Background
In 2021, amidst pandemic challenges for Out of School Time (OST) youth program delivery, I offered a series of online learning experiences for youth and families through Cornell Cooperative Extension of Cayuga County that was intended to provide project-based opportunities for youth and caring adults to learn together and explore nature and STEM.    The activities were promoted through the county office (to 4-H clubs/families and to contacts connected to the EFNEP program) and through a local school district parent-teacher organization’s Facebook page.  While the promotion and experience were offered broadly and to all families, participation was reasonable, and program evaluation indicated that objectives were met, it was observed that youth and family participation lacked demographic and family SES diversity.  That observation inspired me to review literature in a parallel nonformal education field – the field of inclusive science communication as well as literature around other educational theories on teaching and learning.  I found many interesting insights – including the realization that some may not feel comfortable or have time for family OST activities but may be making time for informal learning at home.  In this post, I’ll focus on idea of weaving together informal and formal education so that those who may not be likely to opt for signing up for OST science or nature activities, could still identify as learning from friends, neighbors, and family and be acknowledged for the communal learning that is happening out of school.

Cultural Learning Pathways Framework
One theoretical framework that explains what is learned,  how learning happens, and where it is likely to happen is the  Cultural Learning Pathway Framework.  The Cultural Learning Pathway Framework (Bricker et al., 2008, Bricker & Bell, 2014) describes how the layers of experiences and attributes of one’s culture are involved in a person’s knowledge growth and development.  The Cultural Learning Pathway Framework demonstrates the value of many other learning models including instructional design models that acknowledge affordances and engagement (Nolen & Koretsky, 2018; Norris, 2003), theory of person’s model (Dreier, 2009), social practice theory which recognizes the value of community in shaping identity (Calabrese Barton et al., 2013), and situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991).  Ole Drieier’s theory of persons is a particular influence as it recognizes the value of socio-material objects (how objects like toys or access to sport equipment can encourage social engagement and growth) in activities and arrangements.  The Cultural Learning Pathway Framework considers the value of informal, nonformal, formal, family/cultural experiences and attitudes, and ties to recognized learning in formal education.  The framework emphasizes that learning is lifelong and life wide, it doesn’t only happen in the classroom – and for some who may not be seen for their academic achievements – there learning at home or through informal learning channels may not be seen at all.

Potential Connections to Formal Education
Research indicates that informal learning can, particularly when prompted and acknowledged by others, be impactful on science literacy/competency development.  This understanding and approach may be of particular interest to those who are educators because while formal and non-formal educators may aspire to provide opportunities for skill growth; self-driven play can lead to some of the same outcomes – and in some families – informal lifelong experiences are more likely to be the place where enrichment will occur.  And, because informal outcomes are not written in an educational plan, the development may not be recognized.

If acknowledgment of informal learning were a part of the non-formal and formal instruction, might otherwise marginalized participants identify as science/nature enthusiasts?  The report Learning in and Out of School in Diverse Environments (Banks et al., 2007) considers questions like this.  The report acknowledges the value of situated and everyday learning that is mediated by cultural practices/perspectives in homes and communities.  The authors suggest that when formal education better understands the picture of everyday learning for a student, educational achievement gaps can be reduced.  The report includes principles and practices intended to help educators facilitate discussion and recognize informal, situated learning.   A checklist of questions like, “Does your institution provide professional development programs to help teachers and instructors develop the knowledge and skills needed to create new pedagogies that incorporate and take into account the life-long learning of students?” (Banks et al., 2007, p.29) can assist formal education institutions in assessing their approach.

Non-Western or Indigenous Approaches to Learning
In the literature about adult education theories, there is research and writings about teaching and learning with a non-western or indigenous approach.  These approaches are often discussed interchangeably to represent a philosophy of education where learners learn from the community and the lines of teachers and learners is less structured.  These ideas align with the Cultural Learning Pathways Framework and may explain why youth and adults from non-dominant populations may not choose to join learning experiences intended to build up the individual.  In general, Western approach learning theories refer to teaching to transfer facts and information and developing cognitive reasoning for individuals.  That said, literature about Indigenous teaching and learning includes cultural education norms for indigenous populations not individual.  Commonalities in the writings about Non-Western or Indigenous approaches to learning include: community above self, valuing informal and at home learning, a wholistic approach (valuing learning as mind, body, and spirit), and balancing the scales between teacher and learner, deemphasizing the power of formal learning (Merriam & Baumgartner, 2020).  What if there were opportunities for formal education to listen and acknowledge families and community learning?  Would the youth involved be proud of their family heritage and the experiences learned outside of school in a way that helps them identify as a learner?

Implications for Youth and Family Work
The Non-Western or Indigenous ideas for program development, design, and implementation could have positive program implications for youth and adults, informal and formal learning.  If youth involved were asked to seek out family, friends, neighbors, community members to listen for stories and ask questions, and then retell the stories to others in the classroom – youth and teachers in a formal environment might better acknowledge the community knowledge of the earth and be inspired to learn more from their lived experience.  The youth become the teachers in sharing with their classmates and teachers, the family/community recognizes the value of their contributions to youth and to each other, and formal education partners find value in OST informal education.  In this case, Extension or others working in this space may listen and facilitate more, weaving in dialogue, experiences that seek conversations between youth and family or community, and helps add in additional community partners and experts as needed.

Possibilities?
While the idea of Non-Western or Indigenous approaches may fit the general gap presented in the background, the likelihood is that in the example that I shared the approach would not be used with Non-Western or Indigenous families.  In the experience shared about the online family learning experience – it was SES and Race demographics that were missing – but the missing families were not indigenous.  That said, there are unique factors about the community where the noted experience was offered.  The rural community noted is full of families that are connected to the earth and to nature – hunting, fishing, gardening, farming, hiking, camping, harvesting wood.  Given that, could the literature still apply?  How can we help families and youth have conversations that translate to youth identifying as learners of life sciences, facilitating conversations so that their informal experiences OST can also be validated in the classroom?

Celeste Carmichael is a program development specialist for Cornell Cooperative Extension Administration and a Ph.D. student with the Cornell Department of Natural Resources and the Environment.  Celeste is interested in studying the experiences that help youth and families to connect to each other around nature education, setting the foundation for youth, families, and communities to seek and choose conservation practices.

References:
Banks, J., Au, K., Ball, A. F., Bell, P., Gordon, E., Gutierrez, K., Brice-Heath, S., Lee, C. D., Mahiri, J., Nasir, N., Valdes, G., & Zhou, M. (2007). Learning in and out of school in diverse environments: Life-Long, Life-Wide, Life-Deep.

Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2014). “What comes to mind when you think of science? The perfumery!”: Documenting science-related cultural learning pathways across contexts and timescales. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 260–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21134

Calabrese Barton, A., Kang, H., Tan, E., O’Neill, T. B., Bautista-Guerra, J., & Brecklin, C. (2013). Crafting a Future in Science: Tracing Middle School Girls’ Identity Work Over Time and Space. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 37–75. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212458142

Dreier, O. (2009). Persons in Structures of Social Practice. Theory & Psychology, 19(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354309103539

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.

Merriam, S. B., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2020). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide (4th edition). Jossey-Bass.

Nolen, S. B., & Koretsky, M. D. (2018). Affordances of Virtual and Physical Laboratory Projects for Instructional Design: Impacts on Student Engagement. IEEE Transactions on Education, 61(3), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2018.2791445