Current challenges in realising the potential of non-formal programs

Throughout the science education literature many researchers have found that students’ non-formal experiences need subsequent reinforcement back at school (Adelman & James, 2000; Stake & Mares, 2005) or risk losing out to the more consistent experiences at school and home (Gonsalves, Rahm, & Carvalho, 2013; Jarvis & Pell, 2005; Tytler,

Symington, & Clark, 2016). School based preparation and post de-briefing can also extend out-of-school learning experiences and enable students to engage in the learning in more depth (Luehmann, 2009b). Ensuring that an external informal or non-formal experience is connected to the curriculum is consequently a high priority of teachers (Kisiel, 2005; Storksdieck, 2001; Tytler, Symington, & Clark, 2016) though one which is continually reported as not occurring (Anderson, Kisiel, & Storksdieck, 2006; DeWitt & Storksdieck, 2008; Stake & Mares, 2005). This is concerning as it is well established that learning experiences in informal or non-formal settings need to be connected to students’ school learning in order to obtain the maximum impact from the experience (DeWitt & Osborne, 2007; Fallik, Rosenfeld, & Eylon, 2013). Subsequently a key challenge to realising the various roles of non-formal science education programs lies in ensuring students’ experiences are incorporated back into their learning at school.

Another challenge to maximising student outcomes from non-formal learning experiences involves establishing appropriate expectations in the students and teachers involved. Students may have expectations of novelty and fun for their non-formal program, especially for programs run at informal science learning institutions. While initially encouraging attendance, if these expectations are not met this can affect student satisfaction with the experience (Appleton-Knapp & Krentler, 2006). Fun based expectations can also reduce the impact of the non-formal program (Garner & Eilks, 2015), particularly with regard to student learning (Orion & Hofstein, 1994). Ensuring students are aware of the learning outcomes for their non-formal learning experience is critical, as settings which are less structured and organized than those students are used to may leave students less able to recognize the learning outcomes (Stewart & Jordan, 2017). Storksdieck (2001) and Garner and Eilks (2015) further stress that this learning orientation of students is essential for the success of the non-formal program. However teachers are often unaware of the importance of setting student expectations and many do not consider it to be important when planning non-formal programs (Anderson, Kisiel, & Storksdieck, 2006; Storksdieck, 2001). Some teachers remain unaware of how to forge this connection effectively or face difficulties in doing so amidst time and curriculum

constraints along with their own unfamiliarity with the program (Anderson, Kisiel, & Storksdieck, 2006). Storksdieck (2001) found that teachers often attended visits with vague or incorrect expectations themselves, which can affect the incorporation of the visit into a student’s school learning (DeWitt & Storksdieck, 2008). Establishing appropriate expectations in both teachers and students therefore is needed in order to effectively implement the desired roles of the non-formal program in schools.

Further challenges arise when the expectations of schools and teachers do not align with those of the non-formal staff and their institution. While a non-formal education provider usually shares similar goals to schools for creating a meaningful science learning

experience, what this looks like can differ between educators (Robertson, 2007). The external institution providing the non-formal program may also have additional goals for the program not shared by the school, such as an underlying mission to inspire

environmental ideals (Robertson, 2007; Stern, Powell, & Ardoin, 2008), building student familiarity with an institution to aid in recruiting future tertiary students (Finkelstein, Mayhew, Henderson, Sabella, & Hsu, 2008; Jensen & Bøe, 2013) or increasing the number of visits from members of the public or schools themselves (Friedman, 2010; Irwin,

Pegram, & Gay, 2013; Pedretti, 2002). Having different underlying goals for the experience results in different interpretations of what a successful experience looks like (Kisiel, 2014). For instance an external institution may measure the success of the program in terms of repeat business (Tytler, Symington, & Clark, 2016) and not the affective or learning outcomes desired by teachers (Anderson, Kisiel, & Storksdieck, 2006). Kisiel (2014) states this discontinuity can lead to different expectations and subsequent experiences for students. Resolving different or even conflicting priorities for the collaborative experience is critical to realising its opportunities for students but as Kisiel (2010), Tytler, Symington, and Clark (2016) and Bouillion and Gomez (2001) all highlight, achieving this resolution can be a challenging process of negotiation across different educator communities. Anderson, Kisiel, and Storksdieck (2006) and Kisiel (2010) both argue that difficulties for teachers and non-formal educators in establishing shared expectations for a non-formal program stems from conflict between the two different cultures of formal and informal science learning. Even brief non-formal science education programs require teachers and external staff to be aware of cultural differences between their communities and to be prepared to navigate those differences (Bevan et al., 2010; Kisiel, 2010; Tytler, Symington, & Clark, 2016). Despite general teacher enthusiasm for non-formal education, the very different and often innovative experiences provided in non-formal learning can encounter

resistance in schools (Tytler, Symington, & Clark, 2016). It is common therefore for non- formal programs to rely on the efforts of an individual who is particularly passionate (Bevan & Semper, 2006) and who has familiarity with the external community, thus being able to act as a boundary worker or culture broker between different communities (Tytler, Symington, & Clark, 2016). This boundary work is important as inefficient collaboration can result in the unique affordances and opportunities of a non-formal setting being lost. This can result in non-formal programs where classroom norms and positioning of

students in such settings persist, limiting the opportunity for students to try out new roles as science learners (Tan et al., 2013). Resolving conflict between two different cultures and creating a shared purpose for non-formal programs is key to realising the desired roles of a non-formal program, however it takes time and commitment to develop such an understanding which can involve considerable effort (Kisiel, 2010; Robertson, 2007). An overarching challenge to realising the roles of non-formal science education programs lies in their acquisition of sufficient funding. Non-formal programs may be able to draw on the resources and abilities of multiple settings to provide valuable resources however they are also vulnerable to their associated pressures (Tytler, Symington, & Clark, 2016). Both Robertson (2007) and Bouillion and Gomez (2001) describe collaborative non-formal programs as subject to the conflicting priorities of the stakeholders who must each cope with limited time and funding. In some respects non-formal programs can be more vulnerable to funding and organization problems as they may lie outside the typical funding set up for schools (Bevan et al., 2010) or be reliant on informal science institutions which themselves face considerable difficulties in obtaining and maintaining funding (Bryant, Gore, & Stocklmayer, 2015b). This is often the case for the many non-formal programs which tend to spring up from arrangements on a local level. The emergence of top level support for non-formal programs therefore may provide a more secure funding arrangement which could allow for more involved and long-term collaborations between schools and non-formal education providers. Facilitating such collaborations could provide the time and commitment needed to overcome the main challenges to implementing non- formal programs in schools. However as the next section will highlight, ongoing and collaborative non-formal programs are rarely studied and there are currently many unanswered questions about their operation and impact on students.