A: 2:. . g. “Fifiik‘iaofiein ,.... i. :71; 3:36.? . wfif. uflfimmrfiumi 5.4. ., x I r. V] ... Huff‘Iltfi . .gflfldlq: v 19”.!— . “35...: trid. in; i... . Y‘ll 01“; I ‘ . n3 . Elena-5N3! Vuuf‘.“ .1. ¢.IuI.O$-l(\-(:lilt l r . 2.1.: 2 312‘ fies: i‘zfzrrz . ‘ X iii. .12.; 3.... fizz?! . pa (tinder. 31:153.)! at It Jitflr‘1I' II}. In Tilt .17 I...;.u¢n.1 é . {I}? i; in“ ‘1’...“ 3!! It)! 2:11. ‘6 A M . .IV‘{|’_I‘.IIIIJ’I.>AI . . 2.3. .rll.xt.u.rti9>7\l‘30.h2 4). kl! (:1? . gilt}; 5...} .V {(50 .k?l.1._.f:l:~ :27... :1 I spsltli.i.l.isl.ltslv 1k 1!us . . 15“! v C, l. II» I . . E ”vii-"fin” A . flit}! :1 1134.1? , A . ..va. ..a.’|..!|¢...li¢.rt.i‘tf, : . lb...‘ 31v...v\r:l : ttrvtftlv-tvlrilll‘I. .2... 5| I ‘alflr9nx... ». l 1.).Gcg4lllfn’k': . V )Ih. , 2:.er .V. M. .. .uhokwtfl. . I ‘ 1:.- L' M813 u m msu mates um um ll\l\l\\l\\t\ll\lmllntml ” 31293 01834174 x.) ‘W LIBRARY Michigan State Universlty #‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Great Lakes Education Program An Evaluation of Program Impacts on Participants' Parents/Guardians presented by Michelle L. Niedermeier has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. degree in Fish. & Wildl. I Major professor 0-7639 MS U is an Aflirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECAUJED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 1M chlHCIDdoDr...pG$-p.14 THE GREAT LAKES EDUCATION PROGRAM: AN EVALUATION OF PROGRAM IMPACTS ON PARTICIPANTS’ PARENTS/GUARDIANS By Michelle L. Niedermeier 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 1999 ABSTRACT THE GREAT LAKES EDUCATION PROGRAM: AN EVALUATION OF PROGRAM IMPACTS ON PARTICIPANTS’ PARENTS/GUARDIANS BY Michelle L. Niedermeier The focus of this research was to measure the secondary impacts (ripple effects) of the Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) on participants’ parents/guardians one school year post—GLEP experience. A self-administered survey was developed from ten pre-existing instruments to measure parents’ Great Lakes knowledge, attitudes toward the Great Lakes, and responsible behavioral intentions. The study design included contacting parents of 458 students from eight schools in Macomb County, Michigan. An overall response rate of 39% was achieved. Parents of participants scored significantly higher on the behavioral intentions scale than did parents of non-participants. No differences were found on the knowledge test or attitudes scale. Parents/guardians who had volunteered with the GLEP scored higher in knowledge and positive behavioral intentions regarding the Great Lakes than did non-volunteers. Recommendations include creating and maintaining a database of participants in order to conduct further longitudinal evaluations, and developing elements (i.e., take home sheets) to encourage and foster even greater parental involvment. To my friends and family for their constant love and support. To my husband, who reminded me to eat the elephant in small bites. iii u... ‘1. (J ‘— f). D '5‘. 5.. u.. ". \.. h 5‘» P. h 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—NA36RG056—A, from the Office of Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce, and funds from the State of Michigan. The U.S. Government is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation appearing hereon. I would first like to thank and acknowledge the members of my thesis committee for their guidance and support throughout this project, Dr. David I. Johnson, major professor, Dr. Shari L. Dann (for the opportunity to work on this project), and Dr. Angela G. Mertig. I would also like to thank them for the opportunities and experiences they have provided me throughout my three years at Michigan State University (MSU). I also wish to thank Mr. Steve Stewart and Ms. Jill Dion and other members of Michigan Sea Grant and Macomb County Extension services for their support and humor. Many thanks to Carol Swinehart, John Schwartz, and Mike Klepinger, Michigan Sea Grant Extension staff at MSU, for the opportunities, contacts, and experiences they have provided me. My thanks to Michelle Haggerty for her help in initial data collection of school population estimations, and Heather Van Den Berg for her assistance in data entry. iv Special thanks to Anne Williamson and Amy Nevala for their previous GLEP evaluations and their frequent words of encouragement. Many members of the MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (too many to mention in fear of forgetting someone) also deserve special recognition for their assistance during this project and their friendship throughout the years. I would also like to thank my dog, Tala, who remained loyal despite the lack of attention and the strange hours. Finally, my love and thanks to my husband Keith for his guidance, patience, support and love. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................... iX LIST OF FIGURES .......................................... Xi INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1 Problem Area: The Great Lakes Education Program. ...... 1 Challenges within Environmental Education ............ 3 Study Problem Focus .................................. 6 Problem Statement .................................... 7 Research Question and Hypothesis ..................... 8 Objective 1 ..................................... 8 Objective 2 ..................................... 9 Objective 3 .................................... lO LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................ 12 History of Environmental Education .................. 12 History of Environmental Education in Michigan ...... 16 The Great Lakes Education Program ................... 20 Impacts on the Family and Family Decision Making Processes ........................................... 22 Theories of Change (Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior) ........................................... 28 METHODS .................................................. 32 Development of Evaluation Instrument ................ 32 Survey Design ....................................... 35 Study Methods ....................................... 36 Survey Implementation ............................... 39 Data Analysis ....................................... 43 RESULTS .................................................. 47 Response Rates ...................................... 47 Results of Non-respondent Follow—up Attempts ........ 53 Demographic and Background Characteristics of Respondents ......................................... 53 Comparisons of GLEP Parents/Guardians Participants, Non-participants and Volunteers ..................... 59 Knowledge Test Results .............................. 59 Attitudes Scale Results ........................ 61 Behavioral Intentions Scale Results ............ 63 Relationships of Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions .......................... 67 Additional Findings ................................. 68 vi DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 74 Ripple Effects of the GLEP .......................... 74 Recommendations for the GLEP ........................ 76 Research Limitations ................................ 78 Conclusions ......................................... 84 APPENDICES Appendix A: Project Approval by the Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) ........................ 86 Appendix B: Methodologies Considered to Assess Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Graders Parents’/Guardians’ Reactions to GLEP .............................. 87 Appendix C: ......................................... 90 C-1: Letters to GLEP Participating Principals .. 90 C-2: Letters to Non-participating Principals ... 92 Appendix D: ......................................... 94 D-l: GLEP Participation 1995—1998 by School District and Classroom ............. 95 D—2: Current Student Enrollment in Middle And Junior High Schools withing GLEP Program Area ............................. 107 D—3: Current Enrollment in Elementary Schools within GLEP Program Area ......... 114 D-4: Estimates of District Information On GLEP School Participation for 5th graders, 1 year post (Fall 97/Spring 98) ...................... 122 Appendix E: Characteristics of School Districts within GLEP Program Area ...................... 125 Appendix F: Districts and Schools Chosen and Not Chosen for this Study ..................... 126 Appendix G: Adjusted Study Sample .................. 132 Appendix H ......................................... 134 H-l: Survey Cover letter ...................... 135 H—2: Survey Instrument ........................ 136 H-3: Drawing Entry Form ....................... 152 Appendix I: Reminder Letter ........................ 153 Appendix J: Revised Cover Letter ................... 154 Appendix K: Follow—Up Letter to Teachers ........... 155 Appendix L: Non—respondent Follow-Up Telephone Interviews with Teachers ....................... 15 vii Appendix M: Detailed Results ....................... 158 Table M-l. Responses of Participants’ Parents/Guardians and Non—participants’ Parents/Guardians on Knowledge Items .......... 159 Table M—2. Responses of Parent/Guardian Volunteers and Non-Volunteers on Knowledge Items ............................... 161 Table M-3. Responses of Participants’ Parents/Guardians and Non-participants’ Parents/Guardians on Attitudes about the Great Lakes ............................... 163 Table M—4. Responses of Parent/Guardian Volunteers and Non—Volunteers on Attitudes about the Great Lakes ............... 164 Table M—S. Responses of Participants’ Parents/Guardians and Non—participants' Parents/Guardians on Attitudes about the Environment ......................... 165 Table M—6. Responses of Parent/Guardian Volunteers And Non—Volunteers on Attitudes about the Environment ......................... 166 Table M-7. Responses of Participants' Parents/Guardians and Non-participants’ Parents/Guardians on Intentions/Feelings ...... 167 Table M-8. Responses of Parent/Guardian Volunteers and Non—Volunteers on Intentions/Feelings ........................... 168 Table M-9. Responses of Participants’ Parents/Guardians and Non-participants’ Parents/Guardians on Environmental Actions .... 169 Table M-lO. Responses of Parent/Guardian Volunteers and Non-Volunteers on Environmental Actions ......................... 170 Table M-ll.Mann Whitney U Nonparametric Test On Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavioral Intention Scales: Parent/Guardian Volunteers and Non—volunteers ................. 171 REFERENCES .............................................. 173 viii Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Survey Distribution Timeline ................... 42 Response Rates by Classroom .................... 48 Overall Response Rates ......................... 50 Great Lakes and other Outdoor Experiences During the Last Six Months ..................... 55 Respondents’ Levels of Education ............... 58 Knowledge Test Results ......................... 6O Attitude Scale Results ......................... 62 Behavior Results: Intentions/Feelings .......... 64 Behavior Scale Results: Environmental Action ... 66 Correlation Matrix of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions ...................... 67 Descriptions of Parent/Guardians Assessment of the GLEP’s Impacts on Youth and Self ........ 69 Descriptions of Parent/Guardian Volunteers and Non-volunteers, and all Respondents (Pre-GLEP). 7O Descriptions of Parent/Guardian Volunteers and Non—volunteers, and all Respondents (Post-GLEP) 71 Descriptions of Parent/Guardian VOlunteers and Non-volunteers Tourism Behaviors (Pre-GLEP) .. 72 Descriptions of Parent/Guardian Volunteers and Non—volunteers Tourism Behaviors (Post-GLEP) 73 .Responses of Participants’ Parents/Guardians and Non-participants’ Parents/Guardians on Knowledge Items ............................ 159 .Responses of Parent/Guardian Volunteers and Non-Volunteers on Knowledge Items ............. 161 .Responses of Participants’ Parents/Guardians and Non—participants’ Parents/Guardians on Attitudes about the Great Lakes ............ 163 .Responses of Parent/Guardian Volunteers and Non—Volunteers on Attitudes about the Great Lakes ......................... 164 ix Table M-5.Responses of Participants’ Parents/Guardians and Non—participants’ Parents/Guardians on Attitudes about the Environment ............ 165 Table M—6.Responses of Parent/Guardian Volunteers And Non—Volunteers on Attitudes about the Environment ......................... 166 Table M-7.Responses of Participants’ Parents/Guardians and Non—participants’ Parents/Guardians on Intentions/Feelings ........................ 167 Table M—8.Responses of Parent/Guardian Volunteers and Non-Volunteers on Intentions/Feelings ..... 168 Table M-9.Responses of Participants’ Parents/Guardians and Non-participants' Parents/Guardians on Environmental Actions ...................... 169 Table M-10.Responses of Parent/Guardian Volunteers and Non-Volunteers on Environmental Actions ... 170 Table M—11.Mann Whitney U Nonparametric Test on Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavioral Intention Scales: Parent/Guardian Volunteers and Non—volunteers ................. 171 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Network of potential,indirect Impacts of community-based EE programs such as GLEP ................................... 27 Figure 2. Breakdown of survey responses and total number of usable cases ................... 52 xi INTRODUCTION Problem Area: The Great Lakes Education Program The Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) was developed by local staff representing Michigan State University Extension (Macomb County) and the Michigan Sea Grant College Program to provide Great Lakes classroom and multi- disciplinary environmental education (EE) experiences for elementary students in Macomb County, Michigan. The program targets fourth grade students, because Michigan’s fourth grade science and social studies content standards and benchmarks for curriculum include an emphasis on state resources (Michigan Department of Education, 1996). The GLEP provides a multi-disciplinary introduction to historical, geographical, physical, biological, and cultural aspects of the Great Lakes. The program consists of three segments: classroom based pre-cruise education activities, an educational cruise aboard a modified Great Lakes fishing vessel on the local watershed (the Clinton River and Lake St. Clair), and classroom based post—cruise education activities. The vessel—based educational experience includes eight learning stations directed by cruise leaders. The pre— and post-cruise classroom activities are part of the GLEP’s written curriculum and are used to enhance the learning experience. The overall goal of the GLEP is to educate youth by developing ecological literacy, understanding, and stewardship of Great Lakes resources and issues (Williamson, 1996). This is consistent with the superordinate goal of EB which has been defined as follows, ...to aid citizens in becoming environmentally knowledgeable and, above all, skilled and dedicated citizens who are willing to work, individually and collectively, toward achieving and/or maintaining a dynamic equilibrium between quality of life and quality of the environment (Hungerford and Volk, 1990, p. 13). Within EE, at state, national, and international levels, four major goal levels of EE have been organized into a curriculum framework and were developed to help educators achieve the superordinate goal with learners (Hungerford, Peyton, & Wilke, 1980). Goal Level I strives to provide the learner with sufficient foundations in ecological knowledge. Goal Level II seeks to help the learner understand the interdependency of all things which may be influenced by the actions of an individual or a group. In Goal Level III, knowledge and skills are developed to allow the learner to investigate and evaluate environmental issues and solutions. Finally, the development of skills is guided in Goal Level IV for the learner to take positive environmental action. Ultimately, each level seeks to guide the learner to achieve or maintain a relationship between quality of life and quality of the environment (Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Hungerford, Peyton, & Wilke, 1980; Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, 1978.) .- Q Fr; Iv... why 14V- luv. «u . ‘n. x. a. e u... h ‘ \f‘b— “J E“ Challenges within Environmental Education Environmental Education has had a definitional problem since its conception, with experts disagreeing on its name as well as purpose. Throughout its history, education about or using local environments has variously been called nature study, conservation education, outdoor education, and even more specifically, resource-use education, population education, or marine-and-aquatic education (Environmental Education and Training Partnership, 1997b, c, d). The superordinate goal and goal levels I-IV were created in response to the apparent lack of focus and loose organization of EE (North American Association for Environmental Education, 1998). In part because of EE’s past definitional problems, skeptics have often questioned the accuracy and sources of EB materials and the effectiveness of EB programs. Some fear that material and information used is outdated or promotes the agendas of activist groups or industries. Linda Knight, an earth-science teacher in Houston said, “These are, in each case, put forward as materials that are ‘unbiased,’ but the companies do have vested interests” (West, 1993, p. 1). Another challenge within EE is how to fit it within school curricula. School districts in several states have developed “mandates to infuse environmental education into the curriculum” (West, 1993, p. 1). These mandates may benefit teachers by providing them with accurate materials instead of each teacher relying on information provided by a... . "C c ..p In. rA ‘ ow- b- 6““ cal questionable sources or having to piece together materials that may be unreliable or biased. Environmental education programs such as Project Learning Tree, Project WILD, and Project WET, have been developed as interdisciplinary educational materials to aid teachers with infusion (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998d). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also working to combat public concern, about EE quality. The EPA has designed a program to aid the public in making responsible environmental decisions by providing access to quality EE information and materials. The program provides training and the methodology needed for the implementation of quality EE programs (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998b). This may also benefit the youth who may gain a deeper understanding of environmental issues and the relationship between quality of life and quality of the environment. In addition, EE may contribute to the efforts of sustainable development (quality of life and quality of environment) by linking conservation and economic development, and by promoting the positive steps taken to minimize the impacts of ecosystems (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998c). Within EE, another major challenge has been that program evaluations to determine effectiveness are often overlooked. Evaluations may not be implemented for several reasons, including insufficient money or time, a lack of professional evaluators, or the lack of provisions and planning to conduct .UJ -. a nW‘ -V U § 1 . u 1. li Anv\ .1 a n V x . r...- 515 u a s Q a: c .. a n C . s evaluations (Stufflebeam, 1975). It has frequently been noted that a lack of evaluation hinders the credibility of EB proponents and programs (Iozzi, 1989; Keen, 1991; Lewis, 1981/82; Linke, 1981; Lucko, Disinger, & Roth, 1982). Evaluations must be completed to provide concrete evidence as to program impacts, outcomes, or accomplishments (Bennett, 1989; Boyle, 1981; Cookson, 1996; Flor, 1991 in Williamson 1996), and to inform programmers of successful strategies to improve programs and measure efforts (Environmental Education and Training Partnership, 1997a). Some examples of innovative program design and evaluation have proven useful in understanding program impacts and in improving programs (e.g., Blanchard & Monroe, 1990, and Project WILD, 1996). It is the aim of this thesis to provide an evaluation of the GLEP as a popular EE program. Two evaluations of the GLEP have so far been completed. The first evaluation (Williamson, 1996) assessed direct program impacts on fourth grade students. Williamson found that youth exhibited a significant increase in Great Lakes knowledge after participating in the GLEP vessel experience. Girls attitudes toward the Great Lakes after the GLEP were significantly more positive than their attitudes had been previously; no significant changes were found in boys’ attitudes. Lastly, no significant changes were demonstrated in participants’ behavioral intentions regarding the Great Lakes after participating in the GLEP cruise. 0' '1' pa by 9 t- n I) 5.4 5.. C I”; The second study of the GLEP evaluated educators’ participation in the GLEP (Nevala, 1997). Nevala found that 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 revealed that their knowledge level was low in most GLEP topics, including fisheries, aquatic plants, calcium in water, geography of Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair, shipboard knot-tying, carbon dioxide, plankton, navigation, pH levels, cultural aspects of the Great Lakes, and dissolved oxygen. Following the GLEP training and experience, educators’ self-assessment of post- cruise comfort levels in teaching some topics, including calcium in water, navigation, and shipboard knot-tying, were still relatively low, suggesting the need for additional educator training. tu b em cus My evaluation of the GLEP focuses on the secondary impacts (“ripple effects”) of the program on the parents/guardians of participants. To date, the secondary impacts on parents/guardians that may result from their youth's participation in an EE program have not been well documented. Family members’ importance has, however, been documented in marketing research. Family consumer research has shown the importance of family members' influences on the purchases of products and services. The “influencers” have been defined by A». Melson (1980, p. 183) as “family members who provide information and advice concerning the selection of a product or service." McNeal (1965) found that more than fifty percent of the mothers of seven to nine year olds asked their children for advice in certain purchasing decisions. Munn (1968 as cited in Ferber, 1977, p. 92) stated similarly that “nine of ten parents reported they were influenced by their children in the choice of specific branded products.” Several studies have shown that youth develop consumer attitudes and behaviors from multiple sources such as school, peers, parents/guardians, and mass media; youth learn to persuade their parents to purchase their wants (Ferber, 1977; Munn, 1968; Newspaper Publishers Bureau, 1967 as cited in Melson, 1980; Sherman & Delener, 1987; Delener & Schiffman, 1988.) Marketing and family consumer research thus shows that youth can influence the attitudes and decisions of their parents/guardians. In this evaluation of the GLEP, I propose to examine whether youth also influence their parents/guardians with respect to changes in knowledge, attitudes and responsible behavioral intentions regarding the Great Lakes resources as a result of the GLEP. This research can then help to see if youth affect parents’ environmental stewardship knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in general. Problem Statement The Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) has been well received by students, teachers, and volunteers. However, I 1 i. o .. uu. .‘4 I. ‘ ..nn 2. C.» h 5 5. r. In“ S S ”a . _ e c e r C .a v . 5 . .3 AC AC .2 a O CO >1. .h .. I n... .— a: . n v. ,I- .Q t. c .I- .. . at... n us . ‘ a .C n)». . n L Y; a h... there has been no evaluation of the secondary impacts (“ripple effects”) of the program on participants’ families. Thus, the focus of this research is to measure indirect effects of the GLEP experience on participants’ parents’/guardians’ knowledge, attitudes and responsible behavioral intentions regarding the Great Lakes and their resources . Research Questien and Hypoeheses My overall research question is to assess the impacts of youth participation in the Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) on participants' parents’/guardians’ knowledge, attitudes, and responsible behavioral intentions regarding the Great Lakes resource. I will assess the secondary impacts (“ripple effect") by looking at changes in three domains: knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. ijectiye 1: To determine whether secondary impacts exist in parents/guardians as a result of their youth's participation in the GLEP. Hypogheeie 1e: Parents/Guardians with participating youth will report greater knowledge (water conservation, recycling, water and air pollution, animal habitats, Great Lakes geography, fish biology, botany, exotic and native species, food chains, and Great Lakes history) of the Great Lakes resource than will parents/guardians without participating youth. Hypothesis 1p: Parents/Guardians with participating youth will report more positive attitudes toward the Great Lakes resource than will parents/guardians without participating youth. Hypothesis 1c: Parents/Guardians with participating youth will report more frequent positive behaviors (water conservation, recycling, minimizing pollution, advocacy, and taking Great Lakes vacations) toward the Great Lakes resource than will parents/guardians without participating youth. ijeetive 2: To determine whether parent/Guardian volunteerism with the GLEP results in greater secondary impacts as compared with participants’ parents/guardians who are not GLEP volunteers. Hypothesis 2a: Participants’ parents/guardians who acted as a volunteer will display greater knowledge (water conservation, recycling, water and air pollution, animal habitats, Great Lakes geography, fish biology, botany, exotic and native species, food chains, and Great Lakes history) compared to participants’ parent/guardian who did not volunteer. Hypoehesis 2b: Participants' parents/guardians who acted as a volunteer will report more positive attitudes compared to participants’ parent/guardian who did not volunteer. Hypoehesis 2e: Participants’ parents/guardians who acted as a volunteer will report more frequent positive behaviors (water conservation, recycling, minimizing pollution, advocacy, and taking Great Lakes vacations) compared to participants’ parent/guardian who did not volunteer. Objective 3: To investigate the relationships among Great Lakes knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. anothesis 3a: Levels of knowledge, attitudes toward the Great Lakes, and participation in stewardship behaviors will be positively correlated. In addition to these major research objectives, it is important to gather much-needed descriptive data on parents/guardians’ self—perceptions of impacts of the GLEP on youth and families. The following hypotheses are also considered in this study: oParticipants’ parents/guardians who acted as GLEP volunteers will report greater support of youth’s future interests (occupational) in the Great Lakes than non- volunteer parents/guardians. oParticipants’ parents/guardians who acted as GLEP volunteers will report more frequently that the GLEP is 10 influential on youth’s educational achievement (Great Lakes ecology and water quality issues) and personal development (interest in and awareness and appreciation of the Great Lakes, ecology, and water quality) than non—volunteer parents/guardians. oParticipants’ parents/guardians who acted as GLEP volunteers will report more frequently that they are more aware of water quality issues than non—volunteer parents/guardians. oParticipants’ parents/guardians who acted as GLEP volunteers will report more frequent participation in family consumerism water behaviors (angling and water sports) than non-volunteer parents/guardians. oParticipants’ parents/guardians who acted as GLEP volunteers will report more frequent participation in family Great Lakes tourism behaviors than non—volunteer parents/guardians. 11 LITERATURE REVIEW Histogy pf Enyironmensal Education Environmental Education (EE) has been part of formal education for almost a century, although its name and focus have changed depending on its associated movement as it had its roots in many fields of study. The first movement was termed “Nature Study” and was developed during the late 1800s. It was a part of early childhood education in rural one—room schoolhouses until the 1920s (Brice, 1972 as cited in Disinger, 1983, Environmental Education and Training Partnership, 1997d). This movement provided students with exploratory outdoor educational experiences. The next movement, called Conservation Education, began in the early 19003 to help people understand the basic importance of conserving natural resources (Environmental Education and Training Partnership, 1997d). The Outdoor Education movement in the 19205 used the resources from outside the classroom for the purposes of education. It is believed that the school camping movement grew from the importance of outdoor education (Roth, 1978 as cited in Disinger, 1983). The modern environmental education movement grew out of a concern for the environment, as foul-smelling rivers and smog-covered cities became harder to ignore. EE was also a result of environmental problems brought to light by people 12 such as Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spying, published in 1962, and the environmental movement starting with the first Earth Day in 1970. From these many fields of study come many and varied definitions of BE. A widely accepted definition of EB was developed in 1975 at a United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) meeting in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. It states: The goal of environmental education is to develop a world population that is aware of, and concerned about the environment and its associated problems, and which has the knowledge, skills, attitudes, motivations, and commitment to work individually and collectively toward solutions of current problems and the prevention of new ones. (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, 1976, p. 2). Following the UNESCO meeting, the world’s first intergovernmental conference on environmental education was held in 1978. At this meeting the Tbilisi Declaration was adopted. It outlined five categories of objectives for environmental education: awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, and participation. First, awareness may help individuals become sensitive to the environment and its problems, while imparting knowledge helps individuals gain experience and understanding of the environment and its problems. Guiding the formation of attitudes helps individuals develop values and concern for the environment. Encouraging and guiding the development of skills provides individuals the tools needed for solving environmental 13 problems, and encouraging and promoting participation in action provides the opportunity to become actively involved in working toward resolutions of environmental problems (Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, 1978). Overall, the 19805 were a period of slow growth for EE, partly due to the prevailing political climate. However, national curricula, such as Project WILD and Project Learning Tree, were being developed, evaluated, revised and disseminated through tested training workshops (Project WILD, 1996). In 1990, the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 101—619 (PL 101-619), known as the National Environmental Education Act (NEEA). NEEA was created to increase public understanding of the natural environment, and to advance and develop environmental education and training. The mandates of the NEEA were to be accomplished by the federal government through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the establishment of the Office of Environmental Education (OEE) (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998a). The OEE was established to work with federal and state agencies, institutions, not-for—profit educational and environmental organizations, and private sector interests to provide for environmental education and training programs, education grants, internships and fellowships, education awards, and an Education Advisory Council and Task Force (National 14 Environmental Education Act, 1990, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998b). In 1993, twelve federal agencies participated in an interagency review of federal EE programs. Based on the Belgrade Charter and the Tbilisi Declaration these agencies agreed that “environmental education should increase public awareness and knowledge about environmental issues as well as provide the public with the skills necessary to make informed decisions and the motivation to take responsible actions” (FCCSET, 1993 as cited in The National Environmental Education Advisory Council Report to Congress, 1998, p. 3). Despite the efforts of the United Nations, federal agencies and non-federal programs, EE has not been well integrated into education reform and improvement (Ramsey, Hungerford, & Volk, 1992). The goal of kindergarten through twelfth grade (K—12) education reform is to improve learning. Some of the approaches reformers advocate to achieve this goal include using new approaches to teaching and learning, greater accountability and assessment of progress in improving learning, developing better problem solving and critical-thinking skills in students, and strengthening core subject areas such as math, science, and geography (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998b, d). K—12 education reform should be a means to implement EE curriculum because EE draws on many disciplines and topics such as science, math, history, geography, citizenship, and career development. With EE integrated into various subject areas, 15 .. P‘CPA .-., kg, —~ E:- I (b r‘ '1 m 1 ‘ I .a ‘6" u—Q. I'[ C it would less likely be subject to funding cuts and more likely be a focus of teacher training, be subject to curriculum expansion to include people of varying age groups and cultures, and be subject to more intensive evaluations on quality and effectiveness of curriculum. Histogy of Environmental Education in Michigap In 1971, the Task Force on Goals of Michigan Education met and established the following goal: Michigan education must develop within each individual the knowledge and respect necessary for the appreciation maintenance, protection, and improvement of the physical env1ronment. (Environmental Education Guidelines, 1973, p. 3) Throughout the 19705, guidelines for BB were developed and disseminated in Michigan. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) aided EE's progress through its division of Information and Education (I & E). This progress was slowed in the 19805 with the election of a new legislature and other leadership in Michigan. In June, 1990 The MDNR and the Michigan Board of Education hosted a meeting to discuss the state’s role in integrating EE into the educational system. At this meeting an Environmental Education Citizens’ Advisory Committee (EECAC) was formed. The function of this committee was to guide the MDNR and the Michigan Board of Education in integrating EE into schools’ curricula. The EECAC submitted a report to the Michigan State Board of Education and the 16 Michigan Natural Resources Commission (Rustem, 1993). This report contained a statement of EE mission, an EE goal statement, rationale and interpretation of the goal, EE objectives, and suggestions for EE implementation and evaluation. Even though EE in Michigan lacks centralized leadership and coordination, the report described the amount and types of EE activities and programs currently occurring in the state. Most EE programs in Michigan have been assembled using a variety of materials, because there is no formal state-mandated EE curriculum (Michigan Department of Education 1996). The 1992 Michigan EECAC recommended the following to achieve implementation of EE: 1. Coordinate efforts and resources 2. develop and implement comprehensive K-12 EE programming 3. provide sources of adequate and stable funding 4. institutionalize EE as an important mission in Michigan with support of state and private organizations 5. monitor and evaluate Michigan’s implementation of EB. (Environmental Education Citizens’ Advisory Committee, 1992, p. 11) Unfortunately, there have been many obstacles to achieving these recommendations. One of the biggest obstacles in developing BE in Michigan concerns the structure of Michigan’s school systems. Most of the control over schools in Michigan is concentrated within the local school districts, which would make implementing a statewide mandate of EE difficult (Cox & Wilson, 1993). Related to this is an 17 a.r pre w'r u‘k pr: ...u a: . n ..q. h: vs already overburdened curriculum and local school districts’ pressures to have students perform well on the Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP). Another obstacle is the lack of concern that individuals have about environmental issues that go beyond their own personal needs (Environmental Education Citizens’ Advisory Committee, 1992). Finally, it has been suggested that financial stability, at the national and state levels, is a must for EE to be successfully integrated. Alternative strategies of integrating EE will require time to develop and to train teachers prior to implementation. Michigan Public Act 310 (PA 310) was approved in July 1994. It is described as: AN ACT to promote environmental education in the state; to provide for an environmental education coordinator within the department of natural resources; and to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state agencies and officials. (Environmental Education Act, 1994, p. 1) The purpose of PA 310 was to help develop Michigan citizens’ understanding of the natural environment. According to this act, residents of Michigan should understand the connections among human beings, air, land, water, and all other living beings, and should be able to make informed decisions regarding natural resources. PA 310 also provided for the appointment of a coordinator of environmental education in the MDNR. The coordinator’s responsibilities included things such as: providing technical assistance to schools and educators, assisting educators and students of BE in sources 18 I rd (1 (O of funding, assisting the MDNR in implementing statewide EE strategies, supporting professional development programs for educators, and assisting in the integration of EB into curriculum objectives in Michigan’s elementary and secondary schools. The Environmental Education Act allowed the MDNR director to establish a statewide environmental education advisory committee, to be composed of a broad representation of members. Unfortunately, the MDNR Division of I & E had been dissolved. In the mid 19905, the MDNR was split into two agencies: MDNR and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Both of these agencies initially lacked an office for information and education. By 1996, MDEQ named an Environmental Education coordinator, and MDNR reestablished its office of Information and Education and hired a Chief of this Office. In May 1997, in order to address stalled progress of BE in Michigan, an EE Roundtable conference was convened by 60 EE leaders from throughout the state. The purpose of this conference was to outline issues, concerns, goals, and objectives, and to develop a timeline for the implementation of EB throughout Michigan. To date, this roundtable has continued its work on the implementation of EB goals and objectives throughout Michigan. 19 The Great Lakes Edpcation Program The Great Lakes Education Program’s (GLEP) curriculum is related to the definition of marine and aquatic education, which is: ...that part of the total educational process which enables people to develop a sensitivity to and a general understanding of the role of the seas and fresh water in human affairs and the impact of society on the marine and aquatic environments. (Goodwin & Schaadt, 1977 as cited in Fortner 1991, p. 303). The GLEP has grown from a pilot season of four classes in 1989, to a program which has involved a total of more than 14,000 students, teachers, parents, and community volunteers from southeast Michigan (S. Stewart, personal communication, March 1999). The GLEP combines formal education in the classroom guided by GLEP curriculum with non-formal education activities outside of the classroom on the GLEP cruise experience. The GLEP was designed to educate youth to develop ecological literacy, understanding, and stewardship of the Great Lakes resources and issues (Williamson, 1996). The GLEP was also designed to provide learners with experiential or hands-on learning on an educational cruise aboard a modified Great Lakes fishing vessel on the local watershed (the Clinton River and Lake St. Clair) and the Great Lakes. Experiential education creates in the learner a sense of personal responsibility (National Environmental Education Advisory Council, 1998). It encourages learners to be 20 a c act It, s flu; AVJ rm. «anh ”U. “MM. r fl A.s u . u A. v .. 2 v . m: U . S .L a s C actively engaged in their own learning process through investigation (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998d). Environmentally literate and responsible citizens are empowered and motivated to act to ensure environmental quality. The GLEP curriculum core model was developed with three sequential and complementary teaching elements to be implemented within one school year (Williamson, Stewart, Dann, Kozma, & Swinehart, 1998). It was not designed to be a one-time learning experience. GLEP consists of pre-cruise classroom learning activities, the cruise, and post—cruise classroom learning activities. The pre- and post-cruise activities are important in creating a long-term effect in the learners’ Great Lakes knowledge and stewardship. GLEP teaching themes include: water, land, life, and people; these themes were designed to help teachers integrate the GLEP into their curricula. The activities are correlated with state education standards, which in turn, relate to the Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP) (Williamson, et al. 1998, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998d). The themes of water, land, life, and people also relate to PA 310 in that, according to the law, all residents of Michigan should be able to understand the connections among these themes. This GLEP program model is unique among the several vessel-based (or shipboard) education programs within the 21 Grea nati 7’ ““NA ‘ ~' Great Lakes region and among the hundreds of similar programs nationally. Its unique features include: ofocus on the local watersheds within the program content, otargeting of local schools and students within local watersheds, olocally planned and implemented through a task force composed of program stakeholders, oinclusion of local partners as funders and volunteers, and oencouragement of parents/guardians as volunteers. In general, the GLEP is also unique among EE programs because it is a community—based experiential program, fostered by the County branch of MSU Extension, a family—oriented program provider. Impages gn she Family and Family Decision Making Prgeesses The GLEP was designed to depend on community and parent volunteers to guide students at the learning stations during the shipboard experience. Both teachers and shipboard volunteers are required to attend training sessions prior to their GLEP cruises. It is possible that the program not only impacts the participants and volunteers, but also the parents/guardians and other members of participants’ families, producing a community-wide ripple effect of positive EE outcomes. This ripple effect may occur because 22 the program's curriculum is used throughout the year, and parents and community members are involved. To date, the secondary impacts on parents/guardians that may result from their youth’s participation in an EE program have not been well documented. Marketing research and family consumer research, however, have shown the importance of family members' influences on individuals’ purchases of products and services. The family has traditionally been defined as “two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption who reside together” (Schiffman & Lazar Kanuk, 1994, p. 349), or more specifically as “any group of people living together who share resources, function interdependently, and have commitment over time” (Paolucci, 1977 as cited in Bristor, 1990, p. 47). The family is often viewed as a unit or a system. Bristor suggests that the family is “...usually the social system that nurtures the individual and governs the interrelationships that occur in the individual’s environment" (1990, p. 29). Since there are these relationships among family members, there is the potential for the transfer of EE related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. For example, it is generally agreed that attitudes are learned (Schiffman & Lazar Kanuk, 1994). These attitudes are often a result of a direct experience with or exposure to family members, peers, admired individuals, or mass media. Related to attitudes are the behaviors they commonly reflect. Sometimes behaviors may appear inconsistent with an attitude. 23 This may be in part due to a changing attitudes, as attitudes are not necessarily permanent (Schiffman & Lazar Kanuk). The National Environmental Education Advisory Council Report to Congress in 1998 proposes that as children become involved in EE problem solving and action activities, they will take these issues home and discuss them with their parents, therefore increasing parents’ involvement in, awareness of, and understanding of environmental issues. One example exists of a youth education program that has been shown to impact parents’ behaviors and awareness of wildlife laws (Blanchard & Monroe, 1990). The Quebec-Labrador Foundation developed an education program, The Marine Bird Conservation Project, targeted at youth in an effort to control the illegal harvest of seabirds and eggs in a community with a semi—subsistence lifestyle in the Lower North Shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Quebec. Youth from the community participated in an experiential conservation program that focused on seabird biology, sanctuary etiquette and wildlife laws. The curriculum presented information using local dialects and norms on biological and human factors impacting the breeding success of seabirds. Youth participants in the program displayed an increase in knowledge and greater concern about seabirds after the experience (Hallowell, 1985, as cited in Blanchard & Monroe, 1990, p. 110). Many youth returned for several summers after their initial participation to volunteer with the program; others were trained and became paid staff members. Printed 24 materials were gradually introduced to the community using colloquial names for the birds, illustrations and cartoons, and recognizable place names. As a result of using local dialects and norms and by targeting the youth of the community, parents became actively involved in the program. Follow—up surveys of adults in the community showed “...significant changes in local knowledge of wildlife law, attitudes toward hunting and regulations, and level of harvest of birds and eggs” (Blanchard & Monroe, 1990, p. 112). Outside of the family unit, there are many other groups that may impact youth and their families. Families or individuals within the family may spend time with peers, clubs, neighborhood associations, special interest groups, gangs, churches, and work groups and in turn may be influenced in decision making processes by these groups (Paolucci, Hall, & Azinn, 1977). To illustrate some of the possible indirect effects youth participating in the GLEP may have on others, we can draw upon both family consumer research and EE (Figure 1). There are five groups of people that may be part of a network of potential indirect impacts of GLEP within the community; these groups include the GLEP volunteers, teachers, family, peers, and others. The thick-lined arrows show the indirect impacts of GLEP on youth and then on each group. The thin- lined arrows demonstrate potential impacts of the GLEP on volunteers, teachers, family, peers, and others. The dashed 25 arrow shows the direct impact of GLEP on youth participants’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. Additionally, there are other influences on each group (listed below each group heading). For example, families are influenced by the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of parents/guardians, siblings, grandparents, and other extended family members. Family decision making processes may also be influenced by the interests of members and by other lifestyle choices, such as single-parenthood or dual-career parenthood. 26 We Network of potential, indirect impacts of community—based EE programs such as GLEP GLEP \‘ \ VOLUNTEERS . ‘Cruise training and experience *Volunteers’ interests TEACHERS *State curriculum model *District curriculum mandates *School’s mission or charter *District/school’s funding for fieldtrips and out-of-classroom experiences *Teachers’ interests *GLEP curriculum (pre and post) FAMILY *Parents/guardians *Siblings *Grandparents and other extended family *Family decision making processes *Values and attitudes *lnterests and activities 1 I *Resources-money and time I \ \ *Parental involvement in youth’s * educafion \ *Single parent families ( *Dual career families Yo UTH \ *Access to and interest in out-of-doors expenences \ *Parental involvment PEERS *Peers’ interests *Parental involvement ) OTHERS lm acts between 05th and each *Other adults (mentors, neighbors, etc.) y *Community (businesses, other youth group. organizations, etc.) .... .p Impacts of GLEP on youth ————~> Impacts of the GLEP on each group. 2'7 H" Y‘ .390-- —_-———- Thegries gf Shapge (Knowledge, Aptitudes, and Behavior) The processes of attitude and behavior formation and change, within the context of consumer behavior, have been researched in order to study strategic marketing questions. This research is then used by companies to better target new products to different audiences. In addition, researchers have investigated attitude and behavior formation and changes in regard to environmental literacy, and participation. In order to understand the relationships among knowledge, attitudes, and behavior and how values and beliefs impact these relationships, we must first understand the meanings of the words. Knowledge can be described as known facts that have been gained through experience or study. An attitude has been defined as “a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive and dynamic influence upon the individual’s response to all objects and situations with which it is related" (Allport, 1935 as cited in Horowitz & Bordens, 1995, p. 228). An attitude may also be described as the interconnections of thoughts, feelings, behavioral intentions and behaviors related to the object of the attitude (Zimbardo & Leippe, 1992). Behaviors are the actions or reactions of persons in response to external or internal stimuli. Values, what a person perceives to be important, and beliefs, what a person perceives to be true, can impact a person’s behaviors. It is important for educators and program planners to understand the relationships among knowledge, attitudes, and 28 behavior and how they may affect one another in order to effectively plan lessons and programs. It is also important to understand how changes in behavior can be achieved, especially in terms of positive environmental stewardship behaviors. In order to understand these basic relationships, researchers have developed several theories. The Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) is one theory that is often cited in discussions of attitudes and behaviors, even recreational stewardship behaviors (Fishbein & Manfredo, 1992, p. 371). This theory explains relationships among beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Fishbein and Ajzen claim that people are thoughtful creatures and are aware of their attitudes and behavior. The link between attitudes and behavior may be demonstrated in different ways, and it is therefore necessary to look at many different kinds of specific behavior to understand the true relationships between general attitudes and behavior (Horowitz & Bordens, 1995). Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980, also developed the Theory of Planned Behavior. This theory assumes that the best predictor of a person’s behavior is the person’s intention to act. The intention to act is influenced by three factors: the person’s attitudes toward the behavior, the norms of friends and family, and the person’s perceived ability to control the behavior. It can be argued, therefore, that how a person perceives the importance of significant others (e.g., peers 29 and family) can influence a behavior, even if that behavior contradicts the person’s own attitudes. While the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior show a flow from changes in attitude leading to changes in behavior, social psychological researchers have demonstrated theories that flow from changes in behavior leading to changes in attitudes. The first theory is cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). This can be described as an unpleasant state that results when an attitude and a behavior are in conflict. Behaving inconsistently with our attitudes is unpleasant. Therefore, we are motivated to reduce the dissonance and achieve psychological balance by changing our attitudes or by changing our behavior. For example, in respect to this thesis, perhaps parents/guardians began taking used motor oil to an approved waste collection site only after their son/daughter participated in the GLEP. This behavior may have been inconsistent with their attitude, but in order to reach a cognitive balance they decided that since they were making the effort to recycle household toxic waste, it must be important to them, thus changing their attitude toward recycling household toxic waste. The second theory is called Self-Perception Theory (Bem, 1972). This theory asserts that “people observe their own behavior and assume that their attitudes must be consistent with that behavior” (Horowitz & Bordens, 1995, p. 293). One common example of this might be, “I said it, I must have meant it." Or in terms of this thesis, perhaps 30 parents/guardians participated in water conservation behaviors only after their son/daughter participated in the GLEP. When they were asked questions about water conservation behaviors (i.e. “I am willing to turn off the water when I brush my teeth”) they assessed what they did (turn off the water) and assumed that their attitudes (water conservation is important to me) must be consistent with that behavior. Therefore, when we report our attitudes, it is merely an interpretation of our behavior. These theories can be related directly to explaining potential ripple effects of youths’ GLEP participation on adults. Youth participants may be unable to explain to their parents/guardians why (based on knowledge) something positive should be done as an environmental stewardship behavior; they may only be able to stress the importance (i.e. based on attitudes) of doing something (i.e. the behavior). If youth are able to influence their parents/guardians to change a behavior (recycle and conserve water) then in turn, according to the theories of cognitive dissonance and self—perception, a change in attitude (it is important to recycle and conserve water) in the parents/guardians may result. 31 METHODS Deyelgpmen; gf Evaluation Instrument I evaluated potential effects of The Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) on parents/guardians using a self— administered, descriptive survey. The survey was developed using items from ten different questionnaires. These instruments include: the survey used in a follow-up study of the 4—H Great Lakes Natural Resources Camp (Suvedi & Dann, 1992), a Survey of NatureLink Families (Siemer & Brown, 1997), Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP) Survey (Williamson, 1996), Coral Reef Classroom Student Survey (Kelly, 1995), Inland Seas Education Association Student Post-Trip Evaluation (Schultz, 1994), Wildlife Education Survey—4th Grade (Gilchrist, 1989/90), Marine Education Knowledge Inventory (Hounshell & Hampton, 1982), Children’s Wildlife Perception Survey (Wong-Leonard, 1992), Water and Aquatic Life (Stout, Herd, & Haverland, 1989), and Survey of Oceanic Attitudes and Knowledge (SOAK) (Fortner & Mayer, 1983),. Williamson (1996) developed her survey by pooling items from these instruments into a large database. Then, she matched GLEP objectives to fourth grade content standards and benchmarks as reported in Michigap’s Essengial Seals end ijeegiyes for Ssience Education (K-12) (1991) and Michigan gore Sergieulum Sontent and Standards (1994). Knowledge 32 questions from the item pool were matched to GLEP objectives and benchmarks in an attempt to assure content validity of the instrument. Experience, attitude and behavioral intention questions were also selected from the item pool and edited to relate specifically to the GLEP. For this study, these questions and those from other studies (especially Siemer & Brown, 1997, and Suvedi & Dann, 1992) were further adapted to be appropriate for the parents/guardians of participants. The survey consisted of eight sections (Appendix H—2). It was requested that the one parent/guardian who was the most familiar with their son or daughter’s GLEP experiences was to complete the survey. Section A was to be answered only by parents/guardians of students who had participated in the GLEP. It consisted of Yes/No questions related to their family’s outdoor and Great Lakes experiences before the youths' GLEP participation. Section B consisted of Yes/No questions related to the family’s outdoor experiences over the past six months, and was to be answered by all respondents. The respondents whose son or daughter participated in the GLEP did so in the fall of 1997 or spring of 1998. Therefore, Section A related to pre-GLEP experiences of participants’ parents/guardians only, and Section B related to post-GLEP experiences for participants’ parents/guardians or experiences during the past six months for non-participants’ parents/guardians. The first half of section C and all of section D measured parents'/guardians’ attitudes toward the Great Lakes 33 and the environment and was to be answered by all respondents. The first of these, section C-Attitudes about the Great Lakes, was composed of semantic differential items with adjective pairs describing the Great Lakes, with a scale ranging from 1-6; this attitude scale was adapted from the SOAK survey (Fortner & Mayer, 1983). The second set of attitude questions, section D-Attitudes about the Environment used a 5-point Likert scale with possible responses of strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree (Siemer & Brown, 1997). I measured parents’ intentions to perform positive environmental behaviors using forced categorical responses of True, Maybe, or False in the second half of Section C, intentions/feelings, (Leeming, Dwyer, & Bracken, 1995, Williamson, 1996). Section E, environmental actions, also measured parents' intentions to perform positive environmental behaviors using a 5-point Likert-type scale with possible responses of never, almost never, sometimes, often, and always (Siemer & Brown, 1997). Section F was designed to assess the knowledge of respondents in regards to the Great Lakes and even more specifically, the GLEP. This section was comprised of 13 questions with multiple choice answers (Fortner & Mayer, 1983, Williamson, 1996). Additional questions in section G were asked to understand respondents’ backgrounds; this section was to be answered by all respondents. Section H was designed to assess 34 the impacts of the GLEP on participants and their families, based on the self-reported perceptions of their parents/guardians. We According to Dillman (1978), other researchers have demonstrated that there are many aspects of survey design that must be considered in order to maximize response rates. Things to consider include but are not limited to: the color of the paper, length of the questionnaire, composition of the cover letter, and offers of incentives. Dillman suggests “...researchers assumed that respondent behavior is primarily a reaction to particular aspects of mail questionnaire studies, rather than a reaction to the whole” (p. 7). He suggests that the decision to respond is most likely based on the overall, visible evaluation of the study to the prospective respondents. Therefore, I considered the appearance of the survey instrument in terms of size, shape (booklet), weight, color of paper, cover design, question order, and layout. The wording and organization of the cover letter were also carefully crafted. There are no agreed upon requirements for pre-testing a survey (Dillman, 1978, p. 155). I submitted the preliminary survey instrument to a panel of six expert reviewers, including university researchers and extension professionals, to see whether potential respondents would understand and be 35 able to complete the survey questions. Reviewers' comments were considered and revisions were made. SLBQMLMQLQQQS School districts were unable to provide me with the names, addresses, and phone numbers of students and their parents/guardians (S. Stewart, personal communication, summer 1998). Since I was unable to contact the parents/guardians of participants directly, I needed an alternative to face-to- face interviews, phone surveys, and standard mail surveys to implement this study. My study design alternative came from an adaptation of the “total design method (TDM)" for a mail survey (Dillman, 1978). The TDM was constructed by bringing together past research about techniques for effective mail survey methods. Dillman suggests that the procedures of the TDM, when followed, can overcome some of the deficiencies and problems of mail surveys and may result in a response rate of 50% to 75%, although these response rates are still usually lower than those of similar studies using face—to—face interviews. The Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects approved all research methodology (Appendix A). Methodologies were considered to assess fifth, sixth, and seventh graders’ parents/guardians’ reactions to GLEP (Appendix B). However, only the fifth grade classrooms were selected for this study (Appendix F). Fourth grade classrooms who had participated the cruise experience during 36 the fall cruise season of 1998 were not considered for this study because they were only three to four months post-GLEP experience. For many reasons I rejected the goal of assessing longer-term program impacts by contacting levels at or above sixth grade. GLEP participants who would now be in sixth or seventh grade were dispersed among many middle and junior high schools (Appendix B). Surveying these students would have required great effort and expense, yet response rates probably would have been low and survey costs high. For example, attempting to contact seventh graders would have entailed contacting 26 middle schools and 13 junior highs. Within these 39 schools there were 6,892 seventh grade students with an estimated 3,493 GLEP participants. Therefore, my study methods focused on the parents/guardians of fifth grade students in Macomb County in school districts with GLEP participation. Teachers' and/or schools' permission for survey distribution was attained in cooperation with Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) staff located in Macomb County (Appendix C). There are 23 public school districts in Macomb County; as of the spring 1998, 13 (57%) districts had schools that have participated in the GLEP at one time or another since 1991. I classified each school within GLEP participating districts as either a participating or a non— participating school. Within participating schools there had been fourth grade participation in the GLEP during the 1997— 37 1998 school year. The non-participating schools consisted of fifth grade classrooms within schools that have never participated in the GLEP. I examined estimates of GLEP participation (1995-1998) (Appendix D—l), current school enrollments in elementary, middle, and junior high schools (Appendix D—2, D-3,and D—4), and school districts’ general characteristics (urban, suburban, or rural) within all GLEP participating districts (Appendix E). Based on these examinations, I decided to contact four school districts, which included 16 separate schools with 38 classrooms and 962 students (Appendix F). These school districts were chosen because they were representative of all GLEP participating districts based on their classification as an urban, suburban, or rural district (Appendix E), and for means of efficiency in survey distribution based on estimated school enrollment numbers (Appendix D-4). Unfortunately, the timing of the implementation of my study coincided with the Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP) test battery, which fifth grade students in Macomb County were scheduled to take at the beginning of February, 1999. Some teachers and principals were reluctant to participate in my study since they perceived it might take time away from classroom instruction and studies in preparation for the MEAP. Of the 16 schools that I contacted, only 8 agreed to participate; therefore, the study methods were adjusted to include only 8 schools with 19 classrooms and 458 students (Appendix G). The schools 38 within this adjusted study were matched so there was one GLEP participating school and one non-participating school within each of the four districts. W To implement this study, I scheduled school visits with each teacher. I agreed to present a classroom activity on Great Lakes careers and opportunities. I used the activity “Fisheries Careers Scavenger Hunt" from The Life pf The Lakes (Dann, 1994). In return, teachers agreed to administer the survey. During the school visit, I explained the survey implementation process to teachers, discussing survey boxes which contained all the needed items and which were labeled with directions and dates for distribution. Survey boxes were organized with the following items in the order they were to be used: survey packet for distribution on the day of my visit, reminder letter to be sent home one week after my visit, additional survey packets for distribution three weeks after my visit (Appendix H), large envelopes with pre—paid postage for multiple survey packet returns, a poster and marker to chart classroom survey returns, fish bobbers and fish trading cards for each student when a completed survey was returned to the teacher, and a poster of Michigan fishes for the classroom when a 75% survey return rate was achieved. After completing the activity with the students, I explained to them that I needed their help. I showed the 39 students the survey packet (Appendix H-1, H—2) and its contents and explained that I needed them to take the envelope home to their parents for completion and then bring it back to their teachers. I explained to the class the incentives and gifts each student would receive when a completed survey was returned to their teacher, and the gifts the classroom would receive upon a 75% survey return rate or a 95% survey return rate (fish posters, or sets of fish fact sheets and Great Lakes posters). I also showed students a chart that could be displayed in the classroom so that they could track their survey return efforts. Each teacher was to distribute a survey packet (Appendix H) to each student to take home to his or her parent or guardian on the day of the classroom visit. Each survey packet sent home with students included a cover letter to parents/guardians (Appendix H-l), a survey (Appendix H—2), and an envelope in which the completed survey was to be returned to the teacher. The cover letter explained the importance of the survey, guaranteed confidentiality of responses, explained that study participation consent is given by returning the completed survey, and appealed for parents’ prompt response. Those who returned the survey within two weeks would be entered into a drawing (Appendix H- 3) for an incentive prize of a free bass fishing trip for one adult and one child. As an incentive for the students to encourage their parents to complete the survey, fish trading 4O cards and fishing bobbers were given to each student when a completed survey was returned. The survey instrument was a ten—page survey which took approximately 15 minutes to complete. A reminder letter (Appendix I) was to be distributed by teachers to parents/guardians through the students one week after the original survey distribution. Teachers were supplied with large envelopes with prepaid postage to return multiple survey packets to the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University. Additional copies of the survey packets, with a revised cover letter (Appendix J), were left with the teachers at the time of the school visits. This revised cover letter again explained the importance of the survey, guaranteed confidentiality of responses, explained that study participation consent is given by returning the completed survey, and appealed for parents’ prompt response by indicating that the classroom would receive a special gift when 95% of the students had returned a completed survey. Participating teachers were to ask each student to take another copy of the survey home only if he or she had not returned his or her parent’s completed survey (Table 1). 41 Table 1 Shgyey Distribution Timeline School* Class- Original Survey Scheduled Scheduled Survey room* Distribution Reminder Redistribution Letter Distribution by Teachers 1 1 01/11/99 01/18/99 02/01/99 1 2 01/11/99 01/18/99 02/01/99 2 3 02/17/99 02/24/99 03/10/99 2 4 02/17/99 02/24/99 03/10/99 2 5 02/17/99 02/24/99 03/10/99 3 6 01/19/99 02/09/99 02/26/99 3 7 01/19/99 02/09/99 02/26/99 3 8 01/19/99 02/09/99 02/26/99 4 9 01/15/99 01/22/99 02/05/99 4 10 01/15/99 01/22/99 02/05/99 5 11 01/15/99 01/22/99 02/05/99 5 12 01/15/99 01/22/99 02/05/99 6 13 01/15/99 01/22/99 02/05/99 6 14 01/15/99 01/22/99 02/05/99 7 15 02/24/99 03/03/99 03/17/99 7 16 02/24/99 03/03/99 03/17/99 7 17 02/24/99 03/03/99 03/17/99 8 18 02/24/99 03/03/99 03/17/99 8 19 02/24/99 03/03/99 03/17/99 *See Appendix G for schools and classrooms that are represented by the above numbers. 42 Phone messages were left for the teachers on the average of two times a week beginning approximately five weeks after each classroom visit. These messages were to remind teachers to return the surveys and also to help with any questions that may have arisen as a result of the visit or the survey. Phone calls were placed at different times of the day (morning, lunch time, and dismissal time) in hopes that a teacher might be available to come to the phone. The message also contained two phone numbers (school and home) where I might be reached should they require assistance. Approximately seven weeks after each classroom visit I began making phone calls in order to understand survey non— response. I left messages requesting that the teachers return my call as soon as possible. These calls were also made at varying times of day and made about three times a week. On March 15 a thank you/reminder letter (Appendix K) was sent to all of the teachers. Data Anelysis I used the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 8.0 for data analysis (SPSS, 1997). A research intern assisted me with data entry into an SPSS spreadsheet. Scales were created on some of the sections within the survey and Cronbach’s Alpha was used to assess scale reliability. Using the same SPSS software, I calculated summary statistics and scale scores, and I performed t—tests, Mann-Whitney U tests and chi—square statistics. 43 For the purpose of analysis, the 13—question knowledge section with multiple choice answers was treated like a test. Correct answers were scored with a value of one point and then summed to yield an overall knowledge score that ranged from zero to 13 points. Missing and incorrect answers were scored as zero. Two sections of the survey were designed to assess the attitudes of parents/guardians. In order to analyze the raw scores of the questions in section C-Attitudes about the Great Lakes, the semantic differential items were recoded so that all responses would be in the same direction, with responses ranging from very negative views to very positive views. The attitude scores ranged from one to six, with the more negative responses receiving a one and the more positive answers receiving a six. Missing answers were considered as “system missing values," and these cases with missing answers were excluded from the analysis. Responses were then summed to yield an overall attitude score that ranged from seven to 42. Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated to assess the reliability of the scale (Alpha = .7011). Responses to the attitude questions in Section D- Attitudes about the Environment, were recoded so that they ranged from one to five, with the more negative responses receiving a one and the more positive answers receiving a five. Missing answers were considered as “system missing values," and these cases with missing answers were excluded from the analysis. Responses were then summed to yield an 44 overall attitude score that ranged from nine to 45. Cronbach's Alpha was conducted to examine the reliability of the scale (Alpha = .9303). Two sections of the survey were related to Great Lakes behavioral intentions. For the purposes of analysis, responses to each question in the second half of Section C— Intentions/Feelings, were recoded so that the behavior scores ranged from one to three, with the more negative responses receiving a one and the more positive answers receiving a three. Missing answers were considered as “system missing values,” and these cases with missing answers were excluded from the analysis. Responses were then summed to yield an overall attitude score that ranged from eight to 42. Cronbach’s Alpha was conducted for reliability of the scale (Alpha 2 .6723). Responses to the 12 questions in section E—Environmental Actions, ranged from one to five, with the more negative responses receiving a one and the more positive answers receiving a five. Missing answers were considered as “system missing values," and these cases with missing answers were excluded from the analysis. Responses were then summed to yield an overall behavior score that ranged from twelve to 60. Cronbach’s Alpha was conducted to determine reliability of the scale (Alpha = .8263). The impacts of the GLEP on participants and their families were assessed using four questions (Appendix H, Section H). The responses to these questions were recoded so 45 that they ranged from one to five, with the more negative responses receiving a one and the more positive answers receiving a five. Missing answers were considered as “system missing values,” and these cases with missing answers were excluded from the analysis. Positive responses (strongly agree and agree) were lumped and were reported using the percentages of participants who agreed. Cronbach’s Alpha was conducted to determine reliability of the scale (Alpha = .8558). 46 RESULTS Response Rates Teachers representing 19 classrooms agreed to assist in this study, and a total of 458 fifth graders in these classrooms received surveys to take home to their parents/guardians (Table 2). For the purposes of this study, each of these 19 classrooms was classified as either a participating or a non-participating group. Participating groups consisted of fifth grade classrooms within schools that had fourth grade participation in the GLEP during the 1997—1998 school year. Non-participating groups consisted of fifth grade classrooms within schools that have never participated in the GLEP. Among the study classrooms, there was a total of 220 fifth graders in the participating groups, and 238 fifth grade students in the non-participating groups (Table 3). A total of 178 usable surveys were returned by parents/guardians, thus the overall response rate was 39% (Tables 2, 3). One survey was deemed unusable, because the parent wrote a note on it stating that the child had completed the survey. Within classroom response rates varied from 0% to 79% (Table 2). From nine of the classrooms, parent/guardian response rates were 50% or greater (Table 2). 47 Table 2 Response Rages by classroom Classroom Cflassification # of 5th # of Usable % of of Study Graders Surveys** Overall Groups* Response Rate 1 Participating 30 9 3O 2 Participating 15 10 67 3 Non-part. 26 13 50 4 Non—part. 26 9 35 5 Non-part. 26 7 27 6 Non-part. 26 0 0 7 Non-part. 27 0 0 8 Non—part. 9 6 67 9 Non—part. 24 19 79 10 Non—part. 11 7 64 11 Non—part. 31 19 61 12 Non-part. 32 24 75 13 Participating 30 10 33 14 Participating 30 20 67 15 Participating 25 0 0 16 Participating 25 9 36 17 Participating 25 0 0 18 Participating 20 6 30 19 Participating 20 10 50 Totals 9 Participating 458 178 39 10 Non—part. *The study groups were classified as either participating groups (fifth grade classrooms within schools that had fourth grade participation in the GLEP during the 1997—1998 school year) or non-participating (Non— part.) groups (fifth grade classrooms within schools that have never participated in the GLEP.) 48 Table 2 (continued) **One survey was deemed unusable because the student completed the survey. 13191;;L See Appendix G for the names of the schools represented by each classroom number. 49 Seventy-four completed surveys were returned from participating groups, and 104 from non-participating groups (Table 3). Table 3 W Responses # of 5th # of Usable % of Overall Received From Graders Surveys Response Rate Each Group Contacted Returned Participating Groups 220 74 34 Non- Participating 238 104 44 Grogps Totals 458 178 39 50 Of the 74 responses from participating groups, 22 were received from parents/guardians of GLEP non—participants; of the 104 responses from non—participating groups, one was received from a parent/guardian of a GLEP participant. For the purposes of this study, these 23 respondents were considered “unclassifiable.” These cases were deleted because I could not determine whether the youth was actually a member of a participating or a non—participating classroom, based only on parents/guardians’ responses to the question about the youths’ participation in the GLEP’s shipboard field trip. It is possible that these youth were ill on the day of the GLEP field trip but had participated in classroom-based GLEP learning; or, perhaps these youth had transferred to a different school. Therefore, in the overall respondent pool and for the purposes of analysis, there were 52 participants (those whose son or daughter participated in the GLEP’s shipboard field trip during fourth grade) and 103 non— participants (those whose son or daughter did not participate in the GLEP’s shipboard field trip) (Figure 2). Responding parents/guardians who were classified as participants were further categorized as either volunteers (those who assisted/chaperoned on the GLEP shipboard field trip) or non-volunteers. Among the 52 participants, 19 parents/guardians reported that they had volunteered with the GLEP shipboard field trip (Figure 2). 51 Figure 2. Breakdown of survey responses and total number of usable cases. 179 surveys returned -__1 survey (student completed) 178 usuable surveys -_2_Q surveys (unclassifiable respondents) 155 Total usuable cases 52 participants 103 non-participants 19 volunteers 33 non-volunteers 52 Resglhs gf Non—respondent Fellow—up Ahtempts In order to understand possible reasons for non-response from classrooms with low or no response, I attempted to contact all teachers for a brief telephone interview (Appendix L). Only two teachers responded, representing four out of the 19 classrooms, and resulting in a 21% response rate to the telephone survey. One teacher, representing two classrooms, responded after only two attempts for contact, and the second teacher responded after three attempts. It was at this time that I interviewed them briefly about survey returns. Teachers’ responses included these reasons for students’/parents’ non—response: “...not out of the ordinary for this group. They are not good at remembering to return anything," “...there is a lack of responsibility that trickles down from their parents,” “school is not a top priority for the students or their parents”. I left approximately eight phone messages per teacher over a three week period for the remaining 15 teachers who never returned my call. Demggrephie and Background Characteristics of Respondents Survey respondents were asked four closed-ended questions regarding background characteristics. Additional questions were asked about the respondents’: participation in activities/hobbies related to the Great Lakes (Table 4), 53 membership in environmental or conservation organizations, highest level of education completed (Table 5), and gender. Nearly fifty percent of all respondents reported that they regularly participate in activities/hobbies related to the Great Lakes. Overall, there was no statistically significant differences between the participants’ (52% reported participation) and non—participants’ (48% reported participation) self—reported participation in activities/hobbies related to the Great Lakes. Respondents’ possible different Great Lakes and outdoor experiences during the past six months were also assessed. There was a statistically significant difference between participants and non-participants on two variables; participants more frequently reported having been on a motorboat, and having gone hiking (Table 4). 54 q ‘1 m- 3 Q. . l ..-.Av rm \l —- Cues "it? .1 «Q r. « A\U by Table 4 great Lekes and other Outdoor Eyperiences during the Lash Six Months Question** % with YES x2 g: p Answers Fished Part. 64.0 0.975 1 .323 Non-part. 55.6 Visited Part. 86.0 2.033 1 .154 Great Lakes Non-part. 76.0 Fished Part. 52.0 3.343 1 .067 Great Lakes Non—part. 36.4 Activities Part. 42.0 3.300 1 .069 Non—part. 27.3 Zoo Part. 58.0 0.161 1 .689 Non-part. 54.5 Nature Part. 70.0 0.535 1 .465 Non-part. 64.0 Aquarium Part. 30.0 0.284 1 .594 Non-part. 34.3 Camped Part. 52.0 0.083 1 .773 Non—part. 49.5 TV Part. 88.2 0.111 1 .739 Non-part. 90.0 Books or Part. 86.0 3.771 1 .052 Magazines Non—part. 71.7 Sail, Kayak Part. 30.0 1.077 1 .299 or Canoe Non—part. 24.6 Motorboat Part. 62.0 4.096 1 .043* Non-part. 44.1 Hiked Part. 62.0 8.631 1 .003* Non-part. 56.6 Parks Part. 94.4 2.799 1 .094 Non-part. 75.8 *p < .05. **For actual question, see Appendix H—2, 55 Survey Section B. Table 4 (continued) Nehe. Part.= Parents/guardians of participants Non—part.= Parents/guardians of non—participants 56 Respondents were asked if they belong to any environmental or conservation organizations; 9% reported that they do belong to an environmental or conservation organization, and 91% reported they do not. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between participants (6% reported membership) and non—participants (11% reported membership) on the question of memberships in environmental or conservation organization. Some parents/guardians (69%) reported that their highest level of education included some college study (Table 5). However, most of the respondents (81%) reported not having a four year college degree. One hundred eleven of the parents/guardians who returned usable surveys were female (71.6%), while only 41 were male (26.5%). Three respondents did not answer this question (1.9%). 57 TafleS Respondents’ Levels of Education Highest Level of Number of % of all Education Completed Respondents Respondents Elementary School 3 1.9 High School 44 28.4 Some College 51 32.9 Associates Degree or Trade School 25 16.1 Bachelors Degree 22 14.2 Advanced Degree 7 4.5 Missing Cases 3 1.9 Totals 155 100.0 58 comparisons of SLEP Parenhzguardian Participants, Non— ar 'c' an and olunteers Knowledge Test Results The knowledge score of all respondents was generally very high, with more than 70% (109/153) of respondents correctly answering at least 77% (10/13) of the questions. With regard to Great Lakes and aquatic knowledge, I observed no statistically significant differences between responding parent/guardian participants and non-participants (Table 6). (For differences between parent/guardian participants and non—participants on each item in the knowledge test, see Appendix M, Table M-l.) However, the knowledge scores of parent/guardian volunteers were found to be statistically significantly higher than the scores of non-volunteering parents/guardians (Table 6). (For differences between parent/guardian volunteers and non-volunteers on each item in the knowledge test, see Appendix M, Table M—2.) Because the number of cases in the parent/guardian volunteers and non- volunteers groups were small, Mann Whitney U tests were also performed (Appendix M, Table M—ll). Results were similar to those observed with the t-test. 59 Tdfle6 Knowledge Test Results Parent/Guardian h M SQ h p Respondent Groups 2-tailed Participants. 52 10.67 2.49 -l.222 0.224 Non—participants 101 10.13 2.67 Volunteers 19 11.63 1.50 —2.178 0.034* Non-volunteers 33 10.12 2.79 *B< Note, Maximum score on .05. the knowledge test was 13. 6O 00. Attihude Scale Resules Two attitude scales, Attitudes about the Great Lakes and Attitudes about the Environment, were developed to assess any possible differences among the respondents. Attitudes were generally positive among all respondents in regard to the Great Lakes and the environment. With regard to the first scale, Attitudes about the Great Lakes, I observed no statistically significant differences between responding parent/guardian participants and non—participants (Table 7). (For differences between parent/guardian participants and non-participants on each item in this attitude scale, see Appendix M, Table M-3.) The score of parent/guardian volunteers was also compared to that of non—volunteers on the scale of attitudes about the Great Lakes. No statistically significant differences were found (Table 7). (For differences between parent/guardian volunteers and non-volunteers on each item in this attitude scale, see Appendix M, Table M-4.) Because the number of cases in the parent/guardian volunteers and non—volunteers groups were small, Mann Whitney U tests were also performed (Appendix M, Table M-ll). Results were similar to those observed with the t-test. The scores of respondents, on the scale of Attitudes about the Environment were compared. No statistically significant differences in attitudes were found between participants’ and non—participants’ parents/guardians, nor between volunteering and non—volunteering parents/guardians. 61 (Table 7). (For differences on each item in this attitude scale between parent/guardian participants and non- participants see Appendix M, Table M-5. For differences between parent/guardian volunteers and non—volunteers, see Appendix M, Table M—6.) Because the number of cases in the parent/guardian volunteers and non-volunteers groups were small, Mann Whitney U tests were also performed (Appendix M, Table M~11). Results were similar to those observed with the t-test. Table 7 Aegitude Scale Results Parent/Guardian h M* SD h p Respondent Groups 2-tailed Scale: Attitudes about the Great Lakes Participants 52 35.58 4.65 —0.015 0.988 Non—participants 99 35.57 4.38 Volunteers 19 36.37 3.80 —0.931 0.356 Non-volunteers 33 35.12 5.07 Scale: Attitudes apeu; she Envirgnment Participants 52 40.23 5.17 0.087 0.931 Non-participants 102 40.30 4.80 Volunteers 19 41.21 3.98 -1.038 0.304 Non-volunteers 33 39.67 5.72 upped Maximum score on the Attitudes about the Great Lakes scale was 42. Maximum score on the Attitudes about the Environment scale was 45. 62 Behavioral Intenhions Results Two behavioral intention scales, Intentions/Feelings and Environmental Actions, were developed to assess any possible differences among the respondents. Self-reported behavioral intentions were generally high among all respondents in regard to the Great Lakes and the environment. With regard to the first scale, Intentions/Feelings, I observed no statistically significant differences between responding parent/guardian participants and non—participants (Table 8). (For differences between parent/guardian participants and non-participants on each item in this behavioral intention scale, see Appendix M, Table M—7.) However, a statistically significant difference was found on the score of parent/guardian volunteers compared to that of non-volunteers on the scale of Intentions/Feelings (Table 8). (For differences between parent/guardian volunteers and non— volunteers on each item in this behavioral intention scale, see Appendix M, Table M—8.) Because the number of cases in the parent/guardian volunteers and non—volunteers groups were small, Mann Whitney U tests were also performed (Appendix M, Table M—11). Results were similar to those observed with the t-test. 63 Table 8 Behevior Results: Inhentigns/Feelings Parent / Guardian h M* * fl 1; p Respondent Groups 2—tailed Part. 51 18.71 2.04 -0.192 0.848 Non—part. 100 18.64 1.98 Vol. 18 19.61 1.65 -2.452 0.018* Non—vol. 33 18.21 2.09 *p < . 05 . **Maximum score of the intentions/feeling scale was 24. Nghey Part.= Parents/guardians of participants. Non—part.= Parents/guardians of non-participants. Vol. = Parents/Guardians who volunteered. Non—vol. = Non-volunteering parents/guardians 64 In regard to the second behavioral intention scale, Environmental Action, scores of participants’ parents/guardians were statistically significantly different from (higher than) the scores of non—participants’ parents/guardians (Table 9). (For differences between parent/guardian participants and non—participants on each item in this behavioral intention scale, see Appendix M, Table M-9.) However, using the scale of environmental action, behavior scores of parent/guardian volunteers were shown not to be statistically significantly different from parent/guardian non-volunteers (Table 9). (For differences between parent/guardian volunteers and non-volunteers on each item in this behavioral intention scale, see Appendix M, Table M—10.) Because the number of cases in the parent/guardian volunteers and non—volunteers groups were small, Mann Whitney U tests were also performed (Appendix M, Table M—11). Results were similar to those observed with the t—test. 65 Table 9 Behavigr Scale Results: Environmenhal Actign Parent/Guardian h M SQ h p Respondent Groups 2-tailed and Variable Participants 51 42.96 7.10 —2.356 0.020* Non—participants 99 40.21 6.59 Volunteers 19 44.00 7.42 —0.802 0.426 Non—volunteers 32 42.34 6.95 *p < .05. Note, Maximum score on the environmental action scale was 60. 66 L11 rt. :xw rt :u Relahlonships of Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavioral Intenhlons To demonstrate the relationships among knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions, the scales created to assess these were each correlated with one another. The results of these correlations demonstrate a positive relationship between each of the scales (Table 10). Table 10 Sorrelaeion Matrix of Knoyledge, Attihudes, ahd Behevioral Intentions Measure 1 2 3 4 5 1. Great Lakes and 1 Aquatic Knowledge 2. Attitudes about 0.233 1 the Great Lakes 3. Attitudes about 0.240 0.383 1 the Environment 4. Intentions/ 0.341 0.335 0.646 1 Feelings 5. Environmental 0.220 0.167 0.434 0.433 1 Action Note All correlations are statistically significant p < .05, 2-tailed. 67 Addlhional Findings The numbers of respondents that were classified as either volunteers (n=19) or non—volunteers (n=33) were relatively small. Generally, these sample sizes are too small for analysis using parametric statistics. However, some of the findings might provide insight into the differences between parent/guardian volunteers and non-volunteers (Tables 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15). For example, parent/guardian volunteers appear to be more avid Great Lakes and outdoor enthusiasts than non—volunteers. Additionally, 84% of volunteers reported that they would support their son or daughter’s decision to pursue a career related to the Great Lakes. The questions in Survey Section H were used to measure participants’ parents/guardians’ self-reported attitudes related to the overall importance and worth of the GLEP experience (Table 11). Responses that were Strongly Agree or Agree were considered as positive or agreeing responses. 68 Table 11 Descriptions of Parent/Suardians' Assessment of SLEP’s Impacts on Youth and Self Question % of Participants Overall % of Agreeing Participants Agreeing Attitudinal GLEP worthwhilel Vol. 100 . 0 94.2 Non—vol. 90.9 GLEP overall Vol. 68.4 74.9 influential2 Non-vol. 65.6 Parent/Guardian Vol. 89.5 74.5 more aware of Non—vol. 65.6 water quality3 1For actual question, see Appendix H—2, Survey Section H, Question 1 2For actual questions used to create the scale for this assessment, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section H, Questions 2-5 3For actual question, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section H, Question 6 Note, Vol. = Parent/Guardian volunteers. Non-vol. = Non—volunteering parents/guardians 69 Survey Section A was used to measure the experiences of respondents before their son/daughter’s GLEP experience. Specific questions within this section were designed to assess family consumerism or water-related behaviors (Table 12). Table 12 Deseriphiohs of Parent/Shardians Vglhnteers and Non— yolhhheers, and All Respondents (PLe-SLEE) Question % of Participants Overall % of with YES responses Respondents with YES responses Fishedl Vol. 94.7 86.5 Non—vol. 81.1 Fished Great Lakes2 ‘Vol. 78.9 73.0 Non—vol. 69.7 Sail, Kayak, Vol. 68.8 54.1 or Canoe3 Non—vol. 46.9 Motorboat4 Vol. 84 .2 78.8 Non-vol. 75.8 lFor actual question, see Appendix H—2, Survey Section A, Question 1 2For actual question, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section A, Question 3 3For actual question, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section A, Question 11 4For actual question, see Appendix H—2, Survey Section A, Question 12 Hegel Vol. = Parent/Guardian volunteers. Non-vol. = Non-volunteering parents/guardians 7O Survey Section B was used to measure the experiences of respondents during the past six months. Specific questions within this section were designed to assess family consumerism or water—related behaviors (Table 13). Table 13 De ' io of Par nt uar ian ol nteer n— 1 er and All Res ondents Post- LEP Question % of Participants Overall % of with YES responses Respondents with YES responses Fishedl V01. 66.7 64.0 Non-vol. 62.5 Fished Great Lakesz V01. 50.0 52.0 Non—vol. 53.1 Sail, Kayak, Vol. 61.1 30.0 or Canoe3 Non-vol. 12.5 Motorboat4 V01. 61.1 62.0 Non-vol. 62.5 lFor actual question, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section Question 1 Question 11 B. 2For actual question, see Appendix H—2, Survey Section B, Question 3 3For actual question, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section B, B, 4For actual question, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section Question 12 upped Vol. = Parent/Guardian volunteers. Non—vol. = Non-volunteering parents/guardians The above Questions are post-GLEP experiences for participants The above Questions are experiences during the past six months for non— participants. 71 Survey Section A was used to measure the experiences of participants before their son/daughter’s GLEP experience. Specific questions within this section were designed to assess family tourism behaviors (Table 14). Table 14 Descriptiyes of Parentzguardian Volunteers and Non—yglugteers Tourism Behayiors (Pre—QLEP) Question % with YES Overall % of Responses Participants with YES Responses Visit Great Lakes1 Vol. 100.0 94.2 Non-vol. 90.9 Campedz Vol. 84.2 69.2 Non—vol. 60.6 Hiked3 Vol. 89.5 71.1 Non-vol. 60.6 Visit parks4 Vol. 100.0 100.0 Non—vol. 100.0 lFor actual question, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section , Question 2 A 2For actual question, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section A, Question 8 3For actual question, see Appendix H—2, Survey Section A, Question 13 A 4For actual question, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section , Question 14 Note; Vol. = Parent/guardian volunteers Non-vol. = Non-volunteering parents/guardians 72 Survey Section B was used to measure the experiences of respondents during the past six months. Specific questions within this section were designed to assess family tourism behaviors (Table 15). Table 15 Descriptives of Parentzguardian Volunteers and Non—volunteers Tourism Behaviors (Post—QLEP) Question % with YES Overall % of Responses Participants with YES Responses Visit Great Lakesl Vol. 94.4 86.0 Non—vol. 81.3 Camped2 Vol. 77.8 52.0 Non—vol. 37.5 Hiked3 Vol. 88.9 62.0 Non—vol. 46.9 Visit parks4 Vol. 94.4 82.3 Non—vol. 75.8 1For actual question, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section , Question 2 , Question 13 B 2For actual question, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section B, Question 8 3For actual question, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section B B 4For actual question, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section , Question 14 Note; Vol. = Parent/guardian volunteers Non—vol. = Non-volunteering parents/guardians The above Questions are post-GLEP experiences for participants The above Questions are experiences during the past six months for non- participants. 73 DI SCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Ripple Effects of the GLEP Overall, the findings of this study were mixed. However, keeping in mind the limitations of the study design, some interesting results were observed. In general, all respondents scored high on the knowledge test. However, this should not be surprising, because the questions used in this section were based on questions originally designed to measure fourth graders’ knowledge about the Great Lakes. One interesting result was related to the knowledge section. The knowledge test scores for parent/guardian volunteers were statistically significantly higher than those of non-volunteers (p < .05.). The average total test score for volunteers (M = 11.63) was also somewhat higher than the score of parent/guardian participants (M = 10.67). Parents/guardians of non-participants and non-volunteers scored nearly the same on the knowledge test. This may therefore demonstrate a small impact that the GLEP may have on the knowledge of volunteering parents/guardians of participants. It is, however, possible that these parents/guardians of participants who volunteered already had an interest in the Great Lakes, and therefore their knowledge was already high. Generally, the responses to the Attitudes about the Great Lakes and Attitudes about the Environment scales were 74 high. All respondents also reported generally high (positive) behavioral intentions regarding Great Lakes stewardship. These findings might imply that those who took the time to complete the survey already had an interest in the Great Lakes and the out—of—doors. Therefore the actual differences between the groups (parents/guardians of participants and non-participants, parent/guardian volunteers and non- volunteers) were difficult to assess, given the limitations of this study design. Also of interest were the findings related to behavioral intentions. Parents/guardians of participants and parent/guardian volunteers reported more positive behavioral intentions toward the Great Lakes and the environment than did non-participants and non-volunteers. It is plausible that parents/guardians of participants, especially those who volunteer with the GLEP, are already more interested in these issues and more frequently demonstrate positive behaviors than do parents/guardians of non—participants. These self- reported positive behavioral intentions, according to the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) and the self-perception theory (Bem, 1972), might, in turn, have some influence on environmental attitudes. GLEP may have impacted behaviors, especially some specific concrete water conservation behaviors which fourth graders learned through the program. However, these impacts may not have been enough to influence adults’ complex attitudes and value systems, especially considering respondents already had generally 75 favora repres parent volunt mainta addres the 1c is to must f progra OI' Hea Period EValua gath r favorable attitudes. In summary, these findings may also represent the small ripple effect the GLEP may have had on parents/guardians of participants and parent/guardian volunteers. Recommendations For the GLEP The first recommendation for the GLEP is to develop and maintain databases on participants and their families (names, addresses, school attending). If further research regarding the long—term effects on GLEP participants and their families is to be successful, more effective means of record keeping must first be established. Investigations into how other programs (i.e., Drug Awareness and Resistance Education-DARE, or Head Start) are able to track their participants over long periods of time would prove useful to the GLEP’s future evaluations. For instance, it might be practical to begin gathering names and addresses of students and families when the parent/guardian signs the permission slip for the shipboard field trip. This could help to establish a program- related link to parents by creating a database that would allow for periodic mailings of a newsletter and for updates in participants’ addresses. Another recommendation is to strengthen working relationships with participating and non-participating schools’ principals. This may aid in gaining access to the schools for further assessment of the long—term effects of the GLEP. If GLEP staff further enhance their working 76 relationships with principals and teachers of grade levels other than just fourth, perhaps this would serve to promote a more appropriate longitudinal study design (i.e. pre-testing third grade students and their parents/guardians, testing GLEP participants in the students’ fourth grade year, and post-testing students and their parents/guardians in post— GLEP grades to assess the long—term impacts of the GLEP on participants and their families). One last set of recommendations concerns developing ways of increasing parent/guardian volunteerism. Some of the results of my research have implied that parent/guardian volunteers scored higher on the knowledge test and scored higher than non-volunteers on scales of stewardship behavioral intentions. Again, establishing even stronger working relationships within schools and classrooms to promote the GLEP as a “family” experience and not just something for the youth might assist in encouraging volunteerism. The promotion of a GLEP family experience may begin with an invitation to visit a GLEP boat or experience a GLEP cruise at a “parents’ night” event or during a discussion at parent/teacher conferences. Involving parents/guardians is not always easy, partly due to the commitments parents/guardians have to employment outside of the home, especially in single-parent or dual-career households. In these cases, take-home pages provided by the GLEP, based on GLEP curriculum and activities, and developed for family completion may serve to introduce the family to 77 some of the GLEP-related information. Another possibility to increase parent/guardian involvement may be to develop incentives for involvement such as contests, raffles, or GLEP-sponsored events (e.g., organizing a year—end party for parent/guardian volunteers and their families). Research Limitations One potential limitation of this study was that I relied on the parents/guardians to self—report their GLEP related knowledge, attitudes, and stewardship behaviors, as well as their Great Lakes experiences both before and after the GLEP. A pre—test/post—test study design was not conducted due to a lack of time, money, and resources. In addition, I did not conduct a pilot study using this survey instrument; this too, might be considered a limitation. However, my survey was developed using 10 pre—existing instruments, some of which have been tested previously for reliability and validity. Future research should utilize methodological insights gained from this thesis and should include a pilot test with a refined and revised survey and a pre-test/post—test study design. Further limitations of this research are related to the difficulties in tracking GLEP participating students. At this time, the GLEP staff does not maintain databases with the names or addresses of participating students. Nor do they maintain databases of the junior highs, middle schools, or high schools which these students may eventually attend. Only 78 the names of participating teachers, the schools where they teach, and the estimated numbers of students attending the GLEP shipboard field trip are kept on file. It was difficult, therefore, to select districts, schools, and classrooms for this study. Much work first needed to be done to estimate the numbers of GLEP alumni in various grade levels, and to identify the schools these students may currently be attending. Methodologies were considered to assess fifth, sixth, and seventh graders' parents/guardians (Appendix B). The parents/guardians of fifth grade students were selected for the highest efficiency of implementation of this study. Once a grade level was chosen, districts were selected and schools were chosen in the GLEP participating districts. One strength of my research design was that districts were selected only after the general characteristics of all GLEP participating districts were known, so that the sample might accurately represent all possible types of districts (urban, suburban, and rural) within the GLEP population. Another study limitation was due to the difficulty in obtaining a response from selected schools. Half of the 16 schools I contacted refused to participate in the study. These eight schools refused because of a scheduling conflict with the MEAP test battery for fifth grade students. This reduced my study sample from an estimated 962 respondents to 458 possible respondents. Although 458 possible respondents is less than half of the size of the original study design, it may still be considered a substantial sample size. 79 Furthermore, the eight schools remaining in the study, still represented the four chosen districts based on their descriptions as an urban, suburban, or rural school district. Due to the limitations of working with elementary students in public schools, I was unable to completely follow the Total Design Method (TDM) for survey administration, as recommended by Dillman (1978). Dillman suggests that the procedures of his TDM, when followed, can overcome some of the deficiencies and problems of mail surveys, such as low response rates. Since the GLEP does not maintain databases on its student participants, and because school districts were unable to provide me with the names and addresses of students and their parents/guardians, I was unable to directly mail the surveys to the respondents. The survey instrument had to pass through many hands before returning to Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Therefore, there may have been difficulties in survey distribution, collection, and return. In spite of the directions that were left with teachers for distribution, collection, and return, I was unable to monitor these steps. Survey non—response may be partly attributed to this. Teachers, who had agreed to participate in this study, may be just one of the possible reasons for non-response. Some teachers may have not completed their commitment to this study (e.g., returned surveys) or responded to my phone calls because the study design lacked a personal incentive for the teacher (Dillman, 1978). Incentives were provided for the 80 students, families, and classrooms, but no specific incentives were provided for teachers to work toward achieving high classroom response rates. Another possible explanation for the lack of teacher commitment, was that the classroom incentive (poster of Michigan Fishes) for a 75% within-class response rate was left with each teacher at the time of the visit rather than mailed when the teacher fulfilled his/her commitment. Therefore, if future studies are conducted requiring the help of teachers, I would recommend providing teachers with more attractive and personal incentives. I would also recommend securing the approval and cooperation from school administrators to assist in monitoring teacher participation. It was expected that the parents/guardians of GLEP participants would have had a higher overall response rate than the parents/guardians of non-participants; this was expected since parents/guardians of participants would probably have a strong interest in the study as a result of being involved with the GLEP (Dillman, 1978, p. 27). However, response rates from non-participants were higher than from GLEP participants (i.e. 44% from non-participating and 34% from participating school groups). Although it is unclear why non—participating groups had a higher return rate than participating groups, this may be related to why differences between parents/guardians of participants and of non— participants were not observed. For example, it seems plausible that non—participants who made the effort to return 81 the survey already had a higher than average interest in the Great Lakes and the environment. Additionally, all respondents were probably the most avid and enthusiastic regarding the Great Lakes as is evident by their responses to questions regarding involvement in Great Lakes activities (refer to Table 4). Therefore, had a higher response rate been achieved, greater differences between groups (participants and non-participants, and volunteers and non- volunteers) might have been observed. Another possible effect on the observed results may have been caused by the smaller than expected response rates. In order to use some statistical tests (e.g., t-tests), assumptions must be met. In the case of parent/guardian volunteers (n=19) and non-volunteers (n=33), there was question as to whether the assumptions were met. A non- parametric test, the Mann Whitney U, was performed and the same results as from the t-tests were observed (Appendix M- 11). In this case, therefore, the t-test was robust to the violations of its assumptions. In an attempt to assess reasons for non-response, I conducted a brief phone interview with teachers (Appendix L). I left teachers up to eight messages over a three week period and at varying times of the day, with two phone numbers where I could be reached. Of the 19 teachers participating in the study, only two returned my call. The two teachers who returned my call answered the questions on behalf of all participating teachers from their schools. One of these 82 teachers represented a school that had a 0% response rate. When I asked her about this, she replied that she had lost all of the pre—paid postage envelopes and my phone number, but that she had approximately 12 surveys to return to me. To date, I have not received a response to this telephone survey from 15 teachers representing six schools. Of the teachers who did respond, their descriptions of reasons for parents’/guardians’ non—responses (Appendix L) are consistent with a recent opinion survey report put forth by the organization, Public Agenda (1999). This organization examined the opinions of 1,000 public school teachers from across the country using focus groups and one-on-one interviews. Responding teachers consistently complained about students who are lazy, disrespectful, and unmotivated. These teachers also attributed these poor behaviors to the parents and to a lack of parental involvement in their children’s education. Parent involvement is a term with varying definitions (Public Agenda, 1999). Some teachers responded that it means getting more parents involved in school government and in academic areas such as curriculum development. For others, parent involvement relates to the traditional roles of parents as chaperones on field trips and as school volunteers. Still other teachers relate parental involvement to what happens, or does not happen at home. Eighty—one percent of teachers cite as a serious problem “parents who refuse to hold their kids accountable for their behavior or 83 academic performance.” In addition, 83% of teachers reported that “Parents who fail to set limits and create structure at home for their kids...” contribute to serious problems for the students in the classroom and in developing skills needed in life (Public Agenda, 1999, p. 25). Another attribute of parental involvement is related to the gender of the parent/guardian. My study showed that 70% of respondents were female, while only 27% were male. This finding is consistent with other studies in noting the differences that exist in the gender of the parent whom is involved at school. According to the Public Agenda report (1999), mothers are more likely than fathers to help at school and in the classroom (64% of mothers surveyed reported helping at school compared with only 47% of fathers). Conclusion GLEP, like many other programs, purports to affect families as well as youth participants through its community— based design. This research has identified ways the GLEP and associated evaluations could be strengthened. Further research needs to be done to assess the effects of RE programs beyond participants. The limitations of this study should be avoided in order to strengthen future research and evaluations. Recommendations for further research assessing the ripple effects of educational programming will help aid in the development and evaluation of efforts targeted toward youth and parents/guardians, families, and peers. 84 APPENDICES 85 APPENDIX A Project Approval by the University Committee on Research meEG= RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES Uulverxflv Commmss an Encarta involving Mamas Sublet“ (UCRIHS) MaHHnSIcumuflfl 246 mm autism in: Lame. W 4un+ma snnfidufl F Ax 51713532916 In: W Sue may I)! 4 cs mucus-u Enemy (m: «- Acton “(H 4 an Mflr‘.rfl~| Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) DAKHjKLANSHAWE U IV I \l E I! S l T' Y November 4. 1998 TO' Shari L. Dann 113 Natural ReSOurces RE: Ins»: 95-510 . TITLE: HULTI-DISCIPLINARY. VESSEL-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ' . LAKES EDUCATION PROGRAM Rsvrsro ESBSEVEBEOV18§2SVEBGREAT CATEGORY: l-B APPROVAL DATE: 10/29/98 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS) review of this project is complete. I am pleased to adVise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain intormed consent are ap ropriate. lhegegorg6 the UCRIHS approved this project and any rev sions in e a VG. RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a project bexond one year must use the green renewal form (enclosed with t e original agproval letter or when a project is renewed) to seek u date certification. There is a maXimum of tow: such expedite renewals ossible. Investigators Ulflhin? to continue a project beyond tha time need to submit it again or complete reView. RIVISIONS: UCRIus must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. rior to in tiation of t e change. If this is done at the_time o renewal, please use the reen renewal form. To reVise an approved protocol at an o her time during the year send your written request to the RIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRE I and title._ Include in our request a description of the change and any reVised ins ruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. pnoatsus/ cannons: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, investigators must noti I UCRIHS romptly: (l) roblems (unexpected side effects comp aints, e c.) involVing uman subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human sub ects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved. If we can be of any future hel , lease do not hesitate to contact us at (517)355‘2180 or FAX (Si?)4 2- 171. S' \ ly, :fi:°efi1;> éE:, (A\;l«» ,1, vid 3. wright, Ph.0. CR Ills Chair DEW:db CC: Michelle L. Niedermeier APPENDIX B Methodologies Considered to Assess Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Graders’ Parents’/Guardians’ Reactions to GLEP Method thion: Recontact Fifth Grade Students Participation in Fall 1997 or Spring 1998 Positives *Fifth grade students are still in elementary school buildings *Teachers may be familiar with GLEP and this may ease the distribution and collection of the survey *Only one year post-GLEP *School districts have many elementary schools, may ease the selection process to match on participating school with one non-participating school Negatives *Students are still in elementary school buildings, which would increase the number of schools that must be visited to reach enough students *No comparison group exists within the same buildings; this could increase the numbers of schools that must be 0 visited to reach non-participants 87 *Numbers of participants remaining in the district or elementary schools is unknown because they are not tracked Method thion: Recontact Sixth Srade Students Participation in Fall 1996 and Spring 1997 Positives *Students may be “pooled” in middle schools —may provide access to comparison group -fewer schools to visit *Teachers are not tired of hearing about the GLEP and might be open to a brief interruption Negatives *Sixth graders may be in middle school or still in elementary school buildings depending on the district —might increase travel *Students are two years post-GLEP, retention of knowledge, etc. might be an issue *Teachers/Principals may be unfamiliar with program and not willing to help with distribution/collection of surveys *Numbers of participants remaining in districts is unknown because they are not tracked *Large numbers of surveys would need to be distributed 88 *Classroom incentives would be difficult to set-up because students are not in a self-contained classroom Method thion: Recontact Seyenth grade Students Participation in Fall 1995 and Spring 1996 Positives *Students in middle or junior high schools —fewer schools to Visit, students are “pooled” from different elementary schools —possible access to a comparison group within the same building *Teachers are not tired of hearing about the GLEP and may be open to a brief interruption Negatives *Students are three years post-GLEP *Teachers/Principals may be unfamiliar with program and not willing to help with distribution/collection of surveys *Numbers of participants remaining in districts is unknown because they are not tracked *Large numbers of surveys would need to be distributed *Classroom incentives would be difficult to set—up because students are not in a self-contained classroom 89 APPENDIX C Appendix C-l: Letters to GLEP Participating Principals (Note: Letters sent under Stewart’s signature were presented on MSU Extension-Macomb County letterhead; letters sent under Niedermeier’s signature were prepared on MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife letterhead.) November 12, 1998 Dear Principal X: I am the Director of the Great Lakes Education Program, which is cosponsored by the Michigan Sea Grant College Program and Michigan State University Extension. I am contacting you to ask for the involvement of your 5th grade teachers and students in a research effort intended to improve our educational efforts in the future. The Great Lakes Education Program has, since 1991, provided classroom and vessel-based education focusing on Great Lakes resources to more than 17,500 4th grade students from Macomb County. Last school year, some or all of your 4th grade classes participated in our program, which consists of three elements: classroom-based pre- cruise educational activities, an educational cruise on the Clinton River and Lake St. Clair, and classroom-based post—cruise educational activities. At this time we would like to follow-up with the students who participated in the Great Lakes Education Program last year, and who would now be in your 5th grade classes. we would like to provide your students with a short (30 minute) lesson on Great Lakes Careers, after which we would like to distribute survey packets to the 5th grade teachers. Teachers would distribute a survey packet to each student to take home to his or her parent or guardian. Each packet includes a cover letter to parents/guardians, a survey, and an envelope in which the completed survey is to be returned to the teacher. Teachers would distribute a fish identification card and other incentives to each student returning a completed survey. Returned surveys will be mailed back to Michigan State University in an envelope with pre-paid postage. Classrooms will receive a special prize when a percentage (80—95%) of the students return a completed survey. This research is intended to provide us with a means to assess students’ understanding of and interest in Great Lakes resources and careers, and will allow us to improve future Great Lakes Education Program efforts. I would appreciated it if you would ask your 5th grade teachers to call my office and let us know when they would best be able to set aside 30 minutes so that we can present this program to all the 5th grade classes. Please call Jill Ddon.back at 810- 466—8700 (Mondays, Tuesday, and Thursdays) with.your response. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Stephen R. Stewart District Extension Sea Grant Agent Director-Great Lakes Education Program 90 December 22, 1998 Dear Principal X: In November 1998 you received the attached letter from Steve Stewart, district Extension Sea Grant Agent. As a follow-up to your school’s participation in the Great Lakes Education Program we are offering to make a short guest presentation in the 5th grade classrooms on Great Lakes science and social studies related careers. In addition to the presentation we would like to send home a survey for parents to complete (please see attached letter.) Now that the busy holiday season is over for you and your teachers, please contact me at 517-432-5037 as soon as possible to schedule a time for our visit. If we don’t hear form you by January 6, 1999, we will try once again to reach you by phone. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Michelle L. Niedermeier Graduate Research Assistant Michigan State University 91 (N . L3: 6 C) ("V (7 ('3 J 'r have Dear I an Mich cont rese C—2: Letters to Non—participating Principals (Note: Letters sent under Stewart’s signature were presented on MSU Extension-Macomb County letterhead; letters sent under Niedermeier’s signature were prepared on MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife letterhead.) November 12, 1998 Dear Principal X: I am the Director of the Great Lakes Education Program, which is cosponsored by the Michigan Sea Grant College Program and Michigan State University Extension. I am contacting you to ask for the involvement of your 5th grade teachers and students in a research effort intended to improve our educational efforts in the future. The Great Lakes Education Program has, since 1991, provided classroom and vessel—based education focusing on Great Lakes resources to more than 17,500 4th grade students from.Macomb County. Last school year, some or all of your 4th grade classes participated in our program, which consists of three elements: classroom-based pre- cruise educational activities, an educational cruise on the Clinton River and Lake St. Clair, and classroom-based post-cruise educational activities. Although none of your students participated in the Great lakes Education Program last year, we would like to involve your 5th grade classes in our program assessment as part of our control group. We would like to provide your students with a short (30 minute) lesson on Great Lakes Careers, after which we would like to distribute survey packets to the 5th grade teachers. Teachers would distribute a survey packet to each student to take home to his or her parent or guardian. Each packet includes a cover letter to parents/guardians, a survey, and an envelope in which the completed survey is to be returned to the teacher. Teachers would distribute a fish identification card and other incentives to each student returning a completed survey. Returned surveys will be mailed back to Michigan State University in an envelope with pre-paid postage. Classrooms will receive a special prize when a percentage (80-95%) of the students return a completed survey. This research is intended to provide us with a means to assess students' understanding of and interest in Great Lakes resources and careers, and will allow us to improve future Great Lakes Education Program efforts. I would appreciated it if you would ask your 5th grade teachers to call my office and let us know when they would best be able to set aside 30 minutes so that we can present this program to all the 5th grade classes. Please call Jill Ddsn.back at 810- 466-8700 (Mondays, Tuesday, and Malays) with your respaisa. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Stephen R. Stewart District Extension Sea Grant Agent Director-Great Lakes Education Program 92 December 22, 1998 Dear Principal x: In November 1998 you received the attached letter from Steve Stewart, district Extension Sea Grant Agent. Although your school had not participated in the Great Lakes Education Program we would like to make a short guest presentation in the 5th grade classrooms on Great Lakes science and social studies related careers. In addition to the presentation we would like to send home a survey for parents to complete (please see attached letter.) Now that the busy holiday season is over for you and your teachers, please contact me at 517-432-5037 as soon as possible to schedule a time for our visit. If we don’t hear form you by January 6, 1999, we will try once again to reach you by phone. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Michelle L. Niedermeier Graduate Research Assistant Michigan State University 93 APPENDIX D 94 WwwumzHuHx U) H mrmm wmnnwowpmnHOD Hmmmupmmm UK mnsoow. UHmnHHon mom OHmmmHooB 95 (7)01 AA NUDE: gnaw NA NA ——---- v ‘ amowm UIH meme mmnnwowomnwou Hmmmuemmm o< mo:oo~. mennwon mum nwmmmnooa 0.9.3.0.: 0.5mm- QUE—um (€2.03 .....UUrm chwmmm O.” m..d0m24m 40.35 mrmz. gs ....0... 8.8 .u>m.q.0=u>._._zm .z ......m arms mVfiHF mom mom mom was new mom fixam 2.5630: . A Image. a o m 0 Lessons 29623 . A ani. mu a. mo mm 96.3. m A gods. mo w. w m.+e 9.6.3 m A Ends. mo NA mA 9.6.3 A A zodi. NA NA 25.3. Omxoqoox . A 19.»QO m m w m m A o o m A Image m o m m w w m o w A 19.:QO m A m A A A Imago m m m m 3.0.2.69 . A mpqu mo mm mm m A moqu wo wo mm mm m A mine a o m m m m A A mquq w o w o m A moES m m m m m A mmqu NA NA 96 emowm 0uH. nonnwscmm 0.0.3.0.: 0.500- g ...cz_Om z..00..m chwmmm Om. 9.0020 ...O...>..m mrmz. ans ....0.... 8.8. .u>m....0=u>..._20 .2 ...Im 0...m.u 8.8. new mom mom mew new 08 Can» 002.25g 0oXor0 mrmz. g 1.0.: 8.8. p>....._..0_n>....20 .z dim 0..m.u QHAHF new 000 new 00w new 000 madmu €33.88: . A pain... 0 m m A m w .fififio m A pain? we we. we manna w A pose? NA NA “fisso 08322. . A 09.3... m m w m m m .fisso m A bozo? mm mm mm 393mg 0 A pose? mm mm mm mgsmo 0630. 00:0: .385 o o o . A A u m .w m o .AA .mo mmA mamas. mama—.522 . A 3.032%. 0 w w m m w . w m m A 38.53.». m w m w m A 3.033% m w w w 2.2x .75.: . A 3.253.». m w m w m o m A 3.253.». m V m A m . 0.3.0. 00303 ...o.m.m . A w A V w m o m u o .oo am we mom 98 emowm 0|H. nounwscmm 0.0.3.0d 0..)00- g (52.03 2.00rm chmmwm Om 0...c0mz..0 49.30 mm: gs 1.0.... 8.8 .u>m...0=u>....20. .z ......m arms moAHV. new 000 new 0ou new 000 .fiéanx* Cezanne . A Xe..o_. mm mm NA um .mm 0. now. 5:22.02 m A xo_.oq m m m m Amm 0. mom. 0 A szmq we we Ass 2 new» 0.232 00:02 ...2s.m m o o A m o m .. o no Am 0. .mo 5.8392 1230: . A consume: 0 o m w m m m m m A consume: a o m m m m m. 0.212 0253 422m 0 o o m w o m o 0 mo mm mo .00 99 amUHm UIH. nosnwbcmm 0.0.3.0.: 0500- g ...CZ.OI .<..00..m 2:30.00 On 0...:0mz... 0 ...O...>..0 mrmZ. gs 1.0.... 8.8. .u)I....0..u>....20. .2 ...Im Drmp QUAHF now 000 new 00: new 000 >325. 0m< 02022.2. . A .A - m m 0 ..t w o m 0 + ..e m A x-m me e we mw+e m A x-m m: e mu+e A A x-m mo mo r025 . A x-m mu m: mozaza. m A x-m we mu m A x-m mm on we A A x-m w. w. 025 . A x-m mm mm 2292. Engage . A x - m w o 0 o m A x-m mm mo mm m A x-m o mo 00+» A A x-m mu mm mo m A x-m NA mm Am 0 A x-m no mo mm w A x-m e A 0.222 00:02 .35..» .. V o . o m ..o m w . o o o mmu m0. co mom+..v 100 [2' b2 emowm 0|H. nonnwscmm 0.0.3.0.: 0..)00- 0.32M ...cz.Om z..00..m chmmm0 Om 0._.C0mz._.0 ...O...>..0 m...m.<. gs 1.0... 8.8. .u>m....0.p>....20 .2 ......m Qrmp 00.8. new 000 new 00: no: 000 002: ..mxo >mm- a 2:25.... z..00..m ZCmeEm 0.... m...c0mZ..m ...O...>..m m..m.(. .qus 1.01 8.8. .u>m....0..u>....20_ .z ......m mrmn 8.8. .uom 08 new mew new mom .233: 12.52.. . A m m m o m A m o w o m A w . w . 0.222 00:03 2.22m c o o o o o o o o m o r.>:mm 06:3 00:2: 252. . A 20:: w m m m m w m A 202: w m m m m w m A 20:: m m m 0 06¢: . A 203... m m m m m A 203: w o w o m A 20:: m u m w A A 203: m m m m m A 20:: m m m m ..ocam2mm. . A 002.... w . m m m m 0828. m A 002:. w . w . 032m. w A 002:. w . w . 032m. A A 002:. m m m m 0m::.m. 102 emUHm 0aH. nonnwscmm 0.0.3.0.... 0:00- 03.6w z._00..m chmmI0 Om 02.002 0 2.0.2.0 mrmz. Bus 8.8. v>md.0_v>....20 .2 ......m ormv 8.8. ...):00 0.0000 002.0 .30 000 new 00. m0. 000 ..0000200. 0 A 002:. m m m 0 002.0 002.0. 2.020 . A 002.0. 0 m . o A m 0.0:03 m A 002.0. 0 m . o A m w A 002.0. . o . o 2.03.2300 . A 002:. w m w w m 0 002.0. m A 002:. w m m w m 0 002.0. 0 A 002:. w w m a 002.0. 169:0 . A 203:. w . 0. 002.0. m A 203:. w m m m 002.0. 0 A 202:. w . w . 002.0. 002: .020. . A 002.0. m m w m m A 002.0. m m w m w A 002.0. m .. m u 0.222 00:02 ..20.0 o A m m o 0 w u o m o A m m m a u m o . .. m . 103 amUHm 0uH. nonnwscmm 0.0.3.0.: 0..)00- 0.28 002.03 2:00..m 202.0m30 O.u 0.30mz..0 40...)..0 m..mz. g 1.0.: 8.8. .u>m....0=u>....20 .2 ...Im Qrmv 8.8. mom 000 new 00. no. 000 02020020 <0_.0< 0:08.00 . A 00:000. 0 o m u m m m m .3220 m A 00:000. 0 o m . m m m m .3220 w A 00:000. 0 o m .N m .. ..00:0.0 A A 00:000. 0 o m m m m ..00:0.0 10.0: . A $202.2 0 o w o m A <<<0:02 m . m w w A <<<0:02 w o m m m m A A <<<0:02 w o m u m u 0:020 . A ..00:0.0. .m .m 00:08 N A ..00:0.0. . m m ... A m 00:08 0 A ..00:0.0. m w m w 00:08 A A m m m m m A m m m m m A m m m m 104 N I A ..u C Q C 0.210” 00302 4.08:0 O V 0 M m 0 O m D V G M m m D u m ‘ ewvwm UIH. nonnwscmm 0.0.3.0.: 0..)00- 032M 0:25.» SUD—h zc§0mm0 0.... 0...:0mZ..0 49.2.0 m..mz. an... 1.0.... 8.8. v>ma_0_.u>....20 .z ......m Qrmt moAHH. 03.00020 <0..0< 83.0 new 000 .30 004 new 000 2.0305; . A .3030 w o w 0 w o 0 o . A 3000.0 N0 00 .00 00 m A 3000.0 mm m 0 00 mm 0 A 3000.0 m 0 m 0 A A 3000.0 . . . . m A 00 00 0.030. 00:02 40.0.0 0 w m 0 0 a A w o m A m 000 0A0 MAm 0AA 300000- 0.2.8 002.0.» .....00..m zcz.0mm0 O." 0.00mz... 0 ...O...>r0 m..m_<. Bus ....0... 00.8. 1>m...0..u>..._20 .z .....m 00mm. 8.8. new 000 ...00 004 new 000 0.3000 09:. 00.0. . A .u.030 w 0 w 0 m A .u.030 m m w o m w w A .u.030 m w m w A A 0.030 m w m 0 2.0.3 . A 0 w w 0 m A w A w A 0.0.10. 00:02 3.00 0 0 0 o 0 m o 0 w 0 0 0 . m u . 0 0 2020: .2800 0:02.300 . A m o w o m A w 0 w 0 0.02.0. 00:0: ...0.0.0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 APPENDIX D-2 Current Student Enrollment in Middle and Junior High Schools within GLEP Program Area Note. School enrollment numbers are based on projected figures (1998) or school districts’ final pupil count figures (1996—1997) (Michigan Education Directory, 1998). 107 Current Student Enrollment in Middle and Junior High Schools within GLEP Program Area District J8 or MS School Est.Numbor of GLEP Part. 0 01 ail/ls Enrollment (now in 6th a/or 7th grade) UticaJunior High 7 Davis 599 60 Eppler 677 90 Heritage 521 57 Jeannette 980 80 Malow 1235 44 Shelby 754 _4; 4766 (7th & 8th) 374 374 = 0.078 (8% of the school population participated in the 4766 GLEP) Approximately 14-16% of 7th grade population at participating .JH* RomeoMiddle School 2 Romeo 700 72 Powell 700 72 1400 (6, 7, & 8th) 144 144 = 0.10 (10% of the school population participated in the 1400 GLEP) Approximately 13—15% of 6th and 7th grade population at participating MS* Fraser Junior High 1 Richards 749 (7th & 8th) 190 190 = 0.25 (25% of the school population participated in the 749 GLEP) Approximately 50% of 7th grade population at participating JH* *Allunptions *Junior Highs' populations are divided equally between 7th and 8th grade. (7th grade population=8th grade population.) *Middle Schools' populations are divided equally among 6th, 7th, and 8th grade. (6th grade population=7th grade population=8th grade population.) 108 Ni Pr-d Appendix D-2 Continued District J3 or us School lat. uumbor of Part. 0 o: art/ls hrollnont (now in 6th J's/or 7th grad.) Royal oak Middle School 3 Keller 1133 (6, 7, & 8th) 78 78 = 0.068 (7% of the school population participated in the 1133 GLEP) Approximately 10% of 6th and 7th grade population at participating MS* Lakeview Middle School 1 Jefferson 674 (6, 7, & 8th) 113 1 3 = 0.167 (17% of the school population participated in the 674 GLEP) Approximately 25% of 6th and 7th grade population at participating MS* Anchor Bay Middle chool Anchor Bay 1100 (6, 7, & 8th) 518 H 518 = 0.47 (47% of the school population participated in the 1100 GLEP) Approximately 71% of 6th and 7th grade population at participating MS* *Allumptionl *Junior Highs’ populations are divided equally between 7th and 8th grade. (7th grade population=8th grade population.) *Middle Schools’ populations are divided equally among 6th, 7th, and 8th grade. (6th grade population=7th grade population=8th grade population.) 109 Appendix D-2 Continued District an or MS School 8st. flunbor of Part. 0 o! all/IS lnrollnont (now in 6th J's/or 7th grad.) SouthLake Junior High 1 South Lake 376 (7th & 8th) 73 73 = 0.194 (19% of the school population participated in the 376 GLEP) Approximately 39% of 7th grade population at participating .IH* VanDyke Junior High 1 Lincoln 600 (7th & 8th) 29 29 = 0.048 (5% of the school population participated in the 600 GLEP) Approximately 10% of the 7th grade population at participating JH* CenterLine Middle School 1 Wolfe 614 (6, 7 & 8th) 51 51 = 0.08 (8% of the school population participated in the 614 GLEP) Approximately 12% of the 6th and 7th grade population at participating MS* *Assumptions *Junior Highs’ populations are divided equally between 7th and 8th grade. (7th grade population=8th grade population.) *Middle Schools’ populations are divided equally among 6th, 7th, and 8th grade. (6th grade population=7th grade population=8th grade population.) 110 A: ...) in C. ... 1: al. Appendix D—2 Continued District an or us School lst. nunbor o! Part. C of dams Inrollnont (now in 6th J's/or 7th grad.) Warren Middle School 6 Beer 593 0 Carleton 536 0 Carter 664 0 Flynn 455 0 Fuhrmann 444 0 Grissom 462 Q 3154 (6, 7, & 8th) 0 0 = 0.0 (0% of the school population participated in the 3145 GLEP) Approximately 0% of the 6th and 7th grade population at participating MS* L’Anse Creuse 3 Middle School North 772 326 South 675 399 Central 698 329 2145(6, 7, & 8th) 1054 1054 = 0.49 (49% of the school population participated in the 2145 GLEP) Approximately 74% of the 6th and 7th grade population at participating MS* *Assunptions *Junior Highs’ populations are divided equally between 7th and 8th grade. (7th grade population=8th grade population.) *Middle Schools’ populations are divided equally among 6th, 7th, and 8th grade. (6th grade population=7th grade population=8th grade population.) 111 Appendix D-2 Continued District JD or IS School 8st. flunbor ot Part. 0 o: m Enrollmnt (now in 6th a/or 7th grade) Chippewa Valley 4 Middle School Iroquois 790 216 Seneca 710 313 Wyandot 580 110 2080(6, 7, & 8th) 699 699 = 0.336 (34% of the school population participated in the 2080 GLEP) Approximately 50% of the 6th and 7th grade population at participating MS* Roseville dunior High 2 Roseville 904 0 Eastland 504 Q 1408 0 0 = 0.0 (0% of the school population participated in the 1408 GLEP) Approximately 0% of the 6th and 7th grade population at participating MS* *Assumptions *Junior Highs’ populations are divided equally between 7th and 8th grade. (7th grade population=8th grade population.) *Middle Schools’ populations are divided equally among 6th, 7th, and 8th grade. (6th grade population=7th grade population=8th grade population.) 112 \hD‘ 4 ._—/ 2. TL. - L ’54 c ~ (I. 7 9U! ...: Appendix D—2 Continued District J3 or MS School lst. Humbor of Part. II of Jams Enrollment (now in 6th s10: 7th grade) Ferndale Junior High 1 Best 354(7th &8th) 57 Middle School 1 Coolidge 36 (6, 7, & 8th) 44 716 101 10 = 0.14 (14% of the school population participated in the 716 GLEP) Approximately 32% of 7th grade population at participating JH* Approximately 18% of 6th and 7th grade population at participating MS* Grosse Point 3 mm Pierce 579(6, 7, & 8th) 69 69 = 0.119 (12% of the school population participated in the 579 GLEP) Approximately 18% of 6th and 7th grade population at participating MS* Warren Wood 1 Middle Schgol Warren Woods 670 (6, 7, & 8th) 0 0 = 0.0 (0% of the school population participated in the 670 GLEP) Approximately 0% of the 6th and 7th grade population at participating MS* *Assunptions *Junior Highs’ populations are divided equally between 7th and 8th grade. (7th grade population=8th grade population.) *Middle Schools’ populations are divided equally among 6th, 7th, and 8th grade. (6th grade population=7th grade population=8th grade population.) 113 APPENDIX D-3 Current Student Enrollment in Elementary Schools within GLEP Program Area 114 Current Student Enrollment in Elementary Schools within GLEP Program Area District Elementary Total # of GLEP Part. School 5th Graders School Utica‘ Morgan 54+13* Yes Oakbrook 58 Yes Flickinger 93 Yes DeKeyser 49 Yes Ewell 46+14* Yes Walsh 52 Yes 352 youth in.participating schools Beck Centennial 120 No Browning 47+10* No Burr 50 No Collins 54 No Crissman 93 No Dresden 54 No Ebeling 71 No Graebner 54 No Harvey 79 No Havel 77 No Magahay 54+9* No Monfort 81 No Plumbrook 51 NO-not in F97/S98 Roberts 95 No Rose Kidd 55 No—not in F97/S98 Schuchard 75 NO-not in F97/S98 Schwarzkoff 85 No Switzer 89 No West Utica 77+12* No Wiley 88 No Memor 54 No 970 youth in nonrparticipating schools 1322 total 5th grade students in Utica *5th/6th grade splits—did not count 6th graders in totals Romeo Washington 71 Yes Crosswell 75 Yes 146 youth in participating schools Amanda Moore 76 No Hamilton Parsons 91 No Indian Hills 85 No 252 youth in nonrparticipating schools 398 total 5th grade students in Romeo 115 APE Di: Fr: R0} La}: Appendix D-3 Continued District Fraser Royal Oak Lakeview Elementary Total # of GLEP Part. School 5th.Graders School Eisenhower 67 Yes 67 youth in participating schools Disney 52 No Dooley 40 No Edison 60 No Emerson 51 No Mark Twain 42 NO-not in F97/S98 Salk 64 No 309 youth in non-participating schools 376 total 5th grade students in Fraser Oakridge 66 Yes Longfellow 22 Yes 88 youth in participating schools Franklins 22 No Northwood 53 No Oakland 45 No Parker 36 No Starr 55 No Twain 41 No Upton 33 No Whittier 73 No 358 youth in non-participating schools 446 total 5th grade students in Royal Oak Harmon 75 Yes 75 youth in participating schools Ardmore 75 No Greenwood 50 No Princeton 30 No 155 youth in nonrparticipating schools 230 total 5th grade students in Lakeview 116 APE Dis Sou Van Appendix D-3 Continued District AnohorBey Southlake van Dyke Elementary Total # of GLEP Part. School 5th.Graders School Sugarbush 80 Yes 80 youth in participating schools Lottie Schmidt 79 No—notzh1E97/S98 Dean Naldrett 72 No-notzh1E97/s98 Lighthouse closed for const. NO-not in F97/S98 Great Oaks 66 No Maconce 81 No 298 youth in non-participating schools 378 total 5th grade students in.AnchorBey Avalon 40 Yes Koepsell 37 Yes 77 youth in participating schools Elmwood 59 No Pare 26 No 85 youth in nonrparticipating schools 162 total 5th grade students in Southlake Carlson 28 Yes 28 youth in participating schools Harding 39 No Kennedy 30 No Lincoln 52 No Little 38 No McKinley 57 No Thompson 38 No Washington 33 No 287 youth in non-participating schools 315 total 5th grade students in van Dyke 117 Appendix D-3 Continued District Elementary Total # of GLEP Part. School 5th.Graders School Center Line 0 youth in.participating schools Crothers 43 No Miller 58 No Peck 55 No Roose 67 NO-not in F97/S98 223 youth in.non-participating schools 223 total 5th graders in Center Line warren Hatherly 80 Yes 80 youth in participating schools Angus 63 No Black 48 No Cromie 74 No Fillmore 79 No Green Acres 85 No Hardwood 54 No Holden 77 No Jefferson 77 No Lean 93 No Siersma 71 No Susick 59 No Thorpe 56 No Wilde 63 No Wilkerson 67 No Willow Woods 81 No 1047 youth.in non-participating schools 1127 total 5th graders in warren 118 Appendix D—3 Continued District Elementary Total # of GLEP Part. School 5th Graders School L’Anse Creuse Yacks 90 Yes 90 youth in participating schools Chesterfield 69 No Atwood 127 NO—not in F97/S98 Green 78 NO-not in F97/S98 Lobbestael 72 NO-not:h1F97/S98 Marie Graham 93 NO-not in F97/S98 Tenniswood 73 NO-not in F97/S98 Higgins 113 NO—not in F97/S98 South River 67 No-notshifi97/S98 692 youth in nonrparticipating schools 782 total 5th graders in L'Anse Creuse Chippewa valley Cherokee 107 Yes Ojibwa 70 Yes Mohawk 118 Yes 295 youth in participating schools Clinton Valley 92 No Erie 81 No Fox 102 No Huron 91 NO-not in F97/S98 Miami 93 No Ottawa 74 No Cheyenne 61 No 594 youth in non-participating schools 889 total 5th.graders in Chippewa valley 119 Appendix D-3 Continued District Elementary School Roseville Pierce Huron Park Alumni Arbor Dort Eastland Fountain Kaiser Lincoln Patton Total # of GLEP Part. 5th Graders School 29 Yes 86 Yes 115 youth in participating schools 63 No 21 No 43 No 21 No 60 No 58 No 38 No 34 No 338 youth in.non-participating schools 453 total 5th graders in Roseville Ferndale Wilson Harding Jackson Jefferson Roosevelt Taft Washington Grosse Point Defer Maire Ferry Kerby Mason Monteith Poupard Richard Trombly 52 Yes 52 youth in participating schools 35 NO—not in F97/S98 44 NO-not in F97/S98 36 No 60 No 59 NO-not in F97/S98 26 No 260 youth in nonrparticipating schools 312 total 5th graders in Ferndale 71 Yes 70 Yes 141 youth in participating schools 97 No 69 No 62 No 83 No 70 No 62 No 58 No 501 youth in non-participating schools 642 total 5th graders in Grosse Point 120 We Appendix D-3 Continued District Elementary School warren woods Briarwood Pinewood Westwood Total # of GLEP Part. 5th Graders School 68 Yes 68 youth in participating schools 61 No 89 No 150 youth in non-participating schools 218 total 5th graders in‘warren woods 121 >00WZUHN Dub mmneamnmm 0m 0HmnHHon Homofiamnwos on 0000 morooH mmfinwowomnwoo wow wow 0000000 H Kmmfi 0000 .mmHH mq\0UHHSQ mm. 122 emUHm 01A UHmnnwnn A On A On mo: 000. A A On 005 eoan A A cm A 0m omHn An: onamum Gm 000 ofimmmfim 0m max Donnomnn omHn 0H500 ufimmmfim H5 0HmmmH0 H5 0051 nfimamwm moooon moUoon £00 00H0.H50 H5 00H0.HDQ 000\0mm wwq\0mm 00H0.Q mofioon 00H0.H50 mnwoon Mmq\mmm modoon an00 000 0mm w 000 waw NH m 000 00800 Hmo HAm o wmm wow u N 000 mHmmmH me me 0 wow mom m H 00m wOKmH mH mm we wmm AAm m N 000 00x 00x0: mo om mm Hmm N00 0 H 00m 5030H 00 mo 0 wow wow 0 H wow 00% 00005: HOA go 0 mm Hmm m N 00m me0 <0: mm mm o qu mHm q H 00m 0 hich waterway connects the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean? Lake St. Clair St. Lawrence Seaway Lake Superior Mississippi River. g POP? land area from which a river collects its water is called a gradient watershed basin flood plain river bottom hat do fish need to live? a place to hide food the correct water temperature enough space to swim all of the above WF’OP’PS POPP 145 T" 10. Which is a plant that lives in water? A ivy B. minnow C. sunflower D. algae E. mushroom What could acid rain do to a lake? cause fewer fish to hatch from eggs hurt some types of plants and animals make the water more acidic change the numbers of plants and animals all of the above hyisitsuggestedthatpeopleeatGreatLakesfishonlyonceinawhile? Fish from the Great Lakes cost more than other fish. Since very few fish live in the Great Lakes, people should eat only a few of them. Some fish from the Great Lakes have pollutants inside them. Fish from the Great Lakes spoil faster than fish from rivers and oceans. Most fish from the Great Lakes do not taste very good. hich food chain is in the right order? water insects -> water plants -> fish -> people water insects .> fish -> water plants -> people water plants -> water insects -> fish -> people people -> water plants -> fish -> water insects fish -> people -> water insects -> water plants 2 WPPPP 3 WPOP>E F" .00 55> arshes may be disappearing because high sea level rs making the oceans and Great Lakes grow larger marsh water is draining out into the oceans people are filling in the marshes to make more land there is less rain to fill the marshes marshes naturally mature into forests W905”) 146 Q s‘ -’ s‘.‘ TIT l,. . 11. 12. _| (A) What is a 0.0. test used to measure? algae in the water plankton in the water oxygen in the water ozone in the water carbon dioxide in the water hich food chain is in the right order? water insects -> water plants -> fish -> people water insects -> fish -> water plants -> people water plants -> water insects -> fish -> people people -> water plants -> fish -> water insects fish -> people -> water insects -> water plants PP>E WPDP> ankton are schools of fast moving fish tiny floating plant and animal life non-living substances in the water materials for making wooden boats types of nets used on fishing vessels @5305”qu f"? 10 147 Section G. Background Information The information which you provide will be held in confidence. Your responses will be used only in comparison to what other people think. Your name will not be associated with your response. Please circle the number that corresponds to your response. Doyou regularly participate in any activities/hobbies related to the Great Lakes, such as fishing or boating? 1 No 2 Yes (If yes, please list) Do you belong to any environmental or conservation organizations, such as The Sierra Club or MUCC? 1 No 2 Yes (If yes, please list) 11 148 Please circle the number that represents the highest level of education you have completed. 1 Elementary school 2 High School or equivalent 3 Some college 4 Associates degree or Trade school 5 Bachelors degree 6 Advanced degree (Masters, Ph.D., MBA) If you circled any number from 3 to 6, what was your college major? Are you: 1 Male 2 Female If your child DID participate in the GLEP’s shipboard field trip during his or her 4th grade year, please complete the next two pages—T. _—"’ —’ T—T" ""_"’ If your child DID NOT participate in the GLEP’s shipboard field trip during his or her 4th grade year, please stop now. Thank you for completing this survey! 12 149 Section H. Importance of the GLEP To the best of your recollection, please answer the following questions. Please circle the number that corresponds to your answer. Do you think your child’s participation with the GLEP’s shipboard field trip was worthwhile? YES 2 m 3 NOT SURE Please indicate the extent to which the GLEP’s shipboard field trip helped improve your child’s knowledge and skills in the following aspects. STRONGLY AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREF. The GLEP increased my child’s knowledge about the Great Lakes, ecology, and water quality issues. 1 2 3 4 5 The GLEP improved my child’s personal interest in the Great Lakes andecobgy. 1 2 3 4 S The GLEP increased my child’s awareness and appreciation of the Great Lakes. 1 2 3 4 5 My child is more aware of water quality because of the GLEP. 1 2 3 4 S I am more aware of water quality because of my child’s participation in the GLEP. 1 2 3 4 S 13 150 Has your family adopted any new environmentally sound practices as a result of your child’s participation in the GLEP? 1 YES 2 M) 3 NOT SURE If YES, please indicate what they are. if you have any questions about this survey or any other comments about the GLEP that were not covered in the questionnaire, please provide them in the space below. THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY! 14 151 APPENDIX H-3 Drawing Entry Form Please have your child return the survey to his or her teacher in the envelope provided. If it is returned by January 23, 1999 you will be entered in the drawing for a bass sport fishing trip for one adult and one child on Lake St. Clair with Captain Ron Spitler. If you would like additional information about this evaluation, please contact {Ff-aim]: :1.” at. (ml 1“; Lflbf'vtal‘efi Michelle Niedermeier, Graduate Research Assistant in Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University 517/432-5037 Shari Dann Assistant Professor of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University 517/353-0675 Steve Stewart, District Extension Agent, MSU Extension-Macomb County 810/469-6085. The information which you provide will be held in confidence. This sheet will not linked to your survey responses. It will only be used for the purpose of prize distributions. Please Print Name Address Phone 152 APPENDIX I Reminder Letter (Mote, Letter was prepared on Michigan State Unversity Department of Fisheries and Wildlife letterhead) January 18, 1999 Dear Parents and Guardians: One week ago your son or daughter brought home a survey that will evaluate the impacts of The Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP). Many thanks if you already completed and returned the survey. If you have not returned the form, please take a few minutes to do it today. Your cooperation is essential, although your participation is voluntary. If by some chance you did not receive the survey, another copy may be obtained from your son or daughter’s teacher. If you would like additional information about this evaluation, please contact Michelle Niedermeier, Graduate Assistant at Michigan State University 517/432-5037, Shari Dann, Assistant Professor of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University 517/353-0675, or Steve Stewart, District Extension Agent at Macomb County MSU Extension 810/469-6085. Thanks again for your help! Sincerely, Michelle L. Niedermeier Shari L. Dann Graduate Research Assistant Assistant Professor 153 APPENDIX J Revised Cover Letter (Note, Letter was prepared on Michigan State Unversity Department of Fisheries and Wildlife letterhead) February 1, 1999 Dear Parents and Guardians: Three weeks ago your son or daughter brought home a survey that will evaluate the impacts of The Great Lakes Education Program (GLEP). As a part of the GLEP your child has taken part in some classroom learning experiences concerning the Great Lakes. These classroom experiences and the GLEP were developed by Michigan State University Extension and the Michigan Sea Grant College Program to provide Great Lakes educational experiences in the classroom. Now, in an effort to learn more about families’ interests in the Great Lakes, we invite you as a parent, to complete the enclosed survey. Some fourth grade classrooms may have taken part in the shipboard field trip associated with the GLEP. Whether your child participated in this or not, we need your input! We hope you will participate, although it is entirely voluntary. The survey takes only about 10-15 minutes to complete. Please have your child return the survey to his or her teacher in the envelope provided. Your son or daughter’s classroom will receive a special gift if 95% of the students return a completed survey by February 12, 1999. The information which you provide will be held in confidence and will be used only in comparisons with other responses. Your name will not be associated with your response. If you would like additional information about this evaluation, please contact Michelle Niedermeier, Graduate Assistant at Michigan State University 517/432-5037, Shari Dann, Assistant Professor of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University 517/353-0675, or Steve Stewart, District Extension Agent at Macomb County MSU Extension 810/469-6085. By completing this survey, you are agreeing to participate in the evaluation. Thank you in advance for taking a few minutes to complete this very important survey! Sincerely, Michelle L. Niedermeier Shari L. Dann Graduate Research Assistant Assistant Professor Enclosures 154 egg! I-IIJT'KD' 0.5. D APPENDIX K Letter to Teachers (Note. Letter was prepared on Michigan State Unversity Department of Fisheries and Wildlife letterhead) March 23, 1999 Fifth Grade Teachers Pinewood Elementary 14411 Bade Warren, MI 48093 Dear Fifth Grade Teachers, I would like to thank you for allowing me to come into your classroom to present an activity on Great Lakes careers to your fifth graders. I would also like to thank you for your assistance with survey distribution and return. As a graduate student, working with a thesis deadline, your participation has been greatly appreciated! Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or require assistance on any aspect of my visit or study. I can be reached at home (517)371—2961 or at school (517)432-5037. Thank you for your cooperation! Sincerely, Michelle L. Niedermeier Graduate Research Assistant 155 APPENDIX L Non-respondent Follow-up Phone Interviews with Teachers Interview Questions 1. Do you have any knowledge or insight as to why surveys F were not returned? (forgetfulness, refusals) l sr om 1 n 2 Not out of the ordinary for this group, this year. They are not good at remembering to return anything. Classrooms 11 and 12 = I have been teaching since 1964 and have seen a steady a decline in students. They are very bad about returning anything. We strive for 100% on everything we do and we are very disappointed in the (survey) returns. 2. Is there anything unique about the students/parents who did return a completed survey? Classrooms 1 and 2 Students who did return are the more responsible students. Classrooms 11 and 12 I have “haves” and “have nots”. Kids that returned, are kids that return. 3. Do you feel respondents are representative of the students and therefore the parents in your classroom or school? W (The returns) are not representative, it is the top 1/3 of the class and then a couple others. There is a trickle down from their parents, a lack of responsibility. School is not a top priority. Students are used to instant responses and are not willing to wait. I blame video games and TV. 156 4. were you able to follow the guidelines of the evaluation protocol (survey distribution, one week later-reminder letter, two weeks later-survey redistribution)?'were you able to use the thermometer chart to track classroom return rates? were you able to follow through with incentive distribution (bobbers, fish cards)? la room 11 an 12 We followed the guidelines you gave us. We also reminded them daily on our own. We talked about it, hung up the return chart, passed out the prizes and made a big deal of it. WI Classrogms 1 and 2 NOTE: This teacher lost all the return envelopes,the return address, and my phone number. Additional pre-paid postage envelopes were mailed to her. This teacher was out of time and unable to continue the interview. Classrooms 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. and 19 No response 157 APPENDIX M Detailed Results 158 Table M-l Responses of Participants' ParentzCuardian and Non- APPENDIX M-l participants’ ParentZCuardian Responses gn Knowledge Items Question* % with Correct p Answers 1. habitat Part. 88.5 .228 .633 Non—part. 90.9 2. Lake MI Part. 96.2 .725 .394 map Non—part. 92.6 3. GL to Part. 86.0 .106 .078 Atlantic Non—part. 73.1 4. watershed Part. 70.0 .566 .452 Non-part. 75.8 5. fish need Fart. 94.1 .046 .830 Non-part. 94.9 6. algae Part. 98.0 .439 .508 Non—part. 96.0 7. acid rain Part. 92.0 .158 .691 Non-part. 93.8 8. fish toxin Part. 92.2 .030 .864 Non—part. 92.9 9. food chain Fart 80.0 .014 .906 Non-part. 79.2 10. marshes Part. 92.2 .560 .454 Non-part. 88.2 11. DO Part. 43.2 .742 .389 Non—part. 35.4 12. order Part. 79.2 .308 .579 Non—part 75.0 159 1""h 30;. J. - i' 1 0'7 ‘ .r ".l."; l r Table L—l continued Question* % with Correct x2 df 2 Answers 13. plankton. Part. 92.0 2.665 1 0.103 Non-part. 81.9 *For actual knowledge test survey items, see Appendix H, Survey Section F. ugtey Part.= Parents/guardians of participants Non—part.= Parents/guardians of non-participants 160 X’CZ» ‘ . I .h‘ I Table M—2 Responses of ParentZCpardian Volunpeers and Non—volunteers on Knowledge Items APPENDIX M-2 Question** % with Correct x2 p Answers 1. habitat Vol. 81.8 .905 .048* Non-vol. 100.0 2. Lake MI V01. 93.9 .198 .274 map Non-vol. 100.0 3. GL to Vol. 89.5 .307 .579 Atlantic Non-vol . 83 . 9 4. watershed vol. 78.9 .168 .280 Non—vol. 64.5 5. fish need \kfl” 94.7 .021 .885 Non-vol. 93.8 6. algae Vol. 100.0 .606 .436 Non-vol. 96.9 7. acid rain \kfl” 100.0 .665 .103 Non-vol. 87.1 8. fish toxin \kfl” 94.7 .279 .597 Non—vol. 90.6 9. food chain \kfl” 88.9 .389 .239 Non—vol. 75.0 10. marshes Vol. 94.7 .279 .597 Non—vol. 90.6 11. DO Vol. 38.9 .229 .632 Non—vol. 46.2 12. order Vol. 94.4 .076 .044* Non-vol. 70.0 161 Table M-2 continued Question* % with Correct x2 df p Answers 13. plankton vol. 100.0 2.665 1 0.103 Non-vol. 87.1 *p< .05. **For actual knowledge test survey items, see Appendix H, Survey Section F uppep Vol.= Parents/guardians of participants who volunteered if“ Non—part.= Parents/guardians of participants who did not volunteer 162 APPENDIX M-3 Table M-3 Responses pf Partipipants’ Parenthuardiap and Non- parpipipanps’ PareanCuardian pn Aptipudes aboup Che Creat Lakes Question* D M** ED L Q 2-tailed Beautiful/ Part. 52 5.35 0.86 1.016 0.311 Ugly Non-part. 101 5.49 0.77 Fun/ Part. 52 5.25 0.90 —0.016 0.987 Boring Non—part. 101 5.25 0.93 Familiar/ Part. 52 4.90 1.21 -1.203 0.231 Strange Non-part. 100 4.66 1.17 Awful/ Part. 52 5.17 0.96 0.651 0.516 Nice Non-part. 99 5.29 1.13 Dirty/ Part. 52 3.65 1.19 1.334 0.184 Clean Non—part. 99 3.92 1.15 Important/ Part. 52 5.63 0.84 -1.592 0.114 Unimportant Non-part. 100 5.31 1.34 Worthless/ Part. 52 5.62 0.97 1.95 0.846 ‘Valuable Non-part. 99 5.65 0.91 *For actual survey items, see Appendix H—2, Survey Section C. **Scores ranged from 1—6, with 6 representing the most positive response. Nppe, Part.= Parents/guardians of participants Non—part.= Parents/guardians of non—participants 163 APPENDIX M-4 Table M—4 Responses pf ParentZCuardian Volunpeers and Non—volunteers on Atpipudes apou; phs Crsap Lskes Question* p M** SQ p p 2—tailed Beautiful/ Vol. 19 5.42 0.84 -0.473 0.639 Ugly Non-vol. 33 5.30 0.88 Fun/ Vol. 19 5.42 0.77 -1.035 0.306 Boring Non—vol. 33 5.15 0.97 Familiar/ Vol. 19 4.89 1.15 0.041 0.968 Strange Non-vol. 33 4.91 1.26 Awful/ Vol. 19 5.21 1.13 -0.210 0.834 Nice Non-vol. 33 5.15 0.87 Dirty/ Vol. 19 3.89 1.05 -1.114 0.271 Clean Non-vol. 33 3.52 1.25 Important/ Vol. 19 5.79 0.63 —1.008 0.318 Unimportant Non—vol. 33 5.55 0.94 Worthless/ Vol. 19 5.74 0.93 —0.679 0.500 ‘Valuable Non-vol. 33 5.55 21.00 *For actual survey items, see Appendix H—2, Survey Section C. **Scores ranged from 1-6, with 6 representing the most positive response. Nppsp Vol.= Parents/guardians of participants who volunteered Non-part.= Parents/guardians of participants who did not volunteer 164 APPENDIX M-S Table M—5 Rssppnsss pf Parpipipspts’ PagsanCpsrdian and upp— parpipipanps’ PareanCuardian on Attitudes abou; she Enyirpnment Question* p M** SD p p 2—tailed Duty Part. 52 4.48 0.73 —0.656 .513 Non-part. 102 4.40 0.69 Wildlife Part. 52 4.63 0.63 -0.258 .797 needs Non-part 102 4.61 0.60 Choices Part. 52 4.52 0.61 -0.705 .482 Non-part. 102 4.44 0.67 Future Part. 52 4.50 0.70 —0.174 .862 Non-part. 102 4.48 0.64 Community Part. 52 4.31 0.70 0.723 .471 Non-part. 102 4.39 0.68 Respect Part. 52 4.65 0.65 0.517 .606 Non-part. 102 4.71 0.56 Electricity Part. 52 4.27 0.72 -0.481 .631 Non-part. 102 4.21 0.80 Water Part. 52 4.25 0.74 1.240 .216 Non-part. 102 4.40 0.71 Habitat Part. 52 4.62 0.66 0.530 .597 Non-part. 102 4.67 0.51 *For actual survey items, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section D. **Scores ranged from 1-5, with 5 representing the most positive response. Npts, Part.= Parents/guardians of participants Non-part.= Parents/guardians of non-participants 165 APPENDIX M-6 Table M-6 Re ons s f Parent uardian V l teers and Non- lun r n A t' e ou he E i nm n Question* D M** ED L E 2-tailed Duty Vol. 19 4.74 0.56 -1.981 0.053 Non-vol. 33 4.33 0.78 Wildlife Vol. 19 4.74 0.45 —0.890 0.378 needs Non-vol 33 4.58 0.71 Choices Vol. 19 4.52 0.51 —0.063 0.950 Non—vol. 33 4.53 0.67 Future Vol. 19 4.45 0.61 —0.613 0.543 Non-vol. 33 4.58 0.75 Community Vol. 19 4.32 0.67 —0.063 0.950 Non-vol. 33 4.30 0.73 Respect Vol. 19 4.79 0.42 —1.l39 0.260 Non-vol. 33 4.58 0.75 Electricity V01. 19 4.42 0.69 -1.162 0.251 Non-vol. 33 4.18 0.73 Water Vol. 19 4.32 0.67 —0.481 0.630 Non-vol. 33 4.21 0.78 Habitat Vol. 19 4.79 0.76 -1.456 0.152 Non—vol. 33 4.52 0.42 *For actual survey items, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section D. **Scores ranged from 1-5, with 5 representing the most positive response. Nppsp Vol.= Parents/guardians of participants who volunteered Non—part.= Parents/guardians of participants who did not volunteer 166 APPENDIX M-7 Table M—7 Responses of Participanps’ ParentZCuardian and Non— parpipipanps’ ParentZCuardian pn IntentionsZFsslipgs Parent/Guardian p, M SQ p p Respondent Groups 2-tailed F and Variable** . Part.—Mad 52 1.13 0.34 —0.832 0.407 ‘ Non—part.-Mad 102 1.09 0.32 Part.-Upset 52 1.56 0.67 1.235 0.219 Non—part.-Upset 102 1.69 0.58 Part.-Teeth 52 2.87 0.34 —1.552 0.123 Non-part.-Teeth 102 2.75 0.50 Part.-Bathe 52 2.71 0.57 —2.193 0.030* Non-part.—Bathe 102 2.48 0.64 Part.—Money 52 2.10 0.60 1.295 0.197 Non—part.—Money 101 2.22 0.52 Part.-Letter 51 1.94 0.70 —0.005 0.996 Non-part.—Letter 101 1.94 0.69 Part.-Litter 52 2.62 0.57 0.516 0.607 Non—part.-Litter 101 2.66 0.53 Part.-Career 52 2.92 0.27 —1.153 0.251 Non-part.-Career 102 2.84 0.46 *p < .05. **For actual question, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section C, page 5 Note, Part.= Parents/guardians of participants. Non-part.= Parents/guardians of non-participants. Maximum score of each question in the intentions/feeling section was 3 3 = TRUE, This sentence describes me most of the time 2 = MAYBE, This sentence sometimes describes me 1 = FALSE, This sentence hardly ever or never describes me 167 APPENDIX M-8 Table M—8 Resppnses of ParentZCuardian Volunteers and Nop-yplpppsers pn WW Parent / Guardian p M SC 1; p Respondent Groups 2—tailed and Variable** Vol.-Mad 19 1.05 0.23 1.311 0.196 Non—vol.—Mad 33 1.18 0.39 Vol.-Upset 19 1.37 0.60 1.570 0.123 Non—vol.-Upset 33 1.67 0.69 Vol.-Teeth 19 2.79 0.42 1.211 0.232 Non-vol.-Teeth 33 2.91 0.29 Vol.—Bathe 19 2.89 0.46 —1.791 0.079 Non-vol.-Bathe 33 2.61 0.61 Vol.—Money 19 2.26 0.65 -1.537 0.131 Non—vol.—Money 33 2.00 0.56 Vol.-Letter 18 2.06 0.87 —0.854 0.397 Non—vol.-Letter 33 1.88 0.60 Vol.—Litter 19 2.79 0.42 -1.716 0.092 Non—vol.-Litter 33 2.52 0.62 Vol.-Career 19 2.84 0.37 1.676 0.100 Non-vol.—Career 33 2.97 0.17 *p < .05. **For actual question, see Appendix H—2, Survey Section C, page 5 Nppsp Vol. = Parents/Guardians who volunteered. Non—vol. = Non—volunteering parents/guardians Maximum score of each question in the intentions/feeling section was 3 3 = TRUE, This sentence describes me most of the time 2 = MAYBE, This sentence sometimes describes me 1 = FALSE, This sentence hardly ever or never describes me 168 APPENDIX M- 9 Table M—9 Responsss pf Psrpicipspps' ParsntZCpsrdiap and Npp- psrpipipants' ParsntZCpardisn on Enyirpnmsntal Aptipns Question* p M*** SC p p 2—tailed Light bulbs Part. 52 3.69 0.83 0.092 0.927 Non-parts 102 3.71 0.89 Cleaning Part. 52 4.02 0.91 —2.138 0.034** Products Non-part. 102 3.69 0.92 Packaging Part. 51 3.40 1.04 ~0.061 0.952 Non—part. 102 3.39 0.89 Glass Part. 52 4.35 1.03 —0.713 0.477 Non—part. 102 4.21 1.21 Purchased Part. 52 3.96 0.77 —0.424 0.673 Recycled Non—part. 101 3.91 0.66 Information Part. 52 3.02 0.96 -1.630 0.103 Non-part. 101 2.77 0.83 Waste Part. 52 4.38 0.97 -3.432 0.001** Collection. JNon-part. 99 3.65 11.38 Told Part. 52 2.81 1.19 -1.521 0.130 Friends Non-part. 101 2.54 0.91 Turned off Part. 52 4.73 0.49 -1.594 0.113 Lights Non-part. 102 4.54 0.79 Info. help Part. 52 2.50 1.04 —1.808 0.073 Non-Part. 101 2.22 0.84 No bleach Part. 52 2.88 0.92 -0.766 0.445 Non—part. 102 2.75 1.03 Read Labels Part. 52 2.98 1.00 -0.460 0.646 Non-part. 101 2.90 1.02 *For actual survey items, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section E. ** p < .05. ***Scores ranged from 1-5, with 5 representing the most positive response. Nppsp Part.= Parents/guardians of participants Non-part.= Parents/guardians of non-participants 169 III .'. .‘ '2' Rec II Nc APPENDIX M- l O Table M—10 Res on es f Parent uar 'an 01 n e -v lu er on E 'r t ' n Question* D M*** ED L E 2-tailed Light bulbs Vol. 19 3.47 0.96 1.458 0.151 Non—vol. 33 3.82 0.73 Cleaning Vol. 19 3.84 0.90 1.057 0.296 Products Non—vol. 33 4.12 0.93 Packaging Vol. 19 3.53 0.90 -0.706 0.484 Non—vol. 33 3.31 1.12 Glass Vol. 19 4.58 0.96 -1.247 0.218 Non-vol. 33 4.21 1.05 Purchased Vol. 19 4.21 0.71 -1.818 0.075 Recycled Non-vol. 33 3.82 0.77 Information Vol. 19 3.47 0.96 -2.753 0.008** Non—vol. 33 2.76 0.87 Waste Vol. 19 4.32 1.06 0.384 0.703 Collection Non—vol. 33 4.42 0.94 Told Vol. 19 3.21 1.08 -1.901 0.063 Friends Non-vol. 33 2.58 1.20 Turned off Vol. 19 4.74 0.45 0.067 0.947 Lights Non-vol. 33 4.73 0.52 Info. help Vol. 19 2.74 1.10 —1.255 0.215 Non—vol. 33 2.36 0.99 No bleach Vol. 19 3.00 1.05 -0.682 0.499 Non—vol. 33 2.82 0.85 Read Labels Vol. 19 2.89 1.05 0.467 0.642 Non—vol. 33 3.03 0.98 *For actual survey items, see Appendix H-2, Survey Section E. ** p < .05. ***Scores ranged from 1—5, with 5 representing the most positive response. Nppsp Part.= Parents/guardians of participants Non—part.= Parents/guardians of non-participants 170 Appendix M-11 Table M—11 Mann Whitney C Nonparametric Test on Knowledgs, Appitpds, and Behaviorsl Intenpion Scales: ParentZCuardian yoluntssrs and Non-volunteers Scale Respondent N Mean Sum of _Z_ p Group Rank the 2—tailed Ranks Knowledge Vol. 19 32.39 615.50 -2.182 0.029* Non-vol. 33 23.11 762.50 Attitudes Vol. 19 28.37 539.00 -0.679 0.497 about the Non—vol. 33 25.42 839.00 Great Lakes Attitudes Vol. 19 28.63 544.00 —0.785 0.433 about the Non—vol. 33 25.27 834.00 Environment Intentions/ Vol. 18 32.53 585.50 -2.353 0.019* Feelings Non-vol. 33 22.44 740.50 Environmental vol. 19 27.79 528.00 —0.664 0.507 Action Non-vol. 32 24.94 798.00 *p < .05. Nops, Vol. = Parents/Guardians who volunteered. Non—vol. = Non-volunteering parents/guardians. 171 REFERENCES 172 REFERENCES Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). nd 5 ' ' u es and predicting human behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bem, D.J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advancss ip sxperimsntal social psycholpgy (Vol. 6). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bennett, D. (1989). Four steps to evaluating environmental education learning experiences. Ths Copppgl of Envirgnmental Educatign,20(2), 14-21. Blanchard, K.A., & Monroe, M.C. (1990). Effecpivs educational strategies for rsysrsing pgpplspipn dsglinss in seabirds. Paper presented at the 55th North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, pp 108-117. Boyle, P. (1981). Plapping bettsr prggrams. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., p 226. Bristor, M.W. (1990). Indiyidpgls, fgmiliss and environments. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Cookson, P. (1996). Progpam plapping for lifslpng educapiop. Manuscript submitted for publication. Cox, A., & Wilson, R. (1993). thigns fgr Mighigan Envirpnmenpal Edugatipn. Senate Majority Policy Office, Lansing, MI. 173 Dann, S. (1994). The life of the lakes, A guide to Great Lakes fishery educational materials. Fisheries Csrsers Scavengsr Hunt (Extension Bulletin E-2441;MICHU-SG-93-401, 23-24). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Extension. Delener, N., & Schiffman, L.G. (1988). Family decision making: The impact of religious factors. In G. Frazier et al. (Ed.), 1988 AMA Educapprs' Proceedings (pp. 80—83). Chicago: American Marketing Association. Disinger, J. (1983). Environmental education’s definitional problem. Ipfp;mgpipp_§pllspin_fi2 ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, 1-8. Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and Islsphone Sppysys: The Total Design Msphpd. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Environmental Education Act, 13.19 Michigan Statutes Annotated. §§ 299-31—34 (1994). Environmental Education and Training Partnership (March 1997a). understanding svalpapions pf snyirpnmsnpal sdpcapign (Number 12). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the North American Association for Environmental Education. Environmental Education and Training Partnership (March 1997b). Enyirgnmsntal edpcapion: pan is bs dsfined? (Number 14). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the North American Association for Environmental Education. 174 Environmental Education and Training Partnership (April 1997c). Envipgnmsnpal sdpgapipn; as dsfinsd by ths pragtipioners (Number 15). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the North American Association for Environmental Education. Environmental Education and Training Partnership (May 1997d). Evolution of snvirgnmsntgl edpcgpipn; hispgriggl devslopmenp (Number 16). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the North American Association for Environmental Education. Environmental Education Citizens' Advisory Committee. (1992). Report to the Michigan State Board of Education and the Michigan Natural Resources Commission. EECAC Chair: R. Ben Peyton. Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) Commiptee pn sdpgapipn apg prgining (CET). September 17, 1993. Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Environmental Education and Training. Ferber, R. (1977). Applications of behavioral theories to the study of family marketing behavior. Bshgyioral mpdsls for market analysis; foundation for markeping assign, 80—95. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belisf, sppippde, intenpign, and bshayiopg Ag inprgdpgpipn pg phsopy and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 175 Fishbein, M. & Manfredo, M.J. (1992). A theory of behavior change. M. Manfredo (Ed.), Influsncing Humgp Behavior: theopy gnd sppligapigns in rsgreapion, ppupism, and natursl rssgprges managemen; (pp. 29-50). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing Co. Flor, R. (1991). An introduction to research and evaluation in practice. Th 0 rie ial Educatign, 14(1), 36-39. Fortner, R. (1991) The scope of research in marine and aquatic education. Envirpnmsntal Cgmmunigappp, July/August, 5. Fortner, R., & Mayer, V. (1983). Ohio Students knowledge and attitudes about the oceans and Great lakes. Ohio Journal of Scienge, 83(5), 218—224. Gilchrist, S. (1989/90). The effect of Project WILD on fourth grade students in Wisconsin. nghnigal Bpllspip, Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Gilchrist, S. (1993). The impact of Project WILD on fourth grade students in Wisconsin. Habiprsnds, Spring (10), 5—6. Horowitz, I.A., & Bordens, K.S. (1995). Spgial psycholpgy. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Hounshell, P. & Hampton, C. (1982). Marips educgpiop kngw sdgs inyepppry. (Report No. SE-039-188) East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 222329.) 176 Hungerford, H., Peyton, R.B. & Wilke, R.J. (1980). Goals for curriculum development in environmental education. Journal pf Enyironmenpal Edpcstiop, 11(3), 42—47. Hungerford, H. & Volk T. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Jgurnal of Environmental Educapion, 21(3), 8—21. Iozzi, L. (1989). What research says to the educator. Part one: environmental education and the affective domain. The Journal of Enyirpnmsnpsl Egpggpion, 20(3), 3—9. Keen, M. (1991). The effect of the sunship earth program on knowledge and attitude development. The qurnal pf Environmentsl Educatign, 22(3), 28—32. Kelly, I. (1995) Coral Reef Classroom Student Survey. Unpublished Report. Lewis, G. (1981/82). A review of classroom methodologies for environmental education. The Joprpsl pf Enyippnmsppal Education, 13, 12—15. Leeming, F., Dwyer W., & Bracken B. (1995). Children’s environmental attitude and knowledge scale: Construction and validation. Ths Journal of Environmenpal Educgtign, 26(3), 22—23. Linke, R. (1981). Achievements and aspirations in Australian environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education. 12(2), 20—23. 177 Lucko, B., Disinger J., & Roth R. (1982). Evaluation of environmental education programs at the elementary and secondary school levels. The Journsl of Envirpnmsnpgl Educapion, 13(4), 8-12. McNeal, J.U. (1965). An exploratory study of the consumer behavior of children. Dimensions pf Bshsyior. New York, NY: Meredith. Melson, G.F. (1980). The family as consumer. Family and Environmenp An Eggsyspsm Psrspsgpiye, 181-193. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing Company. Michigan Department of Education. (1973). Enyipgnmental educapion gpidslinss. Lansing, Michigan. Michigan Department of Education. (1996). Mighigan Curriculum Framework. Lansing, MI: Michigan State Board of Education. 1998 Michigan Education Directory. Lansing, MI: Lansing Printing Co., 1997. Michigan State Board of Education. (1991). Mighiggp essential goals and opjecpiyss for sciencs educapign (K-12). Lansing, MI: Michigan State Board of Education. Michigan State Board of Education. (1994). Mighiggp_gpps curripplum gontent standards (K-12). Lansing, MI: Michigan State Board of Education. 178 Munn, M. (1968). The effect on parental buying habits of children exposed to children's television programs. qupnal of Broadcasting 2, Summer, 253—258; reprinted in Consumer Behavior, anpempgrspy Researgh in Acpion (1971) ed. R.J. Holloway, R.A. Mittelstaedt, and M. Vankatesan. Boston. MA: Houghton Mifflin. National Environmental Education Act of 1990 (Public Law 101—619). National Environmental Education Advisory Council. (1998). Rsport assessing envirgnmental educatipn in the United Statss and she implemenpation of the napipnsl environmental education act of 1990 (EPA Publication No. 171— R-96—001). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Nevala, A.E. (1997). An evaluation of educapprs’ participation in the Creat Lakes Education Program. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing. North American Association for Environmental Education. (1998). Environmental education materials: gpidslinss for excellence (ISBN 1-884008—41-0). Troy, OH. Paolucci, B., Hall O.A., & Azinn N. (1977). Family decision making: an ecosyspem apprpgch. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. 179 _ gm. ‘l! ‘Ww-n- I“ nICHIonN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 31293018341747