, v7.
00' K
JI‘IZAfl]
A, ‘

.1. . ,

pun ._ . .. 4L3 .

annuiuSA. . r ‘7!!!

3‘: .7 a fin»...

. ;.
.

u.
.A
_..u . mfinfififl A : . . .. , A __
(£14.35; A . .. . A A. ,
.... nu... «HUI . .V .. . ,. V, A A . .
A . . . ,.. , .7” . Aumwuflkhu.m

. can le
VPItIA-tiu!

a , . A _‘ .
7:513! . 30 Alt; IA .
III-.lvtfifli. (‘Chluuuu ll";
verifi-t .tv‘.llliln.i|| D‘volv icy)!
. 741T. .litl’ull .- xr'ltbvuv
\fif.n‘l
Kili‘ul 4Iulv

. .2..._vv..l.5h.«.v..rvll

$uflflh-¢éfiina

. s
“10"...qu orxv «I...

.va I.

.9
w y
‘11..

”II-Ad... 4H,"! ..

5 1| ‘

32‘. 33...“...ch 11 r: ..
.Qia.‘.o.!1:!l 1b]... ‘1
..\Dv A A , .A Q. ..

, :flaflxua NH“. .
41... Ivan": lane)! [pf]. . if. .5
.cn‘.‘ittnvA\..P I t I}: 5|: .5

. huhibbnh...
.. 3.3.3,? 1.33:3:311
. ).Hl-« \vIXuiu 233!

 

........v.u..!l... u. . v 91.x.
”UP... $523-, {Lhflflihl

 

. :l .
I . . . «I. :1! 1.13122:
. x“! 3.. gulf. 5. «3|: :1. an I:.J?lc.l.2nl._ v..r.uv.uAll..,.,t ?
411...? Bi... . . . 1,3. I? 61115]?! n o u. A . .
1-. 1:11? .. . f T

. In A¢nll .n.-.l .

i . NJ. a}. .L r r

 

Lb \‘1 r- E .
. stagir ....A .H $4.35., .. , i . » 1.71:1- $11 .A .A A.

.c' ‘ , \isALiumltfiflth .A i .. t o t. , . A A;

 

H

LIBRARY

Michigan State
Unlverslty

 

m will'tlljflljllllfillllillllill

1565 0652

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Great Lakes Education Program: An In-depth
Evaluation of Program Impacts on Fourth
Grade Students

presented by

Anne M. Williamson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Science degree in Fish. & Wildl.

 

 

)AW 5/ DW

Major professor

Date December 16, 1996

 

0-7 639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.

TO AVOID FINES return on or baton date duo.
DATE DUE DATE DU E DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

usu IoAnAtflnnntlvo Action/EM OppomJnltylmtltulon
WM1

 

 

 

THE GREAT LAKES EDUCATION PROGRAM:
AN IN-DEPTH EVALUATION OF PROGRAM IMPACTS ON
FOURTH GRADE STUDENTS
By

Anne Williamson

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

1 996

ABSTRACT
THE GREAT LAKES EDUCATION PROGRAM:
AN IN-DEPTH EVALUATION OF PROGRAM IMPACTS ON
FOURTH GRADE STUDENTS
By,

Anne Williamson

The focus of this research was to measure the impacts of the Great Lakes
Education Program (GLEP) vessel experience on fourth grade students’ changes in Great
Lakes knowledge, attitudes toward the Great Lakes, and responsible behavioral
intentions. A valid and reliable written survey was developed from eight pre-existing
instruments. The study incorporated a quasi-experimental, pre- post-test design involving
39 fourth grade classrooms (945 students). Students exhibited a highly significant
increase in Great Lakes knowledge, a significant increase in girls’ positive attitudes
toward the Great Lakes, and no change in responsible behavioral intentions as a result of
the GLEP vessel experience. Additionally, girls had significantly higher pre- and post-
cruise behavioral intentions than boys, and boys had significantly more Great Lakes and
aquatic experiences than girls. Recommendations include conducting longer-term
follow-up evaluations with students, improving measurement of attitudes and behavioral

intentions, and strengthening cruise and written curricula.

To my mom, for her constant encouragment to follow my dreams, and
to my husband, who helped me reach this one.

iii

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This publication is a result of work sponsored by the Michigan Sea Grant College
Program, project number RNBE-l , under grant number DOC-G-NA3 6RG056-A, from
the Office of Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
US. Department of Commerce, and funds from the State of Michigan. The US.
Government is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes
notwithstanding any copyright notation appearing hereon.

My highest acknowledgment and regard is given to Dr. Shari L. Dann, major
professor, advisor, and mentor throughout this project. The guidance committee of Dr.
June Youatt, Department of Family and Child Ecology, and Dr. Tom Coon, Department
of Fisheries and Wildlife, are also recognized for their time and assistance throughout the
evaluation.

I also wish to thank the following researchers and extension personnel for their
contribution to the evaluation: Dr. Scott Winterstein of the Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife for his advisement on statistical analyses; Ms. Michelle Haggerty of the
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife for her work in administering the surveys and
entering data; Mr. Steve Stewart, Mr. Patrick Livingston, and Ms. Terry Gibb of

Michigan Sea Grant and Macomb County Extension services for their support and liaison

iv

 

functions; and all the students and teachers who participated in this evaluation.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................... p .................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... x
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Problem Area .............................................................................................................. 1
Problem Statement ....................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 5
Brief Review of Environmental Education (EB) .......................................................... 5
Definitions and Philosophies of EB and Marine and Aquatic Education (M/AE). 5
Theories of Behavior Change ................................................................................. 6
Relationship Between Cognitive and Affective Domains in Designing EE
Programs ............................................................................................................. 10
EE Program Evaluation And Related Research .......................................................... ll
Needs for BB Program Evaluation ........................................................................ 11
Evaluation Models for Environmental Education ................................................. 12
Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP) Evaluation Model ............................... 13
Previous Research and Evaluation of MA/E and Experiential EE Programs ....... 17
Limitations of Previous Research ......................................................................... 21
Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 3
METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 24
Development of Evaluation Instrument ...................................................................... 24
Pilot Study ............................................................................................................ 26
Final Instrument Reliabilities .............................................................................. 27
Readability of Instrument ..................................................................................... 30
Final Evaluation Protocol ........................................................................................... 31
Experimental Design ............................................................................................ 32
Final Testing Procedure ........................................................................................ 33
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 34

vi

Chapter 4

RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 3S
- Response Rates .......................................................................................................... 35
Scale Score Frequency Distributions and Means ....................................................... 36
Potential Testing Effect - Experimental vs. Control Groups ..................................... 41
GLEP Cruise Effects on Attitudes, Behavioral Intentions, and Knowledge ............. 42
Pre-existing and Persisting Gender Differences ........................................................ 42
GLEP Cruise Effects on Boys vs. Girls ..................................................................... 51
GLEP Cruise Effects and Prior Experiences ............................................................. 52
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
Experimental Design .................................................................................................. 53
Mean Classroom Scores ............................................................................................. 53
GLEP Cruise Effects .................................................................................................. 54
Gender Differences Among Students ......................................................................... 57
Pre-existing and Existing Gender Differences ..................................................... 57
Gender Differences in Cruise Effects ................................................................... 58
Research Limitations .................................................................................................. 58
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... S9
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Project Approval by the University Committee
on Research Involving Human Subjects CUCRIHS) ................................................. 62
Appendix B: Review of the GLEP Classroom Curriculum ......................................... 63
GLEP Curriculum Background ............................................................................. 63
Curriculum Framework ......................................................................................... 64
Curriculum Design ................................................................................................ 68
Activity Structure .................................................................................................. 69
Appendix C: GLEP Cmise Survey: the Final Instrument ........................................... 73
Appendix D: Results from Student Survey ................................................................. 81
Appendix E: GLEP Evaluation Teacher Contact Materials ........................................ 89
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 95

vii

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Scale Reliabilities for Pilot Survey, Full Evaluation Study, and Comparable

Research ............................................................................................................ 28
Table 2. Experience Variables Excluded from Final Experience Scale Analysis ........... 30
Table 3. Study Design ..................................................................................................... 33
Table 4. Response Rates .................................................................................................. 35
Table 5. Evaluation of Potential Testing Effect; Mann-Whitney U Non-parametric
Tests on Control vs. Experimental Group Classroom Medians ........................ 41
Table 6. Paired t-tests on Classroom Scale Differences in the Experimental Group ...... 42
Table 7. Unpaired T-tests of Boys’ vs. Girls’ Scale Totals on Pre-, Post-, and Post-
Only Surveys ..................................................................................................... 45
Table 8. Pearson’s Chi-Square for Boys’ vs. Girls’ Behavioral Intentions ..................... 46
Table 9. Pearson’s Chi-Square for Boys’ vs. Girls’ Experiences .................................... 50
Table 10. One Sample t-tests on Boys’ vs. Girls’ Classroom Scale Differences in the
Experimental Group ........................... . ............................................................. 51
Table 11. Paired Sample t-tests on Classroom Scale Differences in Experimental
Classrooms with Low Experience Levels ........................................................ 52
Table 12. Study Design for Future Evaluations. ........................ ' ..................................... 57
Table B—1. Project WET Curriculum Framework: A Partial Example ............................ 65
Table B-2. GLEP Curriculum Focus Areas: A Partial Example ...................................... 67
Table B-3. Project WET Activity Layout ........................................................................ 7O

viii

Table D-l. Distribution of Experimental and Control Group Student Responses on
Attitude Scale Items ....................................................................................... 81

Table D-2. Distribution of Experimental and Control Group Student Responses on
Behavioral Intention Scale Items ................................................................... 82

Table D3. Distribution of Experimental and Control Group Student Responses on
Knowledge Scale Items .................................................................................. 84

Table D-4. Distribution of Experimental and Control Group Student Responses on
Experience Scale Items .................................................................................. 87

ix

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Model of Determinants of Responsible Environmental Behavior ..................... 9
Figure 2. The TOP Model of Program Development as Applied to GLEP ..................... 14
Figure 3. The TOP Model of Program Evaluation as Applied to GLEP ......................... 16
Figure 4. Total Attitude Distribution for Experimental and Control Groups ................... 37

Figure 5. Total Behavioral Intention Distribution for Experimental and Control Groups 38
Figure 6. Total Knowledge Distribution for Experimental and Control Groups .............. 39

Figure 7. Total Experience Distribution for Experimental and Control Groups .............. 4O

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Problem Area

Vessel-based education programs are quite prevalent throughout the Great Lakes
and United States. The American Sail Training Association (ASTA) publishes an annual
AST A Directory of Sail Training Programs and Tall Ships. This directory contains over
130 listings of sail-based education programs which cover various disciplines for students
of all ages. Besides the ASTA directory entries, there are additional non-sail vessel
education programs; four exist in Michigan alone, including the Great Lakes Education
Program (GLEP).

The Great Lakes Education Program, developed by Michigan Sea Grant College
Program and Michigan State University Extension, is a Great Lakes classroom and
experiential learning program for fourth grade students. It specifically targets fourth
grade students because Michigan’s State Board of Education mandates that students learn
about the Great Lakes in the fourth grade. The Great Lakes Education Program provides a
multi-disciplinary introduction to the biological, physical, chemical, and cultural aspects
of the Great Lakes and other aquatic systems. Currently, GLEP features a vessel-based

educational experience which includes eight learning stations offered by shipbon

2
educators known as cruise leaders. The half-day cnrise consists of a trip on the Clinton
River and Lake St. Clair, which are within the Great Lakes watershed. In addition,
GLEP’s written curriculum consists of pre- and post-trip classroom activities to enhance
the learning experience. The goal of GLEP is to educate youth to develop ecological
literacy, understanding, and stewardship of Great Lakes resources and issues. This goal is
consistent with the superordinate goal of environmental education (EE) which is,

“...to aid citizens in becoming environmentally knowledgeable and, above all,

skilled and dedicated citizens who are willing to work, individually and

collectively, toward achieving and/or maintaining a dynamic equilibrium
between quality of life and quality of the envrronment”
(Hungerford and Volk, 1990:13).

One assumption in the superordinate goal of EE is that knowledge is an essential
prerequisite for responsible environmental behavior. Sound ecological understanding
must be at the foundation of all decision making; Bennett (1989) states that “...cognitive
skills progress in difficulty from knowledge to evaluation, and that each skill requires the
use of skills below it; for example, application requires understanding requires
knowledge” (Bennett, 1989:16). The superordinate goal also recognizes that when
making decisions, the average person does not use knowledge alone because feelings and
emotions are involved in the entire decision making process (Eiss and Harbeck, 1969).
The key element to remember in designing programs to develop responsible
environmental behavior is that there is no single component which can determine or

influence environmental responsibility.

Recently, EE has been under fire in the general media for dealing with feelings,

3
emotions, sensitive issues, and controversial topics. Jo Kwong at George Mason
University contends that EE, often referred to as “green” education, sometimes
degenerates into “emotionalism, myths and misinformation” (Satchell, 1996:64). It is
unfortunate that EE is ofien misunderstood and used interchangeably with
environmentalism and environmental advocacy; the “principles of civic responsibility
depend upon a firm understanding of environmental and social relationships” (Simmons,
1996:2).

Since we do understand that sound ecological knowledge is necessary for
responsible environmental behavior, a major problem in the United States is low
scientific and technological literacy. US. high school students rank low in student
achievement in biology, chemistry, and physics; there are also very few students who are
pursuing careers in technical fields (Maryland Sea Grant, 1993). An understanding of
scientific processes, particularly related to Great Lakes aquatic sciences, will be
extremely important to citizens of this basin in the future.

Not only is EE battling the problem of low scientific literacy, but, as noted in
numerous articles, the lack of evaluation hinders the credibility of EB programs (Bennett,
1989; Brody, 1995; Brody and Koch, 1989; Ewert, 1987; Flor, 1991; Iozzi, 1989; Keen,
1991; Kolb, 1991; Leeming et al., 1993; Lisowski and Disinger, 1991; Lucko, Disinger,
and Roth, 1982). In order to “...convince the educational community that EE can improve
academic curricula and make traditional subjects more relevant to students, we must
evaluate our programs” (Bennett, 1989:1). In addition, there is an even greater need for

the evaluation of experiential education, or hands-on learning in field situations.

 

4
“Paramount in efforts to integrate experiential education into more mainstream learning
will be the ability to provide more concrete evidence as to program accomplishments”

(Flor, 1991:l).

Problem Statement

The vessel-based experience associated with GLEP has been extremely well
received by participants, but there has been no detailed evaluation research to ascertain
whether the vessel experience is achieving its desired impacts on students’ Great Lakes
knowledge, attitudes, and intentions to perform responsible Great Lakes behaviors.
Furthermore, no quasi-experimental evaluations have been conducted on any of the other
vessel-based programs. Thus, the focus of this research is to measure the impacts of the
GLEP vessel experience on students’ changes in Great Lakes knowledge, attitudes

towards the Great Lakes, and responsible behavioral intentions regarding the Great Lakes.

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Brief Review of Environmental Education (EE)
Definitions and Philosophies of EB and Marine and Aquatic Education (M/AE)
Environmental education covers a wide range of topics focusing on quality
education about the environment. Five objectives developed at the 1977 Tbilisi
Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, which support the
superordinate goal of EB and help to concentrate educational efforts, are:

1. AWARENESS - to help social groups and individuals acquire an awareness
and sensitivity to the total environment and its allied problems [and/or issues]

2. SENSITIVITY - to help social groups and individuals gain a variety of
experiences in, and acquire a basic understanding of, the environment and its
associated problems [and/or issues]

3. ATTITUDES - to help social groups and individuals acquire a set of values and
feelings of concern for the environment and motivation for active participation
in environmental improvement and protection.

4. SKILLS - to help social groups and individuals acquire skills for identifying
and solving environmental problems [and/or issues]

5. PARTICIPATION - to provide social groups and individuals with an
opportunity to be actively involved at all levels in working toward resolution of
environmental problems [and/or issues] (Hungerford and Volk, 1990)

More specifically, the definition of marine and aquatic education is:
“...that part of the total educational process which enables people to develop a

sensitivity to and a general understanding of the role of the seas and fresh water in
human affairs and the impact of society on the marine and aquatic environments”

6

(Goodwin and Schaadt, 1977 as cited in Former 1991:303).

Environmental education was developed primarily from progressive and
reconstructionist schools of thought, where reflective thinking fosters social problem-
solving and good citizenship participation. Problem solving skills are learned through
scientifically focused studies and applied to amending social concerns (I. Youatt
personal communication, June 19, 1995).

The superordinate goal of EE is consistent with reconstructionist views, in which
the mission of education is change through social action. In the reconstructionist
philosophy, subject matter is integrated into issue-centered problems, and participation of
learners is encouraged in determining solutions. Brody supports these same views as they
relate to EE when he states that, “the integration of basic science concepts and skills with
real life concerns... is critical to help maintain the ecology and quality of life” (Brody,
1995: l 8). It should be noted that knowledge and a keen mind, in addition to skills and
participation, are necessary to fulfill reconstructionist convictions in which education
fosters change through social action. Further discussion of GLEP’s written curriculum

and program design can be found in Appendix B.

Theories of Behavior Change
Researchers maintain that “the ‘gateway’ to the learning process is the affective
domain” and that possessing environmental knowledge alone will not ensure one will be

motivated to take action or change behavior patterns (Iozzi, 19893). The traditional

7
linear model of behavior changes caused by changes in knowledge or awareness is no
longer valid within the environmental education community (Borden and Scheltiro, 1979;
Brody and Koch, 1989; Dwyer et al., 1993; Gigliotti, 1992; Gray et al., 1985; Hungerford
and Volk, 1990; Marcinkowski, 1989; Sia et al., 1985/86; Sivek, 1989).

This does not mean that the cognitive domain has no relevance in the field of
environmental education. On the contrary, knowledge is one of the basic stepping stones
towards responsible environmental behavior. Hines, Hungerford and Tomera (1987)
found that “those individuals with greater knowledge of environmental issues and/or
knowledge of how to take action on those issues were more likely to have reported
engaging in responsible environmental behaviors...” (Hines et al., 19873). Bennett
(1989) refers to knowledge as the ability to recall something from memory; true
understanding occurs at a higher cognitive level and involves comprehending the
meaning of something and being able to explain it. 1

Even though the cognitive and affective domains may seem to be two separate
entities, Dewey (1933) states that “intellectual force does not exist apart from the
attitudes, feelings, or emotions that make us open-minded rather than close-minded,
responsible rather than irresponsible” (Dewey, 1933:28-33). Knowledge alone will not
result in responsible environmental behavior, and positive attitudes and action skills are
useless unless correct information is guiding them. A model developed by Hines et a1.
(1987) provides a complete view of the process of behavior changes and incorporates
several interrelated variables which ultimately result in responsible environmental

behavior (Figure 1). With this model it is possible to develop, teach, and evaluate

8
environmental education programs which strive to develop responsible environmental
behavior in learners.
The inferences in this model that must be acknowledged when
developing and carrying out environmental education programs to create

responsible behavior are also noted by Hines et al. and are:

0 An individual who expresses an intention to take action
will be more likely to engage in the action than will an
individual who expresses no such intention.

- Knowledge of the issue appears to be a prerequisite to
action.

0 An individual must also possess knowledge of those
courses of action which are available and which will be
most effective in a given situation.

. Another critical component...is skill in appropriately
applying this knowledge to a given issue.

0 An individual must possess a desire to act. One’s desire to
act appears to be affected by a host of personality factors,
including locus of control, attitudes toward the environment
and taking action, and personal responsibility.

. Situational factors, such as economic constraints, social
pressures and opportunities to choose different actions
may...serve to either counteract or to strengthen the
variables in the model (Hungerford and Volk, 1990:10).

332.3

3§E=oe$=o
sesame.

 

 

$2 .a a as: sea Sass

Essen Baaaesam aeaasm to aging a sec: ._ 2%;

 

_ «on 3

 

 

fleaoeu
Saga

 

7 53:8:—

ml

 

 

 

3:36:33. Econ—om .
35:00 me 33A .
8v3§< .

aces £38m...

 

 

 

 

8:3 A
A .. .. _

$3336 838
a Sagan

 

 

 

 

 

A _

 

10
These inferences need to be considered when developing and implementing
environmental education curricula and programs; for example, it is erroneous to assume
that skills evolve naturally from knowledge (Hines et al., 1987). Each element also

needs to be handled according to its own situational factors.

Relationship Between Cognitive and Affective Domains in Designing EE
Programs

Desired outcomes in environmental education include changes in knowledge,
attitudes, value orientations, and behavior. Evaluators of various programs have met with
difficulties in measuring these changes in the cognitive and affective domains and in
behavior (Iozzi, 1989). It should be noted more studies have evaluated outcomes in the
affective domain than in the cognitive domain; in addition “environmental researchers
recognized quite early that focusing on the afl‘ective domain was extremely important if
programs in environmental education were to be effective in teaching positive
environmental attitudes and knowledge” (Iozzi, 1989:4).

Even though most of the research has been done on the affective domain, there is
still very little concrete evidence that environmental education is accomplishing its
objectives. Bennett (1989) states that “measuring attitudes and values is the most
difficult task in evaluation because they cannot be measured directly” (Bennett, 1989: 16);
this may explain why most studies in the affective domain are qualitative rather than

quantitative.

11

EE Program Evaluation And Related Research

Even though program evaluation is essential in the overall educational process, it
is often not considered at all or as strongly as necessary in program planning. Some
vessel-based programs have been running for over 20 years, yet no rigorous evaluations
have been done. Program planners often overlook evaluation due to several factors and
do not consider the innate value of evaluation. Even if evaluation is considered, it is all
too often devoted to identifying reactions which reflect participants’ degree of interest,
acceptance of activity leaders, and attraction to educational methods of program
activities. If program evaluation is to be useful in improving new and existing programs,
it must be conducted in a thorough manner by examining more than participant reactions
to programs. Program goals, objectives, impacts, and accomplishments must be assessed

(Bennett, 1989; Boyle, 1981; Cookson, 1996; Flor, 1991).

Needs for BB Program Evaluation
Quite often program planners overlook evaluation because they have few

Opportunities to upgrade their competence in this area, the demands on programmers to
conduct evaluation are usually minimal, there are few professional evaluators, or there is
no time or money to conduct an evaluation (Stufflebeam, 1975). Sometimes, when
evaluations are conducted, they only identify participant reactions which result in limited
information such as whether the participants liked the program and why. Although this
information is useful, it does not provide concrete evidence as to program impacts,

outcomes, or accomplishments. Evaluations of participant reactions also do not provide

12
the information necessary to assess organizational operations or program processes. In-
depth evaluations are extremely important in that they can provide concrete evidence of
program achievements and shortcomings and detailed information for the improvement
and development of programs.

The information collected through in-depth evaluations is essential for several
reasons. Principle purposes of evaluation include: 1) improvement of organizational
operation and administration (personnel, facilities, and finances), and 2) improvement of
program objectives, methods, and materials (Knowles, 1980). A secondary purpose of
evaluation is to provide the program’s defense against attack, justification for expansion,
and support for the status quo. Additional reasons for evaluation are that it affords feeling
of accomplishment, helps focus goals, and can be a learning opportunity (Boyle, 1981).

The issue of program evaluation is especially evident in the field of environmental
education. It has been noted in numerous articles that the lack of in—depth evaluation
hinders the credibility of EB proponents and programs (Iozzi 1989; Keen, 1991; Lewis
1981/82; Linke 1981; Lucko, Disinger, and Roth 1982). Especially in experiential
education programs,

“...detailed information related to the achievement of cognitive and

noncognitive objectives is needed to justify programs and assure that students

are prepared to deal with the numerous conservation, pollution control,

energy, reclamation, and other environmental issues” ( Lucko et al., 1982:11).

Evaluation Models for Environmental Education I

Models that have been developed to evaluate EE programs attempt to assess

outcomes related to program goals and objectives. One such model is a program evaluation

13

by Dr. Dean Bennett which is

“...organized around four steps: step one - deciding what to evaluate,
developing objectives, and allowing for intuitive and unanticipated
outcomes; step two - determining the evaluation design and developing
instruments; step three - collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data; and step
four - reporting results and improving the educational program” (Bennett,
1 989: 1 4).
A model similar to this is presented in the handbook produced by the Colorado State
Department of Education, Environmental Education Needs Assessment and Evaluation
Manual. This manual describes five major steps which are necessary in conducting an
evaluation: 1) develop an evaluation design, 2) select and/or develop instruments, 3)
collect apprOpriate information, 4) analyze information, and 5) prepare and present

reports (Lucko et al., 1982). Each of these major steps contains several important

activities which are essential in completing a thorough evaluation.

Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP) Evaluation Model

The Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP) model was developed by Drs.
Claude Bennett and Kay Rockwell as an integrated approach to program planning and
evaluation. The TOP model presents a simplified approach to the entire process of
developing, implementing, and evaluating programs, more specifically, agricultural
extension programs.

The overall model provides complete “steps” to follow for program development
and performance evaluation. Program development begins with needs and opportunity

assessments and proceeds toward program design (Figure 2). Evaluation of program

14

.68. .om 0:2. domfiomgfieg 3.8qu 9.93% .m :8... BEES
.540 o. “.23.? we 32:83.69 Samoa me five: mOH 2F .N 0.5m...

 

£08.33
2.28 E... .033 815 3.53. -

82:8
3.832 :32 .050 :5 5.28%—

.:80 com :4 So... tongs... xoom - 32:83— A

833.8
Seaman—o Bomb... :5_=o.Eoo $30 3.5.55 -
8:5 mung. 822.2. 3.35.— 8350 - 82.3.3. .N

 

 

     

   
   

9.33 8 as as...» 8... as... -

p.388 v5. 3:33... can.» .3. 25.5... Swap. - stasis.— .m

.538 SE eonfiofifiu 3 :8 .623
gauche... 2.8;... 3:32 mofi 30: 35:63....— 3533 mmomm< -

05.332305— Bu to... 30.. 35:633.. .0523 mmomm< - mcezoaox .v

 

28... 22.8.9...
82:82 .83.... 2.3.3 :_ .928 a .538 Big - .uExm .2258
293 .895 0:. 59.2.: .8953 22:96:. ofiuo owes—26:.— .83230 15.8 5:50 - dug—>65— .n

 

 

32:82 23...... E moEEEDBS 03.3 2.3 3:353 mo .35.... 8:80.: .
mEoEmmEo E 5.35.83 8.....— aecuo on: 5:03. 032...: - «833..— .o

 

 

A Aommmv 22.6.50
32:80.. .39: En 8x3 .35 he wivegovg 9322.— . .8:o.::o._>:m
3.33.38. 08:83— .83; $20 .805» E 8:0Eo>oa:._ 2:030 - 62.053 .308 K

 

 

32.3.30 .30 .o 33.5... .23
Eazmongmo 2589...

 

15

performance (Figure 3) begins with process evaluation and can involve the more difficult
steps of outcome evaluation. Process evaluations assess the extent that objectives for
program resources, activities, participation, and participant reactions are reached.
Program impact evaluations suggest the extent of program influence on knowledge,
attitudes, and behavior.

The evaluation of program performance is strengthened if both process and
impact evaluation can be conducted (Figure 3). Measuring objectives and target
indicators at several different levels provides a check system which best measures how
well a program is proceeding toward its ultimate goals. Evaluations of reactions of
participants are useful in process evaluations by measuring degree of interest, acceptance
of leaders, and attraction to activity methods. Evaluations of reactions provide little or no
evidence of program impact. Evaluations of changes in knowledge, opinions, skills, and
aspirations (KOSA) allow assessment of ultimate program impacts anticipated in the
goals and objectives developed during the needs assessment phase of program.

When the TOP model is applied to GLEP, some program development and
evaluation steps were clearly followed by local, Extension GLEP designers, while others
were not; this makes measurement of specific GLEP performance difficult (Figure 2).
GLEP developers considered target audience needs and opportunities for the social,
economic, and environmental conditions (SEEC), practices, and KOSA levels, but did not
record desired impacts in the form of specific, measurable goals and objectives (Figure
2). The assessment of needs and opportunities for GLEP’s design did involve adequate

consideration of the reactions, participation, activities, and resources steps (Figure 2).

16

~on 3 33% a 83.3% 5.32m go 382 mow 2: .m 2&5

$0.58 1530582 550 Ea EEO «om Ewing Spa 3282 33 mpg—Es”— -
Goa .558 Eng 538$ 33 E 33303.3; E8233 «:23 con Ba 9513— 358 38:23 MN - 32:83— .—

     

 

352: 333%...» min £23an 3338 “8905 53:3 owaq v: 33:65 -
30%? 35 2.288 9.152 290 .23 35:35 .83., 326.80 - moE>uo< .N

 

 

Ga. .658 .23 5339 8.: s 8:82 an: 2282 8 2a 3:83» 81m -
A32 533% a0» =80 $2: .25 3 =32» 3: - Sign; .m

 

 

3:38 32 ...8:o.:onxo 3295:: <: -

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

A32 5389 Eo=ooxo 3 589.5 06 3.8 2288.? $5 - 30:33. .v
28% m=o§_§
3:33» 22:0.“ E 3255a 93me 33205 - .mExm .2253
3:25.30 onto—>65. 33 320 33205 . auto—>65— .n
850 Saw £033.25“ acct—.85
120323 E 958 owfino oz - «8:22.— .0
Aommmv 203650
35:82.3”,—

cofiago “oz ago—Sum .Eoow .5

 

 

 

8:525 .515 :33
mo moan—Sam

ZOF<DA<>M MUEOmMm—m SOME

17

Program performance in Figure 3 shows GLEP’s process evaluation of the
resources, activities, participation, and reactions levels as very complete and thorough.
Evaluations of reactions show that both students and teachers have extremely positive
attitudes toward the program, participation is multiplying, and resources are expanding
(Figure 3) (Stewart, 1995). Further assessment of program performance through impact
evaluations gets more difficult. Assessment at the KOSA level is the next evaluation
step, but early in this project GLEP researchers found work difficult because there were
no specific objectives which could be measured easily.

Careful program planning not only helps to focus goals and objectives, but it
greatly facilitates program evaluation. Thorough consideration at each program
developmental step can also include plans for future assessment, making evaluation more
efficient and perhaps cost-effective.

Bennett’s TOP model for program planning and evaluation is an excellent
resource for new as well as existing programs. It is thorough in identifying program
development and evaluation requirements, and it can aid planners and educators as they

take into consideration all the components that are needed for a successful program.

Previous Research and Evaluation of MA/E and Experiential EE Programs
Major research in marine, aquatic, and Great Lakes environmental education has
been done by Dr. Rosanne F ortner at The Ohio State University. The research has been
quantitative in nature and focuses on knowledge and attitudes. A baseline study done in

1980 showed that tenth grade students had a low level of marine knowledge. Follow-up

18
studies on the ocean and Great Lakes demonstrated only slight and slow increases in
knowledge indicating little progress had been made by other statewide educational efforts
(Fortner, 1993). The evaluation instrument used in 1979 was the original Survey of
Oceanic Attitudes and Knowledge (SOAK).

The only in-depth study in aquatic environmental education to date has been done
by F ortner through a summative evaluation of the Oceanic Education Activities for Great
Lakes Schools (OEAGLS) program (Mayer and Fortner, 1993). The first study was the
baseline study in 1979. Highly knowledgeable students had more positive attitudes about
the oceans and Great Lakes than did those with lower knowledge, and very interestingly,
students indicated that most of their information was obtained through movies and
television (Fortner and Teates, 1980). The study was repeated in 1983 and 1987 with the
SOAK questionnaire modified to include a “media source” component and OEAGLS-
specific information. Again, positive attitudes were directly related to higher knowledge
scores, but this time the primary information source was no longer movies and television
but classes in school (such as OEAGLS) (Mayer and Fortner, 1993).

Other major research in marine education and ecological misconceptions has been
done by Dr. Michael J. Brody. His assessments of 4th-, 8th-, and 11th- Grade students’
knowledge related to marine science and natural resource issues has shown that students
seldom see the multiple connections that new concepts have to the real world, and they
are unable to apply higher order ideas to daily occmrences in their lives (Brody, 1989;
Brody, 1995). Methods of evaluation included the use of concept maps representing a

variety of major content principles in conjunction with student interviews. A common

19
misconception, among others, held by half of the students interviewed is that coral reefs
exist throughout the ocean. Brody explains that “when we move toward an
interdisciplinary approach, such as environmental science, we increase the possibilities
for misconceptions because of the multiple relationships of various concepts for the
disciplines” (Brody, 1995:27). Students must learn that humans are a part of the “real
world”.

Except for some of the research done by Brody, few evaluations have been fourth
grade specific, and none are related to marine or aquatic resources. One fourth grade
study examined the relationship among cognitive learning, field trips, and follow-up
activities related to a public garden. The emphasis of the research was to evaluate the
efi‘ectiveness of follow-up activities as part of the field trip experience. A pre-post test
control group design was used with the fourth grade groups that participated in the field
trip activity; only the experimental group received the followup activity instruction.
Results showed “significant differences were detected between some post-test scores and
between all pre-test and post-test scores suggesting that the related follow-up activities
reinforced some of the concepts presented dming the field trip” (Farmer and Wott,
1995:33). Possible limitations of this research are a small sample size (only 111 student
subjects), an evaluation instrument consisting of only 11 questions, and lack of a control
in the study design for testing effects.

Another fourth grade study evaluated conservation education programs at a South
American zoo. This research proved to be quite extensive, assessing responses fiom

1,015 students and using a pre- post-treatment questionnaire comprised of 18 multiple

20
choice knowledge questions and a 16-statement, five point attitude scale. The research
design consisted of four different treatment groups which included an intensive zoo
workshop for elementary teachers, a zoo visit preceded by a slide show, an unstructured
visit to the zoo, and a control group which received no zoo-related instruction or visit.
Results showed that knowledge and attitude scores of students whose teachers
participated in the education program improved significantly, but no effects on student
knowledge or attitude scores were found for any other treatments (Gutierrez de White and
Jacobson, 1994).

The distinct lack of well performed studies at the fourth and lower grade levels is
attributed to the difficulties of measurements of knowledge and attitudes at younger ages.
Lower knowledge and reading levels, shorter attention spans, and less well-developed
motor skills in young children make test-taking and test- administering more challenging
than with older youth. Researchers have made several modifications on survey
instruments so that the younger children could more easily read and answer the questions
(Wong-Leonard, 1992). Leeming, Dwyer, and Bracken (1995) repeatedly found “older
children evidencing a more consistent response pattern than younger children” (Leeming
et al., 1995:26).

The number of evaluations of experiential education at other grade levels is also
insufficient. In a critical review of outcome research focusing on school children, only 17
published studies since 1974 have evaluated interventions emphasizing activities
primarily outside of a normal classroom setting (Leeming et al.,l993). Three of these

studies were at the fifth grade level, and none were at the fourth grade level.

21

No review is ever perfect, and only a few more evaluations of programs were
found besides those in the review. They include assessments of various experiential
programs such as a seven day, high school, ecological, field study (Lisowski and
Disinger, 1991), the Sunship Barth Program which is a five day camp for fifih and sixth
graders (Keen, 1991), and a two week preteen summer nature camp (Dresner and Gill,
1994).

Many evaluations of in-classroom BE instruction are also available (Charles,
1988; Race, Decker, and Taylor, 1990) including 17 more found in the 1993 critical
review by Leeming et al. Other research which is not program specific in its evaluation
assesses the existing levels of students’ knowledge and attitudes toward various

environmental topics (Walter and Lien, 1985; Kellen, 1985).

Limitations of Previous Research

Previous research has been limited by several factors which can be either
controllable or uncontrollable. Especially problematic in evaluation is the measurement
of attitudes, values, and behavior because they cannot be measured directly. Hines,
Hungerford, and Tomera also state that “it has long been known that the prediction of
behavior is an extremely complex process which is based on a multitude of factors”
(Hines et al., 1987z8). In addition to the problem of measuring attitudes and behaviors,
environmental education is by its nature interdisciplinary, which makes efforts to
determine the degrees of effectiveness even more difficult (Lucko et al., 1982).

The critical review of 34 EE evaluations by Leeming et al. revealed several

22
controllable factors which critically limited many of the assessments (Leeming et al.,
1993). The most common and serious error of analysis found was concerned with the
unit of analysis, which should be the classroom and not the individual student if the
original sampling unit was the classroom; “individuals in a class or other intact group
clearly do not constitute independent measures, and their responses may be affected by
numerous confounding factors other than or in addition to any true treatment effect”
(Leeming et al., 1993: 18). Another problem involves the measurement instrument. The
instrument used should be reliable and valid, and preferably constructed from existing
inventories. The experimenter or the same person who presented the intervention should
not administer the instrument, in order to avoid any experimenter expectancies or bias.
Experimental designs must be carefully planned and include control groups. Appropriate
statistical techniques must be applied in checking for testing effects and in determining
treatment effects. Lastly, “...few investigators collect follow-up data to determine

whether observed effects persist over time” (Leeming et al., 1993: 18).

Research Questions

The focus of this quasi-experimental research is to quantitatively measure the
impacts of the GLEP vessel experience on students’ changes in Great Lakes knowledge,
attitudes towards the Great Lakes, and responsible behavioral intentions regarding the
Great Lakes. Specific research questions about the vessel experience include the

following:

23

1 . Knowledge:

a. Does the one day GLEP vessel experience increase student
knowledge of the Great Lakes?
2. Attitudes and intentions:

a. Have student attitudes regarding the Great Lakes changed after the
one day GLEP vessel experience?
b. Is there a change in responsible behavioral intentions regarding the

Great Lakes after the one day GLEP vessel experience?

In order to address these questions, a valid and reliable measurement instrument
must first be developed, and then research methodology will be carefully considered.
Answers to the research questions will be used to make recommendations to strengthen
GLEP and similar marine and aquatic education and experiential environmental
education programs. If program weaknesses are identified, suggestions for improvement
will be made as necessary. Likewise, if the GLEP evaluation itself has limitations, they

will be identified and suggestions and recommendations for future research will be made.

Chapter 3

METHODS

Development of Evaluation Instrument

To measure “concrete” program results, several researchers have developed
evaluation instruments. One general instrument is the Children’s Environmental Attitude
and Knowledge Scale (CHEAKS) developed by Leeming, Dwyer, and Bracken (1995).
The CHEAKS ecological attitude and knowledge scales include items that relate to major
attitudinal constructs, including environmental commitment, behavior, and affect. Since
the CHEAKS was designed for use with a wide range of age (grades 1-7) and ability
levels, reliability and validity were somewhat sacrificed. While attitudinal subscales had
high reliability and validity, knowledge subscales did not, possibly because of younger
children’s lower knowledge levels or reading skills (Leeming et al., 1995).

Other evaluation instruments available are less general and are more program-
specific. Seven different surveys/questionnaires have been developed for specific
environmental programs or research evaluations. These instruments include: 1) Coral
Reef Classroom Student Survey (Kelly, 1995), 2) Inland Seas Education Association
Student Post Trip Evaluation (Schulz, 1994), 3) Wildlife Education Survey - 4th Grade

(Gilcrest, 1989/90), 4) Marine Education Knowledge Inventory (Hounshell and Hampton,

24

25

1982), 5) Children’s Wildlife Perception Survey (Wong-Leonard, 1992), 6) Water and
Aquatic Life (Stout et al., 1989), and 7) Survey of Oceanic Attitudes and Knowledge
(SOAK) (F ortner and Mayer, 1983). Only the Children’s Wildlife Perception Survey and
SOAK instruments have been tested for reliability and validity, while others have not

been scrutinized at all.

The GLEP evaluation instrument was developed primarily from these pre-existing
instruments. Survey items from the instruments were pooled into a large database.
Before attempting to assess student knowledge in any domain, the major concepts and
organizing principles of the knowledge domain should be identified (Champagne and
Klopfer, 1984 as cited in Brody and Koch, 1989). Great Lakes Education Program
objectives were matched to fourth grade level standards and benchmarks fi'om Michigan’s
Essential Goals and Objectives for Science Education (K-12) (1991) and Michigan Core -
Curriculum Content and Standards (1994). In an attempt to assure content validity of the
GLEP instrument, knowledge questions from the item pool were matched to GLEP
objectives and the benchmarks, and some questions were edited as necessary to be GLEP
specific. Experience, attitude, and behavioral intention questions were also selected from
the item pool and edited to fit GLEP.

The measurement model consisted of three scales and an experience section. The
scale measuring attitudes toward the Great Lakes was composed of semantic differential
items with adjective pairs and a scale ranging from 1-5. I measured students’ behavioral
intentions using a 3-point Likert scale with possible responses of true, maybe, or false.

The knowledge scale consisted of multiple choice questions. I measured students’ past

26
experiences by asking questions with yes, no, or maybe answers. Nine experts in the field
of EB reviewed the instrument. Reviewers included aquatic educators, agency personnel,
and university faculty in natural resource and family and child ecology departments. Two

fourth grade children also helped with the review, and suggested revisions were made.

Pilot Study

Before executing a full scale evaluation, we conducted a pilot study to test the
evaluation instrument and to determine an appropriate experimental design and sample
sizes. Twenty classrooms of fourth grade students who participated in GLEP during the
fall 1995 cruise season were post-tested, and two more classrooms were pre- and post-
tested.

Afier I completed the pilot data collection, I used version 6.1.11 of the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software to calculate scale reliabilities (Norusis,
1993). The software enabled me to test the attitude and behavioral intentions scales with
Chronbach’s Alpha, the knowledge scale with Kuder and Richardson’s KR20 formula,
and the experience section with test-retest reliability (correlation coefl‘icient).
Chronbach’s Alpha and the KR20 formulas are essentially the same, except that
Chronbach’s Alpha is used when multiple responses are involved, and the KR20 is used
for dichotomous answers. Items which brought the scales below a 0.60 reliability were
dropped. Other modifications to the evaluation instrument included the addition of a
boating question to the experience section because it directly related to outdoor aquatic

natural resource contact. Minor alterations to the wording of items in all sections were

27
performed for clarification or emphasis. The reliabilities of the final pilot scales were all

above 0.61 (Table 1). The final instrument can be seen in Appendix C.

Final Instrument Reliabilities

Reliabilities of the final instrument scales were allhigher than the pilot scale
reliablities (Table 1). The lowest reliabilities in the final instrument were in the
experimental group’s pre-test scales. The highest reliabilities were found in the
experimental group’s post-test scales, and the control group had reliabilities between the
pre- and post-test groups (Table 1). The reliability of the attitude scale (pre-test data) was
probably the lowest because the children who took the pre-test were the least familiar
with the survey and the cnrise. The control group was familiar with the cruise but not the
survey, and the attitude scale reliability for this group was slightly higher at 0.68. The
post-test group was the most familiar with both the survey and the cruise, and, as a result,
the attitude scale reliability was the highest (0 .76). The reliability estimates for
behavioral intention and knowledge scales follow a similar pattern.

The GLEP instrument scale reliabilities can be compared to the reliabilities of
other instrument scales (Table 1). Cynthia Wong-Leonard surveyed students in grades 1-
3 and 6-8. Her “Moral Attributes” scale had reliabilities of 0.54 and 0.70, and the
“Physical Attributes” scale had reliabilities of 0.79 and 0.87 (Wong-Leonard, 1992). It
should be noted that, in Table 1, Wong-Leonard’s “Moral Attributes” scale is listed
under the Attitude Scale column because it contained items asking about student

attitudes. The “Physical Attributes” scale is listed under the Knowledge Scale column

28

Table 1. Scale Reliabilities for Pilot Survey, Full Evaluation Study, and Comparable

 

 

 

  
 

Research.
Chronbach’s Alpha KR-20
Instrument Attitude Behavioral Knowledge
Scale (11) Intention Scale (11) Scale (11)
GLEP Pilot
Post-Only test .61 (270) .75 (270) .61 (270)
GLEP
Experimental .63 (494) .81 (494) .65 (494)
Pre-test
GLEP
Experimental .76 (494) .86 (494) .70 (494)
Post-teat
GLEP Control
Post-Only test .68 (451) .81 (451) .68 (451)

Wong-Leonard‘
Grades 1-3
Grades 6-8

CHEAKS2
Grades 1-3
Grades 4-7

Modified SOAK3
Grade 5
Grade 9

 

  
 

 

   
   

.54 (838) -- .79 (838)
.70 (1362) .87 (1362)
.888 (324) .652 (324)
.914 (920) .762 (917)
NA --- .3 8-.51 (NA)
NA .56- .72 (NA)

 

 

Wong-Leonard‘ = Wong-Leonard’s instrument contained a “Moral Attributes” or Attitude
scale and a “Physical Attributes” or Knowledge scale.
CHEAKS2 = The CHEAKS Behavioral Intention scale was originally labeled an
Attitude scale by its authors.
Modified SOAK3 = F ortner’s Great Lakes specific instrument; attitude scale reliability
not available.

29
because it asked questions which relate to knowledge of wildlife’s physical attributes.

The Children’s Environmental Attitude and Knowledge Scale (CHEAKS) had an
“Attitude Scale” reliability of 0.91 for students in grades 4-7 (Table 1). This “Attitude
Scale” reliability is listed under the Behavioral Intention Scale in Table 1 because the
CHEAKS questions pertained more to actions than opinions. Thus, I chose to use these
CHEAKS items as the basis for measuring behavioral intentions of students.

Knowledge scale reliabilities for Rosanne Fortner’s Great Lakes modified Survey
of Oceanic Attitudes and Knowledge (SOAK) were low for fifth grade students (0.3 8-
0.51) but were slightly higher for students in grade nine (0.56-0.72) (Table l).
Reliabilities for Fortner’s attitude scale are not available in the literature.

The final experience scale had a test-retest reliability of 0.84 (Table 2). The final
scale consisted of ten experience questions including a new boating question for the
spring, and not including four problematic items which were still in the spring scale
(Appendix D, Table D4).

Two problematic experience questions asked students whether they had “visited
the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair” or “participated in classroom activities about water, the
oceans, or the Great Lakes.” These variables had low test-retest reliabilities and
displayed significant differences between pre- and post-tests (Table 2). Problems with
these two items may be attributed to the cruise experience itself, even though an attempt
was made on the spring survey to change the wording of questions to include “before
your cruise.”

The variable “Have you tried to learn how to swim?” was dropped from the scale

30
because of low test-retest correlations on both the pilot and spring surveys. Clarifying the
question for the spring survey did not improve the test-retest reliability (Table 2). The
last experience item dropped was “Have you watched nature programs on TV about
water, the oceans, or the Great Lakes?,” because of low reliability and a significant

difference between pre- and post-test answers (1‘ able 2).

Table 2. Experience Variables Excluded from Final Experience Scale Analysis.

 

 

 

Excluded Pilot Spring Spring
Experience Variable Correlation Correlation Sig.
visited the Great Lakes
or Lake St. Clair? .21 .62 <.001**

learn how to
swim? .38 .48 .564

done classroom aquatic
activities? .33 .29 .005*

watched aquatic nature
programs on TV? .55 .67 .030"

 

 

   

Final Scale1 —- .844 .143

 

 

 

Final Scalel = All experience variables in Appendix D, Table D-4 minus the four
variables listed in the above table (visited the Great Lakes or Lake St.
Clair?, learn how to swim? done classroom aquatic activities? watched
aquatic nature programs on TV?).
Readability of Instrument
Readability of the final instrument was measured by several different scales and

adequately represents a fourth grade reading level. Analysis with the F lesch-Kincaid

31
Grade Level Test showed a 5.68 reading level using WordPerfect software, and a 2.0
grade level using Microsoft Word software; an average of the two tests yields a 3.84
grade readability level. Another readability calculation is the Fog Index which yielded a
3.53 grade level (Miles 1989, Vol. 11, No.2). It should also be taken into consideration.
that the survey was read aloud, and children’s “listening” or oral comprehension of text is
approximately two years higher than their understanding of written material (Sticht and

James, 1984 as cited in Wong-Leonard, 1992:96).

Final Evaluation Protocol

The Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects approved all research methodology (Appendix A). Teachers were given a packet
containing a cover letter, 30 evaluation permission slips, and a GLEP evaluation brochure
when they attended the first mandatory GLEP teacher training session in February of
1996 (Appendix E). Several weeks before the GLEP vessel experience, the teachers
distributed the permission slips to the students who returned them signed by their
parents/guardians. Collected classroom permission slips either were mailed in with the
final GLEP payment or collected on the day of the surveys. One week before the field
trip, a survey reader contacted the teacher to set up appointment times to conduct the
pre/post surveys or the post-only surveys. The day before the students’ trip, the survey
reader visited the classrooms and read the surveys aloud, while the students followed
along and answered the questions. On the day after the cnrise, the same survey reader

visited the classrooms again and read the same survey aloud. Schools taking cruises on

32
Fridays were given post-tests on Mondays. There were no Monday cruises, so pre-tests
were never given on Fridays. The participating teachers also filled out a post-cruise
evaluation. Afier the surveys were completed, researchers gave teachers a token of
appreciation in the form of a thank you letter and five different habitat posters (Appendix

13).

Experimental Design
The method used for the evaluation was a separate-sample, pre- post-test design

(Campbell and Stanley, 1963). This approach was chosen since “evaluation using a
quasi-experimental design is far more valuable because it attempts to control variables so
that discemable change can be attributed to the education program” (Matthews and Riley,
1995245). The separate-sample, pre- post-test design was selected because of its control
over external threats to validity such as testing effect. It was also very compatible with
GLEP and research circumstances. A non-treatment design was not selected because of
difficulties in obtaining non-participating classrooms and lack of control over testing
effect. Threats to internal validity in this design were not considered to be high risk and
were easily managed. Maturation (the passage of time) and history (specific events
occurring between measurements) were controlled for by administering the surveys on the
days immediately before and after the treatment, except when weekends were involved.
Experimenter bias was controlled by thoroughly training the survey reader and by not
involving this person in any part of the education program. Two study groups were

created to control for the main effect of testing and to measure the effects of the treatment

33

on students (Table 3).

Table 3. Study Design.

 

 

 

 

 

Study Group # of Original # of Non-useable Final # of
Classrooms Classroomsl Classrooms
Experimental
(Pre & Post 28 9 19
Surveys)
Control
(Post-Only 33 13 20
Survey)
Totals 61 22 39

 

# of Non-useable Classrooms' = Classrooms not meeting research criteria because of
teacher non-participation(6), gifted classrooms(l), split classrooms(4), private
classrooms(6), or levels other than fourth grade(5).

Final Testing Procedure
Through standard sample size formulas, the number of classrooms required for
each of the study groups was determined (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995:263). The formulas

incorporated the averages and variances of the pilot measurement scales. Sample size (n)

was determined for alpha=0.05, power=80%, and a detectable difference of 20% of the

mean. Calculations showed that no less than 15 classrooms were needed per study group.

To insure that at least 15 viable classrooms were in each of the final study groups, all 61

classrooms were included in the original study design (Table 3).

All classrooms were equally and randomly assigned to either a pre- and post-test

34
treatment or a post-test only control group using a table of random digits (N eter,
Wasserman, and Whitrnore, 1993:93 6). Since GLEP targets students at the fourth grade
level, the evaluation focused on fourth grade students in the public school system. The
use of all the classrooms in the evaluation was fortunately a good decision, since 22 of the
original classrooms did not fit the evaluation criteria for various reasons including teacher
non-participation, gifted classrooms, multi-grade classrooms, private classrooms, and
levels other than fourth grade. The final number of classrooms in the experimental

treatment group was 19, and the number in the control group was 20 (Table 3).

Data Analysis

A research intern entered data into a SPSS spreadsheet. After all the surveys were
entered, data entry accuracy was examined by determining the frequency of keystroke
error. Eighty-eight, or 5%, of the 1,821 surveys were re-entered to check for mistakes.
There were three errors in 5,456 total keystrokes, resulting in a .0005 error rate. Since
this probability of keystroke error was so low it was determined unnecessary to re-key all
the surveys.

Summary statistics, scale scores, t-tests, non-parametric, and final instrument

reliability statistics were performed using the same SPSS software.

Chapter 4

RESULTS

Response Rates

Final response rates to the GLEP evaluation were quite satisfactory. A total of

1,133 eligible fourth graders were students in classrooms participating in the evaluation

(Table 4). The overall response rate for these students was 83% (Table 4). Reasons for

unusable cases included denied or missing parental permission, students’ absence on the

day of the survey, or missing pre- or post-tests.

Table 4. Response Rates.

 

 

 

 

Study Group # Eligible % Students % Students % Final # %
Students with with Usable Usable Overall
Permission Permission Surveysl Cases Response
and Survey Rate
Experimental 571 98 96 90 494 87
Control 562 86 80 100 451 80
Totals 1133 92 88 95 945 83

 

% Usable Surveys‘ = Both Pre- and Post-surveys were completed.

35

 

36

Scale Score Frequency Distributions and Means

The mean classroom scores for the experimental groups pre- post-surveys, and the
control groups post-only surveys were all above the center, or neutral point, and some
scale distributions were highly skewed left. Classroom means for the attitude scale (max.
40 points) showed very positive attitudes toward the Great Lakes with pre- and both post-
test scores above a mean score of 34.0 points (neutral attitudes would have total score of
24 points) (Figure 4). Initial behavioral intentions were high with a mean of 32.6 points
out 39 total, and post-cruise average intentions remained high at 32.0 points or above
(neutral behavioral intentions would have a total score of 26 points) (Figure 5). In Figure
6, mean knowledge scores for pre-tests (13.7) were slightly above the neutral point of 11,
and post-test and post-only test scores increased to above classroom means of 15.5 points.
Experience scores were only slightly above the neutral scale score of 5 points with
average totals between 6.0-6.23 points (Figure 7). Additional information on
distributions of individual student responses to particular survey items can

be found in Appendix D, Tables Dl-D4.

37

Total Attitude Distribution (Experimental Pre-test)

 

  
   

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

200
."3
c
o
13
3
(D
'5 100-
8
E
:1
2
sum-3.37
than-341
0 e . - f 91-43300
12.6 15.0 173 son as ass 275 30.0 32.5 330 375 40.0
total attirrde score Pants
Total Attitude Distribution (Experimental Post-test)
300
1’3
c
8 200-
B
(D
'5
8 «~-
:1
Z
A snow-4.40
Mean-34.6
a . - 1 “-438.00
10.0 15.0 10.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
total athtude' score ' Pants
Total Attitude Distribution (Control Post-only Test)
300
9
1:
o
'0 300-
B
(I)
":5
«E .6.
a
2
g -
10.0 15.0 200 1 25.0 30.0
total attitude score Pomts

Figure 4. Total Attitude Distribution for Experimental and Control Groups.

38

Total Behavioral Intention Distribution (Experimental Pre-test)

 

 

 

160
m.
(D
E 120-
0)
'U
a too:
0)
“5 0°-
3 00-
E
3 ‘0'
me ““30.“
. Hem-32.5
0 11-40000
12.5 15.0 17.5 ”.0. 22.5 25.0 27.5 ”.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0
rorarsrscore POMS
Total Behavioral Intention Distribution (Experimental Post-test)
140
120'
9
5 100-
'0
3
a) 00-
"6
B
E
3
z

 

12.5 15.0 17.5 200 225 250 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0
‘ IotalBlsodre Points

Total Behavioral Intention Distribution (Control Post-only Test)

 

§

Number of Students
0 2r 5 a 3 § 5 5

1215 15.0 17.5 200 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0
total Bl Points .
Figure 5. Total Belg/fora] Intention Distribution for Expenmental and Control Groups.

39

Total Knowledge Distribution (Experimental Pre-test)

 

 

    

 

.9

C

to

‘o

3

U)

“6

5
.o

E

3
2

2.5 5.0 75 10.0 12.5 15.0 175
total knowledge score POintS
Total Knowledge Distribution (Experimental Post-test)

2’.

C

01
'o
2
(D
'5 100.

213
.o

E

3
Z

Dev-u
Mean-15.0
0 .
2.5 501.5 10.0 12.5 150 17.5 20.0 2.5
total knowledge score Pornts
Total Knowledge Distribution (Control Post-only Test)
1

.9

c

0:

‘0

3

(D

b—

o

5

.o

E

3

Z

 

2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0

total knowledge score Points
Figure 6. Total Knowledge Distribution for Experimental and Control Groups.

40

Total Experience Distribution (Experimental Pre-test)

 

 

 

 

 

(0
E

0:
'O

3
co
“6

a
.0

E

3
2

total experience score Pants
w Total Expenenoes Distribution (Experimental Post-test)
‘W /

In

E

0)

‘U

3

a)

"6

53

.0

E

3

2

total experience score POints
Total Experiences Distribution (Control Post-only Test)

W

E

01

"U

2

co

'6

3

D

E

3

z

 

total experience score

Figure 7. Total Experience Distribution for Experimental and Control Groups.

41

Potential Testing Efl'ect - Experimental vs. Control Groups

By comparing the post-test scores of the experimental and control groups, a
testing effect, if present, can be identified. Since the data in some of the scales were
highly skewed and/or non-normal, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was
performed to compare control vs. experimental classroom medians (Table 5). No
significant differences were found between the experimental and control groups, with
Mann-Whitney U p-values ranging from .082-.369 (Table 5). These results indicate that
there was no testing effect present at the classroom level between the experimental and
control groups.

Table 5. Evaluation of Potential Testing Effect; Mann-Whitney U Nonparametric
Tests on Control vs. Experimental Group Classroom Medians.

 

 

Scale Surveyl Median Sum of # of 2-tailed
(Max. Score) Ranks Classrooms p
Attitude Pst. 23.3 442.0 19
(40) P0 16.9 338.0 20 .082
Behavioral Pst. _ 17.7 427.0 19
Intention (39) P0 22.5 353.0 20 .187
Knowledge Pst. 22.3 423.0 19
(22) P0 17.9 357.0 20 .227
Experience Pst. 21.7 412.0 19
(10) P0 18.4 368.0 20 .369

 

 

 

 

Surveyl = Pst. = Experimental Group Post-test survey
P0 = Control Group Post-Only survey

42
GLEP Cruise Effects on Attitudes, Behavioral Intentions, and Knowledge

By comparing the experimental group’s pre-test scores to post-test scores we were
able to determine whether there was a treatment effect of the cruise on students’ attitudes,
knowledge, and behavioral intentions. Difl’erences in classroom mean scores for each
scale were calculated and then compared using a paired t-test.

In general, there was an overall treatment effect of the cruise on student
knowledge (Table 6). For pre- vs. post-test scale scores, there was a 2.26 point mean
increase in the number of correct knowledge questions answered. This increase is highly
significant with a 2-tailed significance of less than .001 (Table 6). There were no
significant changes observed in overall attitudes, behavioral intentions, or experiences as.

a result of the cruise (Table 6).

Table 6. Paired t-tests on Classroom Scale Differences in the Experimental Group.

 

 

 

 

 

Scale Mean
Difl'erence SD t-value df 2-tailed sig.
Attitude .40 .98 1.76 18 .096
Behavioral
Intentions -.1 1 .65 -.74 18 .470
Knowledge . 2.26 .84 1 1.78 18 <.001**
Experience .08 .20 1.84 18 .082

 

Pre-existing and Persisting Gender Differences
Further analyses of the data show significant gender differences. Unpaired t-tests

of boys’ vs. girls’ classroom means on pre-, post-, and post-only surveys showed highly

43
significant differences (p < .001) in boys vs. girls in behavioral intentions and experiences
(Table 7). Girls reported that they were more likely to perform responsible environmental
behaviors, while boys consistently had significantly more outdoor and aquatic natural
resource experiences. There were, however, no significant gender differences in attitudes

or knowledge (Table 7).

44

Survey, Gender‘ = Pre,B. = Pre-test, Boys’ survey. Pre,G = Pre-test, Girls’ survey.
Pst,B. = Post-test, Boys’ survey. Pst,G = Post-test, Girls’ survey.
PO,B. = Post-Only, Boys’ survey. PO,G = Post-Only, Girls’ survey.
df" = Degrees of Freedom has a decimal place if Levene’s Test for Equality of
Variances proved unequal.

45

Table 7. Unpaired T-tests of Boys’ vs. Girls’ Scale Totals on Pre-, Post-, and Post-

 

 

 

 

 

Only Surveys.
Scale Survey, Mean SD t-value dt‘ 2-tailed
(Max. Score) Genderl sig.
Attitude Pre,B 34.0 1 .0
(40) Pre,G 34.4 1.3 -1.06 36.0 .295
Pst,B 34.2 1 .9
Pst,G 35.0 1.2 -1.67 36.0 .104
PO,B 33.5 1 .9
PO,G 34.5 1.4 -1.80 38.0 .080
Behavioral Prc,B 31.7 1.6
Intention Pre,G 33.6 1.1 -4. 19 31.2 <.001**
(39)
Pst,B 31.5 1 .7
Pst,G 33.5 1.3 -4.08 36.0 <.001"”"
PO,B 31.1 1 .9
PO,G 32.3 1.6 -3.91 38.0 <.001‘”"
Knowledge Pre,B 13.8 1.3
(22) Pre,G 13.4 1.2 1.08 36.0 .286
Pst,B 15.9 1.2
Pst,G 15.7 1.4 0.47 36.0 .640
PO,B 15.6 1.4
PO,G 15.0 1.6 1.31 38.0 .130
Experience Pre,B 6.4 0.50
(10) Pre,G 5.8 0.45 4.24 36.0 <.001**
Pst,B 6.6 0.53
Pst,G 5.8 0.40 4.81 36.0 <.001**
PO,B 6.2 0.70
PO,G 5.7 0.60 2.37 38.0 .023*

 

 

 

 

46

Inspection of individual items in the behavioral intentions scale revealed that girls
responded significantly more positively than boys on 10 out of 13 items (Table 8). The
i only item which boys reported significantly more frequently than girls was that boys ‘Get
mad about the damage pollution does to the Great Lakes.’ This analysis was performed

with a Pearson’s Chi-square test on individual student answers.

Table 8. Pearson’s Chi-Square for Boys’ vs. Girls’ Behavioral Intentions.

 

 

‘ % Response2
Question Testl Girls’ Boys’ Sig. ‘

mad about Pre 38.1 38.9 .045“
pollution Pst 39.0 37.0 .045*
damage? P0 36.6 37.7 .012“
scared Pre 23.6 21 .6 .030*
people don’t Pst 25.7 21.6 .006“
care? P0 20.8 20.5 <.001 **
worried Pre 40.1 38.7 .043*
about env. Pst 40.6 38.2 .014“
problems? P0 41.6 39.6 .170
upset when see Pre 15.8 15.0 .016“
people use too Pst 20.4 18.4 .308
much water? P0 14.8 12.1 .001 *
frightened of Pre 38.2 37.4 .008*
pollution effects Pst 38.0 37.6 026*
on family? P0 39.7 37.9 030*

 

 

 

47

 

 

 

 

Table 8 (cont’d).
% Response2

Question Testl Girls’ Boys’ Sig.
sad to see Pre 28.3 30.4 .023“
houses built on Pst 31.0 31.0 .251
wetlands? P0 32.3 31.2 .230
willing to turn Pre 43.7 41.5 .001“
off water while Pst 42.6 38.9 .001*
brushing teeth? P0 43.5 38.2 <.001"
willing to use Pre 34.5 32.1 .002"
less water Pst 31.7 29.3 .140
when bathe? P0 31.0 24.7 .009*
give own Pre 30.4 28.0 .035“
$15 to help the Pst 31.2 23.1 <.001"
Great Lakes? P0 26.7 21.8 <.001“
willing to pass Pre 31.1 28.3 .011“
out Great Lakes Pst 32.0 28.7 .006
information? P0 34.8 29.0 .01 1*
willing to write Pre 33.1 26.1 <.001"
letters to help Pst 30.2 24.5 <.001"
stop pollution? P0 29.9 21.9 .001*
willing to pick up Pre 37.1 32.9 .002*
litter at Great Pst 33.8 28.5 <.001"
Lakes beach? P0 34.2 29.7 .01 1*
interested in Pre 14.9 13.9 .015“
career related Pst 15.2 14.0 .137
to aquatics? P0 10.9 12.0 .203

 

 

Test' = Pre = Pre-test (Experimental Group)
Pst = Post-test (Experimental Group)
P0 = Post-Only test (Control Group)
% Response2 = Percent response for the answer, TRUE; the higher percent is bolded
when statistically different.

48
Conversely, Pearson’s Chi-square item analysis of the experience scale showed
that boys had significantly more experiences in three out of ten items (Table 9). These
experiences included the following outdoor activities: fishing, fishing the Great Lakes,

and snorkeling (Table 9).

49

Test‘ = Pre = Pre-test (Experimental Group)
Pst = Post-test (Experimental Group)
P0 = Post-Only test (Control Group)
% Response2 = Percent response for the answer, TRUE; the higher percent is bolded
when statistically different.

50

Table 9. Pearson’s Chi-Square for Boys’ vs. Girls’ Experiences.

 

 

 

 

Experience % Response2 Spring
Variable Test‘ Girls’ Boys Sig.
have you ever gone Pre 85.0 93.3 .004*
fishing? Pst 84.6 92.1 009*
P0 83.2 88.7 .219

have you gone Pre 23.5 44.7 <.001"

fishing in one of the Pst 28.8 52.4 <.001"

Great Lakes? P0 22.2 45.5 <.001* *
do you have an Pre 36.4 42.4 .176
aquarium with fish? Pst 37.7 41.7 .355
P0 34.3 43.5 .063
belong to 4-H, Boy Pre 23.8 18.1 .123
Scouts, or Girl Pst 22.1 17.7 .224
Scouts? P0 20.0 22.1 .757
have you gone to Pre 99.2 98.0 .286
a zoo? Pst 99.6 97.6 .069
P0 99.5 96.1 .049“
have you gone to an Pre 79.6 79.3 .937
aquarium or Sea Pst 80.7 79.1 .671
World? P0 83.4 79.6 .516
does you family go Pre 56.9 61.3 .317
camping? Pst 56.9 64.6 .081
P0 58.1 59.0 .692

ever been scuba Pre 22.9 41.8 <.001"

diving or Pst 22.0 47.2 <.001"

snorkeling? P0 23.6 41.1 <.001"
read books or Pre 64.4 70.3 .163
magazines about Pst 64.2 67.3 .460
aquatics? P0 56.2 58.0 .693
ever been on a Pre 90.0 94.5 .056
motorboat, Pst 88.8 93.3 .076
sailboat, or canoe? P0 90.8 87.0 .412

 

 

 

51

GLEP Cruise Efl'ects on Boys vs. Girls

In order to examine the effects of the GLEP cruise on attitudes, behavioral
intentions, and knowledge of boys vs. girls, one sample t-tests were performed by gender
on classroom mean scale differences. There were no significant changes in any of the
tested mean differences for behavioral intentions for either boys or girls (Table 10). As
shown in a previous analysis, the knowledge scale mean differences showed a highly
significant increase in knowledge for both boys and girls. Additionally, girls showed a
significant increase in attitudes whereas boys did not (Table 10). This finding was

masked when boys’ and girls’ scores were pooled together.

Table 10. One Sample t-tests on Boys’ vs. Girls’ Classroom Scale Differences in the

 

 

Experimental Group.
Scale Gender Mean 2-tailed
Difference SD t-value df sig.
Attitude Boys .20 1.38 .61 18 .547
Girls .58 .99 2.57 18 .019“
Total .40 .98 1.76 18 .096
Behavioral Boys -.19 .87 -.94 18 .359
Intentions Girls -.05 .81 -.26 18 .797
Total -.11 .65 -.74 18 .470
Knowledge Boys 2.10 1.02 9.00 18 <.001‘MI
Girls 2.41 .95 11.13 18 <.001”
Total 2.26 .84 11.78 18 <.001"
Experience Boys .13 .30 1.86 18 .080
Girls .03 .27 .49 18 .633
Total .08 .20 1.84 18 .082

 

 

 

 

52
GLEP Cruise Eflects and Prior Experiences
To test for the effects of the GLEP cruise on students with low Great Lakes and
aquatic natural resource experiences, analyses were performed on three (15%) and six
(30%) of the classrooms with the lowest mean experience scale scores. Paired sample
t-tests were performed on classroom mean scale differences in attitudes, behavioral

intentions, and knowledge. Again, significant effects were observed only in the

knowledge scale (Table 11).

Table 11. Paired Sample t-tests on Classroom Scale Diflerences in Experimental
Classrooms with Low Experience Levels'.

 

 

 

Scale # of Mean 2-tailed
classrooms Difference SD t-value df stg’ .
Attitude 3 1.2 .91 2.34 2 .144
6 .33 l .6 .53 5 .622
Behavioral 3 .07 .75 .17 2 .881
Intentions 6 -.21 .60 -.88 5 .422
Knowledge 3 3.1 1.1 5.07 2 .037“
6 2.52 1.0 6.17 5 .002“

 

 

 

Low Experience LevelsI = classrooms with the three (15%) and six (30%) lowest
experience scale scores.

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

Experimental Design

By performing a full-scale evaluation which consisted of a separate sample, pre-
post-test design, I was able to avoid many methodological problems. Since data analyses
were performed at the classroom level, the probability of Type I errors (rejection of a
true null hypothesis) was greatly reduced (Leeming et al., 1993). Analyses showed no
significant differences between the experimental and control groups’ post-cruise scores,
indicating there was no testing effect present at the classroom level. Pre-test scale means

were then compared to post-test means, and mean scale differences were tested.

Mean Classroom Scores

Mean measurements of attitudes, behavioral intentions, knowledge, and
experiences were all above the center, or neutral point, for each scale. Initial mean
measurements for the attitude and behavioral intentions scales were highly skewed left,
and this may have caused problems in observing changes in these measures. High initial
scores may make it difficult to detect any increases which might have otherwise occurred.

This may have been the case, since 91% of participating GLEP teachers conducted pre-

53

54

cruise, Great Lakes activities (Nevala, 1996). Sensitivities of the attitude and behavioral
intentions scales may not have been keen enough to detect significant changes, and
maybe an attitude scale constructed of semantic differential questions would demonstrate
accurate sensitivities. The experience and knowledge scales were not problematic, since
initial mean measurements were not far fi'om neutral points on the scales.

High scores for attitudes measured in this study are consistent with other, similar
studies of attitudes toward the Great Lakes and aquatic natural resources. Research
conducted in Ohio on students in the 5th and 9th grades showed positive attitudes toward

the ocean and Lake Eric (F ormw, 1993).

GLEP Cruise Efl'ects

This study showed that there was no significant overall increase in positive
attitudes toward the Great Lakes as a result of the GLEP cruise. These results are
consistent with the findings of other research, since attitudes are difficult to measure
directly, and our attitude scale may not have been sensitive enough to measure changes
in attitudes among students in general. It has also been speculated that the evolution of
attitudes may be characterized by small positive modifications over time that eventually
become recognizable as new attitudes (F ishbein and Ajzen, 1975; F ortner and Lyon, 1985
as cited in Gutierrez de White and Jacobson, 1994). Since the post-test survey was taken
the day after the cruise, modifications in overall attitudes may not have been detected
immediately.

Significant effects of the GLEP cruise are apparent in overall knowledge increases

55

in students at the classroom level. These findings are especially important at the fourth
grade level since ecological foundations are a major emphasis during this developmental
stage (Wilke, 1993).

Significant changes in responsible behavioral intentions were not observed in
students as a direct result of the GLEP cruise. A citizenship skills activity performed on
the cruise could only be finished in the days to follow due to bacterial growth limitations
in the Colifonn bacteria test. Since the results of the test do not appear until 2-3 days
after the cruise, students must wait to determine the outcomes and then proceed with
proper action strategies, such as a telephone. call to the sewage plant. Unfortunately, the
GLEP post-tests were given before the students could determine the results of the
bacterial test. Strategies to avoid this problem of not testing a behavioral component of
the cruise include conducting another activity which involves using citizenship skills
immediately or waiting to perform the post survey until the completion of the Coliforrn
bacteria activity. In either case, it is difficult to measure changes in behavioral intentions
because this type of change is something that will occur gradually over time.

Even though higher knowledge levels have been related to more positive attitudes
(F oMer, 1993; Gutierrez de White and Jacobson, 1994), these two constructs together, if
positive, have not been proven to increase responsible environmental behavior. Strong
predictors of responsible behavior require both knowledge of and skill in using
environmental action strategies (Sia et al., 1985/86). In order to get students to change
their behavior, critical thinking and interpersonal skills must be learned, and practiced by

the students. F urthennore, in an education program, “The message must be specific about

56
what behavior is expected if behavioral change is to occur” (Matthews and Riley,

1995 :29).

Another predictor of whether students will engage in environmentally responsible
behavior is their locus of control, or feeling of effectiveness (Hines et al., 1987; Sia et al.,
1985/86; Sivek and Hungerford,1989/90; Marcinkowski, 1989; Matthews and Riley,
1995; Volk, 1993). Students with an internal locus of control feel a sense of
empowerment and effectiveness in their actions which result in the willingness to perform
responsible environmental behavior. Internal locus of control may be influenced when
students, “have had the opportunity to apply these (citizenship action) skills successfully
in the community” (V olk, 1993:51). Since the measurement of locus of control is beyond
the scope of this research, it was not assessed in the evaluation.

In order to avoid the problems of only testing immediately after the cruise, I
would suggest the same study design with modifications. Changes to the design include
expanding the post-cruise testing to include additional standardized measurements at
several consistent points. Assessments performed immediately after the cruise, several
weeks after the cruise, several months afier the cruise, and possibly years after the cruise
are some recommendations (T able 12). The problem with this suggested design and the
reason it was not used in this evaluation is that it is extremely difficult to track students
across years, even months. If analyses are performed at the classroom level, tracking

students over time is even more difficult.

57

Table 12. Study Design for Future Evaluations.

 

Study Group Pre-test Cruise Immediate Month Year
Treatment Post-test Post-test Post-test

 

Experimental

(233.33" 0 X 0 O 0

Control

(Post-Only X 0 O 0

Survey

 

 

 

 

Gender Differences Among Students
Pre-existing and Existing Gender Differences

Existing differences between boys and girls became apparent when pretest scores
were analyzed. Our results showed that, both before and after the cruise, girls were more
likely to express intentions to perform responsible environmental behaviors, while boys
had significantly more outdoor and aquatic natural resource experiences. Higher
experience levels in boys are similar to other research findings in which male youths had
higher participation than females in wildlife-related activities (Wong-Leonard, 1992). It
is interesting to note that the only experiences in which boys participated significantly
more fiequently than girls specifically relate to the aquatic outdoor activities of fishing,
fishing in the Great Lakes, and snorkeling. Activities which did not specifically involve
the outdoors, such as visits to aquaria or reading about aquatic natural resources, showed

no differences between boys and girls.

58

Behavioral intentions scores by girls were significantly higher in our survey
sample; this observation is consistent with the results of a recent study of 13,000
Michigan youth. Overall, girls have higher levels than boys of prosocial behavior such as
“helping people who are hungry, sick, or unable to care for themselves,” and girls are also

consistently more involved in volunteer work (Keith and Perkins, 1996:28).

Gender Differences in Cruise Effects
A gender difference which occurred as a result of the GLEP cruise includes a

positive change in girls attitudes toward the Great Lakes. After the total student
population was split according to gender, this significant positive attitude change became
apparent in girls, but no significant change was seen in boys’ attitudes. It has been noted
by several researchers that girls have more positive attitudes than boys toward animals
and natural resources (Kellert and Westervelt, 1983; Pomerantz, 1977; Sanders, 1974;
Westervelt and Llewelln, 1985 all cited in Wong, 1992) (Kellert, 1985). If attitudinal
changes are to occur in a positive direction, the fourth grade and lower elementary levels
are the opportune times to teach environmental sensitivities and values (Kellert, 1985;

Peterson and Hungerford, 1995; Volk, 1993).

Research Limitations
Specific limitations to this research include the attitude and behavioral intentions
measurement scales. These scales may not have been discriminatory enough when —

measuring pretest scores, and as a result, may not have accurately measured changes in

59

attitudes and behavioral intentions. Further analysis correcting for possible ceiling effects
in the data may reveal results which show significant changes in attitudes and/or
behavioral intentions otherwise masked by the ceiling effect.

The testing procedure was also limited by the fact that there are many pre- and
post-cruise activities which teachers can lead. Since teachers conduct these activities at
varying levels, it was determined that only the cruise effects would be measured. To
measure only the cruise effects, the pre and post surveys had to be administered as close
to the cruise as possible.

To avoid these problems I suggest standardizing the pre- and post-cruise
classroom activities so that all students are exposed to the same and equal amount of
GLEP activities. This would help researchers to measure attitude and behavioral
intentions changes due to GLEP, and to measure them consistently over time without
high variability in students’ instruction. The attitude and behavioral intentions scales
would be easier to develop and administer on a student pOpulation which has had similar
experiences, and assessments would measure the impacts of the same activities all
students experience over time (T able 12). Perhaps, most importantly, future students
would benefit fiom the research uniformity in that evaluations would be more precise and

offer additional suggestions for concrete program improvements.

Recommendations
Overall, this GLEP evaluation provided extremely useful information in making

recommendations to GLEP and its future evaluation. Specific recommendations to

6O

improve GLEP and its evaluation as a result of this research include: 1) strengthening the
on-board cruise curriculum and written classroom curriculum to have desired effects on
attitudes, knowledge, and behavioral intentions, 2) improving evaluation and
measurement of attitudes and behavioral intentions, 3) continuing evaluation of cruise
experience and written curriculum effects on students, and 4) conducting longer-term
follow-up evaluations with students.

In order to strengthen the cruise curriculum in the area of behavioral intentions,
specific skills should be taught by an activity which can be performed and completed on
the boat. An example might be using a fishing net to s000p trash out of the water or fi'om
the river banks. The written curriculum could be made stronger by following the
suggestions in Appendix B; one example is to develop every activity to be Great Lakes
and vessel/boat specific to maximize fourth grade Great Lakes learning and application of
learning to individual behaviors.

To improve the measurement of attitudes and behavioral intentions, scales should
be developed which are more discriminatory in assessing students in these constructs.
High initial measurements should be avoided to eliminate problems with ceiling effects,
which complicate the measurement of possible changes in attitudes and behavioral
intentions. Consistent pre- and post-cruise classroom activities would also help to reduce
variability in students in order to measure true effects of GLEP.

The evaluation of GLEP should continue with revised attitude and behavioral
intentions scales and include assessments of the strengthened cruise experience. In

addition, it is highly recommended that the evaluation include measurement of the effects

61

of the pre- and post-cruise classroom activities to more completely evaluate GLEP. As
stated before, changes in attitudes and behavioral intentions seldom occur as a result of a
single experience, and more changes may be present as a result of the entire program.
Longer-term follow-up evaluations with students are suggested and would show
persistent effects of the program over time.

Other vessel-based and marine and aquatic education programs could benefit from
the findings in this study. Programs will be strengthened if both program design and
evaluation models are taken into consideration. Rigorous evaluations of programs that
include follow-up investigations are necessary for program improvement and to
determine significant impacts on participants. Most importantly, multi-disciplinary
education with proper emphasis on ecological knowledge, attitudes, and skills for taking
action appropriate to the learning level should always be considered.

Recommendations for further research include evaluating program impacts as
well as processes to assess actual learning and changes that occur in students as a direct
result of a program. Impact evaluations should be conducted with valid and reliable
measurement instnnnents to accurately measure real impacts of a program on
participants. Limitations of previous research should be avoided to enhance and

strengthen future research and evaluations.

APPENDICES

62
APPENDIX A

PROJECT APPROVAL BY THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE
-ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS)

MICHIGAN STATE

 

RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

renown

flflfiflflfl
'AX‘ 517102-1171

tendenfimuunw
nus-nroOwue
lemma-aam

lovers—maeamu
“may“

   
 

 

U 19 l \l E It S l T 1'
October 3. 1995
r0: Shari L. Dann

118 Natural Resources bldg.

RE: 180’: 95-510
TITLE: BULTI-DICIPLIIARY. VESSEL'BASED. ENVIRONEENTAL
EDUCATION: AN EVALUATION OP THE GR£AT LAKES

EDOCACTION PROGRAM

REVISION REQUESTED: KIA
CATEGORY: 1..
APPROVAL DATE: 10I02/95

The University Cos-ittee on Research Involving human Subjects'(0cath)

review of this project is complete. I an pleased to adv
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.

refore.
above.

RENEWAL:

norms]
cannons:

se that the

 

the UCRIHS approved this project and any revision listed

ucnrns approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project be one year must use the green renewal
fore (enclosed with t original a roval letter or when a
project is renewed) to seek u t certification. there is a
eaximue of four such erpedit renewals slble. Investigators
wishing to continue a project beyond tha time need to sub-it it
0

again r complete review.

ucaxus nust review any changes in edures involving human
subjects. rior to initiation of change. If this is done at
the tine o renewal, please use the reen renewal form. to

revise an approved protocol at an 525.: thee during the year
send your wr tten request to the IRS Chair. requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's tea I and title. Include
in r request a descr ption of the change and any rev

ins ruments. consent forms or advertise-ents that are applicable.

Should either of the followi arise during the course of the
work. lnvesti store must noti UCRIHS.£romptly: l) roble-s
(unexpected s de effects comp alnts. .) lnvolv I {omen
subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new

 

inforoation indicating greater risk to the human subyects than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved

an be of any future helgi lease do not hesitate to contact us

If we c
at (517)355

Sincerel
,”

avid 8. Hr
UCRIHS Chai

08H:bed
cc :rzAnne Bi

'2100 or FAX (517)4 - 171.

 
  

ight.
r

erxychudekvy

63

APPENDIX B

REVIEW OF THE GLEP CLASSROOM CURRICULUM

GLEP Curriculum Backgron

The Great Lakes Education Program is a fourth grade classroom and field
educational opportunity focusing on the Great Lakes. It currently targets students in the
fourth grade because the Michigan State Board of Education mandates that students learn
about the Great Lakes during their fourth grade year. Since Great Lakes topics are
already in the students’ curriculum at that level, GLEP designers concluded that fourth
grade children would benefit the most from the program. It is designed to increase
student interest in the Great Lakes and aquatic resources and build a better understanding
of the students’ roles as resource stewards. The Great Lakes Education Program has been
developed with an emphasis on recognizing the mum-disciplinary nature of the Great
Lakes and other water resource systems. The program integrates elements of history,
geography, physical and biological sciences, mathematics, literature, and the arts.

The first phase of the program utilizes a developed written curriculum and focuses
on classroom activities designed to familiarize students with the Great Lakes system and
many related concepts. These concepts/topics include the water cycle, water quality,
Great Lakes geology and geography, wetlands, the food chain, aquatic life forms,
groundwater, and direct water uses.

The classroom curriculum was written primarily for fourth grade teachers to

64
introduce students to the Great Lakes ecosystem. It is also used by GLEP volunteers and

personnel involved in preparation of future teachers.

Curriculum Framework

The organization of any curriculum must foster the meeting of program goals and
objectives. Therefore, the organization should follow a conceptual fiamework in which
coordinated concepts direct teaching towards a focused understanding (NAAEE Learners
draft 1996). A solid framework offers a set of “building blocks” fi'om which a
curriculum can then be developed.

Examples of developmental frameworks can be seen in the Project Wild Aquatic
and Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) curricula. Both guides contain
conceptual frameworks derived from the well-accepted superordinate and aquatic
environmental education goals (Hungerford and Volk 1990, Goodwin and Schaadt as
cited in Fortner, 1991:303). Major aquatic concepts in the frameworks are defined and
broken down further into topics and primary objectives. Specific activities are then
developed and used to reach these objectives as well as to meet secondary objectives
within the activity itself. (See Table B-1 for a partial example of a fiamework from the
Project Wet curriculum.) The abbreviated framework shows specific activities which
meet topical objectives. These activities meeting topical objectives are arranged under
three major domains of study which are cognitive, affective, and skills oriented.
Frameworks are not always trisected into these components, but appear to have

somewhere between three and seven major parts. For example, Project WILD has seven

65

$2.2. 23.... cocoa—«E

Sign... 5:858...
Bo: 3:530. EB 583$ ..
30an
2.080ng .oSB a o. .355—E 8.580. ..o.nB 88.2 9...
acorn—8 cacao... EB anneam - .ofiB n o. 3.20. 9.3.8 .963 .8398 moan—g
.Bo—tgo omnBoa .EB 82?. E... .onbnen Bo.— oncomov EB 8:036 ..
2.2%... :39... as sauna - .552 :5 35an - .85.? 2.3.3
.Bo—tgo 3:8 553 .3582... 88.0 8.5.5.80 :8 538360...
6258.. 088 no 3580.. :3 82.58.. 83B ES. .ofingoE .3.
Be: 88.3.: EB ace—Em .. mafia—.8 EB 9.9.3.. 3:530. EB annuam -
095 2.5.5 EB aeonam - once—om one
56m .25 55.3.. . Ben. 22.25 52.3. . .23 .053 5.3.2.
BEER— -
8E..— -
.838 - «50355.13
manna—.00 .. .833 3.2.8 E 293 83B 2:. -
9.553% - was 592.8 33_o...3nB .8330... 53m E 0.0.
meEBEQ - one .BnB EnBo. 825:3. I 2.3.... n an... .385 -
watchdog - .ugoahm 5.3m mo tun
9.3.030 - 62.388 85 Emma—o o. 338.: on mm .255 -
magnum - .EoEE can 332.82: 2.. @883» 5am
. :ounfiéfi 9.55.5 I 3:39.88 o>woot< No.02 =n 835.8 .3“? I
MMOBmZém mam 503%.." Ewe. 503%..“ QEUZOU

fia. .EB sue... 58. 3%.... 03.5.... 35.. < ”noses“... 8:32.30 EB no.8... ..-m 2.5

66
major components, and the North American Association for Environmental Education
(N AAEE) suggests a fiamework which contains six core ingredients for quality EE.

In addition to the framework, Project WET has topics, grade levels, teaching
strategies, and activities all cross-referenced in separate charts to ease curriculum
application. Important aquatic environmental concepts which can be difficult to
understand are also fully described in chapter-like form.

The Great Lakes Education Program classroom curriculum has activities set up in
a similar fashion (Table B-2). There are four aquatic environmental topical areas which
are water, land, life, and people. Under each topic are subjects which are to be covered in
the curriculum, and the activities which are included cover certain learning objectives.

In reviewing the Great Lakes Education Program framework, important
components have been left out and/or need to be more adequately explained. Most of the
basics are present, but a more in-depth interpretation will improve the overall curriculum
and maximize student learning. Suggestions for the Great Lakes Education Program
classroom curriculum framework include the following:

1. Explain in more detail the four environmental concepts.

EXAMPLE: Water is an integral part of Earth’s structure and plays a unique
role in Earth’s processes. It is found in the atmosphere, on the surface, and
underground, The water cycle is central to life on Earth and connects Earth
systems (Project WET 1995)

2. State primary learning and/or behavioral objectives for each topic (could be

benchmarks for fourth grade level).

EXAMPLE: After studying the water cycle students will have sound ecological
knowledge of the movement of water through the water cycle, knowledge of

67

28.3.2. -
833.235.55

.5855.
$2....
958..
533.03— -
.558... 83B
e .385 383 -

micro - _

«on: .855 80.5

mam .—

momooqm
Ao>waz...ozv :05.

25.33:.
was $880.33...

.3...» 3.22..

5.2 ..

.83.... -
8.8.2. -

85. a... 2.33.

2.28033.
5.382..

832.30 Bo.

NE..—

.585 ..
8328.0
3.2.5 -

Rosco
v5. 39.300
8&3 «8.0

9724

£96.— .035
89¢. atom .033
3.20 $3

296 .035 05.

 

vamp—.55

.68. .830 538.50 .55 82. 3&3 2.53... .35.. < ”.82 88. 5.32:5 .56 .2. as...

68

environmental issues, an understanding of environmentally responsible
behavior, and applicable skills.

3. Review, revise, add, or delete any activities which do not address the primary
objectives.

EXAMPLE: The four activities which are included for the water cycle cover
the topic very well.

4. Within each activity itself, secondary objectives should be stated.

EXAMPLE: Activity 3: Randy Raindrop’s Fantastic Journey Objectives:
Students will be able to explain and follow water through the hydrologic cycle
and identify environmental pollutants.

5. Add easy cross reference charts, such as, correlating Michigan standards and/or
benchmarks with curriculum activities covering similar objectives.
EXAMPLE: Science Standard 7: Ecosystems - explain how parts of an
ecosystem are related and how they interact; explain how energy is distributed;
investigate and explain how communities change over time... GLEP Activities:
Predator Prey; How do food chain members afl‘ect each other?; How do the
members of a food web depend on each other?

In researching other vessel-based environmental education programs, there are no

curricula which have complete conceptual fiameworks for teachers to follow.

Curriculum Design

An acceptable curriculum design must be able to empower the learner to make
sound decisions and take appropriate actions. As a leader in EE, the North American
Association for Environmental Education (N AAEE) has established a set of guidelines to
follow when developing or evaluating EE cun'icula and materials. The guidelines contain
six key characteristics of high quality EE materials which best direct learners toward the
goal of EB. These six characteristics include: 1) Fairness and Accuracy 2) Depth 3)

Emphasis on skills building 4) Action orientation 5) Instructional soundness and

69

6) Usability. Included under the characteristics are guidelines and indicators which help
to identify essential objectives and attributes in curricula (NAAEE Learners draft, 1996).

Excellent examples of curricula which have successfully incorporated key EE
characteristics into their designs are, again, Project Wild Aquatic and Project WET. The
educational designs involve the integration of subject matter, issue investigation,
increased participation, and social action. These designs are consistent with EE’s
progressive philosophy arguing that knowledge and a keen mind are not enough for

complete educational development.

Activity Structure

Classroom oriented curricula involve activities which address the concepts and
objectives laid out in the conceptual frameworks. The primary organizational structure for
activities in classroom EE curricula is quite standard and can be found as key
characteristic #6, Usability, in NAAEE’s guidelines for excellence (N AAEE Materials
draft, 1996). The guidelines to follow are listed as:

6.1 Clarity and logic. The overall structure (purpose, direction, and logic of
presentation) should be clear to educators and learners.

6.2 Easy to use. Materials should be inviting and easy to use.

6.3 Long lived Materials should have a life span that extends beyond one use.

6.4 Adaptable. Materials should be adaptable to a range of learning situations.

6.5 Accompanied by instruction and support. Additional support and instruction
should be provided to meet educators’ needs.

6.6 Make substantiated claims. Materials should accomplish what they claim to
accomplish (N AAEE Materials drafi, 1996).

A standard activity layout from Project WET in Table B-3 clearly shows adequate

70

Table B-3. Project ‘WET Activity Layout (Project WET, 1995).

 

Activity Format

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A snappy, thought-provoking teaser intro-
duces the activity. This an be presented as
an ice broker.

Stamina-y
Abriefdaaiptionoflhemocepta,
Mondafiectivedimadmof

Objectives

The qualities or skills students should
poaseas after participating in the activity.
NOTE; Learning objectives, rather than
behavioral objectives. were established
for Project WET activities. To measure
student achievement. see Assessment.
Materials

°$uppli¢s node! to conduct the activity.
(Describe how to prepare materials
prior to engaging in the activity.)

Making Connections

Desaibes the relevance of the activity to
students and presents the rationale for
the activity.

Background
Relevantinformationaboutactivity
enticeptsorteadiingstrategiea.
Procedure

VWamrle
Preparseveryonetortheactivityand
introdumseonoeptstobeaddmaed.
Provideatheirstructorwithpreasaess-
meritstrategies.

VWActi‘oity
Providesnep-by‘stepdirectiomto
addreasooncepa'l'heprimarycompo-
nentoteadistepispresentedinbold-
More

objectives of instruction. In addition, a
few activities provide Options. These
consist of alternative methods for
conducting the activity.

V Wrap Up

Brings closure to the lesson and includes
questions and activities to assess student

learnmg.

NOTE Many Project WET activities
include an ”action“ component Wrap Up
and Action. Action moves learners
beyond the classroom and involves
friends, family. community, state,
national. and/or international audiences.

Assessment
Preacntsdiverseaaseasmentstrategies
thatrelatetotheobjectivesoftheactiv-
itymotingthepartottheactivityduring
whicheachaaseasmentoocursldeasior
asaeaarnentOppa'tunitiesthatiollowthe
activityareottensuggeated.
Extensions
udinvestigationintooonoeptsad-
dreaedintheactrvrty' ' .Extensionscan
alsobeusediorhirtheraaseasment.

IE5} K-zopuon

directnsebystudenbaremarkedwith
an“.

NOTE: Some activities are organized into NOTE: This is a limited list. Several title

“parts.” This divides extensive activities
into logical segments. Allorsomeotthe
parts may be used, depending on the

are suggested. but many other resources
on similar topia will serve equally well.

 

OThe Watercourse and Western Regional Environmental Education Council (WREEC).

71

inclusion of all the necessary components of a complete EB activity.

In the Great Lakes Education Program classroom curriculum there are activities

with the standard organizational structure, but there are also activities with no structure.

Certain subjects are covered very well, such as food chains, while others are not. In fact,

the topic of exotic species has no activities at all; it is covered by two teacher fact sheets.

To improve the Great Lakes Education Program curriculum the existing

organizational structure needs to be scrutinized activity by activity. When this is done the

following problems become apparent:

PPN?‘

Not all topics have activities.

Some activities are repeated.

Not all activities have objectives.

Activity structure is inconsistent; various activities are added in a collage
fashion.

Some activities are designated for 6th-8th grade levels or higher in a 4th grade
curriculum.

. Not all activities have aquatic themes; for example, the predator/prey topic is

covered by a northeast forest ecosystem.

Recommendations to strengthen the curriculum include:

1.
2.

3.

4.

addressing the six problems above.

making sure the entire curriculum is consistent, including the framework and
activity structure.

developing every activity to be Great Lakes and vessel/boat specific for
maximum fourth grade Great Lakes learning.

building the curriculum to be compatible with other existing aquatic curricula
to use GLEP as supplemental material or to easily supplement GLEP.

Finally, a curriculum developed from a conceptual framework and standardized

activity structure not only facilitates teaching and learning, but it also allows for two

completely separate teaching strategies. Since the primary organizational structure of the

72
activities is easy to follow and gives teachers substantial structural information, an
activity can be used by itself to supplement a teacher’s lesson plans. Or, the activities can
be used as they are organized to serve as already developed lesson plans due to the.

conceptual framework.

73

APPENDIX C

GLEP CRUISE SURVEY: THE FINAL INSTRUMENT

NAME
Date

 

 

CRUISE SURVEY
Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP)

DIRECJJDMS .

Please answer the following questions about the Great Lakes as well as you can.

This is not a test. Your answers to the questions will not be counted for a grade. Your name and
your answers will be kept separate.

Are you a boy or a girl? (Check one) __ BOY _GlRI.
How old are you? _ years old

 

l. FEELINGS ABOUT THE GREAT LAKES AND LAKE ST. CLAIR

lnthissectionthcrearcpairsofwordstodeseribetheGreatIakes. 'I'hewordsontheleftarethe
appositeofthcwordsontheright Betweenthcoppositewordstherearefivenumbers. Please
circletbe numberinbetweenthewordswhich shows howyou feel abouttheGrcat Lakes.
There are no right or wrong answers forthis section!

THE GREAT LAKES

EXAMPLE: big 6) 2 3 4 5 small

lfyou feeltheGratukesuemybigdtenyouwouldcirclentnnberlasshown.

beautiful I 2 3 4 5 ugly

fun . l 2 3 4 S boring
strong 1 2 3 4 5 weak
familiar l 2 3 4 5 strange
awful I 2 3 4 5 nice

dirty l 2 3 4 5 clean
important I 2 3 4 5 unimportant

worthless l 2 3 4 S valuable

74

Please read each sentence in this section. For each sentence please circle TRUE if the sentence
does describe you Please circle MAYBE if the sentence may describe you sometimes. Please
circle FALSE if the sentence does not describe you. There are no right or wrong answers for this

 

 

 

 

 

section!

ELIE MARE FALSE
this scrutenec this sentence this semence
describes me sometimes does not

describes inc desaibe me
m3: MAYBE FALSE
TRUE MAYBE FALSE
TRUE MAYBE FALSE
TRUE MAYBE FALSE
TRUE MAYBE FALSE
TRUE MAYBE FALSE
TRUE MAYBE FALSE
TRUE MAYBE FALSE
TRUE MAYBE FALSE
TRUE MAYBE FALSE
TRUE MAYBE FALSE
TRUE MAYBE FALSE
TRUE MAYBE FALSE

1 get mad about the damage pollution does to the Great
Lakes.

1 get scared to think people do NOT care about the Great
Lakes.

1 do NOT worry about Great Lakes environmental
problems.

It upsets me when I see pe0ple use too much water.

l am NOT frightened about the effects of pollution on my
family.

It makes me sad to see houses being built on wetlands.

To save water, I would be willing to turn off the water
while I brush my teeth.

To save water, I would be willing to use less water when I
bathe.

I would NOT give $15 of my own money to help the Great
Lakes. f

I would be willing to pass our Great Lakes information.

I would be willing to write letters asking peOple to help
stop Great Lakes pollution.

I would be willing to pick up litter when I am at a Great
Lakes beach.

I am interested in a career related to the Great Lakes, rivers,
lakes. or oceans.

75

 

ll. WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE GREAT LAKES AND LAKE ST. CLAIR?

In this section of the survey read each question carefully. Choose the one answer that you feel is
the most correct. Please circle the letter in front of your answer.

1. Food, water, cover and space are part of an animal‘s:
A habits.
B. nature.
C. habitat.
D. behavior.

2. What is a plankton net used for?
'A. To keep bait fresh on the boat.
B. To catch fish without hurting them.
C. To measure oxygen in the water.
D. To catch tiny floating plants and animals.

3. On the map. which lake in the Great Lakes region forms most of Michigan‘s western
border? -
A. Lake Superior.
B. Lake Michigan.
C. Lake Eric.
D. Lake Ontario.
E. Lake Huron.
F. Lake St. Clair.

4. On the map, place an X on Lake St. Clair.

 

5. Which waterway connects the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean?
A. Gulf Stream.
B. St. Lawrence Seaway.
C. Lake Superior.
D. Mississippi River.

6. The land area from which a river collects its water is called a
A. gradient.
B. watershed basin.
C. flood plain.
D. river bottom

10.

ll.

12.

13.

76

An important difference between oceans and the Great Lakes is that oceans:
A. have waves.

B. have algae.

C. are polluted.

D. are salty.

Which statement about fish is wrong?
A. fish have fins.

B. fish have lungs.

C. fish are cold-blooded.

D. fish are good swimmers.

What do fish need to live?

A. a place to hide.

B. food.

C. the right water temperature.
D. enough space to swim.

E all of the above.

An example of an exotic or non-native invader found in the Great Lakes is the:
A. sucker.

B. turtle.

C. zebra mussel.

D. Canada goose.

E. all of the above.

Which is a plant that lives in water?
A. ivy.

B. minnow.

C. sunflower.

D. algae.

E. mushroom.

Which of the following lives on the bottom of Lake St. Clair?
A. nothing.

B. blind fish.

C. benthos.

D. octOpus.

What could acid rain do to a lake?

A. cause fewer fish to hatch from eggs.

B. hurt some types of plants and animals.

C. make water more acidic.

D. change the number of plants and animals.
E. all ofthe above.

14.

IS.

l6.

l7.

19.

77

What is a 0.0. test for?

A. To measure algae in the water.

8. To measure plankton in the water.

C. To measure oxygen in the water. -
D. To measure ozone in the water.

The zooplankton in the picture are:
A. sand graim.

8. plants.

C. animals.

D. salt/minerals.

E. all of the above.

Why is it suggested that people eat Great Lakes fish only once in a while?

A. Fish from the Great Lakes cost more than other fish.

B. Since very few fish live in the Great Lakes, people should eat only a few of them.
C. Some fish from the Great Lakes have pollutants inside them.

D. Fish from the Great Lakes spoil faster than fish from rivers.

Which food chain is in the right order?
A. water insects -> water plants -' fish - ’ peOple.

B. water insects -* fish -' water plants -' people.
C. water plants -' water insects -* fish -' people.
D. people -> waterplants -' fish -' water insects.

E. fish -' pe0ple -' water insects -* water plants.

What does a goose need in order to live?
A. large pine forests.

B. lakes. ponds, or wetlands.

C. berries and nuts.

D. a tree with holes in it.

What is a Secchi disk used for?

A. To record information on a computer.
B. To play a water game like frisbee.

C. To measure how clear the water is.

D. To measure oxygen in the water.

 

20.

21.

22.

78

Energy for aquatic life comes from the:
A. sun.

B. water.

C. soil.

D. rocks.

Marshes may be disappearing because:

A. high sea level is making the oceans and Great Lakes grow larger.
B. marsh water is draining out into the oceans.

C. people are filling in the marshes to make more land.

D. there is less rain to fill the marshes.

Plankton are:

A. a school of fast moving fish'

B. tiny floating plant and animal life.
C. non-living substances in the water.
D. material for making wooden boats.

79

 

III. EXPERIENCES

Please circle the answers that show which activities YOU have done BEFORE YOUR
CRUISE

Have you ever gone fishing? YES NO NOT SURE

 

Before your cruise. have you visited the Great Lakes
or Lake St. Clair? ’ YES NO NOT SURE

 

Have you ever gone fishing in one of the Great Lakes? ...... YES NO NOT SURE
Do you have an aquarium at home with fish living in it?.... YES NO NOT SURE

Do you belong to 4+1, Boy Scouts, or Girl Scouts? ............ YES NO NOT SURE

 

 

 

 

Have you gone to a zoo? YES NO NOT SURE
Have you gone to an aquarium - '

or Sea World? YES NO NOT SURE
Does your family go camping? YES NO NOT SURE
Have you tried to learn how to swim? YES NO NOT SURE
Have you ever been scuba diving or snorkeling? ................. YES NO NOT SURE

Have you done classroom activities about .
water. the oceans, or the Great Lakes? YES NO NOT SURE

Have you watched nature programs on TV about
water. the oceans. or the Great Lakes? , YES NO NOT SURE

Have you read books or magazines about
water, the oceans. or the Great Lakes? YES NO NOT SURE

Before your cruise. have you ever been on a
matorboat. sailboat. or canoe?-.-- YES NO NOT SURE

 

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

80

Test‘= Pre=Experimental Pre-test, Pst=Experimental Post-test, PO=Control Post-Onlytest
l2 = l, 2, 3, 4, 5 = Scale rating adjective pairs.
93 = No answer available.

8 1
APPENDIX D

RESULTS FROM STUDENT SURVEY

Table D-l. Distribution of Experimental and Control Group Student Responses on

 

 

Attitude Scale Items.
% Student Response

Test1 12 2 3 4 5 9’
Pre beautiful 54.4 31.5 1 l .5 2.0 .6 ugly 0
Pst 57.9 25.8 13.3 1.6 1.4 0
P0 47.8 32.2 15.3 2.2 2.0 .4
Pre fun 60.7 23.4 1 1 .7 2.4 1.4 boring .4
Pst 65.3 21.8 9.5 1.2 2.2 0
P0 60.9 23.8 10.2 2.2 2.4 .4
Pre strong 48.2 25 .4 22.2 2.6 1.4 weak .2
Pst 52.8 24.4 19.8 1.4 1.6 0
P0 44.4 28.2 20.4 4.2 2.2 .4
Pre familiar 59.7 18.1 13.9 3.4 4.8 strange 0
Pst 64.7 19.4 11.3 1.0 3.4 .2
P0 60.7 19.6 12.7 2.2 4.4 .4
Pre awful 2.4 1.8 9.5 19.6 66.7 nice 0
Pst 2.4 2.6 9.1 21.2 64.7 0
P0 3.6 1.8 7.6 19.3 67.6 .2
Pre dirty 9.5 9.3 44.6 22.4 14.3 clean 0
Pst 9.7 8.3 42.5 22.4 17.1 0
P0 9.8 10.4 43.3 22.2 13.8 .4
Pre important 87.7 8.7 1.6 .2 1.8 unimportant 0
Pst 86.3 8.9 2.6 .2 2.0 0
P0 90.0 5.6 1.8 1.1 1.3 .2
Pre worthless 3 .2 l .8 7.9 12.5 74.6 valuable 0
Pst 2.4 1.2 6.7 15.3 74.4 0
P0 3.3 .7 5.1 9.3 81.3 .2

 

 

 

 

82

Table D—2. Distribution of Experimental and Control Group Student Responses on

 

 

Behavioral Intention Scale Items.
% Student Response

Question Test‘ False Maybe True 9’
mad about Pre 2.0 20.8 76.6 .6
pollution Pst 2.4 21.6 75.8 .2
damage? P0 2.2 23.3 74.2 .2
scared Pre 11.7 43.1 45.2 0
people don’t Pst 12.7 39.9 47.2 .2
care? P0 15.1 43.6 41.1 .2
not worried Pre 78.8 15.5 5.6 0
about env. Pst 78.6 15.5 5.6 .2
problems? P0 81.6 14.0 4.4 0
upset when see Pre 20.2 48.6 30.6 .6
people use too Pst 17.3 43.5 38.7 .4
much water? P0 23.8 49.1 26.7 .4
not frightened of Pre 75.4 14.1 10.3 .2
pollution efi'ects Pst 75.4 15.9 8.5 .2
on family? P0 76.9 14.7 7.8 .7
sad to see Pre 10.3 30.8 58.5 .4
houses built on Pst 7.9 30.0 61.7 .4
wetlands? P0 8.7 27.8 63.6 0
willing to turn Pre 3.6 11.1 84.9 .4
ofi water while Pst 3.2 15.1 81.0 .6
brushing teeth? P0 4.2 14.0 81.6 .2
willing to use Pre 6.9 26.6 66.5 0
less water Pst 6.0 32.9 60.9 .2
when bathe? P0 11.6 32.7 55.8 0
not give own Pre 58.5 32.9 8.7 0
$15 to help the Pst 54.0 33.7 11.9 .4
Great Lakes? P0 48.7 37.3 14.0 0
willing to pass Pre 6.7 33.9 59.3 .2
out Great Lakes Pst 7.3 31.9 60.5 .4
information? P0 6.7 29.3 63.8 .2

 

 

 

Table D-2 (cont’d).

83

 

 

 

 

% Student Response

Question 'I‘estl False Maybe True 92
willing to write Pre 9.9 30.8 59.1 .2
letters to help Pst 13.1 32.1 54.4 .4
stop pollution? P0 10.7 37.6 51.6 .2
willing to pick up Pre 3.2 26.8 70.0 0
litter at Great Pst 4.0 33.5 62.1 .4
Lakes beach? P0 5.3 30.7 63.8 .2
interested in Pre 25.6 45.4 28.8 .2
career related 'Pst 29.4 40.9 29.0 .6
to aquatics? P0 33.3 43.8 22.9 0

 

Testl = Pre = Experimental Pre-test.
Pst = Experimental Post-test.
P0 = Control Post-Only test.

92 = No answer available.

 

84

Table D-3. Distribution of Experimental and Control Group Student Responses on

 

 

Knowledge Scale Items.
% Student Response
Question Test1 A2 B C D E F 993 9‘
habitat Pre 6.0 26.4 65.3 1.8 -- -— -- 4
is Pst 5.8 22.4 70.2 1.4 --- -- --- .2
what? P0 6.2 25 .8 66.2 1 .8 -- --- --- 0
plankton Pre 4.0 33.3 10.1 52.0 --- ..- --- 6
net’s Pst .2 3.0 4.8 91.7 -- --- --- 2
use? PO .7 2.4 8.0 88.7 --- --- --- 2
MI Pre 13.9 63.7 5.4 3.0 8.9 4.0 -- 1.0
western Pst 10.9 70.2 3.6 2.4 5.2 7.5 -- 2.8
border? P0 17.1 62.0 3.1 3.1 6.9 6.9 --- .9

put X on Pre 5.0 1.0 8.1 3.4 13.3 64.4 2.6 3.8
Lake St. Pst 1.6 .8 4.2 1.4 9.9 76.4 2.8 2.8
Clair? P0 2.4 1.3 4.9 1.1 8.4 79.1 2.0 .7

waterway Pre 1 1.7 44.4 24.0 19.4 --- -- -- .6
connects Pst 6.7 58.1 22.2 12.1 --- --- --- 1.0
ocean? PO 1 1 .3 52.4 23.1 12.9 --- --- -- .2
watershed Pre 14.3 45.2 13.7 26.2 --- m -- .6
is Pst 10.9 55.0 1 1.9 21.4 m -- -- .8
what? P0 9.1 56.2 12.4 21.3 --- --- --- .9
oceans Pre 3.4 3.6 5.2 87.5 --- --- --- .2
are salty? Pst 2.2 3.8 5.8 87.7 --- -- --- .4
P0 4.2 3.3 6.0 86.2 -- -- --- .2
fish have Pre 2.8 67.9 25.8 3.2 --- --- -- .2
lungs is Pst 2.0 72.2 21.1 3.8 --- -- -- .8
wrong. P0 3.3 61.8 3.0 4.9 --- -- -- 0
fish need Pre .6 16.3 9.7 2.2 70.6 --- --- .6
to Pst .8 14.7 7.1 1 .6 75.4 --- --- .4
live? PO .4 10.0 9.8 1 .6 78.2 --- --- 0
exotic Pre 15.3 6.5 44.0 16.1 16.7 --- -- 1.4
invader Pst 18.8 2.4 50.6 12.1 15.9 ——- -- .2
in lakes? P0 14.2 3.1 52.2 12.2 18.2 --- --- 0

 

 

 

Table D3 (cont’d).

85

 

 

 

 

% Student Response

Question Test1 A2 B C D E F 993 9‘
plant Pre 3.2 4.4 .4 91.3 0? -- -- .6
living in Pst 2.6 4.4 .4 90.7 1.4 --- --- .4
water? P0 2.9 3.3 .7 92.4 .7 -- -- 0
lives on Pre 12.5 20.2 57.3 9.7 -- -- --- .4
bottom of Pst 11.9 17.7 65.7 4.0 --- --- -- .6
lake? P0 14.2 14.7 62.0 8.7 --- -- -- .4
acid rain Pre 3.0 20.8 7.7 6.0 62.3 -—- --- .2
does Pst 2.6 16.9 9.3 5.2 65.3 --- --- .6
what? P0 2.0 18.2 8.9 7 .3 63.6 --- -- 0
D.O. test Pre 17.1 23.4 44.6 14.7 m --- m .2
is for Pst 6.3 32.3 53.8 6.7 --- --- -- 1.0
what? P0 9.6 34.7 48.9 6.4 m --- -- .4
zoo- Pre 15.7 12.5 23.4 27.2 20.8 --- --- .4
plankton Pst 3 .8 13 .7 56.7 8.1 16.7 --- --- 1.0
are ? P0 3.8 16.7 59.3 4.4 15.8 --- -- 0
eat few Pre 2.8 30.2 58.7 7.9 --- -- -- .4
fish Pst 2.2 27.4 62.5 5.0 -- -- --- 2.8
why? P0 2.0 26.0 64.2 7.3 --- --- --- .4
food chain Pre 12.9 4.2 64.7 14.5 3.2 -- -- ,4
in Pst 1 1.3 3.6 66.9 14.9 2.6 m -- .6
order? P0 19.6 2.9 59.6 15.1 2.9 -- --- 0
goose Pre 1 .6 87.5 9.7 .8 --- -- -- .4
needs to Pst 1.0 92.1 5.4 .8 --- -- --- .6
live? PO .9 94.7 3.6 .4 --- --- m ,4
Secchi Pre 15.1 2.6 56.7 25.4 --- --- m _2
disk for? Pst 2.6 1.6 77.6 17.1 --- --- --- 1.0

P0 5.1 1 . 1 78.2 15 .6 --- --- --- 0
aquatic Pre 53.4 63.5 8.3 1 .4 m -- --- .4
energy Pst 58.1 32.3 7.5 1 .6 --- --- --- .6
from? P0 53.1 40.4 5.1 .9 --- --- --- .4

 

86

Table D3 (cont’d).

 

% Student Response
Question Test1 A2 B C D E F 993 9‘

 

marshes Pre 6.3 13.7 64.5 14.9 -- -- -- .6
gone Pst 5.2 10.5 77.8 5.8 -- --- --- .6
because? P0 4.7 13.8 71.8 9.3 -- --- ~-- .4
plankton Pre 8. 1 71.0 16.1 4.8 --- --- --- 0
are Pst 1 .6 89.7 6.0 2.0 --- --- --- .6
what? P0 2.2 92.4 4.4 .4 m - --- --- .4

 

 

 

 

Testl = Pre = Experimental Pre-test.
Pst = Experimental Post-test.
P0 = Control Post-Only test.
A2 = A,B,C,E,D,F = Answers to knowledge questions with the correct answer
highlighted.
993 = Answer marked with an X was placed on land instead of Lake St. Clair.
9‘ = No answer available.

87

Table D-4. Distribution of Experimental and Control Group Student Responses on

 

 

Experience Scale Items.
Experience % Student Response
Variable Test‘ Yes No Not sure No answer

have you ever Pre 89.1 9.7 1.2 0.0
gone fishing? Pst 88.1 10.3 1.2 0.4

P0 85.6 12.2 1.6 0.7
visited the Great Pre 62.5 20.2 16.3 1.0
Lakes or Lake St. Pst 72.2 14.3 12.5 1.0
Clair? P0 65.8 19.3 14.9 0.0
have you gone Pre 34.3 45.4 19.8 0.6
fishing in one of Pst 40.7 40.9 17.9 0.4
the Great Lakes? P0 34.2 45.6 20.0 0.2
do you have an Pre 39.3 59.5 0.8 0.4
aquarium with Pst 39.5 59.1 0.8 0.6
fish? P0 39.1 59.6 0.9 0.4
belong to 4-H, Pre 20.8 76.4 2.4 0.4
Boy Scouts, or Pst 19.8 76.2 3.6 0.4
Girl Scouts? P0 20.9 77.1 1 .6 0.4
have you gone to Pre 98.2 1.2 0.2 0.4
a zoo? Pst 97.8 1.2 0.2 0.8

P0 97.6 1.1 1.1 0.2
have you gone to Pre 79.4‘ 12.9 7.7 0.0
an aquarium or Pst 79.2 12.9 7.1 0.8
Sea World? P0 81.1 12.7 6.0 0.2
does your family Pre 59.1 35.1 5.6 0.2
go camping? Pst 60.5 33.3 5.6 0.6

P0 58.2 35.6 5.3 0.9
have you tried to Pre 96.4 2.4 0.6 0.0
learn how to Pst 96.6 2.0 0.6 0.8
swim? P0 95.1 3.8 1.1 0.0
ever been scuba Pre 32.5 58.7 8.1 0.8
diving or Pst 34.7 56.3 7.9 1.2
snorkeling? P0 32.9 58.4 8.4 0.2

 

 

 

88

Table D-4 (cont’d).

 

 

Experience % Student Response
Variable Testl Yes No Not sure No answer
done classroom Pre 83.9 6.3 9.7 0.2
activities about Pst 88.5 3.4 7.5 0.6
aquatics? P0 86.2 5.6 ’ 8.2 0.0
watch nature Pre 73.4 16.5 9.9 0.2
programs on TV Pst 75.6 13.3 10.5 0.6
about aquatics? P0 69.1 19.3 11.3 0.2
read books or Pre 67.3 17.3 15.1 0.2
magazines about Pst 65.5 21.0 13.1 0.4
aquatics? P0 57.1 29.3 13.6 0.0
ever been on a Pre 92.1 5.0 2.6 0.2
motorboat, sail- Pst 90.7 5.4 3.4 0.4
boat, or canoe? P0 88.7 7.6 3.6 0.2

 

 

 

 

Testl = Pre = Experimental Pre-test.
Pst = Experimental Post-test.
P0 = Control Post-Only test.

89
APPENDIX E

GLEP EVALUATION TEACHER CONTACT MATERIALS

MICHIGAN STATE warm-um.

UNIVERSITY ' Estimate-inane

(SI?) ”5441? FAX om 3164699
E x I ENSION MWUFMwalfl‘u-Im

 

 

April 23. 1996

Dear Fellow Educator.

Thank you for participating in the Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) and helping with its
evaluation. Alterseveral yeasofprogmnexiflmweueexcitedtobeginanewevaluation
process. We are glad you and your 4th grade class had the opportunity to participate.

We have searched for ways that other teachers and aquatic educators throughout the US. have
tested youth knowledge gains. From that searchwe developed a GLEP survey specifically for
your students. The survey is intended to detect changes in Great Lakes knowledge and attitudes.
and intentions to be responsible toward aquatic resources. Results from the GLEP evaluation are
intended to provide information to be used to improve the program.

As a token ol'our appreciation. we have a setofodueatioml posters available for you Thank you
very much for your time and help in making GLEP a better program.

If you have any questions or comments. please feel free to call us.

Sincerely.
)417fl66’lt’1‘717é/’ “T
Anne Bienychudek

Graduate Assistant
(517) 353-0308

W.$/QO~AA

Assistant Professor
(517) 353-0675

Michigan State University Extension nograms and materials are opea to all “than regard to race. color. M'm' nngtn. an. Martial
insignia-ell. age or religion.

Michigan State University. US. Department of Agriculture and counties cooperating

MSU is an Affirmative Anion/Gout Opportunity Institution

90

.aoooémofi—m.

.m >5. 8 85. 62:8 o. 8.. .8. 3.2...

65:33 32:31:: 26.. 30> .. 5.3.2.»

E82. .0 3.20 c. B ...s xouacoauoa 2.5..

2...; .3390 260. 32.5.9, 32.2.3.2“.

ecu .282 28.208 o. 2.2.. «.262 E...

.2550... 9.23:. .3... an 023...... 3 co:

.a:.a>a 2.. ca 9.35; on ....s 5.3 .35 .5 .o

3.35 9.. .00.... «.862 .E.< oco xouacoxuca

85. 2.3:.» 22680 5.22.5

c.2m 5.0.5.2 £83.25 2. 63:8 9.;

=3. 2.. n5.5 82.8. 8.2.2.6 2.92.5
22m $95.: Ba EEO com c3295.

an... 9...... w. 9.2. .

.3265 o... 9...“. o. .9...

92.3.2 2» 8.33.56 2. ucu 8.20 page c. 23
.25.. c. 2...» 5.8.8.3 cocoa ..o.ccoeoa fl.30
.3 8.23:.an 2. =3 «.3. 50m .32: 5.5.0

o... Esoo a... 2.. 3.26:0. 0.9.88 8 :08 no .320

 

.32 .o..... 2.. c.
.896 $38.05
caaeauam

.n Scenes... 32o
s. 9:5... .2:

c. .36... a ago
...8 «.952 xE<

.mo:o:oo.xm. $30 9... .o mmooozw o... m.m:_m>m 0..

.96... 50> bomz m>>

8 as 32.38 2.. 2.. 682.83 .32; .25.. 6235......
.33 2.. o. 3.... 68.820 .30.. c. :23 on _..3 .3. cosh...
a... of 532.8,. 9.. .oa c. Ex. 9.2 ._.2 2:8 ES. and

.253 E33; 2...: 8:90 38. c. 628... o... 99.5 €29 E»
38»... ....s 23.5.2, .33. 3.20 as. 92.23.. «Ennis...

.2983 as. c. 88 2. ....s c8396 2.» $3.88
«anon on g E? .501 o 9.3.. .m
Havana. u
mean 5.3
.22.... .5
.32....

53 new £5 9.. o. 5.82.; .
.23... 3.3 .86
3...... o. 6939... 2.. 8:898 .
.6200... 9.3.8 2.. 9.30.9... .
.320... 20...: 0808:... .896...
.o. no»: on ._.3 5.3.26 2.. .0 3.3.2.
89... $2.8: co..ma.m>o o... w. 2.... .

.3233. 9.3... .3... 8.5.6. 20.5.2.
uca 633...... 68238.. 8.3.. .35 .233...
c. 89.5... .028 o. 82. on ....s 2.3.3. .88
new =93... .225.» .59...» 93 2.35 38.
52.5.2. .8. .223. 33.8. 5.3.9... 9.»
.230 08.8.. 2. 9.3228 n. .. 359.; 9...:
.380 o. :o..o 5.33.96 3.3.8 a 05098::
a. E200... c8833 3...... 520 2.»
9.23335 .0 web .mc>> .

  

91

:o_.m:_m>m.
EEmoE
cozmosnm
mmxm.
EEO mE...

0.9...

568.830.8608;

:23wa .520 03 5920.2W

 

so...

92...

22...

3082...... .o 5.6.03.5
.0... Ease...

...m.cmE..m..quoom 89..
.0... 0. 8 852.6 292.8
8.3... o. 5...... m... 8 :3.
9.58. 88:28... 90:. 0....
8.82.8 .m..cm..maxm 2m...
.2... 0. 9.23 c. €308.29...

SEEEEH.
.m....m..< .0 5.92.5.
..m.....mm tme .5
...wEm.mo.n.
So 2.3.96 .maE mg .28..
-3... o. .53.... 96:. ._ 9.9..
9.... 83.32.50 9.. 0.6.9:.
:8 8.50:8 .m.coEco._>cm
.m... 3.5:.88 58.6026
o... 852.8 o. .52.. 95 F

82...

92

GREAT LAKES EDUCATION PROGRAM
PARENT [GUARDIAN INFORMATION AND RELEASE FORM

Student Name:

 

Parent/Guardian Name:

 

School:

 

Teacher.

 

Themidentliaedabowwiumonukepaninafidduipwimdiewukeafiduadmmgm Aspartofthis
Mummmemmmmmmammmmommmmemd
intenats. mmfomuonmeivedfiomdeWiflhdpmimpmmthwhksEdumiummfor
fimnepartieipants!Michingmegradtmesmdunswiflbepafumingdtwdmfiomandpumtsigmmm
neededinordermmetheinformafionooflectedfiomminorahrticipationofsmdentsisvoluntaty,andthetewill
bcnOpenaltyfornonpaiticipadonNamesofstudentpmieipanmwillhekepteonfidential;smdents'an'veyswill
notheassociatedwiththeirnaniea. Uywwoddflkemyaddifiondinfamafionahomthisevduafiompleaae
contact:GieatLakesEducationPrognmatafl'at(810)469-5180.or8hariDannat(517)353-0675.

Aaapuendguudhnofdnmidentfistedahovelgiwmypamisionfmthissmduumuke
paninthemeyevaluationofththeathkesBdueatioanm

 

 

(Parent/Man Signature) (We)

 

GREAT LAKES EDUCATION PROGRAM
PARENT IGUARDIAN INFORMATION AND RELEASE FORM

Student Name:

 

Paint/Guardian Name:

 

School:

Teacher:

 

Themflemhaedabowudllmonukepminafidduipfithmeowukesfidueadmfiom Aspanofthis
WWMdliketomaMmupufidpueinamafingabomMerukeahongemd
interests. TheinfonnationreeeivedfiomthestudentswillhelpusimpmvetheGreatukeaEdueationProg-amfor
atoneparticipants!Michingmegtadmuuduiuwiubepafmmhgtheevdmfionandpuentdgnanmue
neededinordertousetheinformationoollectedfiomminors.Patticipationof snidentsisvoltmtary,andthetewill
he no penalty for nonpaticipation. Names ofstudent pattieipants will be kept confidential; students' surveys will
not be associated with their names. If you would like any addition! infomation about this evaluation. please
contact: Gwen! Lakes Education Program staff at (810)469-5180, or Shati Dann at (517)353-0675.

Asaparent/guardianofthe student listed above, I give my penniaeion forthis student totake
part in the survey evaluation of the Great Lakes Education Program.

 

 

(Parent/Guardian Signature) (Date)

93

M lCH lCAN STATE Oswflm of Fisheries and warm:

IJNaturalReaourceaBuilding
UNIVERSITY mum.waua24

>< l (517) 3554477 FAX (511) 33543”
E ENS'ON Effective 7MourFAXau-berclnenqm

 

. April 23, 1996

Dear Fellow Educator.

Thank you for participating in the Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) and helping with its
evaluation. After several years of program existence. we are excited to begin a new evaluation
process. We are glad you and your 4th grade class had the opportunity to participate.

We have searched for ways that other teachers and aquatic educators throughout the US. have
tested youth knowledge gains. From that search we developed a GLEP survey Specifically for
your students. The survey is intended to detect changes in Great Lakes knowledge and attitudes.
and intentions to be responsible toward aquatic resources. Results from the GLEP evaluation are
intended to provide information to be used to improve the program.

As a token of our appreciation, we have a set of educational posters available for you. Thank you
very much for your time and helpjn making GLEP a better program.

if you have any questions or comments. please feel free to call us.

Sincerely.

5417/1861 G‘7¢/ “"1
Anne Bierzychudck

Graduate Assistant

(517) 353-0308

WES/film

Assistant Professor
(517) 353-0675

Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race. color. national origin. sex. physical
impairment. age or religion.

Michigan State University. US. Department of Agriculture and counties cooperating

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

94

GLEP Cruise Conditions

Teacher School

 

Which cruise did your class take? DATE am __ pm __

Please circle and comment on the weather conditions the day of your cruise:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cold (<55 degrees F) Warm (55- 72 degrees F) Hot (>72 degrees F)
Sunny Partly Sunny Cloudy
Light Rain Heavy Rain Windy
<1 ft. waves (calm) l-2ft. visible waves (rollers) 2-3fL large waves (rough)
Were whitecaps visible? YES NO
Comments:
How many students were on the cruise? _ How many parent chaperones were on it? __
Did you participate in the program at the Metro Beach Nature Center? ___. YES ._ N0

Please add any other conditions you feel may be relevant to your class’s learning on the cruise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Sail Training Association. ASTA Directory of Sail Training Ships and
Programs. Newport, RI: American Sail Training Association, 1995.

Armstrong, 1., and J. Impara. 1991. The impact of an environmental education
program on knowledge and attitude. The Journal of Environmental Education,
23(22): 36-40.

Bennett, C., and K. Rockwell. 1994. Targeting outcomes of programs (TOP): An
integrated approach to planning and evaluation. Manuscript submitted for
publication.

Bennett, D. 1989. F our steps to evaluating environmental education learning
experiences. The Journal of Environmental Education, 20(2): 14-21.

Borden and Scheltiro. 1979. Determinants of environmentally responsible behavior.
The Journal of Environmental Education, 10(4): 35-39.

Boyle, P. 1981. Planning Better Programs. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., pp. 226.

Brody, M. 1995. Development of a curriculum framework for water education for
educators, scientists, and resource managers. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 26(4): 18-29.

Brody, M., and H. Koch. 1989. An assessment of 4th-, 8th-, and llth-grade students'
knowledge related to marine science and natural resource issues. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 21(2): 16-26.

Campbell, D., and J. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for
Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Champagne, A. and L. Klopfer. 1984. Research in Science Education: The Cognitive
Psychology Perspective. Research within research: Science Education. edited
by D. Holdzkum and Plutz. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Education.

95

96

Charles, C. 1988. Summary of research findings on Project WILD. Trans. N.A. Wild. &
Nat. Res. Conf. 53: 531-540.

Cookson, P., 1996.3mm21annmgm1febngflncatm. Manuscript submitted for

publication.
Dewey, J. 1933. How We Think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health and Company, pp. 28-33.

Dresner, M, and M. Gill. 1994. Environmental education at summer nature camp. The
Journal of Environmental Education, 25(3): 35-41.

Dwyer, W., and F. Leeming. 1993. Critical review of behavioral interventions to preserve
the environment: Research since 1980. Environment and Behavior, 25(3): 275-
321.

Ewert, A. 1987. Research in experiential education: An overview. The Journal of
Experiential Education, 10(2): 4-7.

Eiss, A., and M. Harbeck. 1969. Behavioral Objectives in the Affective Domain.
Washington, DC; National Science Teachers Association.

Farmer, A., and J. Wott. 1995. Field trips and follow-up activities: Fourth graders in a
public garden. The Journal of Environmental Education, 27(1): 33-35.

Fishbein, M., and M. Manfredo. 1992. A theory of behavior change. In M. Manfredo

(ed-),1nflucncinaHumanB.chaxior (pp 29-47)- Champagne, IL: Sagamore
Publishing Co., Inc.

Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, attention, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Co.

Flor, R. 1991. An introduction to research and evaluation in practice. The Journal of
Experiential Education, 14(1): 36—39.

Fortner, R 1993. Knowledge attitudes experiences: The aquatic connection.
C URRENT /The Journal of Marine Education, 5(1): 7-1 1.

Fortner, R. 1991. The scope of research in marine and aquatic education. Environmental
Communicator, July/August, 1991: 5.

97

Fortner, R., and V. Mayer. 1983. Ohio students knowledge and attitudes abut the oceans
and Great Lakes. Ohio Journal of Science, 83(5): 218-224.

Fortner, R., and T. Teates. 1980. Baseline studies for marine education: Experiences
related to marine knowledge and attitudes. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 11(4): 11-19.

Gigliotti, L. 1992. Environmental Attitudes: 20 years of change? The Journal of
Environmental Education, 24(1): 15-26.

Gilchrist, S. 1989/90. The effects of Project WILD on fourth grade students in Wisconsin.
Technical Bulletin, Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Gilchrist, S. 1993. The impact of Project WILD on fourth grade students in Wisconsin.
Habitrends, sp (10): 5-6.

GLEP Curriculum Guide. 1996. Great Lakes/Clinton River Education Program Task
Force.

Gray, D., R. Borden, and R Wiegel. 1985. Ecological Beliefs and Behaviors: Assessment
and Change. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Gutierrez dc White, T., and S. Jacobson. 1994. Evaluating conservation education

programs at a south American zoo. The Journal of Environmental Education,
25(4): 18-22. -

Hines, J ., H. Hungerford, and A. Tomera. 1987. Analysis and synthesis of research on
responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 18(2): 1-8.

Hounshell, P. and C. Hamton. 1982. MW. (Report
No. SE—O39-188). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher

Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 222329).

Hungerford, H., and T. Volk. 1990. Changing learner behavior through environmental
education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21 (3): 8-21.

Iozzi, L. 1989. What research says to the educator. Part one: Environmental education
and the affective domain. The Journal of Environmental Education, 20(3): 3-9.

Jaus, H. 1982. The effect of environmental education instruction on children’s
attitudes toward the environment. Science Education, 66(5): 689-692.

98

Keen, M. 1991. The effect of the Sunship Earth program on knowledge and attitude
development. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(3): 28-32.

Keith, J. and D. Perkins. 1996. 13,000 Adolescents Speak: A Profile of Michigan Youth.
Project Report. Institute for Children, Youth, and Families, Michigan State
University Extension, pp 1-75.

Kellert, S. 1985. Attitudes toward animals: age-related development among children. The
Journal of Environmental Education, 16(3): 29-39.

Kelly, 1. 1995. Coral Reef Classroom Student Survey. Unpublished report.

Knowles, M. 1980. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to
Andragogy. (Chicago: Follett), p. 202.

Kolb, D. 1991. Meaningful methods: Evaluation without the crunch. The Journal of
Experiential Education, 14(1): 40-44.

Leeming, F., W. Dwyer, and B. Bracken. 1995. Children’s environmental attitude
and knowledge scale: Construction and validation. The Journal of Envrronmental
Education, 26(3): 22-23.

Leeming, F., W. Dwyer, B. Porter, and M. Cobern. 1993. Outcome research in
environmental education: A critical review. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 24(4): 8-21.

Lewis, G. 1981/82. A review of classroom methodologies for environmental education.
The Journal of Environmental Education, 13, 12-15.

Linke, R 1981. Achievements and aspirations in Australian environmental education.
The Journal of Environmental Education, 12(2): 20—23.

Lisowski, M., and J. Disinger. 1991. The effect of field-based instruction on student
understandings of ecological concepts. The Journal of Environmental Education,
23(1): 19-23.

Lucko, B., J. Disinger, and R. Roth. 1982. Evaluation of environmental education
programs at the elementary and secondary school levels. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 13(4): 8-12.

Marcinkowski, T. 1989. An analysis of correlates as predictors of responsible
environmental behavior. Ph.D. diss., Southern Illinois University: at Carbondale.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(12):3677-A.

99

Maryland Sea Grant. 1993. Economic Competitiveness and the Coastal Environment.
Maryland Sea Grant. pp 24

Matthews, B., and C. Riley. 1995. Teaching and Evaluating: Outdoor Ethics Education
Programs. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation.

Mayer, V., and R. F ortner. 1993. A Model Program for Research and Development
Interaction. A Chapter in Alternative Paradigms in Environmental Education
Research, pp. 249-271.

Michigan State Board of Education. 1991. Michigan Essential Goals and Objectives for
Science Education (K-IZ). Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State Board of
Education.

Michigan State Board of Education. 1994. Michigan Core Curriculum Content Standards
(K-IZ). Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State Board of Education.

Miles, T. 1989. Clearing away the fog. Women in Natural Resources, 11(2): 37-39.

North American Association for Environmental Education. 1996. Environmental
Education Materials: Guidelines for Excellence. Guidelines in preparation.

North American Association for Environmental Education. 1996. Environmental
Education Guidelines for Excellence: What School-Age Learners Should Know
and Be Able To Do. Guidelines in preparation.

Neter, J ., W. Wasserman, and G. Whitrnore. 1993. Applied Statistics. (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Nevala, A. 1996. Multi-disciplinary, Vessel based Environmental Education: An
Evaluation of Teacher and Volunteer Recruitment and Training for the Great
Lakes Education Program. Manuscript in preparation.

Norusis, Marija J ., 1993. SPSS for Windows: Base System User’s Guide Release 6.0.
[Computer Program]. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.

Nunnally, Jr., J .C. 1970. Introduction to Psychological Measurement. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Osgood, C., G. Suci, and P. Tannenebaum. 1971. The Measurement of Meaning. (8th
ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.

100

Peterson, N., and H. Hungerford.1995. Developmental Variables Affecting
Environmental Sensitivity in Professional Environmental Educators. Paper
presented at the National Association of Aquatic and Environmental Educators
Conference.

Project WET. 1995. Project WET activity guide. Bozeman, MT: The Watercourse at
Montana State University and Western Regional Environmental Education
Council.

Project WILD Aquatic. 1992. Project WILD Aquatic activity guide. The Western
Regional Environmental Education Council, Inc.

Project WILD. 1992. Project WILD activity guide. The Western Regional Environmental
" Education Council, Inc.

Race, T., Decker, and J. Taylor. 1990. A statewide evaluation of Project WILD's effect
on student knowledge and attitude toward wildlife. Trans. N.A. Wild. & Nat.
Res. Conf. 55: 101-106.

Satchell, M. “Dangerous Waters?” US. News World Report, 10 June. 1996: 63-64.

Schultz, J. 1994. Inland Seas Education Association Student Post Trip Evaluation.
Unpublished report.

Sia, A., H. Hungerford, and A. Tomera. 1985/86. Selected predictors of responsible
environmental behavior: An analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education,
17(2): 3 1-40.

Simmons, B. 1996. President’s message. Environmental Communicator, 26(2): 2-3.

Sivek, D., and H. Hungerford. 1989/90. Predictors of responsible behavior in members
of three Wisconsin conservation organizations. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 21(2): 35-40.

Sivek, D. 1989. Analysis of selected predictors of environmental behavior of the

conservation organizations. Ph.D. diss. Southern Illinois University. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 46(3):667-A.

Sokal, R. and F. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry. San Francisco, CA: Freeman, Copyright 1981.

Stewart, S. 1995. Great Lakes Education Program 1994 Progress Report. Unpublished
report.

lOl

Stout, R. and R. Peyton. 1988. The need for wildlife education program evaluation: A
case study. Trans. N.A. Wild. & Nat. Res. Conf. 53: 552-559.

Stout, R., D. Herd, and P. Haverland. 1989. Aquatic Education Survey Summary.
Unpublished Missouri Department of Conservation Education Section Report.

Stufflebeam, D. 1975. Evaluation as a community education process. Community
Education Journal, (March/April) p. 7.

Volk, T. 1993. Integration and Curriculum Design. Environmental Education Teacher
Resource Handbook: A practical guide for K-12 environmental education.
Millwwod, New York; Kraus International publications 46-75.

Walter, H., and J. Lien. 1985. Attitudes of Canadian students and teachers toward the
marine environment and marine education. Eau Canada: A Newsletter for
Canadian Marine Educators, October 1(1): 1-17.

Wilke, R.J., ed. 1993. Environmental Education Teacher Resource Handbook: A
Practical Guide for K-12 Environmental Education. Millwood, New York: Kraus
International Publications.

Wong-Leonard, C. “Effects of Wildlife Cartoons on Children’s Perceptions of Wildlife
and Their Use of Conservation EducatiOn Material.” Diss. Michigan State
University, 1992.

"Tlllllllll'llllllll