3"

' t .
mm"?-
9’ 5:; '

...

h.

x

A

  

.3

a

  

.

c
l

:2
p
.

 

‘-

      

L‘o_
5:};
o‘;;:;
51.1!

I
’r

      

(1"

    
 

S
[I
13‘ 'v

        

E

      

 

:3

up

 

t
.

 

 

     

 

   

 

‘

sﬁ

 

,_I‘
3

x;

       

v
.I'

         

I

..~
L

:

  
  

 

{3
7': 7
J.

I

 

.

 

?

\

 

3:34
{'3
a

 
      

,n
i
s

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
                     

  

 

 

 

 

 

          

 

             

 

 

 

 

 

           

 

     

    

 
                      
           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

         

 

    

    

 

   

  

 

 

 

 

 

          

  

: nit.
thf‘.’

   

 

   

    

  

        

   

           

rrli~n5l Q!

 

 
               

 

  
   

 

 

  

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

         

 

  

9.... rr

 

  

     

     
   

   

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

        

 

$.th ark).

 

 

 

 

~v

 

 

 

 

 

{5
a? o‘b'4
if .y 5;?
' I
' "' 1.. 5;;
.‘ i

        

 

   

    

    

 

        

      

    

 

 

 

     
        

 

     

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 

             
          

 

    

  

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1'st

HISGAN

lllllllllllllll”llUlllllllllllllllllﬂllll

31293 016914248

lllllllllll

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

An Evaluation of Educators' Participation in
the Great Lakes Education Program

presented by

Amy Elizabeth Nevala

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

Master Of Science degree in F181]. & Wildl.

)Ai/l/CUl/l Of @CW

Major professor

Date Dec. 15, 1997

 

0-7 639 MSU is un Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Insu'tulion

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/98 chlHC/DatoDmpGS-p.“

AN EVALUATION OF EDUCATORS’ PARTICIPATION IN THE
GREAT LAKES EDUCATION PROGRAM

By

Amy Elizabeth Nevala

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

1 997

ABSTRACT

AN EVALUATION OF EDUCATORS’ PARTICIPATION IN THE
GREAT LAKES EDUCATION PROGRAM

By

Amy Elizabeth Nevala

The focus of this research was to gain evaluative information from educators
(fourth grade teachers and local volunteers) participating with the Great Lakes Education
Program (GLEP), a vessel-based, environmental education program developed in 1989 in
Macomb County, Michigan. Surveys were designed and administered to the GLEP
educators (106 teachers, 40 volunteers) by telephone, mail, and in-person during 1996 and
1997. Over 86% of educators surveyed indicated that they would like to continue
participating in the GLEP. Prior to GLEP training, more than 50% of educators indicated
that their knowledge level was low in most Great Lakes topics. Educators’ self-
assessment of post-cruise comfort levels in teaching these topics was also relatively low,
indicating the need for additional educator training. Evaluation is the ﬁrst step toward
strengthening the GLEP and for the sound development of similar programs in the Great

Lakes region.

To all teachers, especially my mom,
Susan Nevala,
who made a diﬁ‘erence in young people’s lives.

“It ’s all about attitude. ”

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This publication is a result of work sponsored by the Michigan Sea Grant College
Program, project number R/VBE-l, under grant number DOC-G—NA3 6RGOS6-A, from
the Oﬁice of Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (N 0AA), US.
Department of Commerce, and ﬁmds from the State of Michigan. The US. Government
is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes
notwithstanding any copyright notation appearing hereon.

Much appreciation goes to my major professor, Dr. Shari L. Dann, whose
enthusiasm and ideas helped not only with this research but also with my development as a
writer. My thanks to the other members of my guidance committee, Dr. Kirk Heinze and
Dr. James Bence, for their time and insights into the project.

Past and present members of the Michigan State University (MSU) Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife deserve special recognition, especially Michelle Haggerty, Heidi
Prather, Brandon Schroeder, Jeﬁ‘ Rupert, Mary Jamieson, Kelly Carter, Michaela Zint,
Melissa Middleton, and Anne Williamson, who cheerfully gave their assistance during
various phases of the project.

The Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) staff — Steve Stewart, Patrick

Livingston, and Terry Gibb - patiently provided project information and support. Thanks

especially to the GLEP task force members, teachers, and volunteer cruise leaders for their
time with the surveys and during the 1997 writing retreats.

For their support during my seven year MSU and Michigan Sea Grant Extension
career, I gratefully acknowledge the Michigan Sea Grant Extension staﬂ‘, especially Carol
Swinehart.

My thanks to Jim Detjen, MSU Knight Professor in Journalism, and Dr. William
Taylor, MSU Chair of the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, for various career-related
opportunities.

My appreciation to the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, the Michigan Outdoor
Writers Association (MOWA), the Association for Great Lakes Outdoor Writers
(AGLOW), and Trout Unlimited for their fellowship and scholarship support.

Finally, my love and thanks to my friends and family, especially Dad, Dave, and

Mike, for sharing laughter and travel adventures during my graduate program.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

 

LIST OF FIGURES

 

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION
Background and Problem Area
Problem Statement
Research Questions
Signiﬁcance of Dncparnh

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2
THE GREAT LAKES EDUCATION PROGRAM (GLEP) DESCRIPTION ...............
The Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) Model
Summary of GLEP Educator P. g '
GLEP Participation by Educators
Educator Recnlitment
Educator Orientation
Educator Training
Volunteer Retention through Recognition

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Brief History of Environmental Education in Michigan .....................................
Experiential Education
Why are EE Program Evaluations Important?
EE Program Evaluations: Project WILD and Vessel-based EE ........................
Teacher Awareness of Project WILD
What Teachers Hope to Learn at Project WILD Workshops ....................
Attendance at Project WILD Workchnpq
Use of Project WILD Materials After Workshop Training .......................
The Project WILD Volunteer Facilitators
Vessel-based EE “ "
Retaining Educators in PE
Obstacles Impacting Teachers’ EB Participation ......................................
Volunteers’ Obstacles with Par' 'r "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vi

AWNI—Ir—I

16
16
17
18

20
22
22
24
25
26
27
27
30

Who Volunteers? 34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan Volunteerism 35
Summary 37
Chapter 4
METHODS 38
Overall Research Design and the Development of Evaluation Instruments ........ 38
Evaluation Protocol 40
Survey Administration to Non-respondents 42
Data Analysis 44
Additional Qualitative Information 45
Limitations of Research 45
Chapter 5
RESULTS 48
Results of Survey Administration 48
Response Rates 48
Analysis of Potential Non-response Bias 49
Addressing Teacher Non-response Bias 49
Addressing Volunteer Cruise Leader Non-response Bias ................. 50
Analysis of Potential Response Bias Due to Survey Methodologies .......... 51
GLEP Educator Backgrmm 53
Teachers’ “ ' O J 53
Volunteers Cruise Leaders’ Background 55
Recruitment, Retention, and Training of P ‘ ‘ s 56
Educators’ Past Participation in the GLEP 56
Advertising and Recruiting Strategies to Attract GLEP Educators ........... 57
Inﬂuencing Other Teachers to Participate in the Program ......................... 59
Educators’ Use of GLEP Training Materials 59
GLEP Educators’ Experiences, Knowledge, and Comfort in Teaching about
the Great Lakes 61
Educators’ Outdoor Activities Related to the Great Lakes ....................... 61
Educators’ Questions Prior to GLEP Training 62
Teachers’ Pre-GLEP Q " 62
Volunteer Cruise Leaders’ Pre-GLEP Questions ............................. 64
Educators’ Concerns Prior to GLEP Training 64
Educators’ Self-Assessed Knowledge of Great Lakes Topics Prior
to GLEP Training 65
Teachers’ Knowledge 65
Volunteer Cruise Leaders’ Knowledge 67
Educators’ Post-cruise Comfort with Teaching Great Lakes Topics ......... 67
Teachers’ Comfort in Teaching 67
Volunteer Cruise Leaders’ Comfort in Teaching 70
GLEP Educators’ Program Participation and P- r" 71
Lessons Taught Pre-cruise and Intentions to Teach Post-cruise ................ 71

vii

Teaching Topics and Sources: Pre-cruise and Post-cruise ....................... 72

Educators’ Perceptions of the GLEP ....................................................... 74
GLEP Educators’ Future Participation ..................................................... 77
Teachers Who Do Not Intend to Participate in Future .............................. 77
Chapter 6
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................. 80
Recruitment, Retention, and Training of Educators ........................................... 8O
GLEP Educators’ Great Lakes Experiences, Knowledge, and Comfort Levels.. 86
GLEP Educators’ Program Participation and Perceptions ................................. 92
Implications for GLEP Dissemination ............................................................... 93
Future Research ............................................................................................... 94
APPENDICES
Appendix A: GLEP Teacher Information and Registration Packets ............... 96
Appendix B: 1996 and 1997 GLEP Educator Surveys ..................................... 104
Appendix C: GLEP Survey Cover Sheets ........................................................ 124
Appendix D: Project Approval by the Michigan State University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) ................ 126
Appendix E: GLEP Educator Survey Cover Letters ........................................ 128
Appendix F: March 1997 GLEP Writing Retreat ............................................. 133
Appendix G: GLEP Teachers’ Colleges Majors ............................................... 154
Appendix H: GLEP Teachers’ Membership in Organizations ........................... 157
Appendix 1: Teachers’ Reasons for Not Participating with the
GLEP in the Future ................................................................................. 159
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 160

viii

Table 2-1.

Table 4-1.

Table 5-1.

Table 5-2.

Table 5-3.

Table 5-4.

Table 5-5.

Table 5-6.

Table 5-7.

Table 5-8.

Table 5-9.

LIST OF TABLES

Overview of 1996 and 1997 GLEP activities and objectives for educators. . 12

Timetable and methods of educators survey administration ......................... 41
Teacher response rates ............................................................................... 48
Volunteer cruise leader response rates ........................................................ 49
Number of useable surveys by the three survey administration methods ...... 52

Teacher background, experience, and demographic information ................. 54

Volunteer cruise leader background, experience, and demographic
information ............................................................................................... 56

Percent of total GLEP educators by season who participated with the
GLEP in the past ........................................................................................ 56

How teachers and volunteer cruise leaders became aware of the GLEP ...... 58

Situations that GLEP teachers indicated would inﬂuence other teachers
to participate with the GLEP ...................................................................... 59
Volunteer cruise leaders’ perceptions of training ........................................ 61

Table 5-10. Teachers’ and volunteer cruise leaders’ experiences with outdoor

activities .................................................................................................. 62

Table 5-11. Teacher and volunteer cruise leader questions about participating with

the GLEP prior to orientation and training ............................................... 63

Table 5-12. Teacher and volunteer cruise leader concerns about participating with

the GLEP prior to orientation and training ............................................... 65

Table 5-13. Teacher self-assessed knowledge of topics before training ........................ 66

ix

 

Table 5-14.

Table 5-15.

Table 5-16.

Table 5-17.

Table 5-18.

Table 5-19.

Table 5-20.

Table 5-21.

Volunteer knowledge about Great Lakes topics before the cruise ............. 69
Teachers’ post-cruise comfort levels with teaching the GLEP stations ...... 70
Volunteers’ post-cruise comfort levels with teaching the GLEP stations 71

Percent of GLEP teachers who taught about Great Lakes topics
pre-cruise and post-cruise ......................................................................... 72

Topics taught pre-cruise and intentions to teach post-cruise topics ........... 73

Sources GLEP teachers used when teaching about Great Lakes topics

pre-cruise and post-cruise ........................................................................ 74
Aspects of the GLEP educators enjoyed the most ..................................... 75
Aspects of the GLEP educators enjoyed the least ..................................... 76

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. The Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) Model ................................ 7

Figure 5-1. GLEP Volunteer Recruitment and Retention ............................................. 57

 

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Background and Problem Area

The Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) was collaboratively developed by
Michigan State University Extension and the Michigan Sea Grant College Program to
provide a vessel-based, multidisciplinary environmental education (EE) experience for
fourth grade elementary school students in Macomb County, Michigan. Since its
implementation in 1989, the GLEP has grown from a pilot season of four classes to a
program that has involved more than 13,200 students, teachers, parents, and community
volunteers from southeast Michigan. Despite its popularity, the GLEP lacks an important
component that may prevent it from achieving its goals for BB: an in—depth program
evaluation (Bethel and Hord 1982).

The GLEP has three parts: classroom based pre-cruise education activities, the
experiential learning trip aboard a modiﬁed Great Lakes ﬁshing vessel on the local
watershed (the Clinton River and Lake St. Clair), and post-cruise activities in the
classroom. To meet the need for additional multidisciplinary EE programs, GLEP
coordinators plan to establish similar vessel-based programs in other Great Lake
communities, and eventually in marine coastal areas. However, outside of collecting basic

feedback from program participants, the educators’ involvement in the GLEP has not been

 

formally evaluated. I developed an evaluation to describe the GLEP, to evaluate training
strategies, and to assess the program impacts on the two main groups of participating
GLEP educators. The ﬁrst group of educators is the fourth grade teachers who
accompany the classes and who provide the pre-cruise and post-cruise classroom
instruction. The second group of educators is the volunteer cruise leaders. Volunteer
cruise leaders are members of the local community who donate their time to be trained and
to lead student learning activities during the GLEP cruise.

This evaluation was conducted concurrently with research by Anne Williamson
(1996), a Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Master of
Science graduate student. Williamson researched the impacts of the GLEP on

participating fourth grade students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions.

Problem Statement

Coordinators of the GLEP seek to improve and expand the program to other areas
of the Great Lakes and beyond. However, there has been no evaluation to assess the
GLEP, speciﬁcally the program processes, training techniques, and the impacts of the
program on its participants. The purpose of this research is to gain evaluative information
about the program from the two main groups of GLEP educators: the teachers and the

volunteer cruise leaders. The study is primarily a descriptive evaluation of the GLEP.

 

Research Questions

To meet the needs for program evaluation, I investigated the following research

questions:
1. What are the educators’ demographic backgrounds?

2. What programming strategies are currently used to recruit, train, and retain the
GLEP educators?

W

2a. Educators will identify speciﬁc program-related barriers to their
participation. Participating teachers will also identify barriers related to the
involvement of other teachers.

2b. Based on trends recorded by GLEP staﬁ’, teachers will show consistent
participation from year-to-year, while volunteer tum-over is more
pronounced.

2c. Educators will record speciﬁc methods that indicate how they became
aware of the program. The highest proportion of teachers will report that
they learned about the program from other teachers, colleagues, and from
mailings to the school. Volunteers, however, will indicate that the media
made them aware of the GLEP opportunity.

3. What are the GLEP educators’ life experiences, knowledge, and comfort levels
in teaching about the Great Lakes?

Subguestions

3a. Using self-assessments, educators will show a low knowledge of
speciﬁed Great Lakes topics before GLEP training, and a higher comfort
levels with teaching Great Lakes topics after training.

3b. High proportions of educators will report a background of
participation in Great Lakes activities and experiences.

3c. Educators will have pre-cruise and post-cruise questions and concerns
about their participation with the GLEP.

4. What are the educators’ perceptions of the program?

 

mm

4a. Most participating educators will have positive perceptions of the
program.

4b. Most teachers will indicate that they teach pre-cruise and post-cruise
GLEP activities in their classrooms.

4c. The majority of GLEP educators will indicate that they are interested in
participating with the GLEP during another season.

The ﬁrst question addresses the programming strategies used to recruit, train, and
retain educators in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in the programming
techniques, as well as to make recommendations to strengthen the program. In the second
question, I seek to identify educators’ life experiences (including education, interests, and
skills), knowledge, and comfort levels with teaching a variety of Great Lakes related
topics. I also assess the impacts of the program on the educators. In the third question I
look at educators’ perceptions of the GLEP following their participation to determine
what aspects of the program they liked and disliked, what program training strategies they
found useﬁrl and/or not helpful, and what materials they utilized or disregarded. I also
gather their opinions of various training strategies. This information helps to provide
speciﬁc recommendations for improving the existing program and for future vessel-based,

EE programs.

Signiﬁcance of Research
The current GLEP staff, educators, future GLEP personnel, and program

participants are the beneﬁciaries of the research. Other beneﬁciaries include Sea Grant

 

and Extension educators and volunteers (at local, state, and national levels), and
coordinators of EB curricula who may collaborate to develop programs similar to GLEP
in their watersheds.

Rigorous evaluation reveals strengths and weaknesses in a program. The ﬁndings
of evaluations are used to revise and improve the program (Stout and Peyton 1988). A
comprehensive model for designing evaluations (adapted from Brinkerhoﬂ’ et a1. 1983)
suggests the following steps, which I have applied to this evaluation: focusing the
evaluation, designing the evaluation, collecting information, and analyzing and interpreting
the evaluation results (Stout and Peyton 1988: 553).

Ultimately, the purpose of this program evaluation is to improve and expand the

GLEP so that it will yield greater returns for students learning about the environment.

Chapter 2

THE GREAT LAKES EDUCATION PROGRAM (GLEP) DESCRIPTION

The Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) Model

The GLEP consists of three complementary teaching segments: the pre-cruise
activities, the cruise experience, and the post-cruise activities. Together, these segments
form the core of the GLEP Model (Figure 2-1). The GLEP Model was developed by a
local (Macomb County, Michigan) task force composed of teachers, volunteers, the three
GLEP directors (Extension staff members), resource people, and agency representatives.

To address topics such as the water cycle, water quality, Great Lakes geology and
geography, wetlands, food chains, aquatic life forms and groundwater, the task force
produced a GLEP Learning Activities Manual (GLEP 1993). These elements and their
related activities are introduced in the pre-cruise segment of the GLEP, during which
teachers select and teach classroom-based activities to familiarize students with Great
Lakes ecosystems.

The second segment, the cruise, is the one-time, shipboard experience designed to
engage students and teachers in an exploration of the physical, cultural, chemical, and
biological dimensions of the Clinton River and Lake St. Clair. It involves experiential
activities at eight teaching stations, each taught by a volunteer cruise leader or by the

participating fourth grade teacher. The hands-on study of navigation, plankton,

 

7

The Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP)
Model

Local watershed: Lake St. Clair, Clinton River

Community-Based: Sponsored by MSU/Macomb County Extension

Local task force designs and implements the GLEP segments

segment 1 segment 2 segment 3
Pre-cruise activities Cruise Post-cruise activities
(classroom) (vessel-based EE) (classroom)

 

THE PROGRAM INVOLVES:

Extension Staff
Parents
Community members and local volunteers
Teachers

Ultimate beneficiaries of program:
Fourth grade, Macomb County Students

Figure 2-1. Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) Model.

 

8
dissolved oxygen, marlinspike (maritime knot-tying), water sample collection, weather
observation, carbon dioxide, calcium hardness, and pH allows students to expand upon the
concepts introduced in their classrooms during the pre-cruise segment. Classrooms may
also elect to visit the Metropolitan Beach Metropark Nature Center in Macomb County as
part of their GLEP experience. The Metropark Nature Center hosts experiential, EE
programs, usually focused on Great Lakes coastal wetland ecosystems.

In the post-cruise segment of the GLEP, participating teachers select from a
variety of classroom activities designed to reinforce the pre-cruise and cruise learning
experiences. Elements of the ﬁeld experience are reviewed, and some activities are carried
over from the ﬁeld to the classroom.

The GLEP is among three established vessel-based, EE programs existing in
Michigan. Similar programs also exist nationwide. The American Sail Training
Association (ASTA) (1995) lists over 130 vessel-based education programs that provide
schoolship training in the United States. The GLEP oﬁ‘ers components that are similar to
and unique from aspects of these other programs. More speciﬁcally, the GLEP Model has
offers six speciﬁc components:

1. The GLEP is not designed to be a one-time learning experience. The program,

with its three complementary segments, is designed for fourth grade teachers to

include as part of their overall, academic-year teaching curriculum.

2. The GLEP was developed by a Macomb County task force for the local

community. While other programs advertise for participants ﬁom various regions,

the GLEP was designed speciﬁcally to teach Macomb County fourth graders about

issues in their “backyard,” or within their own watershed.

3. Fourth graders are the deliberate target of the program. The GLEP
complements Michigan science and social studies emphases on state resources

 

9

beginning at this grade level and students are most likely to incorporate the

program concepts into their lives and ﬁrture academic endeavors at this age level

(GLEP 1992).

4. The local community focus creates a unique need for local volunteers,

especially for volunteer cruise leaders who can be trained to teach learning stations

during the cruise.

5. Parents of participating fourth grade students play an important role as

volunteers with the program, although they were not included in this study. GLEP

teachers bring at least three parent chaperones aboard the boat during the cruise.

Their involvement is part of the GLEP goals for BB: to inﬂuence family members’

knowledge, attitudes and consumerism behaviors with regard to the Great Lakes

and aquatic sciences (Dann and Kozma 1994).

6. The GLEP does not own or operate the vessels used with the program.

Program staff charter two vessels from a local captain, thereby helping to support

a local business person and utilizing a community resource person to aid in the

instruction of maritime topics, such as navigation and marlinspike.

Making the GLEP Model work requires the development of eﬁ’ective
programming strategies to recruit, train, and retain educators. “Eﬂ’ective” is deﬁned as

“capable of producing a desired effect or outcome” (Merriam-Webster 1996: 368). One

desired outcome is to prepare educators to teach students about the Great Lakes.

Summary of GLEP Educator Programming
GLEP Participation by Educators

The GLEP is oﬁ’ered to all 276 Macomb County fourth grade teachers in both the
fall (September through October) and the spring (April through June) (GLEP 1992).
Seasonal Michigan weather normally allows for a slightly longer spring cruise season
(approximately 6 to 7 weeks in length) than the fall cruise season. In 1996 and 1997,

cruises were held Tuesdays through Fridays. Typically, there is one morning cruise and

 

10
one afternoon cruise per day, each about 3 '/2 hours in length. (Classes may then
participate at the Metropark Nature Center the other half of the day). When the program
oﬁcially began in 1991, four teachers participated with the program. In 1996, 88 teachers
participated with the program (this includes 71 spring and fall 1996 fourth grade teachers,
as well as 16 teachers ﬁom other grade levels). In the spring 1997 season alone, 77
teachers participated.

The number of GLEP volunteer cruise leaders has gradually increased over the last
seven years. In 1991, two volunteer cruise leaders participated with the program. In
spring and fall 1996, 31 volunteer cruise leaders actively participated, and in the spring
1997 season alone, 38 people showed interest in the program, with 21 volunteers

involved.

Educator Recruitment

Educator recruitment - seeking to gather or enroll new GLEP educators 4- occurs
throughout the year, but teachers are more heavily targeted in the late summer and fall due
to the approaching cruise seasons. The GLEP staff mails information and registration
packets to fourth grade private school teachers. The Macomb County Intermediate
School District (ISD) mails the packets to fourth grade public school teachers within
Macomb County. Packets for fall cruises are sent by the end of April, and packets for the
spring season are mailed right after Labor Day in early September. The packets include
the following: a GLEP brochure that describes the program, a registration information

sheet, a reservation/conunitment sheet, a calendar of available cruise dates, a list of fund

1 1
raising sources (the cruise costs $400.00 per classroom), and a Metro Beach Nature
Center program listing (Appendix A).

The GLEP staﬁ’ attempts to recruit volunteer cruise leaders - teenagers through
retired adults — with public service announcements (PSAs), newspaper articles, word-of-
mouth advertising ﬁom participating volunteer cruise leaders, high school magnet
programs (math and science centers), ISD workshops, and community service clubs, such
as Kiwanis. In spring 1997, the staff began promoting the GLEP volunteer positions in
the Master Gardener program, an Extension horticulture program that trains interested
people in basic horticultural techniques. In exchange for volunteering with the GLEP,

Master Gardener volunteers receive points toward their Master Gardener certiﬁcation.

Educator Orientation

Once educators are recruited to the program, they are strongly encouraged to
attend one orientation and one to four training sessions before the cruise season to become
familiar with GLEP objectives, and operations (Table 2-1). The goal is to have educators
lead speciﬁc learning activities under the supervision of one of the program directors. A
one to two hour teacher orientation meeting was designed with the purpose of helping
teachers develop awareness and realistic expectations of the program goals as well as to
receive and review the “Great Lakes Education Program Teacher and Cruise Leader
Information Packet,” a 35-page packet that is intended to familiarize educators

with each of the learning activities aboard the vessel. The packet includes a cruise agenda,

12

Table 2-1. Overview of 1996 and 1997 GLEP activities and objectives for educators.

 

Educators ;' Methods
. ..,. . mam“.-. 959M911? .

 

Recruitment
Phase

ongoing mass media;

Volunteer throughout the workshop awareness of
Cruise year presentations the program
Leaders to encourage
attendance at

orientation

 

 

 

  
            

 

 

 

 

Orientation
Phase
3 -1 {i .._ c tones:
Spring: March lhour orientation 0 to learn more
Volunteer meeting where about the GLEP
Cruise Fall: September potential 0 to have 50%
Leaders volunteers continue on for
receive an oral and training
written
overview of the
program
Hg Spring: Apriiand" *lehourofdtrckside. ‘f
Training reaches? may > . . oar-amended =
Phase H i I

, L'suppleinerit "
'=4;jusrarrtxseptember557’? ' :

 

     
 

 

Spring: April and 2 one-hour, on- o to learn to how

Volunteer May shore training to teach

Cruise sessions at the boat station(s)

Leaders Fall: September dock;
3 training cruises
(depending on
teaching comfort
and skill);
“W

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 3
a 2-3 page description of each learning station, reference sheets such as macroinvertebrate
taxa groups, Lake St. Clair/Clinton River test record sheets, and a map of Lake St. Clair.

At the beginning of the orientation session, which is held after school at the
Macomb County Extension Ofﬁce, teachers listen as GLEP staﬁ’ members provide a
detailed overview of the program. The GLEP staff also outline linkages between the
GLEP curriculum and state educational objectives for science and social studies. The
GLEP staff then show a 15 minute promotional video, which provides a visual overview
of the GLEP cruise. (The video also can be used by the teachers to raise funds within
their school and community to pay for their GLEP participation). Following the video,
teachers have an opportunity to complete a ﬁeld tour information sheet, which staff use to
gather the teacher’s name, school name,~preferred cruise dates and times, number of
students, chaperones and special guests, and special needs. Next, the GLEP staﬁ’ provide
strategies teachers may use for securing resources in their local community to meet their
portion of participation costs. At the conclusion of the orientation, teachers learn about
parent volunteer expectations as well as techniques for identiﬁcation and recruitment of
parent volunteers (GLEP 1992).

Volunteer cruise leaders also attend a one hour orientation session to learn about
the GLEP (Table 2-1). Volunteers receive the “Great Lakes Education Program Teacher
and Cruise Leader Information Packet.” They are provided with an oral description of
the program and the volunteers’ teaching role, and are given the opportunity to ask
questions. The primary goal of the orientation session is to encourage future volunteer

participation and to provide details on the subsequent volunteer training sessions.

l4
Educator Training

Teachers are strongly encouraged to attend one hour of dockside training to learn
about boat protocol and more about the eight vessel teaching stations. The training is
considered mandatory for teacher participation with the GLEP, yet there is no system
which penalizes teachers for not attending training (e.g., penalties such as losing their
cruise date or not receiving the GLEP teaching materials).

After introductions, teachers split into two groups for training: new teachers learn
about the ‘Beat the Teacher’ Game station, as well as the pH test, water color, water
temperature, and water clarity station. Veteran GLEP teachers learn more complex
stations (dissolved oxygen test and navigation) in the event that a volunteer cruise leader
is absent on the day of their cnrise and the teacher must instruct at the station. During a
45 minute presentation, these stations are demonstrated to the teachers by GLEP staﬁ’,
and teachers are given the opportunity to ask questions as they watch the demonstration.
Teachers are given about 15 minutes to practice with vessel learning station teaching
tools, such as a compass, maps, and charts. Teachers then regroup to learn about new
additions to the curriculum, ﬁll out the ﬁeld training information sheet, and learn about
parent training sessions (GLEP 1992). During the fall, teachers attend a one-day,
combined orientation and training session due to the shortened cruise season.

Training sessions are also held for the volunteer cruise leaders (Table 2-1). For the
volunteers, the majority of time is spent working on the speciﬁc concepts and teaching
strategies for each cruise station. Volunteers participate in 20 hours of training, including

one to three apprentice cruises (depending on their teaching comfort levels and teaching

 

15
adeptness). Volunteers receive in-depth training on fourth grade level teaching
techniques. GLEP staff member Lynda Billato notes that the purpose of the teaching
techniques are to train volunteers to “work with excited 10-year-olds.”
In 1997, the GLEP staff produced cruise station training videos to supplement the
15 minute promotional tapes and the educators’ training. Each of the videos demonstrate
a different cruise station. New educators use the videos to become more familiar with the

stations, and veteran educators use them for review.

Volunteer Retention through Recognition

In spring 1997, GLEP staff members allocated additional time and resources to
volunteer recognition. Prior to this, there were few formal volunteer recognition events or
efforts. In 1997, volunteers were invited to attend an appreciation dinner cruise. During
the recognition cruise, GLEP staff members designated third year volunteers with
signiﬁcant ongoing GLEP participation as “Master Mariners.” Any volunteer with two
years of signiﬁcant ongoing GLEP participation was deemed a “Mariner.” Each volunteer
received a certiﬁcate in recognition of his/her volunteer achievements. Additionally,
GLEP sweatshirts, T-shirts, and hats were offered to volunteer cruise leaders at a reduced
fee; this provides volunteers a “uniform.” GLEP staﬂ’ believe that this uniform will give

the volunteer cruise leaders a sense of program ownership and pride.

Chapter 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

Brief History of Environmental Education in Michigan

Vessel-based, environmental education (EE) is relatively new to Michigan. In the
last eleven years, three programs have been established in the state. However, Michigan
EE now has a 40 year history. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, EE became a
subject of great interest, echoing the national trend toward increased environmental
awareness (Cox and Wilson 1993). Schools, seeing E as distinct from courses in the
traditional curriculum, began hiring teachers speciﬁcally to teach EE courses at the K-12
level. By the 1980s, this hiring practice proved too much for many school district budgets
to bear, and schools took a new approach, one that integrated EE into science classes.
Today, this method has expanded to a multidisciplinary approach to include BE in social
science, English/language arts, music, art, and math classes (Cox and Wilson 1993).

EE covers a wide range of topics focusing on quality education about the
environment. In the early 19805, several goals for BB were developed to guide curriculum
development and research. This set of goals included a superordinate goal, which states
that:

“The superordinate goal of EE 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

16

l7

equilibrium between quality of life and the quality of the environment”
(Hungerford and Volk 1990: 32).

Related to the Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) objectives, a more speciﬁc
deﬁnition of marine and aquatic EE is:

“. .. that part of the total educational process that 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”

(Goodwin and Schaadt 1977 in Fortner 1991: 303).
Experiential Education

EE can include experiential learning, also known as hands-on education. Norman
Evans (1994) wrote the working deﬁnition of experiential education as “the knowledge
and skills acquired through life and work experience and study which are not formally
attested through any educational or professional certiﬁcation” (Evans 1994: 1). John
Dewey (1938 in Evans 1994) originated the philosophy of experiential education. He did
not, however, equate experience with education. This responsibility, he said, falls on the
teacher, who must help the learner make the connection (Evans 1994). According to
Dewey, unless the principles of interaction (making the student aware of his/her immediate
environment by taking the learning outside the classroom) are carefully facilitated by
teachers, an experience may be considered to be nus-educative (Evans 1994).

Experiential is tied to the word “experience,” derived from the Latin word
“experientia,” meaning “to go through” (Knapp 1992). Learning, according to Knapp, is

the process of acquiring knowledge (1992: 25). Together, the terms “experience” and

 

 

18

“learnin ” form experiential learning, or acquiring knowledge by thinking and acting
(Knapp 1992). Joseph Campbell oﬂ’ers this analogy to describe experiential learning:

“If you haven’t had the experience, how can you know what it is? Try to explain

the joy of skiing to somebody living in the tropics who has never seen the snow.

There has to be an experience to catch the message, some clue — otherwise you are

not hearing what is being said” (1990: 1).

Learning through experiential education is the goal of the GLEP. This goal
includes the development of scientiﬁc literacy and understanding of Great Lakes aquatic
sciences, issues, and stewardship, particularly in young people. Dixon (1996) deﬁnes

stewardship as the moral obligation to care for the environment, and the actions

undertaken to provide that care.

Why are EE Program Evaluations Important?

In reference to educational evaluation, Tyler (1949) states that “educational
objectives are essentially changes in human beings... evaluation is the process for
determining the degree to which these changes in behavior are actually taking place”
(Tyler 1949 in Malamey 1992: 19). Evaluation can be directed at several aspects of an
educational program. Possible elements to be evaluated include educator workshop
design and implementation, teaching and instmctional resources, learner participation,
learner satisfaction, learner knowledge, skills, and attitudes, application of learning after
workshop, and impact of the application (Robinson 1979 in Malamey 1992: 21).

At times, program planners overlook program evaluation for reasons, including:
they have few opportunities to upgrade their competence in this area, the demands on

programmers to conduct evaluation is usually minimal, there are few professional

19
evaluators, or there is no time or money to conduct an evaluation (Stutﬂebeam 1975).
The information collected through an in-depth evaluation can achieve several objectives,
including improvement of organizational operation and administration (including
personnel, facilities and ﬁnances) and improvement of program objectives, methods and
materials (Knowles 1980). Evaluation also helps an existing program focus on goals and
gives a feeling of accomplishment (Boyle 1981). When a program is not evaluated,
researchers have found that the program then begins to lack credibility (Brody 1995,
Lemming et al. 1993, Flor 1991, Kolb 1991, Lisowski and Disinger 1991, Iozzi 1989,
Brody and Koch 1989, Bennett 1989).

Bennett (1989: 14) found that in order to “convince the educational community
that E can improve the academic curricula and make traditional subjects relevant to
students, we must evaluate our programs.” Bennett (1989) recognizes four readily
apparent beneﬁts ﬁ'om evaluating a program. First, the information obtained will help
improve eﬁ’ectiveness of teaching methods, the learning environment, and the use of
instructional resources. Second, increases in student learning will more likely occur
through better diagnosis of students’ needs and measurement of student achievement
(Williamson [1996] provided this research for the GLEP). Third, a better assessment of
the impact of educational programs on environmental protection will then be possible.
Finally, assessing program impacts will put EE programmers in a better position to gain
support from students, parents, administrators, and the general public. This is especially

important as the GLEP expands to additional Great Lakes regions.

20

EE Program Evaluations: Project WILD and Vessel-based EE

Since its beginning in 1983, Project WILD (1992), a wildlife-based EE program,
has been committed to producing quality experiential EE materials and programs that meet
the needs of students, EE sponsors, and classroom teachers across the United States
(Pitman 1996: 1). To maintain a standard of excellence, to continue to be implemented in
an increasing numbers of classrooms, and to effectively meet its goals and the goals of its
sponsors, Project WILD has undergone regular evaluation and assessment. In 1983
through 1995, National Project WILD ofﬁce, sponsors, and various other researchers
conducted 28 studies on Project WILD materials, workshops, programs, outreach,
implementation, and eﬁ’ectiveness. The results of 20 of these projects have implications
related to the GLEP evaluation that may improve the current program — and may make the

GLEP more easily implemented in other Great Lakes regions.

Teacher Awareness of Project WILD

Most Project WILD evaluative studies have been aimed at measuring quality and
effectiveness of Project WILD workshops and materials. Therefore, most of the research
focused on teachers who were already aware of the existence of Project WILD. Very few
of these studies used an experimental design that assessed a general population of teachers
to investigate awareness of the program (Pitman 1996: 1). To meet this need, Dunne
(1992) conducted a survey of teachers who participated in a Project WILD workshop in
New Jersey. These teachers indicated that they learned about Project WILD from

environmental education centers, teachers’ union magazines, their school or board of

2 1
education, and mailings from the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife.
Several additional surveys of Project WILD users reported that teachers believed that
there was a need for increased promotion of the program, which may show that these
teachers had dimculty learning about the programs themselves (Young, Thompson, and
Thompson 1995, Fleming 1991, Standage Accureach 1990, Farnsworth 1989).

Based on statistics reported by state sponsors and published by the National
Project WILD oﬁce, it is clear that the number of classroom teachers exposed to Project
WILD continues to grow each year. But based on the number of classroom teachers in
the United States, it is also clear that there is a large untapped market of potential Project
WILD educators (Pitman 1996: 2). To tap this participant pool, it is important to
understand what motivates teachers to participate in Project WILD workshops. The
primary motivation by teachers for attendance at a Project WILD workshop was a
personal interest in wildlife and the environment (Shomo 1993, Gigar 1993, Dunne 1992,
Bissell 1992, Greene 1992, Fleming 1991). Teachers also attended to receive natural
resource materials and activity ideas (Greene 1992, Zosel 1988). Jackson (1994) found
that 80% of teachers who attended Project WILD workshops had previously been to other
BE workshops. Researchers listed marketing implications of these ﬁndings, including that
Project WILD may want to focus a portion of its outreach efforts on those educators who
have received training in other EE programs (Jackson 1994, Shaw 1993, losel 1988). As
the GLEP expands to other geographic regions, identiﬁcation of potential outreach and
marketing strategies will ease program implementation, including its acceptance by

participants if it is promoted by familiar and reliable sources. More information is needed

22
to determine whether GLEP teachers, like Project WILD teachers, are interested in
learning environmental science and whether they learn about new EE programs through

their participation in other similar programs.

What Teachers Hope to Learn at Project WILD Workshops

Project WILD researchers have found that participating teachers indicated that
they want to learn a number of topics, including: concepts and strategies for instilling
awareness, understanding, and an appreciation of wildlife, its habitat, and the environment
to their students; methods for integrating Project WILD information, materials and
techniques across the curriculum; new activity ideas; better teaching methods and
instructionally sound programs that inspire students; and information on preparing
students to make responsible decisions aﬁ’ecting people, wildlife, and the environment
(Jackson 1994, Zosel 1988, Smith 1988, Cantrell 1987, Cantrell 1986, Charles 1986,
Yannone 1985). These researchers recommended that outreach strategies aimed at
attracting teachers to workshops focus on Project WILD’s ability to ﬁrlﬁll these needs
(Pitman 1996). Information on teachers’ speciﬁc teaching concerns and needs prior to

GLEP participation is needed so that GLEP training can be strengthened.

Attendance at Project WILD Workshops
There is much discussion about the need for teacher training with EB programs
such as Project WILD. Project WILD leaders believe it is important that educators

understand the goals of the program and use the materials appropriately. Typically,

23
teachers receive the Project WILD guides by attending a workshop, and the research
supports this method of curriculum dissemination. According to Jensen’s 1992 North
Dakota survey, teachers trained at Project WILD workshops used the materials more than
non-trained teachers, were more likely to include BE in their curricula and taught a longer
unit than those teachers with little or no environmental training (Pitman 1996: 5). Also, in
a study of users and non-users, Standage Accureach (1990) reported that there is a direct
correlation between teacher use of Project WILD and attendance at Project WILD
workshops. In their addendum, Standage Accureach reported that those teachers who
received the Project WILD Aquatic Guides through the mail were much less likely to use
the guides than those who attended Project WILD Aquatic workshop (Standage
Accureach 1990).

Project WILD training workshops are unique. Teachers of kindergarten through
high school students participate in a minimum of six hours training. During the workshop,
materials within the Project WILD guide are reviewed in detail (such as how to use the
book and the organization of materials, including each activity and the appendices that
contain additional resources and contacts), Teachers learn Project WILD activities
through demonstration and by teaching each other the activities during the training.
Fleming (1983) found that 71% of teachers who attended these workshops agreed that the
workshops were useful in helping them to implement Project WILD. In addition, the
practice of having participants teach activities at workshops was found to be signiﬁcantly

associated with their later use of Project WILD (Zosel 1988, Cantrell 1987). Unlike

24
Project WILD, the GLEP training does not include a lengthy hands-on activities for

familiarizing participating teachers with GLEP activities.

Use of Project WILD Materials After Workshop Training

After training, a strong measure of program success is whether or not teachers use
the materials with their students (Pitman 1996). While ﬁgures vary, large proportions of
Project WILD workshop participants — between 44% and 81% of teachers — use the
Project WILD materials in their classrooms (Shomo 1993, Baldwin 1990, Zosel 1988,
Smith 1988, Cantrell 1987, Cantrell 1986, Charles 1986).

In addition to the use of Project WILD materials in their classrooms, almost all
teachers indicated that attending Project WILD workshops and receiving the materials
lead to changes in their teaching practices, such as incorporating wildlife concepts into the
curriculum, increasing the time they spent teaching students about wildlife and the
environment, and using more “hands-on” activities. Project WILD-trained teachers
reported that they began networking within schools, between school districts, and across
the state to increase teacher awareness about wildlife and environmental issues.

In many studies, educators made suggestions for improving or adding to the
Project WILD program (Pitman 1996: 10). Overwhelmingly, the most requests were for
additional workshops and materials. Comments regarding workshops indicated a need for
follow-up workshops (shorter in length than the initial workshop) that focus on the
activity guides, as well as advanced workshops on speciﬁc topics, such as urban wildlife.

Materials requested included activities with a focus on student action, correlations to

 

25
textbooks and state objectives, additional hands-on activities, and background information
(Young, Thompson, and Thompson 1995, Shaw 1993, Tudor 1992, Bissell 1992, Greene
1992, Fleming 1991, Standage Accureach 1990, Gilchrist 1990, Farnsworth 1989, Zosel
1988, Smith 1988, Cantrell 1986, Charles 1986, Yannone 1985). By addressing the needs
of GLEP teachers, GLEP staff can work to expand its educational programming.

The reasons most often given for not using Project WILD materials after
workshop training were: teachers were planning to use them in the future (either they had
just completed training or were planning a speciﬁc unit later in the year), lack of planning
time, lack of time in the school day, difﬁculty incorporating the program into their
curriculum (mainly at the secondary level), their jobs did not provide an opportunity to use
Project WILD materials (due to principal or supervisor interference), and lack of
administrative support (Greene 1992, Standage Accureach 1990, Baldwin 1990, Gilchrist
1990, Zosel 1988, Smith 1988, Cantrell 1987, Charles 1986, Fleming 1983 in Pitman
1996: 5). A strong measure of GLEP success is dependent upon teachers who, after

trainings, will utilize EE materials during all segments of the GLEP curriculum.

The Project WILD Volunteer Facilitators

Two formal evaluation studies addressed the identiﬁcation, motivations, and needs
of volunteer facilitators who teach Project WILD activities to Project WILD instructors
(using a “teach the teacher” approach) (Greene 1992 and Gomon 1991 in Pitman 1996:
10). Gomon and Greene found that a commitment to EE and a high personal level of

environmental concern were identiﬁed as the most important motives for volunteering as

26
Project WILD facilitators. Once involved, volunteers indicated that during training pairing
new facilitators with those with experience proves valuable. Research ﬁndings further
indicated the need for a communication system with regular and formalized contact
between the volunteer facilitators and the agency sponsoring Project WILD. Finally,
monetary compensation for service and/or expenses was shown to have validity as a
motivator. For the GLEP staﬁ‘, who call their volunteers the “backbone” of the program,

addressing their needs will help to encourage their longevity with the program.

Vessel-based EE Research

A number of informal evaluations exist on a program-by-program basis within
vessel-based EE programs around the nation (such as pencil and paper questionnaires
asking for basic reactions to the program, such as “did you like the program?”). However,
only one formal research project related to the GLEP evaluation is currently underway.
Matthew Witten, a graduate research assistant at the University of Vermont, is conducting
a national survey of “open-water environmental education (EE)” programs. Witten
deﬁnes “open-water EE” as school groups traveling aboard vessels on the open water to
pursue one or more activities relating to water ecology and other subjects, such as
regional history, seafaring, geology and physics (Witten 1997). He is examining a sample
of existing open-water education programs and evaluating which program components are
most successful and likely to be transferable to other locations in the United States. The

focus of his research rests in the organizational aspects of the programs studied. Witten is

27
currently analyzing the results of his research, which may have implications for the

expansion of the GLEP to other Great Lakes regions.

Retaining Educators in EE

Researchers and program administrators have observed that teachers and
volunteers may or may not become involved with EB programs such as the GLEP for a
variety of reasons, which relate to their comfort levels with the topics, their knowledge of
science and the environment, their background experiences with science and the

environment, and their motivations to become involved.

Obstacles Impacting Teachers ’ EE Participation

Many elementary teachers indicate that they are uncomfortable with teaching
science because often they do not have sufﬁcient knowledge of science content or an
understanding of the discipline’s concepts and teaching methodologies (Bethel 1982,
Simmons 1995). Furthermore, much of the reluctance of individual teachers to
incorporate EE programs into their classroom is a perceived low level of their own
competency (Peyton 1977, Ritz 1977, Bozardt 1976, Cummings 1976, Hungerford 1975,
Howie 1974). Teachers give the highest priority in their curricula to those topics of which
they are most knowledgeable (Rakow 1984, Fortner 1991, Kennedy 1990). When a
teacher does not teach topics because he or she is not knowledgeable or comfortable, their

students lose when they are not exposed to the science topics.

 

28

It has been found, however, that teachers generally have positive attitudes and
interest in EE, although little is known about what inﬂuences them to participate with this
type of education (Lane et al. 1994). Studies show that many teachers appear to be
willing to incorporate EE into their curriculum, and a number of authors have documented
that teachers generally believe that teaching about the environment is important, especially
after participation in an EE workshop (Kunz 1989, Van Koevering and Sell 1983, Giﬁ’ord
et al. 1983, Wilke et al. 1980). This substantiates the need for improved inservice
education programs.

Education and background inﬂuence teachers’ knowledge and participation with
EB. Milkent’s (1979) survey of Mississippi high school science teachers revealed that
most teachers had little or no formal coursework pertaining to marine sciences, and that
the teachers believed they did not have adequate knowledge for teaching most marine
related topics. Why might this lack of knowledge have implications for teachers’
behaviors? Cole (1990 in Mullighan and Griﬁn 1992) found that “experienced
knowledge” guides teachers’ actions in teaching EE. Experienced knowledge is derived
ﬁ'om both professional and personal experience (Shuman 1995). A lack of experience
with outdoor activities and hobbies has been listed as one reason why teachers do not
participate in EE (Shuman 1995). However, teachers who attended a Project WILD
training reported that their enjoyment of outdoor activities increased, and that they
contributed to more environmental, conservation, or sportsman’s organizations following

the Project WILD workshop (Shomo 1993, Tudor 1992, Greene 1992, Fleming 1991,

 

29
Standage Accureach 1990, Baldwin 1990, Gilchrist 1990, Farnsworth 1989, Cantrell
1986, Charles 1986).

Other reasons exist that explain why teachers do not incorporate EE into their
curricula. A study of teacher commitment to environmental stewardship and EE among
1,350 teachers in the New York Lake Ontario Basin revealed that teachers perceive lack
of time and lack of school ﬁnancial resources to be the most signiﬁcant barriers preventing
them from teaching their students about environmental topics (Dixon 1996). The majority
of teachers indicated that various incentives would encourage them to include
environmental topics in their classes, particularly having available quality resources that
suggest ways to incorporate environmental lessons into their curriculum. In a
multidisciplinary study, Mirka (1973 in Shuman 1995) attempted to identify factors that
caused teachers to use or not to use the outdoors and its associated. Teachers cited
factors such as: difﬁculty in ﬁnding a site for EE, insufﬁcient knowledge, and
unavailability of resource persons and resource guides. Mirka concluded that there was a
need for pre-service and in-service teacher training program that emphasized techniques
associated with use of the outdoors and its resources.

Shuman (1995) provides a summary of teacher training research in her graduate
study of attitudinal factors that inﬂuence commitment to teaching environmental
education. Speciﬁcally, she describes several studies that emphasize the beneﬁts of
inservice workshop training that show a positive change in both knowledge and opinion
about EE as a result of their participation. Wilke et al. (1980) compared the effect of

workshop length on teacher attitudes about teaching EE. In his study, he presented

 

30
information (curriculum and resources) to teachers in a two-hour versus a 60-hour
workshop. His results showed that teacher attitudes became more positive toward using
environmental resources after they participated in the workshops. He also determined that
the longer the workshop, the more positive their increase in attitude change toward
environmental issues. In a separate study, Kunz (1989) found that teacher participation in
a seven hour Project Learning Tree workshop resulted in a positive attitude change

toward the environment and outdoor activities.

Volunteers ’ Obstacles with Participation

During President Clinton’s Summit for America’s Future in late April 1997,
United States General Colin Powell heralded the national justiﬁcation for volunteers.
“There are 15 million young Americans in need,” Powell said at one volunteer rally.
“We should not be satisﬁed until we have touched the lives of every one” (Mathis 1997:
1). In addition to impacting the lives of youth, volunteer programs have the potential to
provide substantial beneﬁts to individuals, the community and the volunteer organization.
Volunteers become model stewards for other community members (Meehan and Berta
1993). They help — whether it is with youth education or with stream clean-ups —
because they want to, not because of their job or other agendas (Cookson 1989). In the
case of the environment, they may be eager to learn or lend their own scientiﬁc expertise
to the program (Wiens 1996). Not surprising are the economic beneﬁts gained ﬁom

utilizing volunteers. Since 1991, volunteers have donated close to 10,000 hours to the

If

31
GLEP, valued at more than US. $124,000 based on National Center for Volunteerism
estimates of economic values of volunteerism (GLEP 1997).

The beneﬁts of volunteers to programs appear to be enormous, but barriers to
volunteer utilization exist, beginning with the publics’ general unawareness of volunteer
opportunities. A recent Roper/Times Mirror Magazines Environmental Forum Survey
indicated that over 55% of Americans want to volunteer but most people “just don’t know
houf’ (In Balance 1996).

Volunteers’ involvement is related to motivations for participation. According to
Atkinson and Birch (1978), a person is motivated to behave by the strength of his or her
motives, the expectancy of attaining a goal, and perceived incentives. Atkinson and Birch
further theorize that the three underlying motives affecting behavior are needs for
achievement, afﬁliation and inﬂuence or power. These motives form the McClelland
Model of Motivation, which was developed to categorize the differing motivations people
have for doing things, such as volunteering (Winans 1994). What do these categories
mean?

1. Achievement motives inﬂuence one to take pride in accomplishment and to
possess a desire for excellence.

2. Afﬁliation motives inﬂuence people to be most concerned about his or her
relationship with others.

3. Inﬂuence or power motives are deﬁned as indicating a desire for inﬂuence and
control.

32

One study found that adult volunteers in community programs (similar to the
GLEP) were motivated more by achievement and aﬂ’rliation than by inﬂuence or power
motives (Rouse and Clawson 1992).

McCune and Nelson (1995) expanded on the McClelland Model by identifying
eight motivations to ascertain why people volunteered in a library program, including:
social interaction/ﬁiendship, high visibility/potential for recognition, need for a challenge,
mental stimulation, need to unravel a puzzle or satisfy a curiosity, service to humanity, to
occupy time, and for afﬁliation with peers. Incentives such as tangible rewards,
interpersonal rewards, and purposiveness also motivate people to volunteer. Tangible
rewards are deﬁned as goods, services, money, or equivalents, such as transportation and
lunch stipends, or solidarity. Interpersonal rewards include fellowship, ﬁiendship,
prestige, and similar positive outcomes resulting from personal relationships.

Purposiveness (satisfactions) lead people to help others toward achieving some
goal (Vroom 1982). However, in a recent Extension survey, “helping others” as a goal
for volunteering ranked low — only 5.6% of volunteers surveyed joined the program with
the goal of helping others (Rouse and Clawson 1992). Researchers found that most
people volunteer for purely altruistic reasons only when it is directed toward close kin
(House 1997, Bass 1995 in Murnighan et al. 1993). However, Loewensteirr, Thompson,
and Bazerrnan (1989 in Murnighan et al. 1993) have shown that positive interpersonal
relationships can produce kin-like connections among unrelated people. When people feel

positively toward each other, and when their identiﬁcation with the organization is salient

 

33
to them, they may more willingly and frequently contribute to voluntary action
(Murnighan et al. 1993).

Retaining people within a program, even if their reasons are purely altruistic,
comes largely through reward and recognition of the volunteer participants. Winans
(1994) suggests recognizing each volunteer based on the McClelland Model of
Motivation. For example, if people are motivated to volunteer for power and inﬂuence, he
suggests giving them public recognition, more leadership, and promotion within the
organization. preople are motivated by aﬁiliation, program coordinators might do
something personal as a reward, such as a party in their honor, or present a card everyone
has signed or a gift to which everyone contributed. Finally, if people participate for
achievement, organizers could tell these volunteers speciﬁc things they have accomplished
that have been appreciated — then give these volunteers more responsibility (W inans
1994).

McCune and Nelson (1995) suggest a number of reward methods that are
recognized as viable for volunteer retention. First, rewards can be based upon recognition
of a volunteer’s increasing skills and length of service both on and after the job by creating
“career ladders” within the program, such as advancement to supervising positions or a
change in title. Promotions may be based on the demonstration of skills or hours of
service (McCune and Nelson 1995). Second, rewards may become more formal,
anticipated events, such as a written certiﬁcate of service or a celebration/reception.
Finally, acknowledgment through the general media (including newspaper articles, radio

shows, or television clips) or through program publication (such as newsletters) provides

 

34
methods for public reward (McCune and Nelson 1995). For the GLEP, these types of

incentives may result in greater volunteer retention.

Who Volunteers?

While people of all ages can and do volunteer, the literature identiﬁes two speciﬁc
age groups as especially viable volunteers: older adults and young people, especially older
teenagers. A study of 346 older adult volunteers (age 50 and over) found that eﬁ’orts
should be made to recruit more men, adults over age 65, and retired adults since this study
indicated that these groups of people are volunteering (Rouse and Clawson 1992).

Encouraging teens to serve as volunteers has a number of mutual beneﬁts to the
teens and the program participants. Elkind observed that putting older teens in charge of
younger children is a maturing experience, forcing teenagers to move out of their rather
egocentric perception of self and the world (Elkind 1990). This new perception can lead to
thoughtful decisions about career and life for the young volunteer. In one survey, students
involved in volunteer conservation groups called the experience “life-changing” (Rouse
and Clawson 1992).

Several reforms have been proposed which involve the community, especially
teenagers, in the educational process (Shumer 1992: F-3). Service learning is one such
educational reform. The idea behind service learning is that teenage students can learn
from community action and, at the same time, perform a variety of services (Nathan and
Kielsmeier 1991). Furthermore, service learning rekindles an idea brought to life by John

Dewey in the 1930s; that schools should be laboratories of learning, closely linked to

3 5
community needs. Recruiting teens as volunteer GLEP instructors leads to the application
of meaningful, real-world learning in their lives and communities (Nathan and Kielsmeier

1991).

Michigan Volunteerism

Community-based, budget-conscious programs like the GLEP rely on local
volunteers to contribute their time, knowledge, and energy to assist with program
operations. However, unless those individuals are identiﬁed and made aware of the
opportunities, involving volunteers becomes difﬁcult. In 1997, the Institute for Public
Policy and Social Research (IPPSR) at Michigan State University conducted a study of
975 adults to identify those Michigan residents who do volunteer (Tomlinson 1997).
Professor Mark Wilson, who directed the study for the IPPSR, broadly deﬁned
volunteering as “giving time to others.” Key ﬁndings of the study provide insight for
GLEP volunteer programming.

The IPPSR identiﬁed that approximately 40% of total Michigan residents
volunteer, with men and women equally likely to volunteer. Of southeast Michigan (where
the GLEP is housed) residents’ surveyed, 40% volunteered during the past year. East
Central Michigan had the highest proportion of resident volunteers over the last year

(52%), and Detroit had the lowest, with 26% of its residents serving as volunteers.

 

’ Includes Genesee, Lapeer, Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and
Wayne counties. Researchers treated Detroit as a separate region.

 

36

The IPPSR survey indicated that volunteerism is dependent on several key
demographics. There is an age-related pattern in rates of volunteerism. The youngest
and oldest age groups volunteer proportionately least often, and the 35-54 age group has
the highest proportion of volunteers (49%) of the total volunteers surveyed. (This
contradicts the studies by Rouse and Clawson (1992), which suggest that the older adults
and teenagers are the most viable volunteers).

In Michigan, Caucasians volunteer proportionately more than Aﬁican Americans
(44% of Caucasians surveyed said they volunteered, compared to 20% of Aﬁican
Americans). Volunteerism increases with household income level; almost two-thirds of
people with an annual household income of $90,000 or more volunteer, while only one-
third of those with a household income below $50,000 donated some of their time to a
charitable organization in the last year.

Generally, as the level of education increases, so does the proportion of people
who volunteer. There are two exceptions. Those with a graduate degree (the highest
level of educational attainment) are less likely to volunteer than those with some graduate
work or a college degree. People with a technical school or junior college degree
volunteer only about as much as people who have completed just tenth grade or less.

Why don’t more people in Michigan volunteer? Of the 577 people who answered
this question in the IPPSR survey, 58% said they lacked the time. An additional 10% of
people surveyed listed physical/emotional issues, 7% said they were not asked to volunteer
in an organization, and 5% indicated they had different interests than volunteering. Other

reasons included lack of trust, income, transportation and initiative.

 

37
Summary

Environmental education (BE) in Michigan has expanded from its initiation in the
1960s to include experiential education activities that encourage environmental
stewardship in young people. Program evaluations are important to insure that EE
program goals are accomplished. While many aspects of the Project WILD EE program
have been evaluated, formal evaluations of vessel-based EE programs like the GLEP have
not occurred, particularly to discover the knowledge needs, concerns, and motivations of
its participants. Research shows that although teachers generally think EE is important,
they may not become involved if they do not feel they are knowledgeable, they do not feel
comfortable teaching the topic, or they are not motivated to participate.

Volunteers often play a key role in EE programs, and the McClelland Model of
Motivation helps to identify the motivations behind why people volunteer, including
aﬁliation, achievement, and power incentives. A 1997 Michigan volunteerism survey
reveals that volunteers need to feel motivated to participate in programs. Investigating
teacher and volunteer cruise leader involvement in the GLEP will generate concrete
' recommendations for strengthening educators’ participation and will provide insight prior

to dissemination of the GLEP to other regions.

Chapter 4

METHODS

Overall Research Design and the Development of Evaluation Instruments

I evaluated the GLEP using two separate but similar four-page surveys
administered to teachers and volunteer cruise leaders (Appendix B). I gathered different
evaluation data from each of the two surveys, one administered before the GLEP training
and cruise, and the second administered after the cruise. The ﬁrst survey gathered
background information, addressed motivations for program participation, asked for pre-
training questions and concerns about participation, and self-assessed knowledge of
various Great Lakes topics. The second survey included questions about perceptions and
opinions of the GLEP, addressed comfort levels with teaching various Great Lakes related
topics, and asked for opinions regarding programming strategies, such as the use of
training tapes and various program advertising methods.

The surveys were developed primarily ﬁom six pre-existing evaluation instruments
(Middleton 1995, Rupert 1995, TIMSS 1994, Zint 1994, Shaw 1993, Dann 1992). To
assess educators’ Great Lakes knowledge and comfort levels with teaching Great Lakes
topics, I used 5-point, Likert-type scales. Educators’ self-assessments of knowledge were
rated with possible responses ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”

Educators’ rated their comfort with teaching on a ﬁve point scale ranging from “not

38

39
comfortable” to “comfortable,” and “unaware of topic” to “above average knowledge for
topic.” I utilized simple ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses to gain quantitative data in some areas,
which were coupled with qualitative, open-ended questions in the surveys. Unlike some
quantitative data, interpretation of qualitative data is not constrained by predetermined
categories of analysis and leads to depth and detail within the study. Recent developments
in the evaluation profession have led to increased use of multiple methods that include
combinations of qualitative and quantitative data (Patton 1987: 8).

Furthermore, theorists argue to expand beyond the quantitative nature of
evaluation to include qualitative data, or uncategorized, evaluation (Lincoln and Guba
1985 in Brookﬁeld 1986, Guba and Lincoln 1981, and Guba 1978). Certain evaluation
purposes, questions, and situations are more consonant with qualitative methods, such as
formative evaluations, which are conducted for the purpose of improving programs
(Patton 1987). Qualitative evaluation data begin as raw, descriptive information about
programs and people in programs (Patton 1987: 7). These data are then organized into
major themes and categories, then analyzed, as was done with the GLEP qualitative data.

There are no general, agreed upon requirements for pre-testing a survey (Dillrnan
1978: 155). However, to see if potential respondents would have any trouble completing
the survey questions, I submitted the preliminary survey instruments to a panel of seven
reviewers, including university researchers skilled in survey development and
implementation, Extension professionals, and graduate research assistants who recently

designed and conducted their own survey work.

40

Dilhnan (1978) recommends that surveys, particularly mail surveys, contain the
following elements without sacriﬁcing content or study objectives: begin the survey with
an “easy” question to alleviate fears that the questionnaire contains diﬂicult questions,
group similar types of questions, place demographic questions at the end of the survey,
and provide directions for how to answer each question and to make questions ﬁt each
page.

In April 1996, after revising seven earlier revisions according to Dilhnan’s
recommendations and reviewer comments, I implemented the ﬁrst surveys with the GLEP
educators. Each survey included directions for completion and asked for the educators’
names on the half sheet of paper attached to the front of the survey. To ensure
conﬁdentiality, I later removed this and attached a number to each survey (Appendix C).
The Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS) approved all research methodology during the 1996 and 1997 research seasons

(Appendix D).

Evaluation Protocol

I surveyed the GLEP teachers during the spring 1996, fall 1996, and spring 1997
cruise seasons. GLEP volunteer cruise leaders were surveyed during the spring 1996 and
spring 1997 cruise seasons. 1 did not survey the fall 1996 volunteer cruise leaders
because, with one exception, all of the volunteers during this season (n=8) had been
previously involved with the GLEP and had been surveyed during the spring 1996 cruise

season (Table 4-1).

 

41

Table 4-1. Timetable and methods of educator survey administration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Educators Dates of survey Which How administered?
administration survey?
Spring 1996 April 17 and 18, 1996 survey one personally distributed and
Teachers (pre-cruise collected during GLEP
survey) teacher training sessions
Spring 1996 various dates in May survey two personally distributed and
Teachers and June 1996 (post-cruise collected during
survey) Williamson’s student survey
data collection
“ ' Apnll7and181996 '

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
  
 
 
 
  

 

 

   
     
   
   

 

 

 

Fall 1996 January 1997 survey one mailed; follow-up phone
Teachers and survey calls made with additional
two surveys mailed for non-
respondents
Fall 1996 no survey (only one no survey no survey
Volunteer new cruise leader this one or
Cruise season) survey two
Leaders
Spring 1997 From late April 1997 survey one mailed; follow-up phone
Teachers to early June 1997 and survey calls made with additional
two surveys mailed for non-
respondents
_, j , . _ ' ‘jQ'su’rVey'one personally drstrrbuted and
3 18,1997 - . ' ' g} " ’ ' - . I collected during GLEP.»
”£1; .. . "i .. f3, «iii. g g}, Vﬁorrentatron and training?

 

 

" "new

42

Although I did not change the content of the survey, I modiﬁed the survey
methods in speciﬁc ways during the cruise seasons (Table 4—1). I used three methods to
administer surveys: in-person, mail, and telephone. For the in-person survey, I personally
administered the pre-cruise survey (survey one) during the educator orientation and
training programs in spring 1997. The post-cmise survey (survey two) was administered
in-person in the teachers’ classrooms during student survey administration by Williamson
(1996). I mailed spring 1997 teachers survey packets that included a cover letter and a
self-addressed, stamped envelope for return of the survey. Mailings with additional copies
of the surveys were also used to increase response rates in all cruise seasons. Finally, I
telephoned non-responding spring 1996 volunteer cruise leaders to increase response rates
during this cruise season (T able 4-1).

In spring 1996 I personally administered survey one to volunteer cruise leaders. I
mailed survey two to the spring 1996 volunteer cruise leaders, using telephone reminders
and follow-up mailings to increase the response. During the fall 1996 and spring 1997
seasons, teachers received both survey one and survey two by mail. Again, I telephoned
any non-respondents who had not retumed their survey(s) within two weeks following the
mailing. I mailed an additional survey to these educators with a cover letter explaining the

importance of their participation and encouraging them to respond (Appendix E).

Survey Administration to Non-respondents
In the majority of cases, I called educators on the telephone only to remind them to

complete their surveys or to offer to mail them another copy. However, in the fall of 1996

43
the volunteer cruise leader response rate was especially low (n=7), so I designed a
telephone follow-up survey. The phone survey was identical to the original pencil and
paper survey with modiﬁcations in wording to ease reading for the telephone surveyor
(as recommended by Dillman) (1978) (Appendix B). I gained an additional 11 spring
1996 volunteer cruise leaders respondents as a result of the telephone surveys. However,
three volunteer cruise leaders with whom I spoke declined to participate in the study,
despite completion of the ﬁrst survey. Their reasons included not enough time to
participate and no interest in participating. Additionally, one spring 1996 volunteer cruise
leader had an unlisted telephone number and another hung up on the telephone surveyor (a
student intern). The ﬁve remaining non-responding cruise leaders simply could not be
reached via telephone, despite three attempts at telephone contact during various times of
the day and two follow-up mailings.

Spring 1997 teacher response rates were comparatively lower than in previous
years, which I attributed to the research method (mail surveys, as compared to the
successﬁrl spring 1996 survey response rate ﬁ'om in-person administration) as well as the
timing of some teachers’ cruises and the end of the busy fourth grade school year. Only
ﬁve of the 35 spring 1997 teachers eligible to participate returned the original surveys
mailed. Dillman found that most people who answer questionnaires do so almost
immediately after they receive them (Dillman 1978: 183). He ﬁirther states that a
questionnaire that lies unanswered for a week or more is not very likely to be returned.
To overcome this challenge, I mailed additional surveys at the end of two weeks following

the ﬁrst mailing. To further increase the chances for a higher response rate, I telephoned

44

the 30 non-respondents to remind them to reply and mailed up to two additional surveys
to those who did not return their surveys. Several teachers with cruises late in the school
year were especially diﬁcult to reach, despite three phone messages and a second survey
mailing. Without follow-up mailings, Dillman (1978) found that response rates would be
less than half those normally obtained. Even with follow-up mailings and telephone
reminders, my ﬁnal response rate for spring 1997 teachers remained less than half.

However, I was able to obtain ﬁve additional surveys (for a total of ten ﬁom spring 1997).

Data Analysis

Two research interns assisted me with data entry. I used the Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 6.1.11 for survey response summaries
(Norusis 1993). For 12 questions from the educators surveys, I pooled the data collected
over all seasons to achieve an overall response for each group of educators and

determined standard errors as:

SE: Jrooﬁ’i-ﬁa -13)

with SE=standard error, N = sample size, and P = estimated proportion,
which follows from the binomial probability model.
This formula is based on the idea that the sampled group is taken randomly ﬁ'om a
large but undeﬁned population (e. g., all teachers that might have participated in such a
program). It is important to recognize that if the reader wants to treat the group that was

sampled as a population, without attempting to generalize beyond it, that the appropriate

45
standard errors would usually be substantially smaller. This is because a signiﬁcant
ﬁaction of the population was sampled.
The qualitative responses were typed verbatim from the surveys into Microsoft
Word for Windows 95, version 7.0 (1995). The responses were grouped by category and

coded. The data were then entered for summation.

Additional Qualitative Information

The GLEP staff and Michigan State University researchers held several meetings
with the GLEP co-directors, the GLEP task force, and GLEP teachers and volunteer
cruise leaders during this evaluation. These two-day meetings, dubbed “writing retreats,”
were held in March 1997 and July 1997. The purposes of these meetings were: to share
the GLEP evaluation research results to date, and; to discuss the GLEP student
curriculum and the guidebook (especially during the March 1997 writing retreat) that
would be developed from this research, to aid in the expansion of the GLEP to other parts
of the Great Lakes (Appendix F). I discussed evaluation results and the implications of
these results with the GLEP co-directors during three other meetings during this
evaluation. Research implications and recommendations based on these meetings are

integrated into Chapter 6.

Limitations of Research
When interpreting, utilizing and applying the results of this research, special

attention should be given to several limitations. First, although I was able to glean some

46

information about why educators drop out of the GLEP, I did not survey those teachers
and volunteer cruise leaders who discontinued their involvement from previous seasons.

Second, the results obtained for six of the fall 1996 cruise leader volunteers were
obtained after the cruise season to account for non-response. This is also true for six of
the spring 1997 teachers. Thus, it is important to consider that they may have given
biased responses when reﬂecting on questions such as “what questions do you hope to
have answered at training,” when, in fact, they had already experienced the training.

Third, in addition to survey modiﬁcations, other minor changes in GLEP
programming occurred during my evaluation due to the dynamics of the program. GLEP
prograrmning is dynamic. The co-directors continually modiﬁed their recruitment,
orientation and training strategies for each cruise season. Most changes were relatively
insigniﬁcant (e.g., modifying topics covered in orientation versus training sessions, or
altering the location of the training sessions). Thus, modiﬁcations likely did not have a
signiﬁcant effect on the educators’ responses to survey questions.

Fourth, to determine educators’ knowledge and comfort levels with teaching Great
Lakes topics, I used self-assessment questions on the surveys rather than measuring by
other means, such as pre-cruise and post-cruise tests of knowledge of speciﬁc topics or
pre-cruise and post-cruise evaluations of changes in teaching resulting ﬁom greater
comfort levels.

Fifth, as with all survey research, reliability and validity are important concerns. In
general, validity in this study was probably enhanced by review of the survey by the panel

of university researchers and professionals. Although the surveys were not pre-tested with

47

educators, reliability and validity appear to be adequate because responding educators did
not have questions during survey administration. However, some responses to particular
items indicate that some reliability and/or validity issues may remain. For example,
educators gave an especially low assessment of their knowledge of “ﬁsheries” (survey one,
question 6 and 7). There is some concern that educators may not have understood the
meaning of the term “ﬁsheries,” as these surveys were not pre—tested. However, the
measurement instrument was reviewed and modiﬁed by a panel of university researchers
and professionals, and educators did not question this term during the survey
administration.

Finally, the groupings of the qualitative results were determined at the discretion
and interpretation of the researcher. Three of the results tables (in Chapter 5) have over
25% of responses categorized in the “other” category (Tables 5-7, 5-12, 5-20). Readers

should examine actual survey responses to develop their own interpretations.

Chapter 5

RESULTS

Results of Survey Administration
Response Rates

In general, educators’ responses rates were satisfactory. A total of 106 teachers
were eligible to participate in the 1996 and 1997 surveys, and I obtained 76 useable
surveys for an overall response rate of 71 .6% (Table 5-1). The primary reasons for the
30 unuseable cases were a response to only one of the two surveys (n=18) or non-
response to both surveys (n=12).

A total of 40 volunteer cruise leader were eligible to participate in the 1996-97
surveys (Table 5-2). I obtained 31 useable surveys for an overall response rate of 77.5%.

The primary reason for unuseable cases was non-response to one or both surveys (n=9).

Table 5-1. Teacher response rates.

 

 

Cruise season # of eligible # of # of useable Overall

and year teachers respondents surveys2 response
(to at least one rate
survgy)

Spring 1996 56 56 56

Fall 1996 15‘ 11 10

Spring 1997 35' , 18 10

Totals 106 85 76 71.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# of Eligible Teachers = Only fourth grade teachers new to GLEP were eligible to receive surveys
2# of Useable Surveys = Only those responding to both surveys were included in the analysis

48

49

Table 5-2. Volunteer cruise leader response rates.

 

 

Cruise season # of eligible # respondents # of useable Final
and year cruise leaders’ (to at least one surveys2 response
survey) rate
Spring 1996 23 23 18
Spring 1997 17 17 13
Totals 40 40 3 1 77.5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it of Eligible Cruise Leaders = Only volunteers new to the GLEP were eligible to receive surveys
’# of Usable Surveys= Only those responding to both the surveys were included in the analysis

Analysis of Potential Non-response Bias

Achieving a high response rate is the best way to reduce the eﬂ’ects of non-
response bias (Fisher 1996: 123). While a signiﬁcant number of educators did participate
in the evaluation (I achieved a response rate greater than or equal to 71.0% from both
teachers and volunteer cruise leaders), it is important to know whether those educators in
my research who did not respond diﬁ’er greatly ﬁom those who did respond. Dillman
indicates that the extent of differences between respondents and non-respondents can
seldom be determined. However, indirect methods can be used and inferences drawn to

check for differences (Dillman 1978).

Addressing Teacher Non-response Bias

Non-response ﬁom this study came largely ﬁom teachers who were asked to
complete and return both of their surveys via mail. Of the 106 teachers who were
surveyed, 50 fall 1996 and spring 1997 teachers were asked to respond to both the pre-
cruise and the post-cruise surveys via mail, with 20 responding to both surveys (Table 5-

1). However, nine teachers classiﬁed oﬁcially as non-respondents responded to survey

50

one (these teachers were not included in the ﬁnal analysis). When comparing the results of
the teacher surveys, I found no diﬁ’erences in the results between the nine non-respondents
and the 76 respondents. These nine teachers showed a similar demographic proﬁle and
indicated the same level of knowledge of Great Lakes topics. Four of the nine non-
respondents had participated in the past; ﬁve were ﬁrst time participants. One of the nine
non-respondents was a fall 1996 participant. The other eight participated in spring 1997.
In summary, it appears that their non-response arose from either a lower interest or
commitment to the GLEP, or simply a lack of interest in responding to a mail survey,
which Steeh (1981) found to be a growing general trend among all types of mail surveys

since 1950.

Addressing Volgntgr Cruise Leader Non-response Bias

Volunteer cruise leaders were surveyed via mail; a larger percentage of volunteers
(rather than teachers) responded by this method. The nine volunteer cmise leaders who
did not respond to the second survey did, however, respond to the ﬁrst survey. As a
result, I was able to look for differences between based on their responses to the ﬁrst
survey.

There was one difference in non-respondents and respondents in terms of
demographic variables; their participation in Great Lakes extracurricular activities/hobbies.
Only one of the nine respondents indicated that they participate in extracurricular activities
related to the Great Lakes, while more than half (5 l .7%) of respondents indicated that

he/she participates in Great Lakes extracurricular activities. Otherwise, there were no

51

notable diﬁ’erences on the basis of gender, number of children, employment, and level of
education. I assumed that this would mean a lower level of self-assessed knowledge of
Great Lakes topics ﬁ'om non-respondents, but I found this not to be the case.

However, other diﬂ’erences are worth noting. Of the nine non-respondents, only
one had volunteered for the GLEP in the past (which means that eight of the nine non-
respondents were ﬁrst time volunteers). These non-respondents also indicated lower
levels of involvement in other volunteer organizations. Four listed that the GLEP was
their ﬁrst experience as a volunteer, two indicated involvement with one other
organization, and three indicated involvement in two, three or more other organizations.
Conversely, over one-third of respondents (36.7%) indicated that they volunteer for one
other organization, and close to half of respondents (43.3%) volunteer for two, three or
more other organizations. In summary, it appears that the nine non-responding volunteers

had a lower level of interest in and commitment to volunteering with the GLEP.

Analysis of Potential Response Bias Due to Survey Methodologies

The use of the three data collection systems used in this evaluation - in-person,
mail, and telephone — assumes that each method produces equivalent responses (Table 5-
3). Various methodologies may, in fact, be beneﬁcial. Dillman (1978) notes that sole
reliance on one method or another for a speciﬁc survey may hinder response rates and that
various methods may compensate for the inadequacies of the others. Use of various data

collection methodologies may increase response rates and overcome inadequacies, but it is

52

Table 5-3. Number of useable surveys by the three survey administration methods.

Teachers
# of respondents to each method
of data collection
Mail Phone
56
56

Fall 1996 10
10

l 10
2 10
Volunteer Cruise Leaders
Season Survey # of respondents to each method
of data collection
Mail Phone
18
7 1 1

13

 

possible that responses were biased by method. Dillman (1978) reports that past research,
including his own, suggests that differences in the quality of responses obtained by mail,
telephone, and face-to-face methods are rather minor. For example, based on an example
of an experiment comparing the responses via face-to-face and telephone interviews,
Rogers concluded that, “the quality of data obtained by telephone on complex attitudinal
and knowledge items as well as on personal items is comparable to that collected in

person” (Rogers 1972 in Dillman 1978).

53

With the GLEP evaluation, I found little evidence that would suggest that
methodologies produced biased responses among evaluation participants. The surveys
used for the in-person, mail, and telephone surveys were the same with the exception of
some word changes on the surveys to ease reading and transition for the telephone
surveyor. The telephone surveyor reported no instances of confusion or misunderstanding
from participants from the survey questions read. Additionally, I received no questions
during the in-person survey administration that would lead me to believe that participants
would struggle to complete their mail survey. Evidence exists which supports this; none
of the mail surveys were returned with questions in the margins. Additionally, I did not
receive any telephone calls about the survey and its clarity (three phone numbers were
included on the survey to meet this need). Pre—testing and editing of the surveys by
reviewers likely aided in providing clear survey instruments. In conclusion, I did not ﬁnd

differences in the responses based on the data-gathering method used.

GLEP Educator Background
Teachers ’ Background

Seventy to 95% of GLEP teachers surveyed in the 1996 and 1997 cruise seasons
are females. Most have 14 to 20 years of teaching experience and at least some graduate

level education (Table 5—4).

If
IF

54

Table 5-4. Teacher background, experience and demographic information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cruise # of % Years Age % w/

season and respondents female teaching mean Education
year experience (SD)' >
mean (SD) ’ B.A. degree

Spring 1996 56 95 15.0 (1.30) 46 (1.18) 90.3
Fall 1996 10 70 19.9 (11.0) 47 (7.35) 100.0
Spring 1997 10 80 14.1 (8.81) 39 (9.93) 100.0
SD=standard deviation

Michigan elementary classrooms (K-S) are self-contained (students stay with the
same teacher for all subjects). Therefore, to the question “what subjects do you currently
teach ” GLEP teachers responded “most or all subjects,” which include: math, spelling,
reading, social studies, writing, science, drama, English, computers, and handwriting. Of
the 76 teachers who responded to the 1996 and 1997 GLEP surveys, only 21.6% majored
in a science (e.g., botany, biology, chemistry) in college. Other college majors listed
include education (37.8%), social studies (3 7.8%), English (25.7%), language arts
(14.9%), foreign language (5.4%), or another major (40.5%), including electronics, art,
psychology, special education, and computers (Appendix G). (Note that percents will not
add to 100% due to multiple responses by individual teachers).

Many professional teaching organizations exist, some of which provide teacher
development opportunities through conferences and membership services. Fifty-six
percent of GLEP teachers surveyed indicate that they belong to one or more professional
teaching organization, environmental organizations, or other organizations. Of these

respondents who belong to one or more of these organizations, 66.7% belong to teaching

55

organizations, speciﬁcally. One-ﬁfth (18.4%) of teachers list membership in the Michigan
Education Association (MEA). Other responses include: the National Education
Association (NBA), Michigan Science Teachers Association (MSTA), teaching sororities,
and the Macomb Reading Council. Teachers (27.8%) also list membership in
environmental organizations including: the National Geographic Society, National

Wildlife Federation, the Arbor Day Foundation, and World Wildlife Fund (Appendix H).

Volunteer Cruise Leaders ’ Background

Volunteer cruise leaders are predominately female (Table 5-5). In spring 1997,
the percentage of females decreased, since several male Master Gardener participants
volunteered with the GLEP. The mean age of volunteers is about 43 - 44 years of age.
Approximately one-third of GLEP volunteer cruise leaders surveyed are high school or
college students, and approximately one-ﬁfth of volunteers surveyed are retired.

Most volunteer cruise leaders surveyed (69.2%) are currently employed outside
the home. Nearly as many have children (67.7%). Twenty percent of volunteers with
children report that their child(ren) have participated or would be participating with the
GLEP as a student during their fourth grade school year. For 20% of the volunteer cruise
leaders, the GLEP was their ﬁrst volunteer experience. More than one-third (3 6.7%) of

GLEP cruise leaders volunteer for at least one other organization.

55

organizations, speciﬁcally. One-ﬁﬁh (18.4%) of teachers list membership in the Michigan
Education Association (MBA). Other responses include: the National Education
Association (NBA), Michigan Science Teachers Association (MSTA), teaching sororities,
and the Macomb Reading Council. Teachers (27.8%) also list membership in
environmental organizations including: the National Geographic Society, National

Wildlife Federation, the Arbor Day Foundation, and World Wildlife Fund (Appendix H).

Volunteer Cruise Leaders’ Background

Volunteer cruise leaders are predominately female (Table 5-5). In spring 1997,
the percentage of females decreased, since several male Master Gardener participants
volunteered with the GLEP. The mean age of volunteers is about 43 - 44 years of age.
Approximately one-third of GLEP volunteer cruise leaders surveyed are high school or
college students, and approximately one-ﬁfth of volunteers surveyed are retired.

Most volunteer cruise leaders surveyed (69.2%) are currently employed outside
the home. Nearly as many have children (67.7%). Twenty percent of volunteers with
children report that their child(ren) have participated or would be participating with the
GLEP as a student during their fourth grade school year. For 20% of the volunteer cruise
leaders, the GLEP was their ﬁrst volunteer experience. More than one-third (36.7%) of

GLEP cruise leaders volunteer for at least one other organization.

56

Table 5-5. Volunteer cruise leader background, experience and demographic information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cruise # of % Age % in % w/ %
season and respondents female mean high Education retired
year (SD) ‘ school >
or B.A.
college degree
Spring 1996 18 77.8 44 (16.93) 38.9 27.9 22.2
Spring 1997 13 53.8 43 (15.59) 30.8 30.8 15.4

 

SD=standard deviation

Recruitment, Retention, and Training of Educators

Educators ’ Past Participation in the GLEP

According to the GLEP co-directors, teachers participate consistently either in the

spring or in the fall cruises from year to year. The research showed that over half of

GLEP teachers surveyed have been involved with the program in past years (Table 5-6).

Only new spring 1997 teachers (n=35) were surveyed. The remaining 42 teachers were

“veteran” teachers (they had participated in past seasons).

Table 5-6. Percent of total GLEP educators by season who participated with the GLEP in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the past.
Cruise season % and (SE)1 of % and (SE)1 of GLEP
and year GLEP teachers who volunteers who were veterans1
were veterans2 in in each research season
each research season
Spring 1996 62.5 (5.5) 26.0 (7.8)
Fall 1996 60.0 (5.6) 87.5 (5.9)
Spring 1997 54.5 (5.7) 23.5 (7.6)
1SE=standard error
2Veteran means a past participant

 

 

57

In contrast to teachers’ repeat participation in the GLEP, volunteers’ year-to-year
participation in the GLEP is inconsistent (Figure 5-1). In spring 1996, six volunteers
indicated that they had participated with the program before, while seventeen were ﬁrst-
time participants. Following the spring 1996 season, fourteen volunteers discontinued
their participation with the GLEP. However, seven of the spring 1996 volunteer cruise
leaders continued into the fall 1996; the GLEP had only one new volunteer that season,
for a total of eight active fall 1996 volunteer cruise leaders. Four of these eight active
volunteered again in the spring 1997; the other four did not. Thirteen new volunteers

were recruited in spring 1997.
Advertising and Recruiting Strategies To Attract GLEP Educators

The GLEP utilizes a number of advertising and recruiting strategies to make

educators aware of the program (Table 5-7). While mailings helped to make 15.8% of

\rccruitment \ recruitment \ recruitment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 new volunteer
17 new volunteers 13 new volunteers
}retention 7 continuing }retention
6 continuing volunteers 4 continuing
volunteers volunteers
14 discontinued 4 discontinued
participation participation

Spring 1996 Fall 1996 Spring 1997

Figure 5-1. GLEP Volunteer Recruitment and Retention, 1996-1997.

58

teachers aware of the program, almost half (48.7%) of teachers surveyed indicated that
they learned of the GLEP via personal communications (word-of-mouth) ﬁom other
teachers or coworkers. GLEP teachers indicated that staﬂ’ members (13.2%) and their
school principal (11.8%) also helped them become aware of the program. Many volunteer
cruise leaders (35.5%) checked the “other” category to indicate how they heard about the
program. Recruiting through the Master Gardener or through 4-H programs in spring

1997 accounted for a majority of these responses (Table 5-7).

Table 57. How teachers and volunteer cruise leaders became aware of the GLEP.

Method % (SE) of % (SE) of
teachers volunteers
responding2 responding2

A
l 1
1 1
6.5
N/A

N/A
of . A

1
Intermediate School 5.3 (2.5)

1
1.3

 

error
21996 and 1997 pooled data. Percent will not sum to 100% because of multiple responses.

59

Inﬂuencing Other Teachers to Participate in the Program

Analysis shows that the majority of teachers (73.7%) indicate that “more funding”
would encourage other teachers to participate in the GLEP (Table 5-8). Almost one-third
of teachers (32.9%) surveyed indicated that more inservice classes would inﬂuence other
teachers to participate, and one-third indicated that better access to teaching resources
would inﬂuence them to participate in the GLEP. “Other” responses include: more
advertising (n=3), more information on when to sign up for the program (n=1), and more

information about pre-trip and post-trip activities (n=l).

Educators ’ Use of GLEP Training Materials

Both teachers (86.8%) and cruise leader volunteers (73.3%) indicated that they
used the GLEP information packets that accompanied their trainings. While use of the
information packets was high, the majority of GLEP teachers (77.6%) did not use a GLEP
video training tape, which supplements their training. These videos became available to

Table 5-8. Situations that GLEP teachers indicated would inﬂuence other teachers to
participate with the GLEP.

13

    

error
2Percent will not sum to 100% because of multiple responses. 1996 and 1997 pooled data

6O

GLEP teachers in spring 1997. Teachers listed reasons for not using videos such as: did
not know about the tapes, forgot to watch the tapes, no time to watch the tapes, and not
interested in viewing tapes.

Approximately one-third of volunteer cruise leaders indicated that their training
was very good in all areas (Table 5-9). Close to one-half (45.2%) indicated that training
was very good in increasing their knowledge about the Great Lakes. Additionally, nearly
one-half (45.2%) of volunteer cruise leaders indicated that training was excellent in
increasing their interest in Great Lakes issues. However, nearly 15% felt training was
either fair or poor in improving their ability to work effectively with teachers and parents.
Eighteen volunteer cruise leaders (60%) used the training video. The remaining 40%

indicated that they did not know the tapes were available.

61

Table 5-9. Volunteer cruise leaders’ perceptions of training.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Training Training Training Training Training
was poor was fair was was very was
Impact2 in this in this good in good in excellent
area. area. this this area. in this
area. area.
% (SE) ’ of volunteers
Increasing your knowledge 0 0 22.6 45.2 32.3
about the Great Lakes. (-) (-) (7.5) (8.9) (8.4)
Improving your conﬁdence in O 9.7 32.3 32.3 25.8
teaching Great Lakes issues (-) (5.3) (8.4) (8.4) (7.8)
to students.
Improving your ability to 3.2 12.9 32.3 38.7 12.9
work effectively with (3.1) (6.0) (8.4) (8.7) (6.0)
teachers and parents.
Improving your ability to 0 6.5 25.8 32.3 35.5
teach cruise stations. (-) (4.4) (7.8) (8.4) (8.5)
Increasing your interest in 3.2 3.2 12.9 35.5 45.2
Great Lakes issues. (3.1) (3.1) (6.0) (8.5) (8.9)

 

 

 

 

lSE=standard error

2Percent will not sum to 100% because of multiple responses. 1996 and 1997 pooled data.

GLEP Educators’ Experiences, Knowledge, and Comfort in Teaching about the

Great Lakes

Educators ’ Outdoor Activities Related to the Great Lakes

With some exception, the majority of GLEP teachers and volunteers have had experiences

with outdoor activities (Table 5-10). Nearly all educators surveyed have been boating,

while fewer educators, especially volunteers, read or subscribe to magazines or books

about water, oceans or Great Lakes (13.3%). Additionally, nearly half of volunteers

leaders watch nature programs (45.2%) or have some diving or snorkeling experience

(48.4%).

Table 5-10. Teachers’ and volunteer cruise leaders’ experiences with outdoor activities.

62

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you ever gone... % and (SE)1 of % and (SE)’ of
teachers volunteers
responding (n=76)2 responding (n=3l) 2
Boating? 97.4 (1.8) 100.0 (-)
Fishing? 90.8 (3.3) 90.3 (5.3)
Fishing on one of the Great 65.8 (5.4) 60.0 (8.8)
Lakes?
Camping? 60.8 (5.6) 100.0 (-)
Diving or snorkeling? 52.6 (5.7) 48.4 (8.9)
Do you... % and (SE)’ of % and (SE)’ of
teachers volunteers
respondirg (n=76) responding (n=3l)
Watch nature programs on TV 88.2 (3.7) 45.2 (8.9)
about water, oceans or Great
Lakes?
Subscribe to or read magazines 55.3 (5.7) 13.3 (6.1)
or books about water, oceans or
Great Lakes?

 

SE=standard error
21996 and 1997 pooled data.

Educators ’ Questions Prior to GLEP Training

Teachers’ Pre-GLEP Questions

 

Participating GLEP teachers had many questions about the program prior to their
orientation and training (Table 5-11). Nearly one-third of teachers (32.8%) indicated that
they were interested in learning about the activities on their cruise date or obtaining an
outline of plans for the cruise during the GLEP orientation and training sessions. More
than one-ﬁfth of teachers (24.1%) indicated questions about the program, such as how to

prepare for the cruise, or the most appropriate post-cruise activities. These teachers were

63

Table 5-11. Teacher and volunteer cruise leader questions about participating with the

GLEP prior to orientation and training.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question listed regarding... % and (SE)1 of % and (SE)1 of
teachers volunteers
responding2 responding2 (n=18)
(F59)

Day’s activities, plans for the day of the 32.8 (6.1) 0 (-)

cruise

Preparation/follow-up for cruise or 24.1 (5.5) 16.7 (8.7)

program/understanding speciﬁcs of

program

Great Lakes issues, water quality, 22.4 (5.4) 33.3 (11.1)

learning about water

Teacher’s role/responsibilities 20.7 (5.2) N/A

Parents’ role 10.3 (3.9) N/A

Safety aboard the boat 3.4 (2.3) N/A

Teaching techniques, being an effective 0 (-) 44.4 (11.7)

teacher

 

 

 

 

SE=standard error

21996 and 1997 pooled data. Percent will not total to 100% due to multiple responses. Qualitative data

from responses to open-ended questions.

interested in learning the details of how the program is operated and their role with the

program. In fact, one-ﬁfth of teachers (20.7%) had questions about their responsibilities

for teaching while on the cruise; several teachers indicated questions such as “what is my

role during the ﬁeld trip — very speciﬁc tasks explained.” Teachers (22.4%) also had

questions regarding the Great Lakes and environmental quality, such as “What is the state

doing to clean-up the river and lake?,” “What is the status of the Clinton River’s health?,”

and “Does dirty water mean that it is polluted?”

64
Vglunteer Cruise Leaders’ Pre-GLEP Questions

Nearly half of the volunteer cruise leaders (44.4%) responded that they are
interested in learning effective teaching techniques or skills that would make them better
volunteer educators (Table 5-11). Questions such as “what do I need to learn as a leader
to be more eﬁ‘ective, and what scientiﬁc information do I need to use” and “how do I gain
a thorough understanding of all tests and the meaning of the results so this can be most
accurately conveyed to the children and their teachers” were common survey responses.
Similar to the teachers, many volunteer cruise leaders (33.3%) had questions about Great
Lakes issues and water quality. Nearly one-ﬁfth (16.7%) wanted to know speciﬁc details

about the GLEP organization.

Educators ’ Concerns Prior to GLEP Training

In addition to questions about the GLEP, some educators listed concerns about
participating with the GLEP. While many educators indicated that they had “no concerns”
prior to their participation (33.9% of teachers; 22.2% of volunteer cruise leaders), others
listed concerns such as expense, safety and weather (Table 5-12).

Nearly one-ﬁfth of teachers listed the program expense as a concern (16.9%);
some teachers simply stated “increasing cost” on their survey. Safety aboard the boat,
such as concern about the availability of life jackets, was also listed by almost one—ﬁfth of
teachers (16.9%).

Almost one-third (33.3%) of volunteers indicated concerns about doing an

accurate, complete job as instructors aboard the vessel. Nearly one-fifth (16.7%) of

65

Table 5-12. Teacher and volunteer cruise leader concerns about participating with the

GLEP prior to orientation and training.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concern listed % and (SE)l of % and (SE)’ of
regarding... teachers volunteers
respondipg2 (n=58) respondingz (n=18)

No concerns 33.9 (6.2) 22.2 (9.8)
Expense 16.9 (4.9) N/A
Safety 16.9 (4.9) 5.6 (5.4)
Weather 11.9 (4.2) 0 (-)
Role of teacher 8.5 (3 .6) N/A
Communications with GLEP 3.4 (2.3) 0 (-)
personnel
Time 0 (~) 16.7 (8.7)
Doing an accurate teaching job 0 (-) 33.3 (11.1)
Other 42.4 (6.4) 16.1(8.6)

 

 

‘ SE=standard error

21996 and 1997 pooled data. Qualitative data from responses to open-ended question.

volunteers listed a lack of time, or a concern about the time commitment with the program

(Table 5-12).

Educators ’ Self-Assessed Knowledge of Great Lakes Topics Prior to GLEP Training

Teachers’ Knowledge

More than 61.0% of teachers surveyed indicated that they were unaware, aware,

or had some knowledge of the following topics, but that their knowledge was inadequate

for teaching: carbon dioxide (61.6%), geography of Lake Huron (62.7%), plankton

(63.2%), navigation (71.1%), pH levels (72.3%), cultural aspects of the Great Lakes

(76.3%), calcium in water (77.6%), and dissolved oxygen (80.2%) (Table 5~13).

 

66

Table 5-13. Teacher self-assessed knowledge of topics before training.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unaware Aware of Have sorne Have Have above
ofth'n thistopic knowledgeof adequate avenge . 2
topicorits orits topic, but knowledge knowledge Topic
mean'mg meaning inadequate for for teaching
for teaching mg topic
% and (SE)’
63.2 (5.5) 36.8 (5.5) Plankton (zooplankton,
phytoplankton)
40.0 (5.6) 60.0 (5.6) Wetlands
43.4 (5.6) 56.6 15.6) Aquatic food webs
44.6 (5.7)" 55.4 (5.7) Inﬂuence of aquatic
environments on humans
86.8 (3.8) 1 1.8 (3.7) Fisheries
45.3 (5.7) 54.7 (5.7) Aquatic animals
59.5 (5.6) 40.6 (5.6) Aquatic plants
77.6 (4.7) 22.3 (4.7) Calcium in water (hardness,
softness)
31.5 (5.3) 68.4 (5.3) Water pollution
61.6 (5.5) 38.3 (5.5) Carbon dioxide (C02)
11.8 (3.7) 86.9 (3.8) The water cycle
71.1 (5.2) 28.9 (5.2) Navigation - using maps and
charts
62.7 (5.5) 42.1 (5.6) Geography of Lake Huron
57.9 (5.6) 42.1 (5.6) Geography of Lake St. Clair
92.1 (3.0) 7.9 (3.0) Shipboard knot-tying
(marlinspike)
76.3 (4.8) 23.6 (4.8) Cultural aspects of the Great
Lakes (i.e. shipwrecks, folk
music)
80.2 (4.5) 19.7 (4.5) Dissolved oxygen (DO)
72.3 (5.1) 27.7 (5.1) pH levels

 

SE=standard error

2’Pooled 1996 and 1997 data for all topics.

if

 

 

67

Teachers indicated that their awareness and knowledge was weakest in teaching
ﬁsheries (86.8%) and shipboard-knot tying (92.1%). Teachers appeared to have the
greatest knowledge of wetlands (60.0%), water pollution (68.4%), and the water cycle
(86.9%) before GLEP training, with 60% or more of the teachers surveyed indicating

adequate or above average knowledge for teaching these three topics.

Volunteer Cruise Leaders’ Knowledge

No more than 25% of volunteer cruise leaders indicated before his/her training that
they have adequate or above average knowledge for teaching any GLEP topics (Table 5-
14). Nearly 75% of volunteers indicated that they were unaware, aware, or had
knowledge of a topic, but that their knowledge was inadequate for teaching all topics
listed. More than 85% of volunteers indicated that they were unaware, aware, or had
some knowledge of aquatic plants (83.3%), cultural aspects of the Great Lakes (87.2%),

or ﬁsheries (96.7%),.

Educators ’ Post-Cruise Comfort with Teaching Great Lakes Topics
Teachers’ Comfort in Teaching

Both new GLEP teachers and veteran teachers learn several stations so they can
assist during the cruise. New GLEP teachers learn about the “Beat the Teacher” Game
learning station, as well as the pH/water color/water clarity station. Veteran GLEP

teachers learn the dissolved oxygen test and navigation stations. Following their training,

68

many (86.8%) of the teachers indicated that they are somewhat comfortable or
comfortable teaching the “Beat the Teacher” Game station. More than half indicate that
they are comfortable teaching bottom sampling (53.9%), and pH/water clarity/water

color testing (68.4%). More than one-fourth (28.9%) were somewhat comfortable to
comfortable with teaching calcium hardness, while one-fourth indicated that they were not
comfortable to somewhat uncomfortable teaching calcium hardness (however, over one-
third (38.2%) did not teach this station). Well over one-third (40.8%) of teachers
indicated that they were uncomfortable or somewhat uncomfortable teaching shipboard

knot-tying (Table 5-15).

69

Table 5-14. Volunteer knowledge about Great Lakes topics before the cruise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unaware Aware of Have some Have Have above
of this thistopic knowledge of average _ 2
topic or in or its topic, but knawledg knowledge Topic
meaning meaning madequate‘ e for for teaching
for teaching teaching topic
topic
% and (SE)'
80.6 (7.1) 19.4 (7.1) Plankton (zooplankton,
phytoplankton)
83 .8 (6.6) 16.1 (6.6) Wetlands
83.9 (6.6) 16.1 (6.6) Aquatic food webs
80.6 (7.1) 19.3 (7.0) Inﬂuence of aquatic environments
on humans
96.7 (3 .2) 3 .2 (3 . 1) Fisheries
83.3 (6.7) 16.7 (6.8) Aquatic animals n=30
87.1 (6.0) 12.9 (6.0) Aquatic plants
83.3 (6.8) 16.7 (6.7) Calcium in water (hardness,
softness) n=30
74.2 (7.8) 25.9 (7.8) Water pollution
74.2 (7.8) 25.8 (7.8) Carbon dioxide (C02)
80.7 (7.0) 19.3 (7.0) The water cycle
74.] (7.8) 25.9 (7.8) Navigation - using maps and
charts
77.4 (7.5) 22.6 (7.5) Geography of Lakeﬂifon
77.4 (7.5) 22.6 (7.5) Geography of Lake St. Clair
74.2 (7.8) 25.8 (7.8) Shipboard knot-tying
(marlinspike)
87.2 (6.0) 12.9 (6.0) Cultural aspects of the Great Lakes
(i.e. shipwrecks, folk music)
83.9 (6.6) 16.1 (6.6) Dissolved oxygen (DO)
80.7 (7.0) 19.3 (7.0) pH levels

 

 

lSE=standard error

1Pooled 1996 and 1997 data for all topics.

 

70

Table 5-15. Teachers’ post-cruise comfort levels with teaching the GLEP stations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 did not I am not 1 am 1 am 1 am
teadnhia comfortable somewhat mm comfortable ,
nation teachingthis uncomfortabl cornfonabl teachinglhis Stations
station e teachingthis e teaching station
station this station
% and (SE)I of teachers
38.2 (5.2) 28.9 (5.3) Calcium hardness n=7l
26.3

27.6 25.0 (5.1) 42.1 (5.0) Dissolved oxygen (DO) test
n=72

30.3 40.8 (5.7) 25.0 (5.8) Shipboard knot tying
(marlinspike)
n=73

26.3 26.8 (5.2) 42.1 (5.8) Navigation - using maps and
charts
n=72

25.0 25.0 (5.0) 46.0 (5.8) Plankton net sampling n=73

31.6 19.7 (4.7) 42.1 (5.8) Weather observation/water
sample collection/carbon
dioxide n=7l

6.6 2.6 (1.8) 86.8 (3.9) Beat the teacher n=73

13.2 13.1 (3.9) 68.4 (5.4) pH test/water clarity/water
color n=72

26.3 14.5 (4.0) 53.9 (5.7) Bottom sampling n=76

 

 

lSE=standard error

Volunteer Cruise Leaders’ Comfort in Teaching

With two exceptions, more than one-half of volunteer cruise leaders indicated that
they are comfortable teaching each station following the training and cruise season (Table
5-16). Less than half of the volunteers indicated that they were somewhat comfortable to

comfortable teaching calcium hardness (46.6%) and pH/water clarity/water color (29.0).

However, more than half of volunteers in these two categories did not teach these

stations.

 

71

Table 5-16. Volunteers’ post-cruise comfort levels with teaching the GLEP stations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 did not 1 am not 1 am 1 am 1 am
teachthis comfortable somewhat mm» comfortable .
station teachingthis uncomfortable comfortable teachingthis Stations
station teachingthis teachingthis station
station station
% and (SE)'
46.7 6.7 (4.5) 46.6 (9.1) Calcium hardness n=30
25.8 13.0 (6.0) 61.2 (8.7) Dissolved oxygen (120) test ‘
22.6 9.7 (5.3) 67.8 (8.3) Shipboard knot tying
(marliﬁpike)
19.4 3.2 (3.1) 77.4 (7.5) NaVigation - using maps and
charts
22.6 3.2 (3.1) 74.2 (7.8) Plankton net sampling
29.0 12.9 (6.0) 58.1 (8.8) Weather observation/water
sample collection/carbon
dioxide
64.5 6.5 (4.4) 29.0 (8.1) pH test/water clarity/water
color
25.8 6.5 (4.4) 67.7 (8.4) Bottom sampling

 

 

 

 

 

 

SE=standard error

GLEP Educators’ Program Participation and Perceptions
Lessons Taught Pre-cruise and Intentions to Teach Post-cruise

During the spring cruise seasons, a large percentage of teachers (average of 95.5%
for both seasons) indicated that they teach Great Lakes topics in the classroom prior to
their cruise (Table 5-17). Post-cruise teaching intentions in spring were lower than pre-
cruise teaching rates. Teachers indicated (by written responses) that this is due to time
constraints at the end of the school year.

These percentages ‘reversed’ with the fall 1996 teachers. More of the fall 1996

teachers than spring 1996 teachers intended to teach post-cruise activities. Several fall

72

Table 5-17. Percent of GLEP teachers who taught about Great Lakes topics pre-cruise
and post-cruise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cruise season and v. and (SE)‘ of teacher % and (SE)‘ of teachers who

year who teach pre-cruise teach post-cruise topics
topics

Spring 1996 91.1 (32 82.1 (4.4)

Fall 1996 70.0 (5.2) 90.0 (3.4)

Spring 19972 100.0 (-) 80.0 (4.5)

SE=standard error

2I surveyed only the new teachers who had not completed a survey during or before spring 1996.

1996 teachers listed time constraints during the beginning of the school year prior to their
cruise as reasons why they did not teach pre-cruise activities. More than three-fourths
(76.3%) of teachers said they taught pre-cruise activities and intended to teach post-cruise

activities.

Teaching Topics and Sources: Pre-cruise and Post-cruise

What topics are taught before and after the GLEP cruise? Nearly half (48.5%) of
the teachers who teach pre-cruise activities listed water-related topics (Table 5-18).
However, following the cruise, 25.0% of teachers reviewed pre-cruise activities or
conducted review activities, such as analyzing results of their water samples taken during

the cruise.

 

73

Table 5-18. Topics taught pre-cruise and intentions to teach post-cruise topics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'/o and (SE)1 of teachers who °/e and (SE) 1 of teachers who
Topic taught pre-cruise activities intended to teach post-cruise
(n=68)‘ activities (n=64)‘
Water: 48.5 (6.0) 13.2 (4.2)
Food web or - 14.7 (4.2) 4.0 (2.4)
food chain
Michigan history 10.2 (3.6) 3.0 (2.1)
or geology
Exotic species 5.0 (2.6) 4.0 (2.4)
Not sure yet N/A 11.7 (4.0)
Review3 N/A 25.0 (5.9
Other 10.2 (3.6) 11.7 (4.0)

 

 

1SE=standard error

2Watersheds, wetlands, lakes, rivers, streams, water cycle, water ﬂow.

3Continue aquatic testing from speciﬁc cruise activities (bottom dredging, water samples).

41996 and 1997 pooled data Qualitative data from responses to open-ended questions. Percent will not
sum to 100% because of multiple responses and bemuse some teachers did not report speciﬁc topics they
teach or intend to teach.

Teachers indicated that they use a variety of sources - textbooks, curricula,
materials - to teach GLEP topics before and after their cruise (Table 5-19). Over one-
third (36.7%) of GLEP teachers indicate that they use the GLEP pre-ﬁeld learning
activities before their cruise. This declines to 16.1% after the cruise. Nearly one-ﬁlth
(17.6%) use textbooks while fewer than 12% use Project WET, Project WILD, Paddlgto—
the-Sea, DNR materials or their own teaching materials in the pre-cruise and post-cruise

segments.

74

Table 5-19. Sources GLEP teachers used when teaching about Great Lakes topics pre-
cruise and post-cruise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources % (SE)' of teachers who use % (SE)‘ of teachers who use
these pre-cruise teaching these post-cruise teaching

sources4 sources4

GLEP curriculum2 36.7 (5.5) 16.1 (4.2)

Books3 17.6 (4.3) 7.0 (2.9)

Project WET 11.7 (3.6) 4.0 (2.2)

and/or Project

WILD curriculums

Paddle to the Sea 8.0 (3.1) 0 (-)

curriculum

Teachers’ personal 5.0 (2.5) 2.0 (1 .6)

materials

Department of 2.0 (1.6) 0 (-)

Natural Resources

(DNR) materials

 

 

 

 

 

J SE=standard error

2Speciﬁc aspects of the GLEP pre-ﬁeld activities were not indieated.

3Science, social studies, Michigan studies text and/or reference books.

41996 and 1997 pooled data. Qualitative data from responses to open-ended questions. Percent will not
sum to 100% beeause of multiple responses and beeause some teachers did not report speciﬁc topies
they teach or intend to teach.

Educators ' Perceptions of the GLEP

Teachers and volunteer cruise leaders enjoyed the program (Table 5-20). Nearly
one-third of teachers (28.9%) indicated in their responses that they “enjoyed the whole
program.” Over one-fourth of teachers (26.3%) appreciated that the cruise offered a
hands-on opportunity for their students. Almost one-ﬁfth of teachers (18.4%) mentioned
that they like a speciﬁc cruise learning station activity, such as plankton net bottom

sampling or boat navigation.

75

More than half of the cruise leader volunteers (63.3%) indicated that they enjoyed
working with the parents, students and teachers (Table 5-20). Over ten percent (13.3%)
enjoyed working outside on the lake or aboard the boat, and 13.3% liked the whole
program. Nearly one-ﬁfth (17.2%) listed a response categorized under “other” reasons
that they enjoyed the program, such as, “very comfortable atmosphere” and

“student/parent reactions.”

Table 5-20. Aspects of the GLEP educators enjoyed the most.

Categories of responses listed % (SE) of % (SE) of
teachers volunteers
responding2 responding2

o -
0
A
3
with students, parents, 63.3 (8.8)

l3
l7

 

lSE=standard error
21996 and 1997 pooled data. Qualitative data from responses to open-ended questions. Percent will not
sum to 100% beeause of multiple responses.

76

Educators also listed aspects of the program they least enjoyed (Table 5-21).
Nearly one-ﬁfth of teachers (17.1%) disliked the weather conditions the day of their cruise
(i.e., foggy, cold, rainy). Over one-third of teachers (36.8%) listed comments categorized
under “other” such as, “I got sea sick,” “the speaker system was terrible” and, “the teacher
orientation seemed like a waste of time.”

Over one-fourth (26.1%) of volunteer cruise leaders indicated that they disliked
the weather. Over one-fourth (26.1%) also indicated that they felt unprepared to teach
the cruise activities, listing comments such as “not knowing enough.” Few (8.7%)

mentioned that they disliked the time commitment involved with volunteering.

Table 5-21. Aspects of the GLEP educators enjoyed the least.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories of responses listed % (SE)1 of teachers % (SE)1 of volunteers
responding (n=62) 2 responding (n=22) 2

Weather 17.1 (4.7) 26.1 (9.3)
Expense 6.6 (3.1) N/A
Did not like “Beat the Teacher” 6.6 (3.1) N/A
station
Lack of organization or 5.3 (2.8) 0 (-)
communication ﬁ'om GLEP
Instruction/instructors poor in 2.6 (2.0) 0 (-)
some regard
Safety 2.6 (2.0) 0 (-)
Other 36.8 (6.1) 8.7 6.0)
Felt unprepared to teach 0 (-) 26.1 (9.3)
Long days/time commitment 0 (-) 8.7 (6.0)

 

 

 

 

1SE=standard error
21996 and 1997 pooled data. Qualitative data from responses to open-ended questions. Percent will not
sum to 100% because of multiple responses.

77
GLEP Educators ’ Future Participation

The majority of teachers (86.8%) surveyed indicated that they would be interested
in participating with the GLEP during another season. Teachers’ reasons for continuing
their participation include: “The students loved it and they learned a lot” and “ties in with
Michigan studies and oﬁ’ers excellent science opportunities.”

However, nine teachers from cruise seasons 1 surveyed said they would not
participate with the GLEP in the future (six from spring 1996, two from fall 1996, and one
ﬁom spring 1997). Their reasons include: “The price was too expensive and Michigan
weather too unpredictable;” and “I only do Michigan theme on alternating years”
(Appendix I).Volunteer cruise leaders surveyed also indicated that they would be
interested in continuing their participation with the GLEP (87.0%). Two people (6.5%)
indicated they possibly would be interested in serving as a volunteer cruise leader during
another season. Another two people (6.5%) - both from the spring 1996 cruise season —
indicated that they would not be interested in continuing with the program because: “I am
going to college in the fall so I will not be in the area” and “I cannot. My wife is

pregnant.”

Teachers Who Do Not Intend to Participate in Future

This research shows that once teachers participate with the GLEP, they keep
coming back and they plan to keep doing so. Over 90% of the 76 teachers surveyed
indicated that they would be interested in participating again. Furthermore, over 60% of

teachers surveyed during the spring and fall 1996 seasons had participated in previous

78

seasons. But what about the nearly 10% of teachers (n=9) surveyed in spring 1996, fall
1996, and spring 1997 who indicated that they would not participate in the GLEP again?
I separated the results of their surveys to look for common characteristics among these
nine teachers that might suggest reasons for their non-participation in the future.

While I assumed that there would be obvious differences between these nine
teachers and the 69 other teachers who said they would continue their participation with
the GLEP, overall I found many similarities between the two groups. Each of the nine
teachers (all females) had between 5 and 31 years of teaching experience (the total group
had between 14 to almost 20 years of experience). Three of the nine earned a science ‘
major in college; thirteen of the 69 teachers who planned to continue GLEP participation
also had a science major. Eight of the nine teachers taught both pre-cruise and post-cruise
activities in their classroom. Also, eight of the nine went to a GLEP orientation session,
and all nine used the GLEP Pre-ﬁeld activities in their classroom. They all had
experiences with Great Lakes activities, including boating, camping and ﬁshing, and eight
of the nine participate with extracurricular Great Lakes related hobbies and activities, such
as boating or visiting lighthouses.

There were other common traits among the nine teachers. Five of the nine
teachers who said that they would not continue their participation with the program were
ﬁrst time participants with the GLEP. This suggests that perhaps they wanted to
discontinue their GLEP participation because they were not comfortable teaching topics
or did not believe they were knowledgeable to teach about the Great Lakes, due to lack of

experience with the these topics. However, the results show that these nine teachers have

79

the same levels of comfort and knowledge as the teachers who planned to continue their
participation.

With the exception of the program expense, these nine teachers appear to have
discontinued their involvement due to individual teaching needs that they believed could
not be met with the GLEP. Of the four who did not mention expense as a reason for
discontinuing their participating, one teacher said she would be teaching 5‘“ grade in
following years, hence she stopped participating. Another teacher wanted a program that
would speciﬁcally focus on Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) science
objectives for fourth graders. One spring 1996 teacher wanted more time to prepare her
students for the cruise, and a fall 1996 teacher only teaches with a “Michigan theme” on

alternating years.

Chapter 6

DISCUSSION

Keeping in mind the limitations of this research, the results of this program
evaluation (combined with the literature review, the writing retreats, and meetings with
the GLEP staff) have implications for strengthening the current GLEP and for ﬁxture
programs and evaluations. The results for each research question (presented in Chapter 1)
are interpreted below. Recommendations based on these results are included. The results
of Research Question 1 — What are the educators’ demographic backgrounds? - were

presented in Chapter 5, and are woven into the following discussion.

Recruitment, Retention, and Training of Educators

Research Question 2. What programming strategies are currently used to recruit, train,
and retain the GLEP educators?

Subquestion 2a. Educators will identify speciﬁc program-related barriers to their

participation. Participating teachers will also identify barriers related to the

involvement of other teachers.

While program demand is not presently inﬂuenced by cost (GLEP staﬂ’
consistently reserve all available cruise dates) (Stewart 1997), program cost appears to be
discouraging some teachers’ participation. Five of the nine teachers who indicated on

their surveys that they would not come back to the GLEP had concerns with the expense.

Three teachers indicated that they “loved the trip and would like to participate in the

80

8 1
ﬁrture” but they had trouble raising the money. In fact, the GLEP expense was a
common concern indicated by a majority of teachers surveyed (regardless of their future
participation). Almost three-fourths (73.7%) of teachers indicated that more ﬁrnding
would inﬂuence other teachers to participate with the GLEP (Table 5-8). Thus, more time
explaining different fund-raising techniques or gathering additional community
representatives and businesses to sponsor trips may be necessary to sustain some teachers’
involvement. I recommend that the GLEP staff emphasize fund-raising strategies to
help teachers reduce the costs of their participation with the program.

Another perceived barrier to participation is time, or a perceived lack of it. One
spring 1996 teacher wrote that the “orientation seemed like a waste of time.” Almost
10% of teachers surveyed indicated that they did not use the training videos because they
had no time. Project WILD researchers found a similar response in their program
evaluations. Among the top reasons teachers did not participate with Project WILD were
a lack of planning time and a lack of time in the school day (Greene 1992, Standage
Accureach 1990, Baldwin 1990, Gilchrist 1990, Zosel 1988, Smith 1988, Cantrell 1987,
Charles 1986, Fleming 1983 in Pitman 1996: 5). Incentives may resolve the challenge of
teacher participation at trainings, which will encourage teachers to use their time not only
for GLEP training but also for their own career advancement. The state of Michigan
certiﬁcation requires each teacher to earn graduate credits or continuing education units
(CEUs) to maintain his/her certiﬁcation (Elshoﬁ‘ 1997). This may be accomplished

through participation in at BB curricula inservice workshops, such as Project Wet, Project

82

WILD, and Project Learning Tree (Elshoﬁ‘ 1997). To address non-attendance at GLEP
training sessions, and to encourage attendance at future vessel-based EE training sessions,
I recommend that the GLEP integrate graduate level and CEU requirements into
their teacher trainings, which will provide an added incentive for teachers to attend
inservice workshops. This feature can then be used in GLEP advertising when recruiting
new teachers to the GLEP as well as with future vessel-based, EE programs.

Subquestion 2b. Based on trends recorded by GLEP staﬂ’, teachers will

show consistent participation ﬁ'om year-to-year, while volunteer tum-over

is more pronounced.

From the 85 teachers who responded to the ﬁrst survey (9 were not included in the
ﬁnal respondent group [n=76] as they did not complete the second survey), I was able to
determine what percent had participated in the past (Table 5-6). Greater than 50% of
these teachers indicated that they had participated in a previous season. Repeat
participation in the program indicates that the GLEP is meeting teachers’ needs for Great
Lakes, EE programming for their classrooms.

Though teacher retention is not a problem, volunteer recruitment and retention is
an onging challenge for GLEP staﬁ‘. From the responses indicated by volunteers surveyed
in this evaluation, it appears that retaining volunteers would not be a problem; 27 of the 31
volunteers surveyed intended to participate again in the future. However, the actual
number of participants per season reveals a diﬂ’erent story. For example, only four veteran

volunteers participated in the spring 1997 cruise season. Other Extension volunteer

programs have addressed this challenge of volunteer retention, pinpointing demographics

83
as a probable issue. One North Carolina Extension program surveyed volunteers in a
youth development program and found adults over age 65, retired adults, and men were
the most likely volunteers (Rouse and Clawson 1992). This could be due to more females
entering the workforce and changes in household structure due to divorce or increasing
numbers of single parent households. Since the GLEP volunteers surveyed in spring
1996 and spring 1997 were predominantly female, a more concerted effort needs to
be made to recruit male volunteers.

The literature also indicates that the most viable volunteers are teens and retired
people. During the two GLEP research seasons, 1 found that 34.8% of volunteers were
teenagers and 18.8% retirees (Table 5-5). The largest percentage of volunteers fell
between these two age brackets, resulting in a median age of 43 and 44 years of age —
people who are neither teenagers nor of retirement age. I recommend that the GLEP
prepare a more targeted recruitment effort toward teens and retired people.

Time — or lack of it — appears to be another reason volunteers are not staying with
the program. More than half of volunteers (67.7%) have children, and 69.2% have jobs
outside the home. Additionally, volunteers are donating their time not only to the GLEP
but also with other organizations. Close to one-fourth (23.3%) volunteer for three or
more other organizations. Clearly, these people are busy and simply may not have the
time to contribute to the GLEP. To address this, the GLEP needs to concentrate its
advertising and recruiting among older generations and teens in order to involve

people who can contribute their time for more than a single season. This will reduce

84
the amount of turnover and time spent training large numbers of (potentially short term)
recruits.

Another way that the GLEP may recruit additional volunteers who are committed
to the program is through incentives, or earning something in exchange for their volunteer
time. The GLEP began this type of exchange in spring 1997 with the Macomb County
Master Gardener program. By recruiting Master Gardener participants, the GLEP could
achieve its need for dedicated volunteers — and the volunteers, in turn, earned credit
toward their Master Gardener certiﬁcation. As one spring 1997 volunteer cruise leader
commented, “I enjoy working with the kids, and for the Master Gardener volunteer
hours.” I recommend that the GLEP continue working with existing Extension
programs, like Master Gardeners, to offer volunteers incentives in exchange for
their teaching time aboard the cruise. High school or college credits may be an
incentive for younger volunteers.

Subquestion 2c. Educators will record speciﬁc methods that indicate how
they became aware of the program. The highest proportion of teachers will
report that they learned about the program from other teachers, colleagues,
and from mailings to the school. Volunteers, however, will indicate that
the media made them aware of the GLEP opportunity.

The evaluation results have a number of implications that may strengthen the
GLEP and ease implementation of ﬁrture programs, beginning with developing awareness
of the program. In concurrence with subquestion 2c, nearly half of teachers (48.7%)
surveyed indicated that they became aware of the program primarily by word-of-mouth,

personal communications from teachers and co-workers. However, a new program will

85
not have the luxury of veteran teachers to spread the word. With 22 GLEP teachers
surveyed holding a membership in a professional teaching organization, such as the
Michigan Education Association (MBA), advertising through these organizations would
help to build awareness among the teacher “network.” Echoing the GLEP results,
teachers in New Jersey indicated that they learned about the Project WILD opportunity
through teachers union magazines, their school or board of education, mailings, and EE
centers (Dunne 1992). Mailings to the school appeared to be a useﬁrl method to inform
teachers of the program, with more than 15% of teachers listing mailings as how they
became aware of the program. The GLEP staff (particularly staffers of future
programs) should continue school mailings and consider expanding its advertising to
teacher “networks,” such as professional teaching organizations and other EE
programs.

Radio announcements, newspaper advertisements, and newspaper articles appear
to be an effective way for potential volunteers to become aware of the program. Nearly
half of the volunteers surveyed learned about the program from these media sources. The
largest percent of volunteers surveyed (35.5%) learned about the GLEP through another
Extension program (speciﬁcally, Master Gardeners and 4-H). I recommend that the
GLEP continue to advertise for volunteer cruise leaders within Extension networks.
Recruiting volunteers who already know, understand, and trust Extension appears to be a
viable marketing tool. As Loewenstein, Thompson, and Bazerman (1989 in Murnighan et

al. 1993) described, positive interpersonal relationships — such as those produced in a

86
work place, a team, or through a volunteer organization — can produce kin-like
connections among unrelated people. Their identiﬁcation with the organization then
becomes salient, and they may more willingly and frequently contribute to voluntary action

(Murnighan et al. 1993).

GLEP Educators’ Great Lakes Experiences, Knowledge, and Comfort Levels

Research Question 3: What are the GLEP educators’ life experiences, knowledge, and
comfort levels in teaching about the Great Lakes?

Subquestion 3a. Using self-assessments, educators will show a low

knowledge of speciﬁed Great Lakes topics before GLEP training, and

higher comfort levels with teaching Great Lakes topics after training.

Based on the teachers’ self-assessments of their knowledge before the program

and their comfort levels in teaching speciﬁc topics after the GLEP cruise, it appears that
teachers need speciﬁc knowledge in several GLEP areas. More than 50% of teachers
surveyed said that they were unaware, had only an awareness, or that the knowledge they
do have is inadequate for teaching the following topics: plankton, ﬁsheries, aquatic plants,
calcium in water, carbon dioxide, navigation, geography of Lake Huron and Lake St.
Clair, pH levels, shipboard knot-tying, dissolved oxygen, and cultural aspects of the Great
Lakes region. Fisheries (86.8%) and shipboard knot tying (92.1%) had the highest
percentages of teachers who were unaware of these topics, or who reported that their

knowledge was inadequate for teaching. During trainings, I recommend that the

GLEP staff concentrate on improving teachers’ knowledge in these topic areas.

87

Teachers indicated that their comfort levels following the GLEP training and cruise
were high in some, but not all, topic areas. Greater than one-fourth of teachers surveyed
indicated that they were “not comfortable” or “somewhat uncomfortable” teaching
calcium hardness (26.3%), navigation (26.8%), and shipboard knot-tying (40.8%). Since
close to half (48.5%) of the teachers surveyed indicated that they taught about water
topics (i.e. watersheds, wetlands, lakes, rivers, streams, water cycle, and water ﬂow) in
their classrooms pre-cruise, and with close to 40% of teachers using the GLEP teaching
curriculum, it appears that these topics would be accepted for inservice training. The
evaluation results suggest that inservice training appears to be an effective way to
introduce the teachers to the GLEP, to help them incorporate it into their curriculum, and
to boost their knowledge and comfort levels with teaching Great Lakes topics. Project
WILD evaluations show a similar response. Among Project WILD teachers, the primary
motivation for teachers attending a Project WILD workshop was a personal interest in
wildlife and the environment (Shomo 1993, Gigar 1993, Dunne 1992, Bissell 1992,
Greene 1992, Fleming 1991). The results of my evaluation show that GLEP teachers
might participate in more training, despite the GLEP’s continued difﬁculty with low
teacher attendance at the after school training sessions.

Close to one-third (32.9%) of teachers surveyed said that “more inservice classes”
would inﬂuence other teachers to participate in the program. Inservice classes provide a
wealth of information, including ways to utilize materials in their classrooms and ways that

teachers may increase their own knowledge. The Project WET, Project WILD, and

88
Project Learning Tree curricula use inservice training as a program dissemination method.
In one evaluation of an Ohio Project WILD inservice program, participating teachers felt
strongly that the workshop was “helplirl in preparing them to use the Project WILD
materials” and 81% of survey respondents reported using the materials alter the workshop
(Charles 1988). The purpose of Project WILD inservice workshops is to demonstrate
activities and to have teachers instruct them as well — known as “peer teaching” — so that
they feel comfortable with the topics and curriculum materials. I recommend that the
GLEP staff include “peer teaching” in their teacher trainings.

Duration of the workshop plays an important role in what activities teachers will
use and in what topics are covered. Zosel (1986) found that teachers who participated in
inservice workshops of seven hours in length or longer actually used more activities than
teachers with under seven hours of workshop training. I recommend that the GLEP
draw from Project WET, WILD, and Learning Tree inservice training programs
and strategies to develop longer, more intensive training models that may improve
teachers’ comfort levels and boost their knowledge of specific Great Lakes topics.

Survey responses indicated that volunteers are looking for ways to enhance their
Great Lakes knowledge (33.3%) and for ways that will make them more effective teachers
(44.4%). Over one-third of volunteer cruise leaders surveyed (33.3%) listed “doing an
accurate job” as a concern about participating with the program. Though 74% and
greater of surveyed volunteers rated their pre—cruise knowledge inadequate for training in

all topics (Table 5-14), it appears that the GLEP training does make volunteers feel

89
comfortable, conﬁdent and knowledgeable with teaching about the Great Lakes. More
than 60% of volunteers indicated that they were somewhat comfortable to comfortable
teaching all stations (except for calcium hardness and pH test/water clarity/water color,
which they traditionally do not teach during the cruise). The GLEP staff should take
these results as a positive sign about its volunteer training and maintain its current
training strategies, making specific efforts to increase volunteers’ knowledge of a
number of Great Lakes topics during volunteer cruise leader training.

Subquestion 3b. High proportions of educators will report a background
of participation in Great Lakes activities and experiences.

Researchers have found a relationship between teachers’ experience, background,
and education of science related topics and their participation in EE (Simmons 1995,
Bethel 1982, Peyton 1977, Ritz 1977, Bozardt 1976, Cummings 1976, Hungerford 1975,
Howie 1974). It appears that teachers’ Great Lakes experience may be linked to their
longevity with the GLEP. While GLEP teachers show only moderate formal education in
sciences (21.6% had a science-related major in college), the overwhelming majority had
experiences on the Great Lakes. Over half of teachers had gone camping, diving or
snorkeling in their lives. Over 55% watch nature programs on TV about the Great Lakes
and oceans, in addition to reading magazines or books on these topics. The highest
numbers of teachers had gone boating (97.4%) and ﬁshing (90.8%). These proportions
are high, given general Michigan recreation statistics. According to the US. Coast Guard,
Michigan leads the nation in number of registered watercraﬁ (856,749 boats were

registered in 1989), giving Michigan residents relatively easy access to the Michigan’s

90
surrounding Great Lakes (U .S. Coast Guard 1990). According to a Michigan Department
of Natural Resources (1989) survey, Macomb County residents held the third highest
number of annual ﬁshing licenses in the state. Together, these statistics about GLEP
educators’ contact with aquatic resources through ﬁshing and boating may indicate that
GLEP teachers and volunteers are likely to come to the program with at least some
familiarity and experience with Great Lakes resources, based on their personal experience
and interests.

The GLEP staff plan to incorporate more Great Lakes culture, folklore, and
maritime history into the program. However, only 12.9% of volunteers surveyed said
their knowledge was adequate or above average for teaching these topics. There is a need
to recruit volunteers who are skilled with Great Lakes folklore and history. To meet this
need, Michigan State University researchers LuAnne Kozma and Hawk Tolson (1997)
identiﬁed and documented maritime folklife resources that would be of use to the GLEP
cuniculum. In addition to a number of Michigan libraries and museums, they contacted
23 people in the Macomb County area who are practitioners of occupation-based maritime
traditions, such as boat captains, sailmakers, quilters, riggers, knot tiers, and US. Coast
Guard members. From these results, I recommend that future GLEP staff members
advertise within boating, ﬁshing, and maritime organizations to recruit volunteers

with an existing interest and knowledge of these activities.

91

Subquestion 3c. Educators will have pre-cruise and post-cruise questions
and concerns about their participation with the GLEP.

The GLEP staﬂ‘ always need information on the questions and concerns educators
have about their GLEP participation, so that these may be addressed during the trainings.
While one-third of teachers had no concerns about their GLEP participation, nearly one-
third (32.8%) indicated a strong need for information pertaining to the day of their cruise
(Table 5-11). Teachers also showed an interest in pre-cruise preparation and post-cruise
activities, as well as the teacher and parent role during the GLEP. During training, the
GLEP staff should continue to make it a point to address teachers’ questions,
through print materials, discussion at training workshops, and in GLEP mailings.

Volunteers had questions related primarily to concerns about doing an accurate
teaching job and about learning effective teaching techniques. Judging from post-cruise,
self-assessed comfort levels with teaching Great Lakes topics, it appears that these needs
are being met through the current training procedures. However, over one-fourth
(26.1%) of volunteers indicated that they felt unprepared to teach cruise activities, listing
comments such as “I did not feel like I knew enough.” Encouraging the use of training
videos, giving volunteers more practice time, and providing them access to literature

about Great Lakes topics may help to alleviate these doubts.

92
GLEP Educators’ Program Participation and Perceptions
Research Question 4. What are the educators’ perceptions of the program?

Subquestion 4a. Most participating educators will have positive
perceptions of the program.

Subquestion 4b. Most teachers will indicate that they teach pre-cruise and
post-cruise GLEP activities in their classrooms.

Subquestion 4c. The majority of GLEP educators will indicate that they
are interested in participating with the GLEP during another season.

The results of these subquestions can be combined into a single discussion. The
overwhelming majority of 1996-1997 educators surveyed had positive perceptions of the
program. This ﬁnding is evident through their comments on the surveys and intentions for
future participation (86.8% of teachers and 87.0% of volunteers said they were interested
in participating again). There were some negative perceptions although some aspects of
the program cannot be controlled. For example, nearly one-fourth of teachers and
volunteers surveyed disliked the weather. There are factors the GLEP staff can control,
such as program expense and making the most of their time by offering training incentives.
For volunteer cruise leaders, recognition efforts and incentives based on individual needs
may encourage longer-term involvement with the GLEP.

More than three-fourths (76.3%) of GLEP teachers surveyed taught pre-cruise
activities a_nd_ intended to teach post-cruise. However, their use of speciﬁc materials
declines after their cruise. While over one-third (3 6.7%) of teachers indicated that they

used the GLEP curriculum before their cruise, only 16.1% of teachers said they used this

93
source post-cruise. During training, I recommend that the GLEP staff emphasize
curriculum activities in the pro-cruise and post-cruise segments.

GLEP teachers show a strong interest in teaching water related topics. Close to
half (48.5%) taught watersheds, wetlands, lakes, rivers, streams, the water cycle, and
water ﬂow before their cruise. However, less than 15% of teachers taught other topics,
such as food webs, Michigan history, and exotic species (Table 5-18). This is likely due to
low knowledge in these topic areas, as demonstrated by teachers self-assessed, pre-cruise
knowledge levels in all topic areas except for the water cycle, wetlands, aquatic food
webs, and water pollution. Project WILD teachers also indicated this need, and showed
interest in attending shorter, follow-up training workshops that focus on the curriculum
and develop knowledge (Young, Thompson, and Thompson 1995, Shaw 1993, Tudor
1992, Bissell 1992, Greene 1992, Fleming 1991, Standage Accureach 1990, Gilchrist
1990, Farnsworth 1989, Zosel 1988, Smith 1988, Cantrell 1986, Charles 1986, Yannone
1985). The GLEP staff may want to consider follow-up workshops or specialized,
topic-specific trainings that will increase teachers knowledge and emphasize other

topic areas.

Implications for GLEP Dissemination
The results of this research will help in the design and development of a GLEP
dissemination guide to serve as a reference for other communities and organizations

interested in hosting vessel-based, EE programs. During the March 1997 GLEP writing

1|lllii|| .il l l lli|r il|1l

 

94
retreat, I presented a draft outline that would serve as a Table of Contents, which was
discussed and suggestions made for its improvement (Appendix F). During this writing
retreat and other meetings with GLEP staff, it was decided by GLEP staﬁ‘ that the
program expansion should include a “interactive, hands-on mode for dissemination”
(Stewart 1997). For example, people from any new site should visit, train, apprentice,
and serve with the GLEP in Macomb County, in addition to receiving written support
materials (such as a dissemination guide).

The research results provided in the earlier discussions are applicable to the
development of a dissemination guide. Furthermore, I recommend that before any new
programs are implemented, each community and its potential teachers and volunteers
should be carefully assessed, because each Great Lakes community diﬁ‘ers in its
demographics, economics, cultural components, and natural resources. This assessment
may include teacher pre-surveys (such as the type used in this evaluation) as well as the
identiﬁcation of potential task force members, teacher funding sources, volunteer cruise
leaders, and folklife resources. Recognizing the unique qualities of each Great Lakes
community will help to provide a program that has greater acceptance, longevity, and

eﬁ’ectiveness among its participants.

Future Research
Avoiding the limitations of this research when conducting further evaluations of

the existing and future program will help to pinpoint additional programming strengths

95
and weaknesses. This may be accomplished by conducting focus groups with educators
who terminated their involvement with the GLEP during the last seven years to discover
more about why they discontinued their involvement, or conducting focus groups or
administering written surveys with veteran teachers (i.e. two or more years of continued
GLEP participation) to determine how and why the program has been successful in their
classrooms. Also, ﬁrture evaluations may include surveys designed speciﬁcally to identify
changes pre-cruise and post-cruise in educators’ knowledge and comfort levels.

With knowledgeable, comfortable, informed teachers and volunteer educators, EE
programs will be successful. As Harold Hungerford, professor and coordinator with the
Science Education Center in Illinois wrote:

Ifeducation programs are the vehicles by which EE goals are taken to the

classroom, then instructors are the driving force behind those programs

(Hungerford 1990: 100).

Success is a relative term, but for the Great Lakes Education Program and similar
vessel-based EE programs, success is deﬁned by educators who provide youth with a

greater sense of stewardship for aquatic resources in the Great Lakes and beyond.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: GLEP Teacher Information and Registration Packets

genera EEO 8m. .3335

:88an Pa: .0580 £586:
“a... 382.26

ZOmHgOmZH
EGOMA. 33

 

Emmy Omen
ZOHH<ODQE
mmvmdﬁ H450

ZQhezgm
t~m-m>~2b E35. s0-wb§<

Evﬁbomm Mbgoo
g0 1M.» Sbﬁsﬁe

"58.» reaming
.8 83828 «5 «£825 8 .98va
2a 9.3 non—3% «530:8 o5 .3
cox 9 .535 a segue 8:8an
33 .36 «5:53.23. 23.

Intuit-leafs}
can-33.8;Ialallll‘ltlﬂluax

OEEOOO alga
LO 28 £00 £005: nz< dogs—IOU
nz< §§O< LO §¢<mua £5

 

:25 05 8.8
race Anecdotes :8 .8 683.
5 ea. 8.56 5 33m 68m
8255 nun—u a. 8E0 :28st
am: .380 aaooaz «5 8580

20:253th— 20: m8 .3

38.3. can; 8.56

.53 e2
. .EEeEIE we use bus. 33: 8.588
use V2?“ to... to 9: 6:23?»
\o 29.8 to... to b5 2.383 589:8
2: 333.5: 98¢ bi ES 82‘ V5
8.. :8 sex can: us :9 =8 =5}: 2: on
sea 88$ $98.58 bx» as. S: «55 be.
is are ‘3?th as as. a SS 32. no: 2F

:86» so nous.

.geﬁ 2:3
.. £3838 8.58 as 25 no:
3655. 6324.55.32 8553 33
880 .5 s84 .55 «>65 EEwﬁm cﬁ coax
e255 2: «no? aeuﬁmetsou 2: 3 3838
.Eoﬁeﬁteu 38 e5 «58.. .8352. use...
us Page . 8858 as .8 003 «08 8 63°
3 5:. ~22: .8: ii 52x5: :2 E.

96

97

80:5» 5553 .085
680$. .53.
.. .ueoscek 33.0.: 00: 0: 03: 0.8

553...... :03 826 0:: 2.. 98:0 :08...

8 8.3.895 0:: .8 «£38.53 8:00:05
8.: 8.5.85: :?§: 0 «0330...: F

85:: :88: 0.3:: 8.8 8..
swag 8:0Q
._ 65.58 8.33880:
0::: 80.x 9.0.3:: :taox 5.8 :88... £038...
0:: .8 828:5:8: 2R :50:..3: .98.“
n: a \0 0:8: he: .3... 80.9...» S 82:03
0:: EEK b88009. 3.100: 8.: Ea: :05
0: 3.... a 5:... 80:8 0.8 3:08.... 30.. .3.

. :58:
8:82.: 8:3 :88 o... :25:
.3: 3:88: .55.. e: g .5

0:08:08: 0:: 03:25.
00:38.80 m:::::0_ :.::::0 :8.»
000.8 0: :008 5 00:5::::: 808:8:
0:: 6:08:00 ::0.:::: ﬁgs—:03
888:: : .:_:::0:::. «58:0: 800520
b:::000: =: :23 00006:: 0:: :0 w
.8058: :.::00::: 80.: 38008::
:_ 80:08: :: 3:0 000: :0 >
9898 88:80: 883 :0 :88: 80:0
: 0: 8: 000: :0» 08:828.: 0: :0»
:0: :20 :_ :: .:0:0:0: : :0. . .343

0058088 0::
8:33:80 0:: ::0:0::: 680.8885
0:: :00::0:: «55:0. .8 .0053 : «5::

am 60>: :85 .8 ::0: 0:: 8.88:8:
E3 8:: :2: 80:38:08 0:880: 5:3
:::008: :8: 0080:: 33 3:88.80
8:280:00 :5. 3308.3:

080:: :80: 88:80 : 0::0:: 9:: 0::
0:: .m:::::3 .8880:— 60.88052:
.8058: 80808:: 0:: 30:93.:
.300: 8:808: 0: 3.3 80:08.0 ::
8080:: 3:88:50 :2: 80:80:85
:::::00 ::0 .8 8:080? 588:
0:: 0:: .05: .833 0:: «5:00:88 am

hazaﬁoﬂgdg

.:00::0:0: :8:3 ::0 80::
«5:80: :: 80:08: 80:: 830:: 03::
8:808 :05: 8:56:83 880
0:: S 08880.8: 03:: 8:: 3:38
.0388: 80:38.80 0:: 308:0:
:0 30:83 0:: .8 80:58:: 0:88
.8 8:80.: 850:3 wéma§~

.0838: 0:83

:: :08: 8:080: :85 0:: 88:80:
80:: :0 8:583: 0:: 05:80::
0: 000: 8:: ..::0:_:::.:0:::000 0:88
:< .:00::0:0: .883 :80: 0:: :88:
80:0 .8 88:59:02: 0:08:88:
.00.. : 0>:: 380:0» 5:20:04 ::
8:83... 8:: 5:8: 333::
. a: ::

0:::00m «38:98.50 8:280:00 :2:
e. 380:5: 8: :32: as: .:

dips—0:0: 08:0:0: :0::3 8:80:00
:0: 00080.8 0::: 0:: $0888.50

.8888 0:: 80:88.8:
30: 008.88: 0: 2.8: 583
823:0: 800.830 08:38:: 0

85:89.0 08:: 0:880:83 < 0

_ :05: 88:0 0:: 8:3 ::0:0 0::

0: 88:03:: 0089800838 < 0

“:u: 0:: 0:: 0:382:
$388053: 80:08: 80:88::
0:: 08:93: .mﬁﬂmoom 59:2
.8 38:88 80:88:: :08 5:089:
08:: .8 8:88 8:308 0::.

.3833:
880:0: :: 08: ::0:: :0 «30:83:02:
:88: : 0::: 0:: .:00::0:0:
05:29» 0:05 5 ::0:0::_ ::00:::
0880:: 0: 005800 :: :: .8888:
:95: 88:0 0:: :88: 80:0
:0 38:00: 38:98.80 8:008:00
08:: 0:: :80::::_0 008m-::::0.: <

2:53...“ 8:80:01:
8084 80.5 0:: m: 8H?- .H

 

EUOME
ZOHH<UDQH
. mad Edam—MU E

98
SPRING 1995 GREAT LAKES EDUCATION PROGRAM SCHEDULE
Morning Cruises: 9:00 - 11:45 am. depaxﬂng Mt. Clemens

Aftemoon Cruises: 12:15 - 2:45 pm, departing Metro Beach Metropark
Shaded dates etc n91 available

WEDNESDAY THURSDAY
3

WEDNESDAY THURSDAY

 

99

GREAT LAKES EDUCATION PROGRAM
Spring 1995 Registration Information

TheMacombMSU Enenslonispieasedtoofierouraward-whnhg GreatLakesEatrcatlon
Program to your fourth grade class. The 2% hour educational field trip takes place aboard the
45' steel-hulled E/V Clinton. based In downtown Mt. Clemens. The vessel is Coast Guard
hspected and licensed. and Is Operated and hsured by Waterways Cruises. ho. whose owner-
operators are experienced graduates of the Great Lakes Maritime Academy.

Confirmed reservation will be accepted on a ﬁrst come. first serve basis. All confirmed
reservations must include this reservation form and the‘ $100 deposit. NO telephone
reservations will be accepted.

To reserve a echoolehip date:

1)

2)

4)

Refer to the enclosed calendars for available cruise dates:

. Momlng cruises are 9:00 am - 11:45 am. (United tine adjustment possble)
Departure Is downtown Mt. Clemens. with arrival at Metro Beach Metropark.

. Aftemoon cruises are from 12:16 pm - 3:00 pm. (United tine adjustment possble)
Departure ls Metro Beach Metropark. wlh arrival h downtown Mt. Clemens.

Sign and return the enclosed reservation commitment with a $100 deposit tor gem class crube

you are bookhg. This will confkm your reservation. No reservations for sprhg will be taken after

March 1. 1995. We reserve the right to reschedule your class it order to ill a date.

Reunite: Macomb CES-NRPP, GmatLdree emmzrmnmmm
Clinton Township, M10036. .

It FEES: Thecostperclass(basedontwociassesperday)ls$375.Aneddlional
$501eeisadded lonlyoneclassreserves aglven date. Thisfeerefiects
subsidies by MSU Extension and the Detrok Edison Foundation and
hebdes vessel fees. a 140 page Learnhg Activities manual. orientation and
volunteer trahhg. 1995 Fall cruise dates are avahble for scheduhg at
reduced rates.

It DEPOSIT: A $100 deposit is due with your signed reservation commitment for m
class

It BALANCE: The balance In due WW.

II REFUNDS: Your $100 depost Is refundable (less $25 cancellation fee) I we receire
- Men notice of your cancellation at least 21 days betore your cruise date.
Written cancellation within 21 days of your cruise. foilowhg your full
payment.qu entail a $125 cancellation tee. if the captah cancels a cruise
due to unavoidable ckcumstances. an alternate date will be scheduled.

II CLASS SIZE: We recommend class sizes of up to 30 students. with 5 adult chaperones
(hcludhe the teacher). The W.

II‘ ORIENTATION All teachers and adult chaperones mtg; attend a two-hour
TRAINING: orientation and trahhg session.

Macomb MSU Extension will send you written conﬁrmation ofyour reservation(s) as soon
as your signed reservation commitment and $100 deposit have been received. Detailed
lnforrnation regarding the cruise schedule and activities. classroom Ieaming activities and
materials. and program policies will be mailed with your confirrnatlon. We look forward
to discovering the wonders of our Great Lakes with you in Spring 1995i

100

MACOMB MSU EXTENSION
1995 GREAT LAKES EDUCATION PROGRAM
RESERVATION COMMITMENT

The Great Lakes Education Program is in its ﬁlth year. serving Macomb County fourth grade
teachers and students. If you are interested in having your class participate our 1994 program.
you may register now by returning this reservation commitment form as soon as possible.

A deposit of $100 for each class cruise booked. smeitted with this signed commitment. will
reserve your place on our 1995 schedule. The total balance due can be remitted with your
deposit if you wish. but must be paid no later than 21 days prior to your cruise. This is also the
deadline for reservation cancellation. Your deposit and any other funds received will be
refunded (less a $25 cancellation fee) if Macomb MSU Extension receives your written notice of
cancellation at least 21 days prior to your scheduled cruise date. For those who have paid in
full. cancellation within 21 days of your cruise date will entail a $125 cancellation fee.

The captain of the vessel shall determine circumstances under which the vessel will sail. rules
ofconduct.andothermattersaboardthevessel. lithecaptain mustcancelacruisedueto
hazardous conditions or other'unavoidable circumstances. an alternate date will be scheduled.

 

Teacher:
District:
School:
Street:

City: Michigan Zip:
Phone: '
Number in Group: __ students

 

 

 

 

 

adults (35 combined maximum)
Cruise Date: Cruise Time: El Morning Ci Afternoon

Please sign and date this reservation commitment in the spaces indicated below. Make checks
payable to Macomb MSU Extension. and return both to: Macomb MSU Extension-NRPP
Great Lakes Education Program
Moira! 21885 Dunham Road

Clinton Township. MI 48036

Signature:

 

Name:

 

Date:

 

Amount Enclosed: Check Number

 

NOTE: Metro Beach Nature Center companion program MUST BE scheduled through the
Nature Center by calling 4634332. You are NOT automatically scheduled by returning this formi

101

 

     

:I‘lasslsTarttctpatwn [AW

 

 

Many classes are interested in participating in the Great Lakes/Clinton River
Eduemtion Program, but not all have the discretionary funds available to cover the cost of
participation. If you are among the teachers challenged to secure at least a part of the
cost, we have some suggestions that should enhance your ability to do so.

I ) FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THE PROGRAM

Before approaching any person or group for funding assistance, make sure you
have thoroughly studied the program's descriptive brochure, viewed the promotional
video, and asked program staff to answer any questions that you have. Know why you
want to participate, 3mg your students will get from the experience, and m it ﬁts into
the rest of your curriculum.

2) LOOK TO INTERNAL SOURCES FOR POTENTIAL FUNDING

You might ﬁrst want to look for internal sources of potential funding for your
class. Internal sources would include, but not be limited to, discretionary class funds,
funds available from your school administration for ﬁeld trips or special events. funds
available through your school's sparent-teacher association, special fund-raising
opportunities, or student fees.

Keep in mind that it may be easier to Ming from more than one
source than to ﬁnd one source able to underwrite the entire cost. For example. you may
obtain $50 from discretionary class funds, another $50 from your principal, $100 from
your parent-teacher association, $50 from student fees ($2 per student), and another $150
from fund-raising activities (one proven strategy is to work the concession stands at the
Palace for a percentage of sales - call Volume Services at 377-8291 if imam-ted). Suddenly
you have come up with $400 and are well on your way to walking up the gangplankl But
what about the rest? .You may ﬁnd that internal sources cover your entire cost, or only
$100. If you are among the former, congratulations. If you are among the latter. other
potential sources are available.

3) LOOK T0 EXTERNAL SOURCES FOR POTENTIAL FUNDING

Once you have exhausted potential internal funding sources, it is time to look
outside the school environment. In this context we are primarily talking about private
sector sources of funds such as businesses, non-proﬁt organizations and foundations. Any
number of local businesses with an interest in education and/or Great Lakes resources
would make excellent candidates for partial or complete funding of your class’s
participation in the program. Many non-profit organizations and foundations also
provide support for worthwhile educational opportunities.

102

The list of potential local businesses and organizations that may be eager to
“adopt" your class and fund your participation in the Great Lelia/Clinton River
Education Program is limited only by your imagination. We have included below a
partial listing of the types of business that you would want to consider approaching for
funding support.

' Restaurants Service Clubs
Banks/Savings & Loans Department Stores
Grocery Stores Building Supply Companies
Automobile Dealers Automobile Service Businesses
Hospitals Appliance Stores
Pharmacies Boat Dealers
Marinas Bowling Alleys
Construction Companies Automobile Rental Agencies
Insurance Companies Printing Shops
Hotels/Motels Home Furnishing Stores
Video Rental Stores Hardware Stores
Toy Stores Party Stores
Radio Stations Newspapers
Sporting Clubs Automobile Suppliers
Business Supply Firms YEN/Boating Clubs

'l‘hekeytosuccessfullyapproachinglocalbusineesesorgroups suchastheeewill
be to focus on the Lecll level (the owners and/or employees may have students thatgo to
your school) and be able to explain why your request for support should be a priority ﬁor
them. You should be able to identify a wide variety of potential sources such as these
within a short distance of your school. And by using the promotional video and program
brochure that have been provided to you, most of their questions should be answered
adequately. Keep tn mind that many businesses such as these support amateur athletic
teams of all sorts and may appreciate the opportunity to sponsor such a memorable
educational experience. And explore the idea of establishing must“ attaching
with these sources in order to obtain their annual support of your class’s participation.

4) CONTACT PROGRAM STAFF FOR ASSISTANCE

If you have tried to secure the necessary funds by diligently pursuing internal and
external sources, contact a staff member at the Cooperative Extension Service. We may
have some additional suggestions for you. Just don't give up! Remember, this is an
opportunity your students will have only 'once, and if they do participate, they are likely
to remember it as one of the highlights of their education.

To contact a program staff member, call (313)469-6085, or write to:

Great Lakes Education Program
Cooperative Extension Service
21885 Dunham Road

Clinton Township, Michigan 48036

hinted on Recycled Paper

103

METRO BEACH NATURE CENTER
PROGRAMS THAT RBI-ATE TO
THE GREAT LAKES /CLINNN RIVER EDUCATION PROGRAM

VOYAGBUR CANOE TRIP - Help paddle the 34-foot Voyageur Canoe
through the Metro Beach north marsh while naturalist talks of
Michigan history and the fur trade and the natural history of the
wetlands. Trip is 1-1/2 or can be shortened to one hour to meet
group needs. Available mid-May through mid-October, Tuesdays
through Saturdays. Minimum of 10 persons, maximum 18, six of which
must be adults. Therefore, for school groups, one appointment
would include 6 adults and 13 children. Cost is $30 per
appointment. No one under 4 years of age on canoe. *Weather
conditions, such as high winds or rain, may make it unsafe to
operate the canoe. All attempts will be made to offer an
alternative program if cancellation is necessary.

Registration for canoes are booked beginning January lat of the
same year appointment is to be made. At the present time, Metro
Beach offers 3 canoes per day, so morning groups will get two
canoes, but afternoon one group of 13 children.

t resent we do not hold dates 0 en for Great Lakes Clinton 'ver
Education Prgram groups. Appointments for the Voyageur canoe or
the Guided Outdoor Field Trip at the Nature Center are made on a
first come, first serve basis from groups all over Metro Detroit
area. The earlier you cgn reserve an appointment, the more likely

we can schedule your group. Call us as soon as you book your Great
Lakes/Clinton River Education Program date.

 

GQIQED 09ml! FIELD TRIP AT TIE NATURE CENTER - Introduction
indoors with the naturalist includes viewing the Nature Center
exhibits that relate to marshes and Great Lakes and voyageur
history. Some live animals such as turtles, snakes, frogs and fish
are on exhibit to show some of the wildlife at Metro Beach. There
is an introductory discussion about wetlands and the Metro Beach
marsh including what is a wetland, the importance of wetlands, how
they affect water quality, food webs and interrelationships of
plants and animals, identification of aquatic insects and how they
indicate water quality. Indoor discussion .is followed by a walk on
the trail to observe marsh and its plants and animals. Walk may
include dipping in the marsh for aquatic invertebrae and, .if time
allows, some water testing such as pH and C02.

Aquatic dipping can be requested, but the decision to dip or not is
at the discretion of the naturalist at the time, depending on marsh
conditions and time allowed.

Outdoor field trip program last 1-1/2 hour. PROGRAM IS FREE.
Available Tuesdays through Saturdays.

For more information or to make an appointment, please call the
Metro Beach Nature Center: (810) 463-4332 or 1-800-477-2757.

APPENDIX B: 1996 and 1997 Educator Surveys

Il'

 

   
     

 

 

 

“Spnng 1996 Fall 1996 and Spring 1997 Teacher Survey 'I,’

 

 

 

Please take about 10 to 15 minutes to carefully complete this survey. Your participation
will help us to evaluate the GLEP in order to improve programming and teacher
recruitment. Please keep in mind that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers. When
you are ﬁnished please hand the survey to GLEP personnel.

Participation in this survey is voluntary. You will not be penalized should you choose
not to participate. Your name will not be associated with your responses. The sheet
stapled to the front of the survey with your name and other information will be detached
and kept separate from your responses. Ifyou would like additional information about
this evaluation, please contact Amy Nevala at 517/353-0308, GLEP staﬁ' at 810/469-5180
or Shari Dann at 517/353-0675.

 

 

1. Have you participated with the GLEP as a teacher in the past:
_no
yes —> lb. Ifyes, during what seasons and years did you participate?
(for example, spring 1992 and fall 1994)

 

2. How did you ﬁrst hear about the GLEP? (check all that apply)

 

 

_newspaper advertisement _GLEP staﬁ‘ member

_newspaper article _GLEP teacher, fellow teacher,
coworker

_radio public service announcement _GLEP cruise leader

__pn'ncipal _parent of a student

_community service club _other,

_Intermediate School District workshop _ don’t remember

_other workshop

_mail ﬂyer

3. What questions did you hope to have addressed during GLEP training?

 

104

Inllllll| . I ||llrlir r illilllll illll

 

105

4. What concerns did you have about participating with the GLEP?

 

 

 

 

 

5. In your opinion, which of the situations would inﬂuence other teachers to
participate in programs like the GLEP? (check all that apply)

_more in-service classes on the topic

_better access to resources

_more support from administration

_more ﬁmding
_other,

6. Please circle yes or no to the following activities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yes no Have you ever gone ﬁshing?

yes no Have you ever gone boating?

yes no Have you ever gone ﬁshing on one of the Great Lakes?

yes no Have you ever gone camping?

yes no Have you ever been diving or snorkeling?

yes no Do you watch nature programs on TV about water, the oceans or the
Great Lakes?

yes no Do you subscribe to or read magazines or books about water, oceans,
or the Great Lakes?

yes no Do you teach about water, the oceans and the Great Lakes in your

 

 

classroom?

 

 

106

 

7. Please circle the number in the left hand column that comes closest to describing
your knowledge of each topic listed in the right hand column.

ofthis thistopic knowledgeof
topicorits orita topic,but
. g . 8 .

Inﬂuence of aquatic environments on

of Lake Huron

AAAAAA-kAAA-hb

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

Cultural aspects of the Great Lakes

 

levels

107

 

 

 

 

 

8. Are you: male female

9. How many years have you been teaching? (not including student teaching)
years

10. What subjects do you currently teach? (please list all subjects including team
taught classes)

 

 

11. What professional teaching organizations and/or environmental organizations
do you belong to?

 

 

12. Do you participate in any extracurricular activities/hobbies related to the Great
Lakes?

_no

_yes -—) 12b. lfyes, please list the extracurricular activities/hobbies.

 

13. In what year were you born? l9

14. Please circle the number that represents the highest grade you have completed.
Elementary High School College Graduate Level
12345678 9101112 13141516 171819202122

15. What was/were your college major(s)?

 

 

16. We would appreciate any additional comments about the GLEP or this survey.

 

Thank you for your participation with this survey!

108

 

 
 

. Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP)
> : _‘Spnng 1996 Fall? 1996 and Spring 1997 Teacher Survey 11

 

Please take about 10 to 15 minutes to carefully complete this survey. Your participation
will help us to evaluate the GLEP in order to improve programming. Please keep in mind
that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers. When you are ﬁnished please hand the
survey to GLEP personnel.

Participation in this survey is voluntary. You will not be penalized should you choose
not to participate. Your name will not be associated with your responses. The sheet
stapled to the front of the survey with your name and other information will be detached
and kept separate from your responses. Ifyou would like additional information about
this evaluation, please contact Amy Nevala at 517/353-0308, GLEP staff at 810/469-5180
or Shari Dann at 517/353-0675.

 

 

 

 

The GLEP oﬂers opportunities for teachers to become familiar with the program,
including an orientation session and on-shore training (at the boat dock). Training
materials are also available, including a teacher information packet and training videos.

1. What GLEP training opportunities did you participate in this year? (if you
participated in training during another season or year, please indicate when)

 

 

 

2. Teacher orientation sessions are held early each fall and spring for participating
GLEP cruise leaders. Have you attended a GLEP teacher orientation session?
no

_yes —) if yes, when? Spring 1997 or another year?

 

3. Did you use the GLEP video training tapes at any time during training?
_no—> if no, why did you choose _nQL to use the video training tapes?

yes—) if yes, which tapes did you use?

109
3b. Ifyou answered yes to the previous question, please elaborate on how the video
tapes were helpful, and how they could be improved.

 

 

 

 

4. Have you used the teacher information packet during the GLEP?
_no—) if no, why did you choose _rLot to use it?

 

 

yes —) if yes, what sections did you use most? What sections did you use least?

 

 

5. Please list any suggestions, revisions or additions to the GLEP teacher
information packet.

 

 

 

 

 

110

 

 

 

.................... .i............ Hr...t..............,... . . “.4... ,,,,.,,,,_,_,,_,,.,,._., .....

  
 

v wq- .u-
,. . ...........................................................
.........................................................................................................................
........................................................

. ........................ _ .......................................................................................................................... 7 ................................................................
‘ ......... i .............. , ........................................................................... , .................................................. .'.. ................. i ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ , ................ . ...... . .......................

. -.-.- . . 7. .. . ... . . ... . . ._ _ . ._. . . . . . . . _.,. . . . . .
0.. - u' ’ a. a A 0.0. a 7 IV a‘ I a I. ‘n‘ a g' I 1' p ‘. .. -.. n

......... '.‘-‘- u..c.u--.--nnu--...--c-..n~---aon---u ~unoaon-o-nnuoo-.

 

 

 

 

 

............ ‘.'..-..~a.uso............a.......-.o-u. ..-...........-...y...-q-‘---o-n.a.-¢u.........-..........
,. .,...J... ,,

 

6. Please circle the number in the left hand column that describes your comfort level
in teaching the stations listed in the right hand column:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did not I am not I am What i am 1 cm
was comfortable uncomfortable somewhat comfortable
station teachingthis teachingthis comfortable teachingthis Stations
station station teachingthis station
station
0 1 2 3 4 Calcium hardness
0 l 2 3 4 Dissolved oxygen (DO) test
0 l 2 3 4 Shipboard knot tying (marlinspike)
0 l 2 3 4 Navigation - using maps and charts
0 1 2 3 4 Plankton net bottom sampling
0 1 2 3 4 Weather observation/water sample
collection/carbon dioxide
0 2 3 4 Beat the teacher
0 2 3 4 pH test/water clarity/water color
0 1 2 3 4 Bottom sampling and water
temperature

 

7. How could training be improved to help you better teach these stations?

 

 

 

 

8. Overall, what aspects of the GLEP did you most enjoy?

 

 

 

9. Overall, what aspects of the GLEP did you least enjoy?

 

 

 

111

10. Did you teach about Great Lakes topics in your classroom prior to the GLEP

cruise?

_no

_yes —) If yes, please name or describe the lesson(s) you taught, and where you got
the lesson(s) (i.e. GLEP pre—ﬁeld activities, Project WET activities, etc.)

 

 

11. Do you intend to teach post-cruise activities?
_no
yes-9 if yes, please name or describe the lesson(s) you intend to teach, and
where you will get the lesson(s) (i.e. GLEP pre-ﬁeld activities, Project
WET activities, etc.)

 

 

12. Would you be interested in participating with the GLEP during another season?
_no——) if no, what is/are your reason(s) for discontinuing to participate with the
program?

 

 

yes —) if yes, what is/are your reason(s) for continuing your participation with
the program?

 

 

13. We would appreciate any additional comments about the GLEP or this survey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please take about 10 to 15 minutes to careﬁilly complete this survey. Your participation
will help us to evaluate the GLEP in order to improve programming and volunteer
recruitment. Please keep in mind that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers. When
you are ﬁnished please hand the survey to GLEP personnel.

Participation in this survey is voluntary. You will not be penalized should you choose not
to participate. Your name will not be associated with your responses. The sheet
stapled to the front of the survey with your name and other information will be detached
and kept separate from your responses. Ifyou would like additional information about
this evaluation, please contact Amy Nevala at 517/3 53-03 08, GLEP staff at 810/469-5180
or Shari Dann at 517/353-0675.

 

1. Have you volunteered as a cruise leader with the GLEP in the past:
_no
yes—> lb. If yes, during what seasons and years were you a cruise leader?
(for example, spring 1992 and fall 1994)

 

 

2. How did you ﬁrst hear about the GLEP cruise leader opportunity? (check all

 

that apply)

_newspaper advertisement _GLEP staﬁ‘ member
_newspaper article _GLEP teacher
_radio public service announcement _GLEP cruise leader
_community service club _other,

_high school counselor or teacher _don’t remember
_Intermediate School District workshop

_other workshop,

 

3. What questions do you hope to have addressed during GLEP training?

 

 

 

 

113

4. What concerns do you have about participating as a GLEP cruise leader?

 

 

 

 

5. Please circle yes or no to the following activities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yes no PE you ever ggne ﬁshing?

yes no Have you ever gone boating?

yes no Have you ever gone ﬁshing on one of t_he Great Lakes?

yes no Have you ever gone camping?

yes no Have you ever been diving or snorkeling?

yes no Do you watch nature programs on TV about water, the oceans or the
Great Lakes?

yes no Do you subscribe to or read magazines or books about water, oceans,
or the Great Lakes?

yes no Do you teach about water, the oceans and the Great Lakes with any

 

 

groups other than GLEP?

 

 

114

 

6. Please circle the number in the left hand column that comes closest to describing
your knowledge of each topic listed in the right hand column.

of this this topic knowledge of adequate average
topic or its or its topic, but knowledge knowledge
meaning meaning inadequate for for teaching
for teaching teaching topic

4

AAA

Inﬂuence of aquatic
humans

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

Cultural aspects of the Great Lakes

 

7. Are you: male female

8. Please circle the number that represents the highest grade you have completed.
Elementary High School College Graduate Level
12345678 9101112 13141516 171819202122

9. Are you currently a student?

_no
yes ——> 9b. If yes, are you in high school or college? (circle one)

115

9c. Ifyou are a college student, what is your major and career interests?

 

9d. If you are a high school student, what are your college and/or career interests?

 

10. Are you currently employed outside the home?
_no—) if no, list any former occupations:

 

yes—) if yes, list current occupations:

 

11. Are you currently retired?
no

_yes
12. In what year were you born? 19

13. Do you have children?

_no

__yes —-> 13b. Ifyes, have they participated, or will they participate as a
student with the GLEP? When?

 

14. Do you participate in any extracurricular activities/hobbies related to the Great
Lakes?

_no

__yes —) 14b. Ifyes, please list the extracurricular activities/hobbies.

 

15. How many different organizations do you volunteer for?
_this is my ﬁrst experience as a volunteer

_1 other organization (please list)
_2 other organizations (please list)
_3 or more other organizations (please list)

16. We would appreciate any additional comments about the GLEP or this survey.

Thank you for your participation with this survey!

116

 

  

{Great’Lakes‘iEducationProgram (ELEP)
: .Springi'1996'and Springi‘1997'Cruis'e'LeaderSurvey'II "37 '

 

Please take about 10 to 15 minutes to carefully complete this survey. Your participation
will help us to evaluate the GLEP in order to improve programming and volunteer
recruitment. Please keep in mind that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers. When
you are ﬁnished please hand the survey to GLEP personnel.

Participation in this survey is voluntary. You will not be penalized should you choose
not to participate. Your name will not be associated with your responses. The sheet
stapled to the front of the survey with your name and other information will be detached
and kept separate from your responses. If you would like additional information about
this evaluation, please contact Amy Nevala at 517/353-0308, GLEP staﬂ‘ at 810/469—5180
or Shari Dann at 517/353-0675.

 

 

 

 

The GLEP oﬂers opportunities for cruise leaders to become familiar with the program,
including an orientation session, on-shore training (at the boat dock) and three training
cruises. Training materials are also available, including a cruise leader training packet
and training videos.

1. What training opportunities did you participate in this year? (if you
participated in training during another season, please indicate when)

 

 

2. Cruise leader orientation sessions are held early each fall and spring for
participating GLEP cruise leaders. Have you attended a GLEP cruise leader
orientation session?

_no

_yes —) if yes, when? Spring 1996 or another year?

 

117

3. Did you use the video training tapes at any time during training?
_no—) if no, why did you choose & to use the video training tapes?

 

 

yes—> if yes, which tapes did you use?

 

 

3b. Ifyou answered yes to question four, please elaborate on how the tapes were
helpful, and how they could be improved.

 

 

4. Have you used the cruise leader information packet during the GLEP?
_no-> if no, why did you choose 39; to use it?

 

 

yes —) if yes, what sections did you use most? What sections did you use least?

 

 

5. Please list any suggestions, revisions or additions to the cruise leader information
packet.

 

 

 

118

6. How would you assess the impact of cruise leader training on (circle the number

 

 

 

 

 

 

that applies to you):
Training Training Training Training Training
was was fair was was very was
Impact poor in in this good in good in excellent
this area. area. this area. this area. in this
area.
Increasing your knowledge 1 2 3 4 5
about the Great Lakes. -
Improving your conﬁdence in l 2 3 4 5
teaching Great Lakes issues to
students.
Improving your ability to work 1 2 3 4 5
effectively with teachers and
parents.
Improving your ability to teach I 2 3 4 5
cmise stations.
Increasing your interest in Great 1 2 3 4 5
Lakes issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Please circle the number in the left hand column that describes your comfort level
in teaching the stations listed in the right hand column:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 did not 1 am not 1 am somewhat 1 am I am
teach this comfortable uncomfortable somewhat comfortable .
station teachingthis magma comfortable teadlingthis Stations
nation station teachm' gthis station
station
0 1 2 3 4 Calcium hardness
0 l 2 3 4 Dissolved oxygen (DO) test
0 l 2 3 4 Shipboard knot tying (marlinspike)
0 1 2 3 4 Navigation - using maps and charts
0 l 2 3 4 Plankton net bottom sampling
0 l 2 3 4 Weather observation/water sample
collection/carbon dioxide
0 l 2 3 4 pH test/water clarity/water color
0 l 2 3 4 Bottom sampling and water
temperature

 

119

8. How could training be improved to help you better teach these stations?

 

 

 

 

9. Overall, what aspects of the GLEP did you most enjoy?

 

 

10. Overall, what aspects of the GLEP did you least enjoy?

 

 

11. Would you be interested in serving as a cruise leader during another season?
_no—> if no, what is/are your reason(s) for discontinuing to participate with the
program?

 

 

yes —> if yes, what is/are your reason(s) for continuing your participation with
the program?

 

 

12. We would appreciate any additional comments about the GLEP or this survey.

 

 

Thank you for your participation with this survey!

120

 

 

 

 

Approximately how many cruises did you volunteeer on during the spring 1996
season? Were they considered training cruises or were you solely in charge of
teaching a particular station?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The GLEP oﬂers opportunities for cruise leaders to become familiar with the program,
including an orientation session, on-shore training (at the boat dock) and three training
cruises. Training materials are also available, including a cruise leader training packet
and training videos.

1. What training opportunities did you participate in spring 1996? (if you
participated in training during another season, please indicate when)

 

 

2. Cruise leader orientation sessions are held early each fall and spring for
participating GLEP cruise leaders. Have you attended a GLEP cruise leader
orientation session?

_no

__yes -> if yes, when? Spring 1996 or another year?

 

3. Did you use the video training tapes at any time during training?
_no—> if no, why did you choose mm use the video training tapes?

 

 

yes—) if yes, which tapes did you use?

 

 

3b. Please elaborate on how the tapes were helpful, and how they could be
improved. ‘

121
4. Have you used the cruise leader information packet during the GLEP?

110—)

if no, why did you choose not to use it?

 

 

yes —)

if yes, what sections did you use most? What sections did you use least?

 

 

5. Please list any suggestions, revisions or additions to the cruise leader information

packet.

 

 

 

6. Now I am going to ask you to rate your training based on five choices. How

would you assess the impact of training on:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Training Training Training Training Training
was was fair was was very was
Impact poor in in this good in good in excellent
this area. area. this area. this area. in this
area.
Increasing your knowledge 1 2 3 4 5
about the Great Lakes. "
Improving your conﬁdence in 1 2 3 4 5
teaching Great Lakes issues to
students.
Improving your ability to work 1 2 3 4 5
effectively with teachers and
parents.
Improving your ability to teach I 2 3 4 5
cruise stations.
Increasing your interest in Great 1 2 3 4 5

Lakes issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

122

 

The following questions ask about your comfort level and level of enjoyment With
- the GLEP.

7. I am going to state a cruise leader station then ask you to rate your comfort level
in teaching the station.

am am
teach this comfortable uncomfortable somewhat comfortable .
station teachingthis teachingthis comfortable teachingthis Stations
station station teaching this station

2

l
l
1
1
1
l

4
4
4
4
4
4

Weather

Bottom sampling and water

 

8. How could training be improved to help you better teach these stations?

 

 

 

 

We are just about through with the survey. I’ll remind you that your name will not be
associated with your responses on the remaining questions.

9. Overall, what aspects of the GLEP did you most enjoy?

 

10. Overall, what aspects of the GLEP did you least enjoy?

 

 

123

11. Would you be interested in serving as a cruise leader during another season?
_no—) if no, what is/are your reason(s) for discontinuing to participate with the
program?

 

 

yes —) if yes, what is/are your reason(s) for continuing your participation with
the program?

 

 

12. We would appreciate any additional comments about the GLEP or this survey.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your participation with this survey!

APPENDDI C: GLEP Survey Cover Sheets

GLEP SURVEY COVER SHEETS

Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP)
[Season, year] Teacher Survey One

 

 

 

 

Name
Training Date
Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP)
[Season, year] Teacher Survey Two
Name
SchooVDistrict

 

Today’s Date
Cruise Date
Were you on the:

_Big Boat (Friendship)
_Small Boat (Clinton)
Was your cruise in the:

_morning (a.m.)
_aftemoon (pm)

124

125

Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP)
[Season, year] Volunteer Cruise Leader Survey One

 

 

 

Name
First Training Date
Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP)
[Season, year] Volunteer Cruise Leader Survey Two
Name

 

Today’s Date

How many cruises did you volunteer on this season? (approximate if necessary)

APPENDIX D: Project Approval by the Michigan State University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)

 

omcs OF
RESEARCH
AND

GRADUATE
STUDIES

University Committee on
hhnMn
MImanSuMens
(UCRIHS)

Midlioan State University
azuammmmnnmmm
East Lansing. Michigan
411824-1045

51 ”3552180
nmsnmvanl

mMWWMSwMme
mabhmwMuamam
bumuamnmm

sea-aeaaaa'aaea m M2021”. age Leeaoaet
o
FA X R T A ..

IO: Zh£?\l Efﬁhtiﬁrf M E M o

MICHIGAN STATE am: a” —— "M"

 

 

 

. H63
UNIVERSITY 1:110th pHONE; (
' L.LIIZQ£:L ox;
April 12’ 1996 MI-ﬂ‘brandluxlnmmmummm1‘—_—"
To: Anne Bierzychudek ———h — - - _.
4A Natural Resources Bldg.
RE: IRB#:
TITLE: MULTI- :DICIPLINARY, VESSEL- BASED, ENVIRONMENTAL
AN svm UATION OF THE GREAT LAKES
Mention pnocw
REVISION REQUESTED: 04/05/9
CATEGORY: 1-
APPROVAL DATE: 10/02/95

The Univera
revle ew of at
rights and
pro otect ted a
herefore,

RENEWAL:

REVISIONS:

PROBLEKS/
CHANGES:

ity Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS)
his areject is complete. Lam plea need to adv1se t a:
wel of the human subjec appear to be adequatel
nd methods to obtain informed consent are appropr1ate.
the UCRIHS approved this project and any rev1s1ons listed

UCRIHS approval is valid fore one calendar year, beginning with

the appro ova 1 dat te shown mb . Inve: stigators planni ngr
continue a proje ect be and one year must us ee the rgreen renewal
form (enclosed with c e original tasprov al tte or when i
projf ct is renewe ed) to seek u certification. There is a

”such mdite drenewals pas nvoaeigatozo
w1 shin to continue a eproject beyond that time need to submit it
again or complete rev1ew

UCRIHS must review anyc M9 'grocedures involvingh

subjects, :10 r to in1tiation of t If this is udone at
the time o renewal, please use the ogreen renewal to

revise an a prove ed pro: tocol at ”a her time duLiug the year
send your wr1tten request to the CRIHS Chair. requesting rev1sed
approval and referencing the project's IRE # and title. sInclu de
1n your mequ adescr1ption of the chm mge and any re
inatxumantc. consent orms or adverLisumont: that are applicable.

should either of the following arise during the course of:

we: vest a Tm UCRIHS epromptly: (1) roblems
(unexpected s1de effec cts, compa1nvolv1ng uman
subjects or (2) changes in the researchc environment or new
information indicating greater riskt the human sub ects than
existed when the protocol was preV1ously reviewed an approved.

3‘
P
5
p
(a
f'
O
H
u
OE
O:
U.
P
D
g
p.

can be of any futureh ”:1 plggse do not hesinaro to contact us
43 .

Ifw we
at (517)355-

Sincerely,

  
 
   
 

UCRIHS Cha a1:
DEW:bad

-2180 or FAX (S

u/

vid E. Wright, Ph

cc: Shari L. Dan
Amy Nevala

126

l‘r

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
AND

GRADUATE
STUDIES

University Committee on
ﬂesaatch lnvolv
Human Subjects
UCRIHS)

MmmwnSmemwsw

232 Admmusuahon Buuldonq

Easl Lansma. Mlcmgan
48824404

517/355‘2180
FAX 517/432-1171

In? [Minoan Sula UnwelSIIy
ID“ :5 IIISIIIuIrl‘ﬁd! Dummy
{mu/era m 4mm

MSUIS ana': Imam; am; on
enual- -Opﬂulluﬂrly :ns/«lullan

    
 
 
  

MICHIGAN STATE 127
U N I v E R s I T Y

July 26, 1996

TO: Shar L.
118 rNatural nResources Bldg.

RE: IRE”: 95-510
TITLE: MULTI- DICIPLINARY, VESSEL- BASED, ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCA TI ON: AN EVALUATION OF THE GREAT LAKES
EDUCATION PROGRAM
REVISION REQUESTED: N/A
CATEGORY:
APPROVAL DATE: 07/26/96

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'IUCRIHS)
review of this project is complete. I am pleased to adv18e t at he
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be ade quatel
rotected and methods to obtain info rmedc nsent are appropn ate.

g erefore the UCRIHS approved this project and any rev131ons listed

RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for eone calendar year, beginning with
e appro Hal te shown abov Inves stigators plannin
continue project be yearm must us the green renewal

fom _ (enclosed with thend original agproval letter or henea

he
max1mu mof fou such expedite renewals possi ible. Investigators
wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it
again or complete rev1ew

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in grocedures involvingh
subjects rior to initiation of t change If hi is is udone at
the time o renewal, please use the reen renewal form.
revise an appr roved protoc col at an 0 her time during the y;
send your written requestt to the CRIHS Chair, requesting rev1sed
approval and referencingt project's IRE # andt tle. Include
in your request a description of the change and any re v1 ised
instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/
CHAN

GES: Should either of the followin arise during the course of the
work, investigators must noti UCRIHS promptly: (l) groblems
. 1 uman

we can be of any future hel please do not hesitate to contact us
at l7)355- 2180 or FAX (517)4 2- 171.

. (53

av vid E. Wr right, .D.
CRIHS Chair

DEW : bed

cwym

ala
Anne NBierzychudek

sincerely,

APPENDIX E: GLEP Educator Survey Cover Letters

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT or FISHERIS AND WILDLIFE EASI' LANSING - MICHIGAN . 433344211
U NATURAL Iu-zsouncrs BUILDING

(51") 555-04"

FAX (SI') 4324699

(Dale)

(Teacher name)
(Teacher address)

Dear (Teacher name):

In (month, year) you participated with the Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) cruise
with your class. I hope it was enjoyable for both you and your students.

We are conducting a survey evaluation of the GLEP. Before your GLEP cruise, you
completed the ﬁrst part of this evaluation. We would appreciate your input with the
second part of the survey. Your responses will help GLEP personnel to evaluate and
improve the vessel-based education program for future years. There are more detailed
instructions regarding your participation on the enclosed survey.

Please return the survey in the enclosed, self-addressed envelope before (Date). If you
have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 517/353-0308.

Thanks for your participation!

Sincerely,

Amy E. Nevala

Graduate Research Assistant
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University

Enclosures

128

130

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN ° {MM-I222
I5 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

(SI?) 3554477

FAX (5") 4324699

(January 1997)

(Teacher name)
(Teacher address)

Dear (Teacher name),

Last fall, you and your class participated with the Great Lakes Education Program
(GLEP), a vessel-based, environmental education program located in Mt. Clemens,
Michigan I am currently evaluating the GLEP through research at Michigan State
University under the guidance of Dr. Shari Dann, an assistant professor in the Department
of Fisheries and Wildlife.

By ﬁlling out the enclosed surveys, your input will help us to improve GLEP programming
for participating teachers. Please take about 10 to 15 minutes to careﬁrlly complete both
surveys. Keep in mind that there are no 'ﬁght' or 'wrong' answers on the surveys.

Participation with the surveys is voluntary. You will not be penalized should you choose
not to complete them. Your name will not be associated with your responses. The
sheet stapled to the front of the survey with your name and other information will be
detached and kept separate from your responses. Ifyou would like additional information
about this evaluation, please contact Amy Nevala at 517353-0308, GLEP staff at
810l469-5180 or Shari Dann at 517/353-0675.

When you are ﬁnished, please mail the surveys in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped
envelope. Either myself or an assistant will be calling in the next week to ﬁnd out if you
have any questions about the surveys.

Thanks in advance for your time and input.

Sincerely,

Amy E. Nevala

Graduate Research Assistant
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University

Enclosures

MSU l: rm Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Insulation

Ia

131

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - 438244222
l5 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

(ﬁl') SSS-H7‘

I‘AX (il‘) 4524699

(Date)

(T eacherNolunteer Cruise Leader name)
(T eacherN olunteer Cmise Leader address)

Dear (T eacherNolunteer Cruise Leader name):

Thank you for agreeing to ﬁll out a survey for the Great Lakes Education Program
(GLEP) evaluation. As I mentioned on the phone, your input will help us improve the
program for (teachers/volunteer cruise leaders) like you, as well as to expand vessel-

based, environmental education opportunities to other around the Great Lakes.

When you are ﬁnished please return the survey in the self-addressed, stamped envelope. If
you have any questions, please call me at 5l7/353-0308. Thank you again for your time.

Sincerely,

Amy E. Nevala

Graduate Research Assistant
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University

Enclosures

MS” is (m AffirmulI'Iv ArlI'mI/quuul Opportunity Iusllmlinu

132

 

 

Telephone Questionnaire
Volunteer Cruise Leader Spring 1996 Follow-up Survey
Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP)

 

Name of volunteer cruise leader:

Phone #:

ml?

0
:3.
3
o
2

Contact tries: at

Hello, my name is (name). I am calling from Michigan State University regarding the
Great Lakes Education Program, which you were involved with during the spring of 1996.
Do you remember being involved with the program?

(If no, explain the program, ask them general questions about their involvement.)
(If yes, go on reading these directions.)

There are two parts to the survey. The second part we weren’t able to get from you at the
time of your involvement. Having both of your surveys will help us to improve the
program, regardless of your level of involvement. Will you take about 10 minutes now to
answer the questions from that survey?

(If no, ask “could we arrange a time I could call you back to complete the survey ”)

(If still no, say “thank you for your time and involvement.”)

(If yes, say “great, thank you. I want to remind you that your name will not be associated
with your responses”)

GO ON TO FIRST SURVEY QUESTION...

 

APPENDIX F: March 1997 GLEP Writing Retreat

 

GLEP Writing Retreat
March 21 & 22, 1997
St. Clair Inn, St. Clair, Michigan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLEP Writing Retreat Agenda

GLEP Writing Retreat Minutes added to Agenda

Appendix A- Commonly asked questions about the GLEP replication guide.
Appendix B- Dissemination Guide Notes

 

 

 

Appendix C- Discussion and review of NAAEE C " " for " “ What School-
age Learners Should Know and Be Able To Do
Appendix D- Discussion and review of " ' ‘ "‘ ‘ Materials P “ " for

Excellence

Appendix B Group Comments About the Retreat
Appendix F- Mailing List of Participants
Appendix G- “What is Maritime Folklife?”

133

Day One
10:00 AM - Noon

Noon

1:30-4:30

5:00-7:00

7:00-9:00

134

GLEP Writing Retreat
March 21 8t 22, 1997
St. Clair Inn. St. Clair, Michigan

Introductions:
-GLEP personnel; MSU research staff; Task Force
representatives; Key beneﬁciaries.

Review workshop agenda and opportunities.

Purpose of workshop:
-to review GLEP research ﬁndings.
-to begin the process of drafting the dissemination guide.
-to update the GLEP 4th grade curriculum.

Review of GLEP 1996 operations:
-Accomplishments/Setbacks
-Attendance
Changes/updates

LUNCH

Updates on GLEP Research/Evaluation Findings (Each ‘A hour

presentation will be followed by ‘/2 hour of facilitated brainstorming.)

1) GLEP impacts on youth- Anne Williamson
-Key results: student attitudes. knowledge. and
behavioral intentions.
-lmplications and recommendations for GLEP

-Critical curriculum review (ﬁndings & recommendations).

2) GLEP Teachers/Cruise Leaders— Amy Nevala
-Survey results: Motivations for participation and
perceptions of GLEP.
-lmplications for GLEP programming.
3) Folklife resources- Hawk Tolson
Local resources for GLEP.
-lmplications for GLEP curriculum.

Suggestions for dissemination guide (locating folklife

resources in your area.)'
DINNER

Organizing and energizing for work! (Break down into groups)
1) Dissemination Guide- develop detailed how-to outline
—Design program:
Review existing GLEP program implementation
materials.
-Manage administrative aspects:

Discuss needed elements and how to develop them.
-Review 'Prbtotype dissemination guide" and outline, and

decide on a ﬁnal format.
2) Curriculum Revisions:

7:00-8:00 -Review NAAEE Learner and Materials guides.

135

8:00-9:00 -Revise GLEP curriculum framework— Incorporate Ml
standards and benchmarlc and NAAEE
recommendations.
-Activity Layout- identify which activities from the
curriculum work best for GLEP and develop standard activity layout.

Day Two
9:00 AM- Noon Work Groups Continued:
1) Dissemination Guide- develop detailed how-to outline
-Manage administrative aspects:

-Design program

2) Curriculum Revisions:
-Revise GLEP curriculum framework

-Acrivity Layout

Noon- 2:00 SACK LUNCH
l) Reimbursement procedures explained.
2) Work groups report out on progress/tasks to be done.

2:00 Field trip to sail maker.

136

GLEP Writing Retreat
March 21 & 22, 1997
St. Clair Inn, St. Clair, Michigan
Minutes (unbolded) added to Agenda (bolded)

Day One

10:00 AM - Noon Introductions of:
GLEP personnel; MSU research staff; Task Force
representatives; Key beneﬁciaries.

Steve Stewart led the introductions. Total attendance was 21 people.
Individual introductions:
1) Patrick Livingston - MSUE and MI Sea Grant - GLEP (volunteer coordinator).
2) Bill Stark - Michigan 4'" grade teacher and GLEP task force member.
3) Art Caner - Detroit Public Schools. Will also be developing a charter school for Marine
Tech/Science on Detroit River.
4) LuAnne Kozma - MSU Museum. Extension, and former curator/archivist for city of St Clair shores
5) Alice Miller - Michigan 6th grade teacher and former science chair.
6) Terry Gibb - MSUE and MI Sea Grant - GLEP (classroom coordinator).
7) Lynda Billotto — Ml Sea Grant - GLEP (general coordinator).
8) Tom Smith - Chief of interpretive services. Detroit Metro Park- interested in improvements at his end
to better serve students. He is thinking of developing a vessel program on Lake Erie. A voyager canoe
program has been in existence for over 15 years in the wetlands and marshes.
9) Bette Nibel - Macomb Community College instructor. She would like to expand GLEP for older ages
(teens). 4-H club leader at present.
10) Dave Green - NY Sea Grant - about 80% nonforrnal education and 4-H. sport ﬁshing.
11) Jim Lubner - Wl Sea Grant - Education Specialist. Education responsibilities include: Aquatic and
natural resource issues. pre and inservice education for teachers and teachers at Audubon. Operation
Pathﬁnder (fully funded teacher workshop on oceanography and coastal processes, 1997 Duluth. MN)
l2) Dave Strand - GVSU vessel program and former teacher. Two vessels and two teachers and
deckhand on board each boat.
13) Carey Rogers - Earth Tomorrow. NWF Regional Ofﬁce
14) Mark Mitchell - Inland Seas Education Association. Education Coordinator
15) Shari Dann - MSU Fisheries and Wildlife and Extension. Asst. Professor
l6) Hawk Tolson — MSU Resource Development and Extension. Graduate Student
17) Amy Nevala - MSU Fisheries and Wildlife, Graduate Student
18) Anne Williamson - MSU Fisheries and Wildlife and Extension, Graduate Student
19) Michelle Haggerty - MSU Fisheries and Wildlife. Undergraduate (recorder)
20) Heidi Prather - MSU Fisheries and Wildlife. Undergraduate (recorder)
21) Steve Stewart - MSUE and MI Sea Grant - GLEP. Program Director

Review workshop agenda and opportunities.
We have brought everybody together at this retreat so that we can all share our
expertise in different areas in order to increase the effectiveness of GLEP.
Purpose of workshop:
To review GLEP research ﬁndings.
To begins the process of drafting the dissemination guide.
To update the GLEP 4th grade curriculum.

137

Review of GLEP 1996 operations:

The review started off with a viewing of the GLEP promotional video. In a brief
overview of the program, Stewart stated that GLEP consists of three phases: pre-cruise. cruise,
and post-cruise. The classroom manual/curriculum has four focus areas with pre- and post-
cntise activities, and the vessel experience consists of 8 learning stations. The time frame for
Great Lakes classroom activities is variable. It is suggested that teachers familiarize their
students with the program at least 4 weeks prior to the cruise. Some teachers also choose to
teach about the Great Lakes throughout the whole year.

Accomplishments/Setbacks

Stewart and Gibb mentioned that foul weather was a minor setback. Livingston stated
that volunteers are needed. Participation is growing and both fall and spring agendas
are full.

Attendance

Gibb said that 77 total classes participated in the spring of 1996.

Changes/updates

Concerns that were mentioned include meeting National Science Standards and
improving students‘ skills.

Noon LUNCH

1:30-4:30 Updates on GLEP Research/Evaluation Findings (Each V: hour
presentation will be followed by '/1 hour of facilitated
brainstorming.)

1) GLEP impacts on youth- Anne Williamson

Key results: student attitudes, knowledge, and behavioral intentions.

The focus of this research was to measure the impacts of the 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- post-cruise behavioral intentions
than boys did. and boys had signiﬁcantly more Great Lakes and aquatic experiences than girls
did. '

Implications and recommendations for GLEP

Recommendations include conducting longer-tenn follow-up evaluations with students,
continuing evaluation of cruise experience and written curriculum effects on students,
improving measurement of attitudes and behavioral intentions, and strengthening cruise and
written curricula.

l f

138

Critical curriculum review (ﬁndings & recommendations).

The North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) Guidelines for
Excellence, State of Michigan Education Standards, and NAAEE Environmental Education
Materials Guidelines were presented and related to the GLEP curriculum. Recommendations to
GLEP include strengthening the curriculum framework to include skills and behavioral goals and
objectives for students, and developing a curriculum text that is easy to use with cross-references
and activities in a consistent format as in Project WET.

Discussion which followed the presentation included:

1) What is to be done about variable amount of student exposure to pre- post- activities?
(Livingston)

Answer: The data collected from Anne and Amy’s studies will be used to determine the
reasons teachers use or do not use activities, and whether or not the use of these pre-
cruise activities increased students’ pre-test scores.

2) Since there was no change in behavioral intentions, this area needs to be addressed.

3) Was it (the evaluation) all natural-resource, science oriented and/or testing only
natural-science measurements? (Kozma)

Answer: Yes, the survey was mostly science based because the previous seven surveys
that were referenced mainly contained science related questions.

4) What part of knowledge gain can be attributed to classroom? (Steve)

Answer: We do not know since only the cruise experience was evaluated.

Future evaluation, after making curriculum revisions, will test all three phases of
GLEP.

5) Rogers noted the importance of securing funding for this type of research.

6) What are some of the reactions from educators?
Consistent formatting of the curriculum relates to its usability.
-More teachers are used to the Project WET activity format.
-Wary of environmental advocacy (touchy-feely) versus environmental education
(developing skills, thought processes)

7) Stewart suggested borrowing activities from Project WET, but to be aware of
copyright issues.

2) GLEP Teachers/Cruise Leaders- Amy Nevala

One purpose of the March 1997 GLEP writing retreat was to share research results and
begin discussion of the GLEP dissemination/replication guide, referred to in the research
proposal as “Odyssey: A Guide to Organizing and Conducting Local Vessel-Based Education

139

Programs.” It will be used by potential GLEP coordinators as a reference or “road-map” to
deve10ping a program of their own.

Goals of the GLEP writing retreat... thinking about the dissemination guide
Identify gaps in existing/drafted materials

Recommendations to strengthen materials

Types of roles people would be interested in playing

Identify sets of tasks for the future

Survey results: Motivations for teachers/volunteer participation and perceptions of the

GLEP

This study will investigate the following research questions:

1. What existing prograntrning strategies are the most prevalent in recruiting, training and
maintaining educators?

2. How are the educators’ life experiences. knowledge and comfort level related to their
involvement with the GLEP

3. What are the educators’ perceptions of the program and how do these encourage or
discourage participation with the GLEP?

This research supports the idea that curriculum developers, teachers and students are important
evaluators of educational programming as a way to improve how efﬁciently and effectively a
program is planned, taught and learned (Bennett 1994).

Methods of evaluation include pre—cruise surveys (focused on motivations) and post-cruise
surveys (focused on program perceptions). Both surveys included questions re: knowledge,
concerns, comfort levels and Great Lakes related activities.

Teachers were surveyed in springs 1996 and 1997 and fall 1996. Cruise leaders were surveyed
fall 1996 and spring 1997.

Not all data have yet been analyzed, however I did provide some initial results from the fall
1996 teacher and cruise leaders surveys. A copy of these results are attached SEE APPENDIX
A.

Implications of research results for GLEP programming were discussed in general terms at this
point throughout the evening dissemination guide breakout group as well as during the next
morning's meeting.

3) Folklife resources- Hawk Tolson and LuAnne Kozma

Kozma brieﬂy explained folklife as “Anthropology in your own back yard.” She
described the ﬁeld of folklore's early start in the US in 1888 with the founding of the
American Folklore Society, whose purpose was to study the 'fast-vanishing forms of folklore,
such as those traditions

140

by Native-Americans, blacks, and children. " At that time, folklore was considered to be
vanishing, and that it was something "other people" had. not yourself. ”the ﬁeld has had many
inﬂuences on it through the years, including history, anthropology, sociology, psychology. art
history, and arts education. In time, the terms folklore and folklife merged to become
somewhat synonymous.

Some common misconceptions about folklore and folklife include: old, history, rural,
cute, false wives tales, superstition, lost arts, relics and survivals, what other people have, and
things that are not familiar/close to you. Folklife are traditions that are passed on from person
to person in a folk
- _ fortnal way, by word of mouth or by example Folklife tsn 't only something
$13 "past had, but current traditions we continue today. We all have traditions, and
33" V ' - - to many folk groups. Examples of folk groups are people who share: ethnicity.
stages of life, age, gender the region in which they live, occupation, interests hobbies,
family, and recreation. Some genres or categories of folklife include. custom, narrative,
music, dance, food, celebration, belief, games, work, skill, craft, and architecture. The word
“maritime” means having to do with water. Therefore, maritime folklife includes traditions
and folklife of a maritime group of people, whether that group is an occupational group of
maritime workers, or simply a community situated on the water in which community members
feel a connection to the water. Examples of maritime folklife include; boatbuilding, ﬁsh
foodways, nautical terminology, a festival celebrating the sea, a ﬁshing contest, ﬁsh
luremaking, ﬁshing techniques, and weatherlore.

   

Local resources for GLEP.

Tolson described how local GLEP resources were found. First, topographical maps
were connected to form one large map from which landmarks and interesting features could be
noted. Yellow pages, historical societies, museums, yachtsman's clubs, watershed council
Clinton River Watershed Council (CRWC), archives and libraries were also used to gather
interesting local history, information, and leads to potential tradition-bearers. The Historical
Society may even have a slide show available.

Interesting ﬁnds in the Clinton River area include: 1) “Boat Town” which is where
most of the boats in the area are located 2) the Cadet Program which trains young sea-persons
3) the Aston Family, long-time owners of the Clinton River Marina, 4) the Doyle Boston Sail
Making Company in Mt. Clemens and 5) the Anchor Bay Festival of Lights, a recreational
folklife/maritime festival and boat parade.

Hawk showed slides of some of the tradition—bearers we interviewed.

Implications for GLEP curriculum.
- Strengthen the “Lookout Challenge” activity on board the vessel by including more
points along the river.
- Sing a folksong or involve kids with a tradition bearer or traditional food.
~Boat names can involve or result in interesting tales.
-Voyager canoes of the 17lh and l8lh centuries might be included.
-A knot board could be added to Marlinspike activity aboard the boat.

H'

141

Suggestions for dissemination guide (locating folklife resources in your area.)
See Appendix G-“What is Maritime Folklife?"

5:00-7:00 DINNER

7:00-9:00 Organizing and energizing for work! (Break down into groups)

1) Dissemination Guide- develop detailed how-to outline
Facilitator: Amy Nevala
Group participants: Steve Stewart, Terry Gibb, Hawk Tolson, Dave Green, Patrick
Livingston, Shari Dann
Notetaker: Michelle Haggerty

This evening was designated as 1) a follow-up question and answer session from the
day's presentation 2) a brainstorming session anticipating a more focused Saturday morning
session. Questions brought up by attending participants are italicized below, followed by the
discussion highlights.

Who is this guide for?
Extension ofﬁces primary MI but eventually extending throughout the Great Lakes
region. counties might be targeted ﬁrst, surrounding states second.

How specific is the guide going to be?
General consensus that the ﬁrst guide/curriculum will not have marine content. It will
be freshwater/watershed focused.

Is this a marketing thing where other people have seen it and will request material to get
started? Are we working on a document to sell the program on why others should have it or a
how do I get started book?
Are we working on selling a program? Setting up a program? Dr both? Do we start
by assuming we’ve got interested people?

We are going to need to develop an awareness piece (perhaps a promotional video
and/or website -- we need to start by describing what we’ve done, accomplishments)
then come up with a GLEP cookbook which is actually the recipe for putting a GLEP
together.

Looking at the programs with that track record of success.

We need to address what comes ﬁrst—Funding? Boat? Commitment? And who or
what is going to get the conunitment needed for a successful program.

When should we work on the awareness piece?

142

What kind of givens do we have, such as is it geared toward speciﬁc classes... you need a 45
foot boat before you can make the program work?
This is for school classes—sets parameters for type of boat needed.
Need a task force to develop and carry the program.
Volunteers are needed, except in magical cases where huge grant monies are
supporting a program...

How will it be piloted?
The GLEP has identiﬁed one to three potential counties that may be used to pilot the
program within the next year or two.

Market/audience-who is it for? Should there be a section that targets speciﬁc grade levels?
Plans to continue targeting upper level elementary children, but the plan is still intact to
involve 7lh and 10‘h graders down the road.

State’s standards and the MEAP are big concerns for teachers that need to be
addressed. . .

Do other people think that we should keep going with the 4'” grade ?-Does it have to target a
specific age group ?

Is the curriculum so complete that it’s for 4'h graders—It' s that way because MSU
targeted 4"1 grade because that is part of their requirements for the year to learn about
the Great Lakes.

What kind of base have kids had before they get to 4‘“, 5'“, and 6‘h grade?
When the GLEP started, what were the most useﬁtl tooLs?

Deﬁnitely resource people (including task force folks).

Designing a strategic plan.

Evaluating your resources.

How are we going to expect other programs to start their GLEP? Actual dissemination—what
is the plan for this?

That‘s the importance of a task force...picked up the program and took it as their own...

Will the guide stand on its own...vs. having a team go into the new GLEP and help
them start?

What business are we in?
Stepping back to roots—there's a ﬁne line between being too broad and too narrow.

How did you pick the task force?
Just picked people that expressed interest

143

Regarding the table of contents and the packaging/formatting of the guide...
Are we starting general—then moving on to show GLEP as a case study and then
designing your own?--YES

3 ring binders are good!
Do we want it more like a workbook?

What about room for creativity within the guide?
Allowing programs ﬂexibility when creating a program... so not to limit there own
imaginations... the guide should be developed with this in mind.

Do we need a check list for other programs to follow? If so what type? How extensive?

2) Curriculum Revisions: Lead by Anne Williamson
Group Participants: Bette Nibel, .Iim Lubner, Alice Miller, LuAnne Kozma, David
Strand, Bill Stark, Dr. Arthur Carter, Tom Smith, Carey Rogers, Shari Dann, Steve
Stewart

7:00-8:00 Review NAAEE Learner and Materials guides.

The North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) has
developed a set of learner guidelines/framework for programs to follow when developing
curricula. These guidelines have been carefully scrutinized and suggest a complete set of
subjects and objectives to be covered by all thorough environmental education programs.
These guidelines also follow closely with state and national education standards.

The NAAEE has published a document that suggests guidelines for environmental
education materials. This guide suggests ways to present environmental issues in a non-biased
manner, activity layouts that are used most easily by teachers, and several other guidelines.

8:00-9:00 Revise GLEP curriculum framework- Incorporate MI standards and
benchmarks and NAAEE recommendations.

Small groups reviewed 4 of the 7 NAAEE guidelines and revised them as necessary to
ﬁt with the GLEP program. Some State of Michigan Standards were also added to a few of the
guidelines for completeness. The NAAEE guidelines that were reviewed include lb)
Knowledge of Human Processes and Systems, 2) Inquiry Skills, 4) Skills for Decision and
Action, and 5) Sense of Personal Responsibility.

Activity Layout- Identify which activities from the curriculum work
best for GLEP and develop standard activity layout.
See Day Two — Work groups continued.

Day Two
9:00 AM- Noon Work Groups Continued:

Prior to starting the day’s agenda, the dissemination group met brieﬂy with the
curriculum group for a five minute update of the previous evening’s accomplishments.

1) Dissemination Guide- develop detailed how-to outline

Facilitator: Amy Nevala

Group participants: Terry Gibb, Hawk Tolson, Dave Green, Patrick Livingston (for a short
time), Lynda Billotto (GLEP coordinator), Mark Mitchell (ISEA)

Notetaker: Michelle Haggerty

 

 

Agenda for Saturday March 22, 1997 Dissemination Guide Group
Focus: Developing a more detailed “how-to" outline using focus questions.

9:00 Update curriculum group--recap issues discussed last pm.
What are some consensus items? (Summary)

Focal Question I: How to develop a task force?

Focal Question 2: Potential challenges to GLEP programming?
10:15-10:30 Break

Focal Question 3: Volunteers and other community resources

“Parking lot issues” discussion

11:45 Wrap-up, summary, evaluation (did we meet the goals?)
Where do we go from here?

 

The discussion of Focal Questions 1, 2, and 3 are summarized in detail in the attached
Appendix B. '

Dissemination guide group: What are some consensus items (from last night ’s discussion)?

1. We need a program awareness piece (video) “what GLEP did” as well as a
duplication guide (cookbook) to describe "how can you do it. "

2. With regard to the guide‘s formatting... checklists are good as well as strategic plan
questions (goals and objectives)

3. Do we know who this is for...Extension ofﬁces? Primarily in Michigan and
throughout the Great Lakes region.

 

145

4. We know the guide is the wrapping on an adaptable curriculum.

5. We know the importance of:

-task force

-identifying challenges within the program....the GLEP guide will be proactive in
addressing these concerns.

-identifying volunteers, community resources (i.e. folklife) at the start of any new
program

2) Curriculum Revisions:

Revise GLEP curriculum framework

The 4 NAAEE guidelines reviewed and edited to ﬁt with GLEP on day I were presented by
the small groups to the rest of the curriculum review team. Suggestions and ideas were
discussed. The current GLEP curriculum framework will be incorporated into the NAAEE
guidelines for a complete, overall framework (See Appendix C).

Activity Layout (and curriculum guidelines)

NAAEE guidelines for materials were discussed and presented by small groups. It was agreed
that 4 of the 6 guidelines were necessary: 3) Emphasis on skills building, 4) Action Orientation,
5) Instructional Soundness, and 6) Usability. There was not enough time to read and discuss the
others: I) Fairness and Accuracy and 2) Depth. The layout and content of activities was
discussed and agreed upon (See Appendix D).

Noon- 2:00 SACK LUNCH
1) Reimbursement procedures explained.
2) Work groups report out on progress/tasks to be done.

WHAT NEXT?

It was agreed by all that tasks need to be divided among several individuals.

Certain information needs to be collected regarding the dissemination guide and curriculum:
Which curriculum activities work best?
Any suggestions for new activities?
Teachers need to be surveyed in-depth about materials. .
More teacher involvement should be included in the next step for the curriculum.
A mixed group task force and some GLEP teachers should be involved with the
dissemination guide.
When is the Michigan Intermediate School Districts retreat?...last week in Aug. or
July? Retreats should be scheduled in advance so teachers are able to attend.
Decisions on a dissemination protocol need to be made.
Official dissemination and curriculum format decisions need to be made.
Potential additions and deletions to materials.
Size of dissemination and curriculum materials have yet to be determined.
Possibly take apart and reorganize curriculum.

146

Complete/revise curriculum framework.

Specific suggestions from Bill Stark (GLEP teacher) include.-
Utilize input from teachers - how can they help with the review?
- GLEP curriculum is difﬁcult to use - needs index

** 1) Essential activities that need to be done before taking trip should be highlighted. i.e. -
explanations of water quality tests
2)Menu/correlations/indexes need to be provided
- materials - W111). Paddle to the Sea. List Correlation, Supplementary
materials to program (science kits)
- folklore - teachers not familiar with information - list of speakers (provide
additional resources)
** 3) Include Pre and Post tests for teachers

To conclude the retreat, four questions were asked to help evaluate the weekend:
I) What about the retreat worked? I most appreciated...

2) What didn't work? I would have preferred...
3) I learned...

4) I would be most willing to/ interested in...
(See Appendix E for responses)

2:00 Field trip to sail maker.
Canceled.

147

Dissemination Guide Break-out Group Notes

Focal Question 1: How to develop a task force?

We need to conceptualize a vessel-based education program for others. This includes
setting parameters, perhaps part of the introduction. Start the guide with the deﬁnition of
‘schoolship’.

We must identify resource needs for the task force, at least the basics. To make starting a
program a bit easier.

How are people picked for the task force? The GLEP uses folks ﬁ'om Huron Metro Park,
Ofﬁce of the Great Lakes, Teachers, ISD consultants. A task force is similar to advisory
committee. A diverse group of people:

-creates partnerships/stakeholders

-lends credibility

The GLEP has used different people for different stages of the program's development.
For example, six years into the program, two teachers are left on the task force.

Task force members can lend insight into:
-programming (business people)

-getting the word out (marketing/advertising people)
-training

-fi.mding (people with grant writing skills)

-look for players with interest in water quality
-vo|unteering (cruise leaders as a task force member)

Once a program makes an initial ID of potential task force:
-start making phone calls to query of interest, availability, other contacts
~continue working on potential funding sources

Commitment levels are important. That’s why it’s important to potentially have people on
board for speciﬁc stages. Don’t worry about there be too many people (volunteers, can
this be the case?!) -just need a good mix.

Ideal members of the task force need to have these qualities:
-dependable

-enthusiastic

-committed

-knowledgeable

148

Recipe for the ideal task force would include the following types (according to GLEP
staﬂ):

-Folklife—museum/historical society

-teachers

-MetroPark, Watershed

-Science based folks-consultants

-administrators at school

-grant writing/fundraising

-captain or “boat" person

Focal Question 2: Potential challenges to GLEP programming
Participants brainstormed potential challenges to developing a GLEP for determining:

1. costs — especially initially is difﬁcult - using volunteers, printing advertising, getting
word out about the overall program

2. where do schools and students come from?

3. does the grade matter? Who is the program targeting?

4. funding requirements? Who are the funders?

5. cun'icqum that each state requires

6. school schedules, especially as the 7“I and 10'“ grade programs get started (high school
~50 minute class schedule)

elementary as multi-disciplinary, is ﬂexibility a concern?

7. local demographics

8. the curriculum of each state. Elementary schools are ﬂexible, High school is more
structured and interdisciplinary.

The challenge is: How do we take a one day experience to this and make it a broader
experience?

Inland Seas programmer Mark Mitchell brought up some important points:

-a one day exposure to a broad experience may not be enough to make the educational
difference... ,
-time of year that the teacher goes determines attention, maturity, background of their
students (i.e. 4'“ grade students at the beginning of the school year vs. the end of the year)

Getting teachers to use the info...

-make the notebook user friendly -don’t copy Project Wild but use it as a model
-identify good teachers (good meaning they’ll put the full effort into the objectives of the
GLEP and detemtine what they use in the curriculum notebook)

149

What are some challenges that come from the parent of the students (as cruise
chaperones)?

-Too many parents interested (in being chaperones). .. there are ways to “weed them out"
if they are only interested in a “hoe boat trip"

-a benefit... some parents become cruise leader volunteers following their chaperone
experience!

-how can parents get involved? With the GLEP, it is up to the teacher to get the parents

The task force issue continues to arise... continually emphasize the importance and how,
without one, big challenges arise...

-the task force is a long term group that may have some short-term participants involved.
-how is the task force going to change down the road? ~It’s needs driven—it’s ﬂuid--
people come and go.

How did the GLEP pick out/up people for their task force?

-We selected stakeholders such as Ofﬁce of the Great Lakes, ISD, Metroparks
Authorities, Teachers, DNR, Macomb Science, others interested individuals, 6th grade,
4th grade, —generally people interested in water more than a grade level. (Advisory
Committee)

-I-Iow do you approach those you would like on the task force? GLEP just called them
ﬁ'om contacts already had.

~You may nwd to put together a concept paper with objectives and goals and send it to
these potential task force members.

-Visioning meetings... bring in interested people and picked people from those who
brought “visions" to the table.

-Have people have a sense of ownership for more commitment and what they can get out
of it.

~Can there be too many people on a task force? Would you ever have to many people on
a task force? -You really only need a good mix.

Recipe for the ideal task force—who would they be and how would you get them?
For folklife - would look in Museum Historical Societies

teachers businesses, grantwriters, fund-raisers

Science based people/consultants, metroparks, Tip of the Mitt

Administrator at the school level

Boat Captain-(person)

General advisory and Extension Advisory

150

Developing the dissemination guide:

-Another challenge relates directly to the development of the dissemination guide... how
much of this type of discussion needs to go into the guide and to what extent?

-How do you want to disseminate this-is it a stand alone document, are there trainers, is it
a team?

-Where are the students going to come ﬁom? Who and When are you going to target.
-Funding may require a speciﬁc target group.

Time of year a teacher takes their class influences education behavior etc.
Getting them to use the guide is hard too.

Getting teachers to use the books—why should they come to trainings? Try to make it so
you're bringing new info each year to get them there.

Challenges with parent volunteers-what is the best way they can get involved?

-The problem is too many and weeding them out.

-We need to prep teachers on ﬁnding good and interested parents.

-Parents get put with their child and their ﬁiends—is this right?

-Then there are some parents who turn out to be cruise leaders themselves.

Who decides how, and what parents are involved?

-Orientation is usually a way of de-selecting parents—if they can’t go to the training then
you can’t go on the cruise.

-What about a pre-trip manual—similar to the Inland seas.

Should teacher training be mandatory?
-What kind of incentive are you going to give?
-How can they have ownership?

Strategic Plan Questions...

-What is the goal/Mission/ Vision?

-Who is your audience and at what grade does it come together?

-What are your water and maritime resources?

-What is your access to resources (boat, etc.)?

-What are your human resources?-—partners, implementers, task force

-What are your major challenges?--money, human, policy

-Who is this for/What is the Market! Audience?—-counties/locales, k-12, Great Lakes
Region, Access to water, boats with capacity for around 30 people, Extension, Sea Grant,
ISD, 4-H.

151

Focal Question 3: Volunteers

Inland Seas Volunteer Training:

-10 week training program

-accreditation/credit for study

-rely largely on retired folks as volunteers ( 3 boats, 5 volunteers/day)
-word of mouth gets their name out there

-also advertise via newspaper (there is only one in their town)

-offer an internship program

Other ISEA ideas:

-assess your needs and who you’re going to need

-incentives related to volunteers build into recruiting/retention (i.e.: food, special
opportunities, door prizes)

-What can you do to develop ownership?

(open house on boat to solicit volunteers)

Parking lot discussion items
These were great ideas people had that had to be tabled until the next retreat in order to
stay on task and focused on the questions at hand.

-Self assessment
-Volunteers. .. what speciﬁcally makes good volunteers?
-how do you want to disseminate (stand alone or team and who are they? Workshops?)

Piloting the program in a new community...
-paying for the program (looking at demographics)
-strategies for ﬁindraising

Strategic Items...

other existing materials:

-how to guide-facilitators (Master Composters)
-formatting--Project WET

want it familiar, friendly

Differences in the way people process info...

152

DRAFT Table of Contents
Prototype Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) Dissemination Guide

1. Preface

What is this guide? What are its
objectives, goals, purposes? Who is it for?

Why do this program?

2. The Great Lakes Education Program Some existing GLEP materials (research
proposals, ongoing documentation)

What is it?

Who is it for?

What is the history?

Why is it important?

Curriculum features

Successful programming features

Successful programming strategies

153

DRAFT Table of Contents
Prototype Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) Dissemination Guide

3. Designing your GLEP program Some existing materials—i.e. Flow chart of
annual activities

Determining/defining objectives and goals

Program design and access

Managing for success

Who’s in charge... and what are they in
charge of?

Finding funding for GLEPs
Locating resources within your community
(information and services, gathering

materials)

Developing your task force (who are they?
what do they do?)

Safety, liability, legal aspects
Program delivery... Specifics for cruise
leaders, teachers, parents, students:
Before the cruise
During the cruise

After the cruise

Recruiting and training teachers Existing materials; Amy's research
Recruiting and training volunteers

Scheduling GLEP cruises Existing materials

The role of parents Existing materials

Program support, partners and networks—
who can you contact for assistance?

Evaluation

APPENDIX G: GLEP Teachers’ College Majors

GLEP TEACHERS COLLEGE MAJORS

Spring 1996 Teachers

Electronics

Elementary Education

Elementary Education - Linguistics; Science

Math Elementary Ed

Special Education - Emotionally Impaired Elementary Ed.
Chemical Engineering, Psychology

Social Sciences, Parks & Recreation, Elem. Administration, Reading
English - Math

English

Educably Mentally Impaired

Lang. Arts/Soc. Sci./Rdg.

Soc St.

3 minors science, social science, content and method

Social scienw-major english=minor in elementary education
language arts
undeigi ‘ ‘ ’L L ‘ ‘ special education-mentally impaired; graduate/masters=early
childhood and learning disabilities

elementary education science and English

Elementary Ed.

Elementary Education (BS + MAT)

French/ Early Childhood Education and Reading and Language (2 masters degrees)
BA Journalism Business, MA Teaching, Curriculum Leadership, MAZ master in art of
teaching

English, Drama Arts

Social Studies

Lang. Arts, Art, Instructional technology

B/A

Elementary education

Sociology

Social Science, Reading/Language Arts

Biology

English major

Special Education—Mentally impaired, Learning Disabilities, English
Science/Social Science

Social Studies

154

155

Elementary Ed.

Eng/History(S.S.)

English/Soc. Studies

English, Math (minor)

Fine Arts, History and Reading
Art/Phys Ed.

Science. Rdg., Social Studies, Language Arts
Special education MI

Elem. Science/Social Studies

3 minor -- elementary ed. english, Social Studies
Science

math/science

Art for BA Elementary Ed. For MAT. Computer and Middle School Teaching for Ed.
Spec.

science

Soc. Sci. P.E. Elem Ed.

Elementary Education/English

French

Social Science

Elementary Ed.

Social Science and Biology
Science/Education

Science, Eng.

Elem. Ed.

English, 8.8.

english, early childhood

S. Science, lang.

Social Studies

maj.—Social Studies, Minor—Science
Art group major

Minors-English, creative arts, Elem. Ed.
Social Studies, Theology/Sociology
English/Soc. Studies

Fall 1996 Teachers

Science Block English

Education with a science major.

Soc. Studies, integrated creative arts.

Music Education and Elementary Education
English, S. Studies, Speech

German/French/ Social Studies , Elem. Curriculum
Liberal Arts, Physical Education—Psychology

1 56
English
English, Art
Teaching hearing impaired
English Language and Literature

Spring 1997 Teachers

Social Science and reading

Social Science, English, Science

math science, special ed L-D

Undergraduate=Advertising, Masters=Elementary Education with a major in Social
Science.

Language arts, Elem. Ed., Curriculum, and Instruction

Elementary Education .

Elementary Ed.=Math and Language Arts., Counseling--K-12

Social Studies--Major

Elementary Education, reading, art education

Social Sciences ‘

mathematics--elementary education

Literature, Social Science

Undergrad--History Major, English Major, Masters in Reading/Writing
Science, Elementary Education

APPENDIX B: GLEP Teachers’ Membership in Organizations

GLEP TEACHERS MEMBERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS

Spring 1996 Teachers

MEA National Geographic

National Wildlife Federation

MFT

MEA, Council for exceptional Students Macomb Reading Council
Defenders of Wildlife Humane Society of US Wilderness Society MEA
Michigan Ed. Assn.

IRA, MRA, NCIE

MEA, NEA

MEA NEA UEA

International Reading Association

Horace Mann Honor Society, Macomb Reading Council
Michigan Reading Association

MBA

MBA

MBA, NBA, MEA-NEA Local 1, MEA-NEA Local, L’Anse Creuse
NEA, MEA, ADK

National Geographic, Intemationai and Michigan Reading Association, Michigan Council
for the Social Studies

Macomb Reading Council

Arbor Foundation

NEA, NCEA

MBA/NBA

World Wildlife Federation

NCNA (National Catholic Ed. Assc.)

Audubon

National Catholic Ed. Assc.

Michigan Science Teachers Association

ASCD Greenpeace

MACUL, ASCD, MAMSE, NSMLST

NDSTA

Van Dyke Professional Personnel

ADK, MEA

Delta Kappa Gamma

LEA (Lutheran Ed. Assoc.)

157

Spring 1996 continued 158
Project Wild. The usual

MSTA, WWF, MDSTA

MSTA, NSTA

National geographic

none at the present time except MEA
Defenders Nature Cons., National Wildlife
MEA, NEA

ADK sorority

MEA

MEA/NEA

Fall 1996 Teachers

MBA, NEA, UEA, IFAW & Greenpeace

Troy Nature Center

Michigan Education Association, MEA/NEA Locall, Anchor Bay Education Program
Task Force, Great Lakes Lighthouse Keepers Ass.

MEA, MUCC, MAEOE???

AATG (German)

Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever

MEA, MAEOE, MSTA, Grand Traverse Land Conservancy, Tip of the Mit Watershed
Council

Michigan Science Teachers , Michigan Math Teachers

Spring 1997 Teachers

none

UEA, MEA

none

Michigan Environmental Something...
Cousteau Society, ASCD, ATE
Greenpeace Program

Macomb Reading Council
Argim--at one time--not currently
none

none

APPENDIX 1: Teachers’ Reasons for not Participating with the GLEP in the
Future

TEACHERS’ REASONS FOR NOT PARTICIPATING
WITH THE GLEP IN THE FUTURE

Spring 1996
The price was too expensive and “Michigan” weather is too unpredictable. We will try
something indoors next year. Rescheduling aﬁer the small “accident” (engine trouble) was
not our choice and it was diﬁicult to get chaperones so quickly after the ﬁrst boat trip. It
was rescheduled the next week.
Expensive prices for ﬁeld trip would limit our participation
This is a very expensive trip--$450 per class for a three hour ﬁeld trip is extravagant
Expense
More time to prepare students for the cruise.

We are having trouble with our colleagues because of the cost.

I will only be teaching 5th grade next year not 4th like I was this year.

Fall 1996
Will leave it for fourth.

I only do “Michigan” as a theme on alternating years.

Spring 1997

It no longer is one of our MEAP Science objectives.

159

l f

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Sail Training Association. (1995). AS TA Directory of Sail Training Ships and
Programs, Newport, RI: American Sail Training Association.

Atkinson, J. W. and Birch D. (1978). Introduction to motivation. New York, NY:
D. Van Nostrand Company.

Baldwin, K. (1990). Summary: Arizona Project MLD 1990 — Survey of use.
Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Fish and Game.

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

Bethel, L. J. and Hord, S. M. (1982). Preparing teachers to teach environmental
science: An evaluation of a National Science Foundation (NSF) program. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, NY (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 216
866)

Bissell, S. J. (1992). Evaluation of Project WILD delivery activities in Colorado.
Colorado Division of Wildlife (unpublished report).

Borg, W. R. and Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational research: An introduction.
New York, NY: Longman, Inc.

Boyle, P. (1981). Planning Better Programs. New York, NY: McGraw—Hill Book Co.,
p. 226.

Bozardt, D. A. (1975/76). Professor of Science Education, College of Education,
Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan. Series of interviews.

Brinkerhoff, R. 0., Brethower, D. M., Hluchyi, T. and Nowakowski, J. R. (1983).
Program evaluation: A practitioner’s guide for trainers and educators
sourcebook. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijohoﬁ‘ Publishing.

160

{I
IIIL

161

Brody, M. and Koch, H. (1989). An assessment of 4"‘-, 8“'-, and ll'h-grade students’
knowledge related to marine science and natural resource issues. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 21(2), 16-26.

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.

Cantrell, D. C. (1986). A statewide survey of Project WILD in Ohio: Final Report.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Oﬁice of Public Information and
Education.

Cantrell, D. C. (1987). A case study analysis of curriculum implementation as
exempliﬁed by Project WILD in one midwestem state. Doctor of Philosophy
Dissertation. Ohio State University.

Campbell, J ., Moyers, B., and Flowers, B. S. (Ed). (1990). Ihe power of myth.
1st Anchor Books (Ed), New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Charles, C. (1986). Project WILD survey of use and needs. Bethesda, MD:
Project WILD National Oﬁice.

Cookson, P. S. (1989). How do we recruit and retain program participants?
In P. S. Cookson (Ed), Recruitment and retention of adult students.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cox, A. and Wilson, R. (1993). Options for Michigan environmental education.
Lansing, MI: State Senate Majority Policy Oﬂice.

Cummings, S. L. (1976). Environmental education: A market survey. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA, 19-23. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service,
ED 124415)

Dann, S. L. (1992). Discussion guide for focus groups on ﬁshing recruitment used with
Michigan resident anglers licensed in [991-1992. East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife.

Dann, 8L. and Kozma, L. (1994). GLEP Proposal. Development of a transferable,
multidisciplinary vessel-based, experiential education model. East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University, Michigan Sea Grant Program.

162

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Dixon, D. O. (1996). Commitment to environmental stewardship and environmental
education among educators in the New York Lake Ontario Basin.
Master of Science Thesis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Dunne, M. L. (1992). A preliminary survey of use of Project WILD/Aquatic
WILD by urban teachers. New Jersey Division of Fish, Game & Wildlife.

Elkind, D. (1990). What teens can teach younger children. Parents Magazine,
p. 20.

Elshoﬂ‘, D. (1997). Project WILD Coordinator. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University. Personal communications.

Evans, N. (1994). Experiential Ieaming for all. New York, NY: Cassell.

Farnsworth, M. (1989). A study of environmental education: Attitudes and practices
among teachers at the secondary level. Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education Graduate Seminar Paper. Southwest Missouri State University.

Fisher, MR. (1996). Estimating the effect of Nonresponse bias on angler surveys.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 125: 118-126.

Fleming, M. L. (1983). Project WILD Evaluation: F inal report of ﬁeld test.
Bethesda, MD: Project WILD National Oﬂice.

Fleming, M. L. (1991). A study of Project WILD ’s impact on the students of
exemplary teachers. Bethesda, MD: Project WILD National Oﬁce.

Flor, R. (1991). An introduction to research and evaluation in practice. The Journal of
Experiential Education, 14(1), 36-3 9.

Fortner, R. (1991). The scope of research in marine and aquatic education.
Environmental Communicator, J uly/ August, p. 5.

Giﬂ‘ord, R., Hay, R., and Boros, K. (1983). Individual differences in environmental
attitudes. Journal of Environmental Education, 14(2), 19-23.

Gi gar, B. D. (1993). Project WILD Aquatic (K-6 aquatic education program) research
summary. Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

163

Gilchrist, S. C. (1990). Eﬂects of Project WILD on fourth grade students in Wisconsin.
Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

GLEP (1992). Copy of unfunded 1992 Kellogg Foundation proposal. Mt. Clemens, MI:
Michigan Sea Grant Extension.

GLEP (1993). Pre-Field Learning Activities. Great Lakes/Clinton River education
program: Pre-ﬁeld Ieaming activities. Developed by Stewart, 8. R., Livingston,
PD, and Gibb, T. L. Mt. Clemens, MI: Michigan State University.

GLEP. (1997). Great Lakes Education Program 1996-97 Program Update. Macomb
County, MI: Michigan Sea Grant Extension.

Gomon, B. S. (1991). Characteristics and motives of volunteer facilitators of Project
WILD in Ohio. Master of Science Thesis. Dayton, OH: The Ohio State
University.

Greene, J. S. (1992). An evaluation of volunteerism in Project Learning Tree .
andProject WILD in Texas. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation. Texas A&M
University.

Greishop, J. I. (1982). Growing with Master Gardeners. California Agriculture,
36(7), 17-19.

Guba, E. G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational
evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service, ED 164599).

Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). The place of values in needs assessment.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Los Angeles, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 199
289)

Ham, SH. and Sewing, D. R. (1988). Barriers to environmental education Journal of
Environmental Education, 19(2), 17-23.

Howie, T. R. (1974). Indoor or outdoor environmental education? Journal of
Environmental Education, 6(2), 32-36.

Hungerford, H. R. (1975). Myths of environmental education. Journal of
Environmental Education, 7(2), 21-26.

164

In Balance: DoingWhat’s Right for Natural Resources. (1996). Turning out,
pitching in. Times Mirror Magazine Conservation Council.

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.

Jackson, J. (1994). A critical evaluation of training workshops for facilitators of
Project WILD workshops in New Hampshire for instructing practitioners using
these materials. Master of Education Thesis. Plymouth State College, NH.

Jensen, D.T. (1992). Environmental education survey for Project WET/WILD: Results
of teacher and student responses in the state of North Dakota. Grand Forks, ND:
Bureau of Educational Services and Applied Research, University of North
Dakota.

Kennedy, M. M. (1990). Teachers ' subject matter knowledge (Trends and issues paper
no. 1). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education.

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

Knapp, C. K. (1992). Lasting lessons: A teacher ’3 guide to reﬂecting on experience.
Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small
Schools.

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

Kunz, D. E. (1989). The effects of a Project Learning Tree workshop on pre-service
teachers ' attitudes toward teaching environmental education. Unpublished
Master of Science Thesis, Pennsylvania State University.

Lane, J ., Wilke, R., Champeau, R., and Sivek, D. (1994). Environmental education in
Wisconsin: A teacher survey. Journal of Environmental Education, 25(4), 9-17.

Lemming, F., Dwyer, W. and Bracken, B. (1993). Children’s environmental attitude and
knowledge scale: Construction and validation. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 24(4), 8—21.

Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. (1985). Research, evaluation, and policy analysis:
Heuristics for disciplined inquiry. Kansas, U. 8.: (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 252 966).

165

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

Mahoney, E.M., Jester, DB, and Jamsen, G.C. (1991) Travel and Tourism in Michigan:
A Statistical Proﬁle. Travel, East Lansing, MI: Tourism, and Recreation
Resource Center, Michigan State University. 307 -343

Malamey, M. J. (1992). Training multi-generational volunteers in environmental issues:
A study of the GE T -GEM groundwater education training program. Master of
Science Thesis. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife.

Mathis, D. (1997). Summit issues its call to service. April 21. The Detroit Free Preg
p. A1.

McCune, B. F. and Nelson, C. (1995). Recruiting and managing volunteers in libraries:
A how-to-do-it manual. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.

Meehan, D. B., and Berta, S. (1993). Developing a Volunteer Program for Public
Environmental Education. Pullman, WA: Washington State University,
Cooperative Extension Service.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1996). (10th ed). Springﬁeld, MA:
Merriam-Webster.

Microsoft Corporation (1995). Getting results with Microsoft Oﬂice for Windows 95.
Redmond, WA: Version 7 .0. (Computer Program).

Middleton, M. (1995). A survey of leaders of Michigan ’s stream and river
organizations. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife.

Milkent, M. M., Irby B. N., and Story, L. E. (1979). Teachers and marine education: A
marine survey (Rep. No. MASGP-79-OOS). Hattiesburg, MS: University
of Southern Mississippi, Department of Science Education.

Mulligan, J. and Grifﬁn, C. (Eds). (1992). Empowerment through experiential learning:
Explorations of good practice. London: Kogan Page.

Murnighan, K. J., Kim, J. W., and Metzger, A. R. (1993). The volunteer dilemma.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 515-538.

166

Nathan, J. and Kielsmeier, J. (1991). The sleeping giant of school reform. Phi Delta
Kappa. June 1991, 739-742.

Norusis, M. J. (1993). SPSS for windows: Base system user’s guide release 6.0.
(Computer Program). Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.

Patton, MO. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newberry Park,
CA: Sage Publications.

Peyton, R B. (1977). An assessment of teachers ’ abilities to identify, teach, and
implement environmental action sla'lls. Doctoral Dissertation. Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University.

Pitman, B. J. (1996). Project WILD: A summary of research ﬁndings ﬁom
1983-1995. Bethesda, Nﬂ): Project WILD National Oﬂice.

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

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

Rakow, S. J. (1984). Development of a conceptual structure for aquatic education and
its application to existing aquatic curricula and needed curriculum development.
The Journal of Environmental Education, 19(1), 25-30.

Ritz, W. C. (1977). Involving teachers in environmental education. Journal of
Environmental Education, 8(3), 4047.

Robinson, R. D. (1979). Conducting Evaluation: Instructional improvement. An
Introduction to Helping Adults Learn and Change. Milwaukee, WI: Omnibook.

Rogers, T. F. (1976). Interviews by telephone and in person: Quality of responses and
ﬁeld performances. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 51-56.

Rouse, S. B., and Clawson, B. (1992). Motives and incentives of older adult volunteers:
Tapping an aging population for youth development workers Journal of
Extension, 30(3).

Rupert, J. (1995). Take a friend ﬁshing program survey. East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife.

167

Shaw, D. (1993). Aquatic resources education survey. University of New Mexico.

Shomo, A (1993). West Virginia Project WILD survey of use. DNR Wildlife
Resources, Charleston, WV.

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

Shuman, D. K. (1995). Factors that inﬂuence commitment to teaching
environmental education: Development and test of a causal model.
Doctoral Dissertation. University of Idaho.

Shumer, R. (1992). Service-Ieaming and the power of participation: Schools,
communities, and learning. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University
Service Learning Center.

Simmons, D. A. (1995). More inﬁrsion confusion: A look at environmental education
curriculum materials. Journal of Environmental Education, ( ),15-19.

Simmons, D. A. (1987/1988). The teacher’s perspective of the resident environmental
education experience. Journal of Environmental Education, 19(2), 35-42.

Simonson, D. L. (1990). Master Gardeners: Views from the cabbage patch. Journal of
Extension, 28(2).

Smith, C. L. (1988). An assessment of the use and effectiveness of Project WILD
(wildlife in Ieaming design) by teachers and youth leaders in Oklahoma.
Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation. Oklahoma State University.

Standage Accureach, Inc. (1990). User and non-user assessment study of
Project WILD materials. Bethesda, MD: Project WILD National Oﬂice.

Stewart, S. (1997). GLEP co-director. Mt. Clemens, MI: Michigan Sea Grant
Extension. Personal communications.

Stout, R. J. & Peyton, R. B. (1988). The need for wildlife education program
evaluation: A case study. Trans. 53rd N. A Wildlife & Natural Resources
Conference.

Tanner, T. (1980). Signiﬁcant life experiences: A new research area in environmental
education. Journal of Environmental Education, 11(4), 20-24.

168

TIMSS. (1994). Teacher Questionnaire Population 2 Sciences Booklet 1: Teacher
background. Third International Mathematics and Science Stuay.

Tolson, H. and L. Kozma. (1997). The Maritime Folldife and Historical Resources of
Macomb County, MI. Unpublished report. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University.

Tomlinson, M. E. (1997). State of the State survey, Helping others: A proﬁle of
Michigan volunteers. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University,
Institute for Public Policy and Social Research.

Tudor, M. (1992). Evaluation of Project WILD: The State of Washington
1984-1992. Washington Department of Wildlife.

Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic Principals of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.

US. Coast Guard (1990). Boating statistics 1989. Commandment Publication P167543.
Washington, DC: US. Coast Guard.

Van Koevering, T. E., and Sell, N. J. (1983). An analysis of the eﬂ‘ectiveness of energy
education workshops for teachers. Science Education, 67(2), 151-158.

Vroom V. (1982). Work and motivation. Malabar, Florida: Robert F. Krieger.

Wiens, J. (1996). Volunteers lend new perspectives to ﬁeld projects. Fisheries,
American Fisheries Society, 21(3), 37.

Wilke, B. J ., Peyton, R. and Hungerford, H. (1980). Strategies for the training of teachers
in environmental education. Paris, France: UNESCO.

Williamson, A. (1996). The Great Lakes Education Program: An in-depth evaluation of
program impacts on fourth grade students. Master of Science Thesis. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University,.

Winans, J. (1994). Involving volunteers effectively, Part one. In E. Ely (Ed),
Proceedings: Fourth National Citizens’ Volunteer Monitoring Conference,
putting volunteer information to use (pp. 3-10). Portland, OR: Portland State
University.

Witten, M. (1997). Survey of administrators of open-water environmental education
programs. Huntington, VT: University of Vermont, School of Natural
Resources.

169

Yannone, V. (1985). Montana Project WILD Survey Results. Montana Department of
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.

Young, Thompson, and Thompson. (1995). A needs analysis for Project
WILD 's WILD in the City Initiative. Bethesda, Nﬂ): Project WILD National
Oﬁice.

Zint, M. (1994). Science provides opportunities for risk education survey (S. U.R.E.).
East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife.

Zosel, D. A. (1988). Science in Land Resources. Master of Science Thesis. University
of Wisconsin-Madison.