained by the ISIs
5

Only 475 out of 2,597 ISIs surveyed respondedan 18 percent response ratesuggesting that one should use some caution when interpreting these data.

themselves or through their general operating budgets. All this suggests that despite calls to strengthen classroom science (see, e.g., National Academy of Sciences, 2005), these local resources seem to be neither consistently prioritized nor utilized by many school systems. Unfortunately, while the low response rate provided some insights, a large portion of the landscape was missing. Bevan and Semper (2006) stress the importance of examining ISIs within a larger science education landscape, stating that much of the existing research in the field examines ISIs in an isolated fashion, without reference to what happens before or after a visit (p. 2). Students live in an environment of science including home, school, after school and media. Jolly, Campbell, and Perlman, (2004) argue that supporting childrens participation in science requires opportunities in a trilogy of domains: engagement, capacity, and continuity. They suggest that students must: 1) become interested and enthusiastic about science; 2) develop an increasingly sophisticated body of knowledge, skills, and experiences that allow them to become more deeply immersed in doing and understanding science; and 3) have ongoing and connected opportunities to develop their engagement and capacity. Specifically as related to the current topic, the authors make the following two observations:

Museums and other informal science institutions are often seen as focusing primarily on Engagement. While this can be the case, they also have the potential to support student Continuity and create student Capacity. Informal science programs can coordinate programming with others skilled in addressing different ECC factors. For example, a museum can present engaging activities that are intentionally related to a students school-based core subject and can work with others to bring mentors into the school to increase student Continuity (p. 18).

After-School ISI Programs After-school programs are coming under increasing pressure to support the academic achievement of students (Noam et al., 2003), and they have significant potential for becoming a powerful partners for science learning, especially for urban students, since many, if not most, ISIs are located in urban or metropolitan areas. However, staff in typical after-school programs have little science or science education experience. This appears to be a gap waiting to be filled by ISIs. A recent report by the James Irvine Foundation (2005) notes the strong potential that museums have for contributing to after school programs, based upon the results of an evaluation of its 2000 to 2004 Museum Youth Initiative (MYI). Supported by grants from the foundation, 10 California museums participated in an effort to implement and evaluate after-school programs. The initiative sought to improve student achievement in the classroom and to help participating museums institutionalize youth development principles, become learning environments that provide academic enrichment, and sustain high-quality program practices and resources (p. 2). Evaluation findings regarding this program, as highlighted in the same report by the Foundation, found that: 1) Museums can play a value-added role as effective informal learning organizations; 2) museum after-school programs may well be able to help student thinking skills and behaviors; 3) students who had higher attendance rates and more exposure to MYI programs experienced better outcomes in terms of improved study skills, classroom comportment and attendance, and higher order thinking skills and 4) teachers tended to rate

participating students as improving their performance as a result of the program. 6 On the other hand, the evaluation also indicated that the after-school programs were not as likely to improve formal, in-class achievement; and improvements in grade point averages among participating students were of a relatively low magnitude in any one year and inconsistent across all years.

According to the report, both the experience and evaluation of MYI indicated that such afterschool programs can significantly influence museums educational programs, community connections and evenand, in some cases, especiallyorganizational culture. The initiative also demonstrated how museums can use youth development principles to improve their after-school offerings, as well as their education programs in general p. 4).7 Following the end of the initiative funding, six of the 10 participating museums are continuing their programs without further financial assistance from the Irvine Foundation; and three others are continuing a portion of their programs. Museum-Schools Phillips (2006) conducted a two-phase, mixed-method research study on museum-schools in North America. The purpose of the study was to better understand how bridging the two communities features might lead to new opportunities for and approaches to K12 teaching and learning. Even though King (1996) had done some case studies in this arena, there was no firm, widely accepted or consistently used definition of a museum-school when Phillips began her study. Typically, entities that have either been identified or have identified themselves as museum-schools have ranged from K12 schools housed within museums or vice-versa, to schools and museums not co-located but with a curricular or programmatic relationship. Phillips called them hybrids, noting that they are neither a typical museum space nor a typical school space. Neither is conceived of or used in the way in which museum or school spaces are traditionally conceived of or used (p. 18). Or, as Clothier stated, diversification engenders a third space, in between cultural resources, a space of its own making and authenticity. In this in-between place, traces of formative cultures can be located, but there will always be aspects that are specific to the hybrid (2005, p. 46). Phillips initial step was to develop the following working definition for museum schools: A formal association between a museum and a K12 school that attempts to integrate features of and resources available through museums into K12 education in a consistent way (p. 2). She arrived at this definition because she found that most others reflected a deficit model in which only the schools were the beneficiaries of the relationship, whereas, among other things, the museums benefited from input from math and science teachers and building a new clientelestudents, families, and others who might not have otherwise been inclined to visit the museums. This is reminiscent of the James Irvine Foundation (2005) initiative discussed above, in which it was found that the 10 museums involved with those school partnerships were indeed beneficiaries of the relationships. The first phase of the Phillips studys involved document reviews and telephone interviews for all museum-schools identified via her definition (N=27). These findings formed the foundation of a museumschool database and informed the studys direction and the identification of criteria for selecting five museum-schools for case study. The second phase involved site visits to five case study museum-schools,
6

The Foundation acknowledges that teacher assessments of student learning could be open to challenge on the grounds of bias, and since there was not a comparison group, any improvements in the academic skills and performance of students who participated in MYI cannot be definitively attributed to their participation in the after-school program. This initiative specifically used the Youth Development Framework developed by Michelle Gambone of Youth Development Strategies, Inc., and Jim Connell of the Institute for Research and Reform, in partnership with the Community Network for Youth Development.

and interviews with and observations of participants (including leaders, educators, parents, students, and community members, as appropriate). This research revealed that conceiving of museum-schools as fitting a single model or being defined, based only on linear continua, fails to capture their multiple dimensions and complexity. It suggests employing a holistic conception of museum-schools, considering the various forms of access they afford for the participating organizations, communities, and individuals (e.g., they provide access to new ways of thinking about school, learning, and knowledge) (p. 1). Among her findings, Phillips reports that museum educators involved in this study reported having learned more about curricular standards and how to connect what students see and do in the museum to their school life (p. 16). At the same time, the opportunity provided pre-service students from partner universities an opportunity to work with diverse students from various grade levels, and for K-12 teachers to seek out the guidance of museum educators on how to use museum resources to teach other topics and to design more hands-on learning experiences (p. 17).8 Philips further contends that her findings demonstrate that students from diverse backgrounds can meet and exceed standards in core academic subjects when provided with access to relevant, objectbased, interdisciplinary, experiential, and connected learning opportunities (p. 18). Understanding how museum-schools work has implications for establishing such partnerships in the future, understanding how informal science institutions might support K12 science instruction, and how designs for practice, research, and evaluation might be carried out during this age of standards-based accountability. Summary This chapter has provided background information on the types of collaborations that can occur between ISIs and schools and the challenges and opportunities that they offer, suggesting a framework for categorizing such cooperative efforts. The next chapter provides findings from our case studies.

Pumpian, Fisher, and Wachowiak (2006) have written a richly detailed account of one of the museum-schools examined by Phillips, in which the Price Charities, San Diego State University, San Diego City Schools, and the San Diego Educational Association are utilizing the 10 museums in Balboa Park, San Diego, for this purpose.

References

Ash, D. (2007). Researching language, learning and engagement in informal science institutions. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, April 15-18. Atherton J S (2005) Learning and Teaching: Constructivism in learning [On-line] Accessed at: http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/constructivism.htm. Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practicebased theory of professional education. In G. Sykes and L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Bell, P. Understanding how people learn science: The constructive nature of knowing, metacognition and learning. Keynote Presentation. Annual Meeting of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Tucson, September 14-16. Bevan, B. and Semper, R. J. (2006) Mapping Informal Science Institutions onto the Science Education Landscape. Topical paper developed from a roundtable working group at the 2005 CILS Bay Area Institute. San Francisco, CA: Center for Informal Learning and Schools. Center for Informal Learning and Schools. (2004). Informal Science Institutions Landscape Study. San Francisco, CA: Author. Center for Informal Learning and Schools. (2005). Professional Practices and Beliefs of Museum-Based Teacher Educators. San Francisco, CA: Author. Clothier, I. (2005). Created Identities: Hybrid Cultures and the Internet in Convergence. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. 11 (4) 4459. London, England: Sage Publications. Clawson, J.G. and Conner, M. L. (2004) (eds.). Creating a Learning Culture: Strategy, Technology and Practice. Cambridge, GB: Cambridge University Press. Commission on Museums for a New Century (1984). Museums for a new century. Washington, D. C.: American Associations of Museums. Conner, M. L. (2004). Learn More Now. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Crawford, V. M. & Brophy, S. (2006). Adaptive Expertise: Methods, Findings, and Emerging Issues. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International Crawford, V. M., Schlager, M., Penuel, W. R., & Toyama, Y. (2007). Supporting the art of teaching in a data-rich, high-performance learning environment. In E. B. Mandinach and M. Honey (Eds.), Linking data and learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Diamond, J. (2002). Practical Evaluation Guide: Tools for Museums and Other Informal Educational Settings: Tools for Museums and Other Informal Educational Settings. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Falk, J. H. (2001) (Ed.). Free-Choice Science Education: How We Learn Science Outside of School. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Falk, J. H. and Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Falk, J. H. and Dierking, L. D. (2002). Lessons without Limit: How Free-Choice Learning is Transforming Education. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Falk, J.H. and Dierking, L.D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, D.C.: Whalesback Books. Hamm, V. V. (1991). Fowl Play: A case study of a collaborative process and field study among a history museum, art museum, zoo, Audubon society, urban school system and selected fifth grade classes. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1991.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(10), 3513A. Hein, G.E. (1991). The museum and the needs of people. Address presented at the International Committee of Museum Educators Conference, Jerusalem, Israel, October 15-22. Hein, G.E. (1991). The museum and the needs of people. Address presented at the International, Jerusalem, Israel, October 15-22. Hein, G.E. (1998). Learning in the museum. London: Routledge. Hicks, E. C. (1986). Museums and schools as partners. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Jabbawy, C. G. (1989). Art museum/school collaborations: A staff development program for classroom teachers, volunteer guides, and museum instructors. (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1989.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(5), 1928A. James Irvine Foundation. (2005). Museums After School: How Museums are Reaching Kids, Partnering with Schools, and Making a Difference. Author. Jolly, E., Campbell, P., & Perlman, L. (2004). Engagement, Capacity and Continuity: A Trilogy for Student Success. Bridgeport, CT: GE Foundation. King, K. S. (1998; May). Museum schools: a partnership design model. Paper presented at the Annual National American Association of Museums Meeting, Los Angeles, CA. May, 9-14. Moreno, N.P. and Roberts, J.K. (2006). Research on the Effectiveness of the Professional Development HU-LINC Elementary Science Leadership Program. Houston, TX: Center for Educational Outreach, Baylor College of Medicine.

National Science Board (May 11, 2006). Charge to the National Science Board Commission on 21 st .Century Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. National Science Foundation (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st Century: A Report to the American People and the National Science Board. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. Noam, G. G., Biancarosa, G., & Dechausay, N. (2003). After-school Education: Approaches to an Emerging Field. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press. Osborne, J. (2006). Communicating Science. Topical paper developed from a roundtable working group from the 2005 CILS Bay Area Institute. San Francisco, CA: Center for Informal Learning and Schools. Phillips, M. (2006). Museum-Schools: Hybrid spaces for accessing learning. San Francisco, CA: The Center for Informal Learning and Schools. Price, L. C., DiRocco, L. & Lewis, J. D. (1981). Museum program survey 1979. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Pumpian, I., Fisher, D. & Wachowiak, S. (eds.) 2006. Challenging the Classroom Standard through Museum-Based Education: School in the Park. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Roberts, J.L. and Henson, K. (2000). Self-Efficacy and Knowledge Instrument for Science Teachers: A Proposal for a new Efficacy Instrument. (ERIC ED448208). Semper, R.J. (1990). Science museums as environments for learning. Physics Today. Vol 43. no 11. pp. 50-56. Sheppard, B. (Ed.). (1994). Building museum and school partnerships. Washington, D. C.: The American Museum of Associations. St. John, M. (1996). An invisible infrastructure. Washington, DC: Association of Science and Technology Centers. The Center for Teaching Quality. (2005). Why Teaching Quality Matters: What We Know. Accessed at: http://www.teachingquality.org/whytqmatters/whatweknow.htm. U.S. Department of Education (2007). Report of the Academic Competitive Council. Washington, DC: Author.