...
2;...s 3.5..
. u . MESS:

a ..

.L i!
.3. .1!» .3.
1‘1).

.53. .
. z... .2...

EL . .. .e 3.9 21..
3.: . . 1 i.

1. >13,
. 2 ~ TE.‘.
.3: 7.21.:

4

 

 

UBRARy
M'C’ligan State

ﬂiversity

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Michigan Salmon in the Classroom: A Fisheries and
Wildlife Education Curriculum Developed by
Assessing the Concerns of Education and
Fisheries Stakeholders

presented by

Laura Imbur Granack

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S. degreein Fish. & Wildl.

 

 

 

 

Date October 22, 2001

 

0-7639 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

NOV 0 4 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/C|RC/DateDue.p65—p. 15

MICHIGAN SALMON IN THE CLASSROOM: A FISHERIES AND WATERSHED
EDUCATION CURRICULUM DEVELOPED BY ASSESSING THE CONCERNS
OF EDUCATION AND FISHERIES STAKEHOLDERS
By

Laura lmbur Granack

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

2001

ABSTRACT

MICHIGAN SALMON IN THE CLASSROOM: A FISHERIES AND WATERSHED
EDUCATION CURRICULUM DEVELOPED BY ASSESSING THE CONCERNS
OF EDUCATION AND FISHERIES STAKEHOLDERS

By

Laura lmbur Granack

“Salmon in the Classroom” (SIC) is a program that combines the hands-on
activity of raising salmon in aquaria with curriculum activities that teach various ﬁsheries
topics. The program was designed to foster public understanding Of ﬁsheries
management and stewardship of ﬁsheries and watersheds. The program was
developed and implemented in the Paciﬁc Northwest where salmon have been an
important commodity and cultural resource. The purpose of this study was to investigate
stakeholder perspectives and apply these in the development of a Michigan SIC
curriculum. In Phase I, a mail survey was developed and administered to SIC teachers.
other educators, Fisheries Division personnel, and Opinion leaders of sport ﬁshing
groups and watershed coalitions (N=503). An overall 77% survey response rate was
achieved. In Phase II, a writing retreat was used to discuss concepts and activities for a
Michigan-speciﬁc SIC curriculum. Fisheries stakeholders believed that it was more
important to teach resource management topics, whereas education stakeholders
believed that the SIC curriculum should address Michigan Curriculum Framework topics.
Educators extensively used hands-on teaching methods. All Of the SIC teachers found
the program to be worthwhile and plan to continue using the program. Mandatory in-
service training, program implementation through organizational and community
partnerships, and educator participation in curriculum development will enhance the

success of the Michigan SIC program.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An Inland Fisheries Cooperative Grant #00-940, from the Michigan
Department Of Natural Resources Fisheries Division (MDNR FD) funded this
research and curriculum design project. Special thanks to Tom Rozich MDNR
FD Central Lake Michigan Unit Manager; Brandon Schroeder, Michigan United
Conservation Clubs Fisheries Specialist; Ken Dodge, MDNR Urban Fisheries
Biologist; and Todd Grischke, MDNR FD Staff Specialist for participating in the
research, providing me information, and having interest in the development of a
ﬁsheries and watershed program that was essential for this research to take
place.

I would like tO thank my advisors, Dr. Shari Dann and Dr. Don Garling, and
committee member, Dr. Randy Showerman who have become conﬁdants
through their guidance Of my research, writing, and learning.

Members Of the Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife, especially the members of the Human Dimensions lab, have provided
me their support, friendship, and optimistic views. Special thanks are due for the
statistical guidance of Dr. Angela Mertig, Dr. Dan Hayes, and Dr. Scott
Winterstein. I greatly appreciated the help of Jennifer VanderLaan during the
writing retreat and Peter Bull, Laura Cimo, Meegan Dom, Justin Hall, Mark
Stephens, Heather Van Den Berg, and Kristy Wallmo, for their peer review during
many phases of my project.

I have appreciated my friends and family believing in me and encouraging
me in my decisions. I thank my parents, whose guidance through life has
allowed me to become the person I am today.

To my husband, Robert, thank you for helping me realize my goal and

supporting me throughout this adventure.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Background and Rationale ................................................................................ 1
Problem Statement ............................................................................................ 5
Goal of Study ..................................................................................................... 7
Research Questions .......................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 10
Overview ......................................................................................................... 1 0
Aquatic and Environmental Education ............................................................. 10
Learning Theories and Teaching Methods ...................................................... 12
Educators and Curriculum ............................................................................... 17
Educator Involvement .................................................................................. 17
Implementation Of Curriculum ...................................................................... 19
Challenges Educators Face in Teaching a New Curriculum ........................ 22
Training Educators through Workshops ....................................................... 24
Needs Assessment for Programs and Program Evaluation ......................... 25
Partnerships .................................................................................................... 26
Summary ......................................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 3
METHODS .......................................................................................................... 31
Overview ......................................................................................................... 31
Phase I: Procedures and Study Groups .......................................................... 31
Survey Implementation .................................................................................... 37
Survey Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 40
Phase II: Curriculum Writing Retreat ............................................................... 41
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 44
Overview ......................................................................................................... 44
Response Rates .............................................................................................. 44
Respondent Backgrounds ............................................................................... 48
Sociodemographic Backgrounds ................................................................. 49
Outdoor Activities ......................................................................................... 50
Fisheries and Watershed Activities .............................................................. 53
Educators” Experience and Involvement Levels ........................................... 54
SIC Teacher Perspectives ............................................................................... 58
Knowledge and Attitudes about the SIC Program Activities ............................ 62

iv

The Value and Use Of Teaching Methods ................................................. 68
Sources Educators Use tO Obtain Knowledge about Fisheries and Watershed

Subject Topics ................................................................................................. 72
Concerns by the Stakeholders about Fisheries and Watershed Information ...76
Factors that Inﬂuence Educator Participation in New EE Programs ............ 78
Interest and Involvement .............................................................................. 82
Qualitative Data ............................................................................................... 83
Writing Retreat ................................................................................................. 83
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 86
Overview.. ...................................................................................................... 86
Interest in the SIC Program ............................................................................. 87
Writing Retreat ................................................................................... ' ............ 88
Educators’ Perspectives. .............................................................................. 89
SIC Teachers' Perspectives. ...................................................................... 90
SIC and Other Educators' Use Of Fisheries and Watershed Education
Sources .................................................................................................. 93
Perspectives Regarding Educators' Knowledge and Teaching Methods ...... 95
Interests Of the Survey Participants ................................................................. 98
The Michigan SIC Program ............................................................................. 99
Study Limitations ........................................................................................... 102
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................... 105
Future Research and Evaluation ................................................................... 108
LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................ 110
APPENDICES
Appendix A. The History of Salmon Introductions in Michigan ...................... 121
Appendix B. Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS) Project Approval30 ............................................ 129
Appendix C. Survey Cover Letters ................................................................ 132
Appendix D. Survey Mailed to Fisheries Stakeholders ................................. 134
Appendix E. Survey Mailed to Educator Stakeholders ................................. 140
Appendix F. Second Mailing: Postcard Reminder ......................................... 150
Appendix G. Return Slip for Prize Drawing as Incentive for Respondents ....151
Appendix H. Invitation to Writing Retreat ...................................................... 152
Appendix I. Writing Retreat Consent Form .................................................... 153
Appendix J. Writing Retreat Agenda ............................................................. 154
Appendix K. Writing Retreat Discussions ..................................................... 155
Appendix L. Post-Writing Retreat Feedback Survey ..................................... 165
Appendix M. Responses Of Salmon in the Classroom Teachers to Open-
ended survey questions ................................................................................. 166

List Of Tables
Table 1. Stakeholder groups that were mailed ﬁsheries and watershed education
surveys and the rationale for their inclusion in the study. .............................. 33

Table 2. Timetable and methods of distribution Of ﬁsheries and watershed
education surveys used for collecting data. .................................................. 39

Table 3. Response rates Of survey participants. ............................................... 45
Table 4. Percentages of ﬁsheries stakeholders certiﬁed in environmental

education programs. Due to low sample amounts, no statistical comparisons
were made between the two groups. ............................................................ 56

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Outline of overarching goal of study, and study phases. ....................... 8

Figure 2. Brody’s (1993) approach to how concepts can relate to each other
through semantic networking, connecting meaning to other topics ................ 16

Figure 3. A visual representation Of the importance of training Opportunities for
educators for successful implementation Of programs, based on Jaus (1978).
...................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 4. Survey populations and groupings of respondents for subsequent data
analysis. ........................................................................................................ 34

Figure 5. Percentages Of ﬁsheries and watershed education survey respondents
who participated in speciﬁc outdoor activities 3 or more times in the past
year. (* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where
p<0.05) ............... . ........................................................................................... 51

Figure 6. Percentages of ﬁsheries stakeholders who held various roles within
their organizations. (* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between
groups, where p<0.05) .................................................................................. 55

Figure 7. Perceptions Of ﬁsheries stakeholder respondents survey concerning
the ﬁsheries and watershed activities performed by their organizations. (*=
difference between groups = p<0.05) ............................................................ 57

Figure 8. Percent of education stakeholders teaching in various education
settings. (* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups,
where p<0.05) ** Note: percentages will not total 100% due to multiple
responses given by the respondents ............................................................. 59

Figure 9. Percent of education stakeholders with teaching certiﬁcations in
various grade levels. (* indicates a statistically Signiﬁcant difference between
groups, where p<0.05) .................................................................................. 60

Figure 10. Percentages of Michigan SIC teachers that addressed concepts from
the California SIC manual. ............................................................................ 63

Figure 11. Percent Of SIC teachers who addressed other concepts that are not
directly covered in the California SIC manual. ............................................... 64

vii

Figure 12. Mean self-ratings Of ecological knowledge Of ﬁsheries and watershed
topics, comparing SIC teachers” and non-SIC educators” knowledge
(* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where
p<0.05)**Where: 1 = Unaware Of this topic or its meaning, 2 = Aware of this
topic and/or its meaning, 3 = Have some knowledge about this topic but feel
inadequate to teach, 4 = Have adequate knowledge for teaching this topic,
5 = Have above average knowledge for teaching this topic. ........................ 66

Figure 13. Mean self-ratings of resource management knowledge Of ﬁsheries
and watershed topics, comparing SIC teachers” and non-SIC educators'
knowledge. (* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups,
where p<0.05) “Where: 1 = Unaware Of this topic or its meaning, 2 = Aware
of this topic and/or its meaning, 3 = Have some knowledge about this topic
but feel inadequate to teach, 4 = Have adequate knowledge for teaching this
topic, 5 = Have above average knowledge for teaching this topic ................ 67

Figure 14. Percent Of SIC teachers and non-SIC educators who believed speciﬁc
ﬁsheries and watershed issues were taught by educators in Michigan three or
more times per year. Due to low sample amounts, no statistical comparisons
were made between the two groups. ............................................................ 69

Figure 15. Mean rating of importance by education stakeholders about valuable
teaching methods. *Where: 1: Strongly agree that the method is valuable, 2=
Agree, 3= Disagree, 4=Strongly Disagree (“Undecided”” and “Do not know”
answers were removed.) ............................................................................... 70

Figure 16. Percent of education stakeholder respondents who used speciﬁc
teaching methods three or more times a year. .............................................. 71

Figure 17. Percent of education respondents who obtained their ﬁsheries and
watershed knowledge from various information sources. (* indicates a
statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where p<0.05) ................ 73

Figure 18. Percent of educators who held certiﬁcations in environmental
education programs. (* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between
groups, where p<0.05) .................................................................................. 75

Figure 19. Perceptions Of ﬁsheries stakeholders about which audiences receive

ﬁsheries and watershed information from their organizations. (* indicates a
statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where p<0.05) ................ 77

viii

Figure 20. Mean stakeholders” beliefs about the importance of ecological
ﬁsheries and watershed topics to include in a Michigan SIC program
(* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where
p<0.05) “Where: 1 = Not Important at all, 2 = Somewhat Unimportant, 3 =
Somewhat Important, 4: Very Important ....................................................... 79

Figure 21. Mean stakeholders” beliefs about the importance of resource
management topics to include in a Michigan SIC program. (* indicates a
statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where p<0.05) "Where: 1
= Not Important at all, 2 = Somewhat Unimportant, 3 = Somewhat Important,
4= Very Important ...... - ................................................................................... 80

Figure 22. Percent of respondents reporting that various circumstances would
inﬂuence educator participation in new environmental education programs
(* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where
p<0.05) .......................................................................................................... 81

ix

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Background and Rationale

“Salmon in the Classroom” is a curriculum in which students participate in
hands-on activity of raising salmon in aquaria in Classrooms combined with
activities that teach about ﬁsh biology, habitats, and watersheds. Fish are
Obtained in the eyed egg state from hatcheries in September. This is the time Of
year that spawning occurs in nature and that hatchery personnel take eggs from
spawning Chinook and coho salmon. The students view the life cycle stages Of
the salmon over an eight-month period. In May, students release their salmon as
smolts into streams that the ﬁsheries biologists recommend. Salmon in the
Classroom is a program designed to foster public stewardship Of ﬁsheries and
watersheds needed to support ﬁsh populations. Due to their participation,
students, educators, and community members develop a better understanding of
ﬁsheries biology, conservation, and management.

Similar programs have had great success in the Paciﬁc Northwest, where
salmon have been an important commodity and cultural resource. Salmon in the
Classroom curricula exist in Alaska, British Columbia, California, Oregon and
Washington. The original program began in British Columbia in 1977 as part of
the ”Salmonid Enhancement Program” (Day, personal communication, 2001).
Educating youth was part Of the solution to improving the management Of the

depleted salmon ﬁshery in British Columbia. The Department Of Fisheries and

Oceans and the British Columbia Teachers Federation developed and ﬁeld-
tested material. Currently, 900 Classrooms in the Yukon and British Columbia
Territories use the program. In the past year, the developers Of the program
overhauled the materials and piloted new activities and formats in 150
Classrooms, because of educators” expressed needs for updates (Southham,
personal communication, 2001).

The British Columbia curriculum was adapted to suit the needs Of Paciﬁc
Northwest states. Oregon was the ﬁrst state, followed by Washington, California,
and Alaska. The states have approached the program in different manners, but
the base goal remains the same, stewardship of the environment, particularly
salmon habitat. For Washington and Oregon, hatchery inﬂuences are a focus in
the curriculum (Stinton, personal communication, 2000; Bowers, personal
communication, 2001). Different programs target various grade levels. The
British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington programs reach students in grade
levels K-12, while the other Paciﬁc Northwest states” programs direct their
curriculum concepts and activities toward grade levels K-6 or even narrower
grade levels Of 4th and 5th grades.

Some of the states allow any interested educator to partake in the
program. The Oregon, British Columbia, and Washington programs require
applicants to complete an application form a full year prior to program use. In
these three programs, there are also teachers” workshops held each year that
participants are required to attend (Day, personal communication, 2001).

Washington has 600 schools participating in the program, and Alaska has 100

(Stinton, personal communication, 2000; sf.adfg.state.ak.uslclassres.htm 23 July
2001). The Alaska program incorporates a virtual aquarium for classrooms
lacking their own salmon.

The introduction of the Salmon in the Classroom program into Michigan
schools began in 1993. The interest of enthusiastic teachers and Michigan
Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division Central Lake Michigan Unit
Manager, Thomas Rozich, have motivated twenty-eight Michigan teachers to use
the curriculum in their classrooms. Throughout this thesis the term “SIC
teachers” refers to the Michigan teachers using the Salmon in the Classroom
curriculum.

The curriculum manual currently used by Michigan teachers is from the
state Of California. The California SIC manual is aimed at elementary grades
(kindergarten through Sixth). The topics covered in the California curriculum
include: the classiﬁcation, anatomy, and physiology of the salmon; life cycle;
habitat; people and ﬁsh; threats upon a salmon during its life; restoration and
conservation, and raising salmonids in the classroom. The California curriculum
has been useful, but lacks speciﬁcs regarding ﬁsh habitats, watersheds, and
ﬁsheries management in Michigan. Environmental conditions and management
goals are different between Michigan and California. For example, salmon in the
Great Lakes complete their life cycles in freshwater. Salmon provide Michigan
with a sport ﬁshery, and no commercial ﬁshery exists speciﬁcally targeting

salmon, such as seen in the Paciﬁc Northwest (Appendix A). A curriculum

manual developed for the state of Michigan would allow educators to have a
teaching guide speciﬁcally created for the Great Lakes region’s watersheds.

Educators” involvement in developing a curriculum manual for Michigan
would be an asset tO the success Of the program. Educators’ participation in the
development Of the curriculum encourages implementation Of the curriculum in
the manner in which it is written. It has been noted in past environmental
education studies that the outcome of a curriculum”s use within a classroom is
dependent on the teacher’s attitude toward the material (Romjue and Collins
1996)

A Michigan-Speciﬁc Salmon in the Classroom curriculum would be an
advantageous way for educators to relate students” natural interests in
watersheds, water quality, and ﬁsh to the Michigan Curriculum Framework
standards and benchmarks in science, math, social studies, English/language
arts and to the speciﬁc topics Of Michigan environmental science, geography,
and history. The Salmon in the Classroom curriculum fosters educational and
interpretive communications about ﬁsheries management. Youth, educators,
volunteers and conservation leaders inﬂuenced by this ﬁsheries and watershed
program will have increased awareness, appreciation, and scientiﬁc knowledge
Of the importance of ﬁsheries and ﬁsheries management. This, in turn, will lead to
better performance of students on science and math Michigan Education
Assessment Program (MEAP) tests and enhanced perceptions by the public of
the importance Of the resource management work conducted by Fisheries

Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).

This program, using Michigan speciﬁc curriculum, will help to educate
students about the importance of clean waters and hatcheries for the life of
Paciﬁc salmon in Michigan. The Michigan curriculum will provide detailed
information about the habitat and life history requirements of the Chinook and
coho salmon. Salmon present mainly a focus for students and educators to
develop a stronger, more realistic view of ﬁsheries management in inland

waterways and throughout the state.

Problem Statement

Although Fisheries Division personnel are responsible for managing
ﬁsheries resources, stewardship by the public is necessary for optimal
management practices to be applied and fostered. MDNR Fisheries Division
biologists are concerned with the insufﬁciency Of information about the public”s
education needs concerning ﬁsheries and watersheds.

Fisheries Division unit managers discussed issues of concern in a
management team meeting held in May 2000 (Rozich, personal communication,
2000). All seven units considered habitat protection and improvement and
wetland restoration to be of extreme importance. Six of the units agreed that
outreach, education, and public contact are Of great importance, while ﬁve of the
units ranked ﬁsh production Of some importance. Finally, four Of the units were
concerned with partnerships with local interest groups and recruitment of anglers.

A watershed is an area of land from which water drains into a Iotic (still) or
lentic (running) water system. One important facet of ﬁsheries management is

taking action to keep watersheds habitable for organisms. Youth (and all Citizens)

need valuable and accurate information about watersheds so they can discover
the importance Of watershed stewardship, in order to participate constructively in
future positive actions regarding aquatic resources. In fact, the need for students
to have direct, hands-on involvement with our state ﬁsheries” resources was
identiﬁed in a report from the Govemor’s Hunting and Fishing Heritage Task
Force (1996).

Though the SIC program has existed for a long period of time, no
preliminary studies have examined the Opinions Of both ﬁsheries and education
stakeholders 'toward this type of program. However, some studies involving
educators and students involved in other states” programs have taken place. The
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (VVDFW) evaluated their Salmon in
the Classroom program use over a four-year period. Through pre- and post-tests
taken by Washington students, knowledge, skills, attitude, and behavior changes
about salmon and habitat were measured (VVDFW, 1996). On average, students”
scores on the tests increased 15%. Positive behavior changes of teachers were
also seen through evaluation.

Given this limited previous research on SIC programs, this new thesis
research investigated the concerns and opinions Of stakeholders who value
salmon and aquatic education. This research about current watershed education
curricula used by environmental educators in Michigan provided information to
strengthen and improve teachers’ impact on student Ieaming. This investigation

also provided an understanding Of what and how watershed information should

be considered in a standardized watershed and ﬁsheries education program for
the state of Michigan.

This study gathered information during two phases tO determine
information and activities to be included in the Michigan Salmon in the Classroom
program. (Figure 1.) Surveys were developed to assess the concerns of
stakeholders. Then, a writing retreat assembled representatives of the
stakeholders surveyed; at the retreat participants discussed existing SIC
curricula as well as concepts and activities for a Michigan ﬁsheries and

watershed curriculum.

Goal of Study

The purpose Of this study was to evaluate stakeholders” concerns and
knowledge Of ﬁsheries and watershed information so that a SIC curriculum could
be developed that addressed ﬁsheries and watershed management in Michigan
and emphasized stewardship. It is inconceivable for one individual to develop a
curriculum that will meet the diverse needs Of the learners, educators, and
community members. Perspectives vary among stakeholders, and by
considering the perspectives of all Of the stakeholders, both curriculum content
and educator participation in programs were addressed.

Michigan teachers currently participating in the Salmon in the Classroom
program probably have positive feedback about the curriculum, and most
teachers will indicate that they plan to continue use Of the program. Current use
of the curriculum requires teachers to modify activities for Michigan use in their

classrooms. A ‘Michiganized’ Salmon in the Classroom curriculum, developed

/'

Phase I

 

Michigan adapted SIC curriculum that emphasizes stewardship

 

Surveys

 

 

 

0:0 Gathered information from SIC
teachers and environmental
educators about teaching
methods, concerns, interests,
attitudes, and knowledge Of
ﬁsheries and watersheds.

0:0 Gathered information from
Fisheries Opinion leaders and
Fisheries Division staff about
concerns and attitudes regarding
what should be taught about
ﬁsheries and watersheds.

f

 

 

Literature Review

 

 

 

.g. Community involvement

0:0 In-service training

0:0 Role of teachers in
curriculum design.

1’

I

Phase II

 

 

Writing
Retreat

 

 

6——

0:. Gathered SIC

teachers, Fisheries

Division personnel and

other environmental
educators to trade

knowledge and ideas

concerning fisheries

and watersheds.

framework.

.g. Outlined curriculum
concepts and possible
activities.

0:0 Brought in Math and
Science Center staff to
help with the curriculum

 

Existing
SIC Curriculum

 

 

40 Reviewed
Alaska, California,
Canada, Oregon,
and Washington
curriculum.

Figure 1. Outline Of overarching goal Of study, and study phases.

 

by education and ﬁsheries professionals, would be a practical teaching tOOl for
Michigan educators that would allow for positive communication between the

Fisheries Division and various stakeholders.

Research Questions

The needs of ﬁsheries and watershed organizations, MDNR ﬁsheries
management staff, educators, and current participants in the Salmon in the
Classroom program were examined by investigating the following research

questions:

For the education stakeholders:

1) What are the participating Salmon in the Classroom teachers” perspectives on
the California curriculum?

2) What are the participating educators” knowledge and attitudes about activities
included in the SIC program?

3) What sources do educators use to Obtain knowledge about ﬁsheries and

watershed subject matter?

For the education and ﬁsheries stakeholders:
4) What are stakeholders” concerns about ﬁsheries and aquatic sources
subject matter (ﬁsh biology. Watersheds, and ﬁsheries management) that a

Michigan SIC program should teach?

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

The effectiveness Of any education program is directly related to the
educators who apply the program in their teaching settings, the curriculum itself,
and the partnerships within the community. This literature review was designed
to relate the research Of this thesis with past studies. This review aided in
determining what to address In the development Of the Michigan SIC curriculum.
First, literature regarding the groups most directly affected by the development Of
a SIC curriculum, the aquatic and environmental educators as well as students,
was reviewed. Learning theories, the role of educators, and curriculum
requirements were the next topics under consideration in the development of a
SIC curriculum. Lastly, the potential stakeholders and partners for the program
were examined. After conducting this literature review, a stakeholder survey was
designed, then a tentative resource guide speciﬁcally on Salmon in the

Classroom and watersheds was developed for Michigan use.

Aquatic and Environmental Education

Aquatic resource education (ARE) includes any program that expands the
public's knowledge of water resources and associated life forms and encourages
the development of responsible attitudes toward aquatic environments

(Richardson and Rushton 2000). ARE programs typically administered by state

10

ﬁsheries or resource management agencies are funded largely through Federal
Aid in Sport Fishing Restoration monies. ARE programs assist in meeting
agency needs through public education to address issues such as angler
recruitment, retention, ﬁsheries restoration outreach, aquatic resource
stewardship, public adherence to ﬁsh consumption advisories, and habitat
restoration.

How important is aquatic education? Richardson and Rushton (2000)
noted that state agencies spend $10-15 million a year to teach water users via
aquatic resource education programs. Though this is not a large amount Of
money given the tremendous number Of individuals reached, these state
agencies work to stress the importance Of citizen education about ﬁshery
resources and ethics.

Zint and Crook (1998) examined the status of ﬁsheries education
nationally. They stated that, according tO the American Fisheries Society (AFS),
ﬁsheries management and ﬁsheries stakeholders considered youth education an
important component in the development of an educated, responsible public. Zint
and Crook (1998) noted a lack of materials emphasizing the importance of angler
and non-angler stewardship of aquatic resources.

Environmental education (EE) is deﬁned as having this goal: “to develop
a 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” (NAAEE 2000: 2). Learners are

11

exposed to real-life experiences where they must apply skills and concepts they
have mastered. The end result is comprehension Of human inﬂuences on the
environment and an understanding of and willingness to practice stewardship.
The idea of youths learning about the environment in schools and using multiple
skills to understand and process science concepts has progressed steadily since
the late 19603 (Murphy and Coppola 1997). Meanwhile, increasing numbers of
ﬁsheries and watershed education programs have been established in the Great
Lakes region in recent years. For example, Michigan Sea Grant has provided
The Life of the Lakes, an in-depth multi-media curriculum package, for middle
and high school used to assist students in comprehending the history of human
impacts on the Great Lakes and their ﬁsheries (Dann 1993). Additional water
education programs used in Michigan include state Aquatic Education and
Extension programs and Sea Grant programs speciﬁc to the Great Lakes states,
as well as the nationally developed programs Project WILD-Aquatic and Project

WET (Water Education for Teachers).

Learning Theories and Teaching Methods

The success Of a program depends on the level of involvement and
commitment by both educator and learner (Walsh 2000). The use of numerous
teaching methods to meet students” needs is ideal to educate as many Ieamers
as conceivable. Cognitive learning is learning through an active mental process
where knowledge is acquired, remembered, and applied. Cognitive education
methods, such as environmental investigations and data gathering and analysis,

can be used to encourage awareness Of environmental concepts and problems,

12

to increase knowledge of ecological foundations and environmental issues, and
to develop Skills that can be used to resolve environmental issues. Smith-
Sebasto (1998) found that educators applied and preferred cognitive domain
teaching methods to teach environmental action strategies. It is thought that
direct experience results in greater student attitude-behavior coherence toward a
speciﬁc topic than indirect experience (Newhouse 1990).

Experiential Ieaming is an actual encounter with the subject being studied,
rather than merely thinking about the phenomena or only considering the
feasibility of doing something about it (Borzadt 1975). Kolb”s theory about
experiential Ieaming suggests that Ieaming is cyclical, involving four stages

(Fielding 1994). These four stages that Ieamers experience include:

concrete experience,

reﬂective observation,

abstract conceptualism, and

active experimentation.

Kolb”s experiential Ieaming theory encompasses the two major different
ways by which we Ieam: the ﬁrst is through perception of experiences, and the
second is how the perceived experience is processed (Smith and Kolb 1986).
The way experiences are perceived ranges from immersing ourselves in the
experience using our senses and feelings in a ”concrete' way to thinking
'abstractly' using logic and reason. Having perceived the experience, we next
need to understand it through transforming it. By processing the information,

participants are then able to reﬂect on it or become more deeply aware Of the

13

information by transformation and analyses (Knapp 1992). A person begins to
process the information by carrying out a particular action and seeing the effect
Of the action in the situation (Kolb 1976). There is a link between active Ieaming
and reﬂective observation. This transformation Of information, according to KOlb,
is the key to creating knowledge and is crucial to the theory Of Ieaming as an
active process (infed.org.htm 30 Jan. 2001).

An example of applying KOIb”s experiential Ieaming theory can be seen in
using aquaculture in the classroom. Aquaculture, the cultivating of aquatic
organisms in controlled or semi-controlled conditions, provides a unique hands-
on Ieaming experience (Landau 1992). Students involved in Ieaming through
aquaculture become engaged, physically and mentally, with the raising of ﬁsh
and the environments of both ﬁsh and humans. Students are exposed to open-
ended, inquiry-based experiences. Learning experiences are not based on just
one subject, but require Ieamers to use various educational backgrounds and
numerous disciplines (Buttner et al. 1999). Scientiﬁc process skills fostered
through aquaculture activities include developing a hypothesis, understanding
and using calibrations, applying treatment and control groups, and collaborating
among peers.

Students involved in EE programs gain knowledge about the environment
through active Ieaming (Goldstein and Lockwood 1980; Cronin-Jones 1991;
Walsh 2000). Active Ieaming entails students learning from experience,
discovery, and interaction (Cronin-Jones 1991; Romjue and Collins 1991 ).

Students Ieam by developing their own ideas and testing them as well as

14

working with others. Such program implementation allows individuals to Ieam
and use new knowledge, and to experience events through Observation,
discussion, and exploration through their own attitudes and values as well as
others (Romjue and Collins 1991).

The use of integrating environmental concepts into established disciplines
helps students understand the interrelationships and interdependencies of the
environment through all subjects (Goldstein and Lockwood 1980; Romjue and
Collins 1991; Larson 1993).

“The epitome of environmental education is to Offer the learner the

tool of an analytic systems approach to problem identiﬁcation and

resolution. Learners participate in a highly creative experience Often

involving teamwork and collaboration. In the process, they Ieam to

link the social and biological sciences, stress attitude formation, values

clariﬁcation, and skill behavior, use environmental cues as indicators,

and question the material and philosophical meaning of their local
quality of life. This style of education encourages the internalization
of a set of values and behaviors known as environmentalism”

(Goldstein and Lockwood 1980:27).

Such cognitive Ieaming promotes the development of critical thinking skills by
providing analytical tools used for measuring data (Murphy and Coppola 1997).
Brody (1993) noted that students are exposed everyday to environmental issues
and solutions. Classroom experiences can be constructed using the knowledge
Of students” understanding of the environment. Brody (1993) suggests that
incorporating topics such as water and watershed into existing curriculum may

assist students in understanding natural and social sciences through the

introduction Of current natural resource events (Figure 2).

15

 

 

 

 

 

PHYSICS ECOLOGY
CHEMISTRY GEOGRAPHY
GEOLOGY BIOLOGY

A

 

LIFE

 

 

 

is essential to

\

 

@

\

 

 

 

 

 

 

use is inﬂuenced by
/ is the focus of
POLITICS
ECONOMICS L
WATERSHED EDUCATION

PROGRAMS

 

 

 

 

CULTURE

 

 

 

\ is studied in is Pa“ °f

isa

\

 

 

NATURAL
RESOURCE

 

Figure 2. Brody's (1993) approach to how concepts can relate to each other
through semantic networking, connecting meaning to other topics.

16

 

Educators and Curriculum

Two major elements determine the success of a program: educator
characteristics and the curriculum (May 2000; Wade 1996). Educators who want
a program to be established in the classroom must be self-sufﬁcient, Often
self-reliant, in obtaining resources and must be able to integrate the curriculum
with other subjects (May 2000). Educators with self-assurance, willing to try
various teaching methods, can make a program ”work” for students (Romjue and
Collins 1996). Educators have to be willing to Ieam with their students. O’Keefe
and Johnston (1989) and Littledyke (1997) found that educators who were willing
to adapt to individual Situations had more success in programs, since educator
responsiveness is positively correlated with educator behaviors and student
outcomes. A guide is the best way to describe an educator’s role in fostering
student growth in environmental-related knowledge on their educational journey
(May 2000; Cronin-Jones 1991). Educators and curriculum link student
Opportunities for educational growth and the development of skills.

Curriculum is lost without a mentor to bring the information alive. The purpose Of
curriculum is to provide mentors the means or framework tO allow students to
grow and develop Ieaming skills about the environment (Wint and Kennedy 1977;

Mathison 1992;).

Educator Involvement
The recognition Of educator involvement in curriculum development has
been noted since the 19003. As early as the 19103, the idea that teachers

should have a voice and a vote in the determination of educational polices has

17

existed. Ella Flagg Young, a NEA president in the ﬁrst part of the twentieth
century, noted that educators who play a part in the planning of their work, are
more determined in delivering information to students (Peltier 1967).
Stratemeyer (1957), Leeper (1966), Matsche (1981 ), and Bowers (1990) make
the point that the educators who carry out the daily tasks Of educating students
should contribute to curriculum changes. An article in an issue of the American
Leach_e_r from 1913 reinforces Flagg”s statement, as it addressed how teachers
do the everyday work of teaching and understand the conditions necessary for
better teaching.

Writers of curriculum who are not educators rarely balance good science
with teaching opportunities. Educators and administrators collaborating on
curriculum have replaced the “isolationist" perspective (Matsche 1981; Bowers
1991). Sizer (1996) commented on the need for decentralization Of authority over
curriculum development. This incorporation Of various contributors encourages
program developers to meet students” needs. Educator involvement in
curriculum design encourages increased use of curriculum because concerns of
the educators pertaining to topics are met (Crockenburg and Clark 1979; McCaw
1979). Not only are benchmarks met, but also programs are built around life
Situations so that students may build on and apply what they learn. Without the
participation of the educators, the program will be doomed to failure.

Matsche”s (1981) dissertation research on curriculum innovation,
implementation, and revision indicated that information from educators and

administrators about their perceptions of both the curriculum as well as their

18

degree of inﬂuence is needed prior to curriculum being implemented. Although
the educators in Matsche”s (1981) study felt as though they were involved in
curriculum, this involvement was in the implementation of activities Of the
curriculum and not in its initial process development. A feeling Of ownership Of
curriculum by a teacher affects his/her competency and enthusiasm to implement
a program (Bowers 1991). Wright (1985) came to the conclusion that several
intrinsic factors can affect a teacher’s decision about curriculum development
involvement: the opportunity to amend existing curriculums, the recognition and
use Of their curriculum alterations, and the improvement Of their skills and
effectiveness as teachers. Educator involvement during preliminary curriculum
design stages allows programs not appropriate to be dropped or corrected prior

to wasting time and money in curriculum implementation.

Implementation Ofggrriculum

TO advance the use Of curriculum, the current status of skills, knowledge,
and abilities of the educator need to be determined (Newhouse 1990).
Educators select how environmental education goals and objectives will be met.
Implementation Of a program can occur through educators” adoption or
adaptation of curricula (Ellis 1984). Educators must perceive a program to be
worthwhile to implement it (Simmons 1998). Effective implementation is
dependent on the interrelationships among the educator's training, knowledge,
interest in the material, knowledge Of the material, direct involvement in the
development of curriculum, competence, conﬁdence in knowledge of the

material, a positive attitude, and evaluations of the curriculum.

l9

How a program is brought into a class is dependent upon the
competencies Of the educator, student, and upon the teaching approaches (May,
2000). Jaus (1978) acknowledged how Ieaming opportunities provided for
educators impact the success Of a program being implemented into schools
(Figure 3). Educators' personal attitudes can support or constrain a curriculum”s
use in the classroom (Romjue and Collins 1996; May 2000). The philosophical
and pedagogical nature Of environmental education must be understood by the
educators so that they may incorporate environmental education into their
subject areas (Samuel 1993).

Programs have been implemented by educators using two paths. One
path is to take a short span Of time out of the school year for a concentrated
course in EE or a thematic unit of study (May 2000). The other path is to infuse
knowledge about the environment into already existing subject matter. Skills and
concepts about the environment are examined without the loss of basic subject
material, and students are taught how basic studies in subjects (e.g., math,
science, and social studies) are interwoven into study and solution Of
environmental issues (Smith-Sebasto and Smith 1997). In this infusion model,
the subjects are ‘environmentalized’ and the students are “immersed” in EE
(Childress 1978; Blum 1988; Ham and Sewing 1988). Studies show that
integrating EE where it ﬁts into curriculum over an entire school year has better
results for students” Ieaming, applying, and remembering the content than a

concentrated unit by itself (Lemons 1989; Samuel 1993).

20

4 Training—

I

Effective
Curriculum
Positive Attitude —> Implementation *— Knowledge

/' ‘\

T Direct Involvement
In Design of Curriculum

 

       
 
 

Interest

 
   
  

Evaluations

Conﬁdence

  

Competence

Figure 3. A visual representation Of the importance Of training opportunities for
educators for successful implementation of programs, based on Jaus (1978).

21

Challenges Educators Face in T:e_a_ching a New Curriculum

 

Every educator has different limitations and access to time, space,
support, and resources (Simmons 1998). Ham and Sewing (1988) categorized
obstacles into four groups Of barriers: logistical, conceptual, educational and
attitudinal, and temporal. Such factors inﬂuence educators” use Of a program
(McCaw 1979).

Logistical barriers include training and material availability. Educators
need training on how to use the curriculum materials and to seek follow-up
assistance (Samuel 1993). Without training in EE, educators are likely not to
infuse environmental concepts with basic subject matter (Lane et al. 1994).
Limited material resources decrease educators” full potential of Ieaming from
other sources (McCaw 1979; Ham and Sewing 1988; Samuel 1993).

Educators” conceptual barriers also exist such as lack of direction,
philosophy, and goals as well as little support from administrators (McCaw 1979;
Ham and Sewing 1988; Young and Simmons 1992; Samuel 1993). Samuel
(1993) discovered many conceptual issues that hinder EE implementation such
as: poorly deﬁned school philosophy and goals, difﬁculties in coordinating
between individuals and departments, and a gap between administration and
educator perceptions. With no stated goals or philosophies toward EE by a
school, educators must be self-sufﬁcient in interpreting how a curriculum should
be used (Ham and Sewing 1988; Samuel 1993).

The third group Of barriers for educators included personal and

educational knowledge, interest, and conﬁdence (Ham and Sewing 1988).

22

Educators who feel competent teaching about the environment and have positive
attitudes toward teaching about the environment are essential to positive
implementation of a program (Bethel et al. 1982; Crocker and Banﬁeld 1986;
Samuel 1993). The use Of personal experiences by the educator permits him/her
to be comfortable with the topic as well as have a personal connection with the
students (Ham and Sewing 1988; Young and Simmons 1992; Ferguson and
Womack 1993; May 2000). Educators with positive personal experiences with the
environment and direct behavioral experiences are inclined to perceive EE as an
important topic that draws together all disciplines and deserves the time to be
included in their instruction (Fazio and Zanna 1981 ). Educators take time only
when the educator has a special interest in the speciﬁc topic Of study (Fortner
and Meyer 2000).

The amount Of time available for program implementatiOn is important in
educators” decisions of what curriculum to teach (Simmons 1998). Educators
Often are asked to justify the need and time involvement with the program to
school administrators. One criticism of current teaching is that math and science
curriculums sacriﬁce depth for coverage (Yager 1991). This sacriﬁce denies the
connection between the disciplines and disregards the real life experience and
cognitive development of students (Knapp 1992).

Educators” perceptions on education and environmental issues as well as
educators’ perceptions Of their students are signiﬁcant to the decision to
participate in a program (Stanford 1984). An educator's view of their students

and students” abilities greatly inﬂuence the overall impact of their instruction

23

(Armstrong and Savage 1994). The signiﬁcance Of what is learned depends on
the relationship between educator and student (Rogers 1969). An enthusiastic
educator plus students wishing to be challenged makes a good match for hands-
on Ieaming. Studies by Romjue and Collins (1996) revealed that no matter how
innovative the curriculum or advanced the technology, it is the educators who
procure the curriculum and the environment Of the classroom that “work” for the
students.

Philosophies of what students Ieam need to be considered in the design of
the curriculum (Romjue and Collins 1996). Knowledge, attitude, and behavior of
educators and students Should be targeted (Ballantyne and Packer 1996; Walsh
2000). Due to time, interest, goals, and various priorities amongst educators,

curriculum Should be ﬂexible in its design (Smith-Sebasto and Smith 1997).

Training Educators through Workshops

Workshops and follow-up support accompany an effective curriculum.
These two important support elements help educators increase their knowledge
base and conﬁdence for integrating topics into their present curricula
(Beiswenger et al. 1992).

The rationale for workshops is to prepare educators in what to teach,
provide them with both content knowledge and teaching methods, and Offer
educators ideas of how to approach the curriculum and its activities (Bethel et al.
1982; Mathison 1992; Samuel 1993; Wade 1996; Wade 1996). Workshops give
educators a Chance to reﬂect and expand on their teaching experiences and

work together to coordinate how a curriculum can generate unanimous

24

directional goals and philosophies (Simpson et al. 1989; Mathison 1992).
Simpson et al. (1989) investigated educators” perceptions concerning their
interpretation of goal statements and personal conﬁdence in their knowledge and
skills to teach stated goals and came to the conclusion that, after some training,
a large majority of educators were conﬁdent in their comprehension of science-
related topics involving the knowledge of issues, and that these goals were
important to teach to students. Research by Mayer and Fortner (1987) indicated
that the dissemination Of education materials through workshops results in

greater use Of resources by instructors.

Needs Assessment for Programs and Program Evaluation

Identiﬁcation Of program problems and audience needs are important to
the success of a program. By assessing the needs, potential deﬁciencies Of a
program are recognized and the gaps addressed. Needs assessment is a way to
identify the program goals by Ieaming the expectations to be met by the program.

Program evaluation, on the other hand, has as its purpose the discovery
Of achievements and failures Of current programs. Information Observed through
evaluations can then be shared between educators, mentors, and schools in
order to improve programs (Ham and Sewing 1988).

Evaluations Of the curriculum design process are also important.
Mathison (1992) determined that evaluations from curriculum design workshops
can provide evaluators with a standard model against which to judge in-services,
in order to value the effects of the curriculum design process on meeting

educators” needs. Through such evaluations, education program designers are

25

able to take a longitudinal perspective Of educational change occurring as a

result Of a curriculum design workshop.

Partnerships

Fisheries stakeholders consist Of individual members Of communities,
organized groups, environmental Opinion leaders, and resource managers (Knuth
et al. 1995). Fisheries stakeholders” attitudes and values toward the
environment, Great Lakes, and ﬁshery management inﬂuence their support
and/or opposition toward natural resource decisions. Watershed coalitions
include interested government and non-govemment stakeholders who
collaboratively manage water and other natural resources (Grifﬁn 1999). Some
watershed coalitions have developed in response to the publics' dissatisfaction
with natural resources management. Agency partnerships are crucial to the
success Of watershed coalitions because most issues revolve around natural
resources managed by agencies (Grifﬁn 1999).

A key component in increasing the proportion of the public who have
knowledge of ﬁsheries is through communication between management
agencies and stakeholders. Providing good communications channels may allow
interested individuals a way to convey meaning to one another in an attempt to
gain an understanding of topics (Slater 2001). One approach management
agencies use to communicate with the public is by using surveys to establish
what anglers believe concerning the job that management agencies are doing
and what type Of options agencies have pertaining to ﬁsheries management

(Connelly et al. 2000).

26

Theoretically, the management of natural resources has changed from the
traditional agency dictatorship to a co-management partnership between
stakeholders and management personnel. CO-management, where government
agencies, local communities, resource users, non-govemment organizations, and
other stakeholders form a partnership to allocate the authority and responsibility
for management, allows stakeholders to become directly involved in decisions,
which in turn provides the agencies with more supportive, educated, and involved
publics (World Conservation Congress 1997). Participation of natural resource
organizations in management may include natural resource monitoring and
restoration, volunteering, and ﬁnancial aid.

Agencies have become aware of the need for balance between citizen
interest and reliable biological data about the resources, or biological and
socioeconomic information integration (Chase et al. 2000). Knuth et al.”s (1995)
study assessing managers” beliefs found that mangers had insufﬁcient
understanding Of stakeholders” belief systems and values, which led to higher
levels Of conﬂicts in decision-making and management processes. It was
determined by Knuth et al. (1995) that open, active interpretation of research by
the public increases the comprehension Of various beliefs Of stakeholders by
agencies.

Many ﬁsheries managers acknowledge they should work with educators
and be role models for students. Many individuals and groups are interested in

ﬁsheries education for youth but have not developed beneﬁcial partnerships.

27

Possible partners include ﬁsheries managers, formal and non-formal educators,
curriculum developers, university faculty, Extension personnel, anglers and
ﬁshers, agencies, industry groups, and non-governmental organizations such as
watershed coalitions and foundations (Zint and Crook 1998).

Multi—disciplinary leadership and inter-professional development is
advocated by school-based partnerships (Sattler and Kiley 2000). Research by
Sattler and Kiley (2000) suggested that collaboration between school and
community is necessary if educators, administrators, parents, and community
members want interdisciplinary programs that provide for the best interests Of
their students. Looking toward the future, the Illinois School Board Journal
(1999227) indicated, “schools will become nerve centers with walls porous and
transparent connecting teaching, students, and the community to the wealth Of
knowledge that exists in the worId". According to Bainer and Williams (1995),
partnerships reduce traditional teaching and incorporate more cooperative and
integrated hands-on, classroom focused, age appropriate activities that facilitate
student learning and partnership processes.

School partnerships enhance the social interaction skills, interpersonal
skills, personal qualities, thinking skills, management Of resources and
information Of resource managers (Bainer et al. 2000). Partnerships allow
managers to Ieam about Obstacles to improving education, understand
educators’ roles and responsibilities, and recognize how to best dedicate their
various capabilities toward generating a positive impact (Alberts and Tuomi

1995). Research by Bainer et al. (1997) revealed that as a result Of involvement

28

in long-term partnerships with natural resource professionals, educators
indicated more knowledge of environmental science and greater conﬁdence in
their competence to teach EE effectively. The aims of partnership programs for
educators and managers include the improvement of Skills in teaching hands-on
environmental science and the assembling of networks within and beyond the

partnerships.

Summary

This review examined completed works on the focus of ﬁsheries and
watershed education, the use Of environmental education, educator input in
curriculum design, and the importance of stakeholder groups” Opinions toward
ﬁsheries and watersheds. How a student Ieams and how a student is taught can
greatly impact what the student Ieams. The skills learned by students taught
through the Salmon in the Classroom program can lead them to be
environmental stewards for ﬁsh and watersheds. A

An educator’s outlook on a program plays a role in its reception and
adoption. When educators participate in curriculum development, they gain
knowledge in the subject and guidance in how to teach the curriculum. Several
theories exist which assist in understanding how educators” perspectives play a
role in their acceptance of a curriculum. Implementation Of a curriculum is
dependent on each individual educator's knowledge. Educators face many
challenges when using new curriculum in their Classrooms. Workshops allow
teachers to enlighten each other and to develop a common Objective for

curriculum implementation.

29

Environmental and aquatic education curriculum can be enhanced by
community interactions, and through partnerships with schools and agencies.
In this study, the role Of education and ﬁsheries stakeholders in the development
of the Michigan SIC curriculum were examined. TO improve the Salmon in the
Classroom curriculum, the needs of educators and other stakeholders require
examination. The ﬁndings will be used to develop a curriculum to meet the

concerns Of the stakeholders.

30

CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Overview

Education and ﬁsheries stakeholders” perspectives, interests, and
knowledge concerning ﬁsheries and watershed education were assessed in two
phases (Figure 1). In Phase I, surveys were developed and mailed to a speciﬁc
audience considered to be most interested in ﬁsheries and watershed education
through either a professional or personal interest association. Once completed
surveys were returned, the responses were analyzed. After analyzing the survey
data, Phase ll of the study, a writing retreat, took place. The writing retreat
involved various stakeholders who collaborated over a two-day period to develop
concepts and activities that a Michigan Salmon in the Classroom curriculum
should incorporate. The Michigan State University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) approved the study research plan
(Appendix B), cover letters (Appendix C), and surveys (Appendices D and E) that

were sent to participants.

Phase I : Procedures and Study Groups

The mail surveys were developed from pre-existing evaluation instruments
(Rakow 1982; Cronin-Jones 1991; Mathison 1992; Lane et al. 1995; Nevela
1997; Smith-Sebasto and Smith 1997; Zint and Crook 1998;). From these

existing studies, various questions and question formatting were utilized. The

31

questions were open-ended and closed-ended and provided qualitative and
quantitative data. Survey questions were without ordered choice as well as
Likert—type items with responses ranging from “not at all important” to “very
important” (Dillman 2000).

The basis for the surveys was formative. Formative evaluation was used
to Improve and strengthen existing curricula by gathering data that relate to both
the strengths and weaknesses Of the curriculum (Patton 1997). The information
collected by formative evaluations was reﬂected upon and innovative ideas were
developed to enhance the curriculum.

A study population was determined by considering whom the Salmon in
the Classroom curriculum would directly and indirectly affect (Table 1; Figure 4).
Two types of stakeholder groups were targeted, ﬁsheries and education. The
ﬁsheries stakeholders consisted Of ﬁsheries professionals and opinion leaders of
ﬁsheries interest groups. From lists Of Michigan Department of Natural
Resources Fisheries Division personnel, all Of the unit managers and selected
staff who serve in education related roles were surveyed. The opinion leaders
group consisted of chapter presidents, Ofﬁcers, and directors of Michigan
watershed coalitions and sport ﬁshing groups with a vested interest in salmon.
The opinion leaders who were mailed surveys were from lists obtained directly
from the groups. The list of watershed coalitions was developed from four
existing lists: the Department Of Environmental Quality Watershed groups
website (10 Sept. 2000), Michigan United Conservation Clubs” (MUCC)

watershed coalitions list (Schroeder, personal communication, 2000), a list

32

Table 1. Stakeholder groups that were mailed ﬁsheries and watershed education
surveys and the rationale for their inclusion in the study.

 

WHO

RATIONALE

 

Michigan Department of Natural
Resources Fisheries Division - unit
managers and selected staff who serve
in education related roles
(Number [N]=13)

The unit managers and other selected personnel
play active roles as channels of communication to
the public about ﬁsheries information in Michigan.
These individuals are highly concerned about the
accuracy of information Obtained by the public. The
Fisheries Division’s knowledge and concerns as well
as their vocal and ﬁnancial support would be an
asset to the curriculum”s qualiy and achievements.

 

Opinion leaders of sport ﬁshing clubs
and Michigan watershed coalitions,
speciﬁcally salmon ﬁshers and
coalitions with salmon in their
watersheds, in Michigan.
Federation of Fly Fishers (N=11)
Michigan Steelhead & Salmon
Fishermen”s Association (N=33)
Trout Unlimited (N=29)
Watershed Coalitions (N=79)

The presidents, directors, and officers are the
communication channels for their Clubs and
coalitions. By gaining their Opinions on curriculum
content and ﬁsheries and watershed education
issues, these organizations will support the
curriculum through classroom involvement and
donations. Because these groups value salmon and
watersheds, these stakeholders can aid in deﬁning
the need for education about ethics, about
responsible behaviors while ﬁshing, and about the
importance of maintaining watersheds for use by the
public.

 

Current SIC teachers
(N=28)

These teachers are the “early adopters.” Their
feedback on current SIC curriculum, their concerns,
personal knowledge, interests, barriers, teaching
methods, and ideas of what and how students should
be taught through a ﬁsheries curriculum will assist in
the success of the Michigan SIC curriculum.

 

Michigan Alliance for Environmental and
Outdoor Education members
(N=253)

These environmental educators are the most likely
“early majority" to adapt a ﬁsheries and watershed
curriculum. Their concerns and teaching methods
help to identify the needs of any educator who readily
adopts new environmental curricula.

 

Environmental Education
Program Coordinators
(N=5)

These educators coordinate statewide environmental
curricula (e.g., Project F.I.S.H., WILD, WILD-Aquatic,
WET, Learning Tree) with the public. Some of their
curricula could be referenced or included in the
ﬁsheries and watershed manual.

 

Aquaculture educators
(N=29)

Aquaculture educators are agriscience teachers that
teach and raise ﬁsh in education settings. The
teaching styles and activities used by aquaculture
educators can be used to construct activities and
concepts for application at middle and high school
levels.

 

Math and Science Center Directors
(N=35)

The directors of these centers guide the development
of curriculum by local school districts to meet the
standards in the Michigan Curriculum Framework.

 

 

TOTAL
N= 518

 

 

33

 

Fisheries and Education Stakeholders

/

Fisheries
(8 page survey)

  

 

 

 

 

Referrals .
'-._'..‘ """---...,h‘
Opinion Fisheries
Leaders Division
Federation of Watershed
Fly Trout Coalitions
Fishers Unlimited
Michigan Steelhead
& Salmon Fishermen”s
Association

Stakeholders

\

Education
Stakeholders (12 page survey)

Salmon Non-SIC Educators
in the
Classroom
Teachers Environmental
(SIC) Education
Program
Coordinators
Michigan
Aquaculture Alliance for
Educators Environmental and
Outdoor
Education

Math and Science Centers

Figure 4. Survey populations and groupings Of respondents for subsequent data

analysis.

34

complied for a watershed study for the MDNR by Bloom (1997), and Dr. Geoffrey
Habron”s watershed group website (12 Sept. 2000). The most current addresses
of coalitions were used from the four lists when more than one address was
cited. Streams and rivers were the watershed areas important to this study. Lake
associations and Remedial Action Plan (RAP) coalitions found within the four
initial lists were removed from the master mailing list for this study.

Representatives of ﬁsheries and watershed organizations who were sent
the survey were asked whether they were their organization’s representative for
ﬁsheries and watershed education. If another member was considered their
organization’s representative, then the initial member was asked to provide the
mailing information for the member who represented ﬁsheries and watershed
education within their organization. Twelve referrals were provided by the
members initially mailed surveys. These additional twelve individuals were
mailed surveys.

Among the education stakeholders, all Michigan teachers currently using
the Salmon in the Classroom program were surveyed. These teachers were the
“early adopters” Of the curriculum in Michigan and their feedback on the program
and ideas of what and how students should be taught about Michigan ﬁsheries
assisted in the development Of the curriculum. The early adopter is considered by
many as “the individual to check with” before using a new idea (Rogers 1983).
The role an early adopter plays within a social system is to decrease uncertainty
about a new idea by adopting it, and then conveying a subjective evaluation of

the innovation to peers by means of interpersonal networks. Potential adopters

35

look to early adopters for advice and information about the innovation (Rogers
1983)

Members of the “early majority" adopt new ideas just before the average
member of a social system. These group members get their information largely
from the earIy adopters (Rogers 1983). For this research, the possible “early
majority” adopters of the Michigan curriculum and the educators who would be
helpful in the development of the curriculum were surveyed. This non-SIC
educator group included environmental educators and curriculum framework
experts. Michigan Alliance for Environmental and Outdoor Education (MAEOE)
members, environmental education program coordinators, aquaculture
educators, and all Math and Science Center directors received the survey as
non-SIC educators. Members Of the Michigan Alliance for Environmental and
Outdoor Education constituted the environmental educator group. MAEOE
provides an opportunity for environmental educators to Ieam new teaching
techniques and material at conferences and to Share ideas with other members.
The MAEOE list was obtained with permission from the MAEOE Board. All
individuals with membership paid within the past three years were sent surveys.
In addition, the environmental education program coordinators in Michigan of
Project F .I.S.H., Project WILD, Project WILD— Aquatic, Project WET (Water
Education for Teachers), and Project Learning Tree were also mailed surveys.
The EE program coordinators contacted in this study facilitate workshops so that

interested individuals may be certiﬁed in EE programs that they can teach to

36

youth. To contact primary and secondary aquaculture educators in the state the
Michigan Program Directory was used (ANRECS 1999).

After Phase II, an updated SIC teacher list was Obtained and additional
SIC teachers were appended to the SIC survey mailing list. An additional
fourteen teachers were mailed surveys in May 2001, using Dillman”s (2000)

Tailored Method Design.

Survey Implementation

Two types Of surveys were mailed to the stakeholder groups. Both
versions of the survey included questions that addressed the attitudes, beliefs,
behaviors, and attributes Of the respondents concerning ﬁsheries and watershed
education.

Questions included in the ﬁsheries stakeholder survey (Appendix D) were
used to gather information about opinion leaders” concerns and attitudes
regarding what should be taught about ﬁsheries and watersheds. Additional
questions to the ﬁsheries stakeholders focused on the activities of their
organizations.

The education stakeholders” survey (Appendix E) included questions
about teaching topics and methods. The questions in the survey were used to
gather information about educators” teaching methods and concerns, interests,
attitudes, and self-assessment of knowledge on many topics related to the Great

Lakes ﬁsheries and watersheds. In addition, the survey had speciﬁc questions for

37

current Michigan Salmon in the Classroom educators, to determine Obstacles
they face in teaching SIC and their use of and Opinions Of the current curriculum.

Due to the relatively high overall survey response rate of 77%, no follow-
up survey to non-respondents was conducted. As a point Of comparison, the US.
Ofﬁce of Management and Budget (OMB), which must approve all federal
government surveys Of 10 or more people, expects government surveys to
achieve high response rates, which are deﬁned as being around 80% (Dillman
2000). Only non-respondent SIC teachers were sent additional surveys, after
phone calls revealed that many of the addresses on the original mailing list were
incorrect. SIC teachers were sent these additional surveys due to their personal
involvement in the current program. Their personal experiences were of great
importance in the development Of a Michigan SIC program, thus a nearly 100%
response rate from SIC teachers was desired.

The timeline for survey mailing was based upon Dillman”s (2000) Tailored
Design Method (Table 2). The initial survey was mailed in early January 2001.
At the January 2001 Board meetings of MAEOE and Trout Unlimited, verbal
reminders were given to complete the surveys. A reminder postcard was mailed
to non-respondents ten days after the ﬁrst survey mailing (Appendix F). A
second survey was mailed to non-respondents three weeks after the initial
mailing to encourage those participants who might have lost or forgotten about

the survey to complete and return it.

38

Table 2. Timetable and methods Of distribution of ﬁsheries and watershed
education surveys used for collecting data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time frame Method and Location Recipients or
distribution Participants
January 3, 2001 1St survey From SIC Teachers, MAEOE
mailed Michigan members, selected
State Fisheries Division
University personnel, Math and
Science Center
directors, environmental
education program
coordinators,
aquaculture educators,
and ﬁsheries interest
goup Opinion leaders
January 12, 2001 Follow-up post From Survey Non-
card mailed Michigan Respondents
State
University
January 22, 2001 2"d copy of From Survey Non-
survey mailed Michigan Respondents
State
University
March 18-19, 2001 Writing Roscommon SIC Teachers, selected
workshop MAEOE members,
selected Fisheries
Division personnel,
selected environmental
education program
coordinators, selected
aquaculture educators,
and selected Math and
Science Center
directors
May 10 and 14, 13‘ survey From Newly Obtained list Of
2001 mailed out Michigan additional SIC
State Teachers.
University
May 25, 2001 2"‘rcopy of From Survey Non-
survey mailed Michigan Respondents from new
out State SIC Teachers list
University

 

 

 

 

39

 

Outgoing survey mail was metered and a stamped self-retum envelope
was enclosed for participants to return the completed surveys (based upon
methods recommended by Dillman) (2000). Participants were given an incentive
to complete the surveys; this incentive was a Chance to win a gift certiﬁcate
valued at $50.00 (Appendix G). The participants had to ﬁll out the prize slip and

send it with the completed survey tO be entered in the drawing.

Survey Data Analysis

Statistical analyses Of the survey responses were performed using
Pearson’s chi-square and Fisher-Freeman-Halton Exact tests for two
independent samples. Pearson’s chi-square test (38) was used to determine
signiﬁcant differences between two independent groups (Ritter 1998). The
Fisher-Freeman-Halton Exact test was used to investigate any signiﬁcant
differences between the study groups on the variable Of interest (Siegel 1956).
The Fisher-Freeman-Halton Exact test was used when an insufﬁcient sample
size challenged the validity of the chi-square test.

Regardless of the statistical analysis used, if the probability value (p) was
0.05 or less, the responses were considered signiﬁcantly different. Quantitative
data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS), version 10.0 (Norusis 1999) and Statistical Analytical System, version
8.0 (SAS Institute 1999). Qualitative data were summarized and categorized
using Word (Microsoft Ofﬁce 2000).

40

Phase II : Curriculum Writing Retreat
A two-day writing retreat was held at the Ralph A. MacMullan Conference

Center in Roscommon, Michigan, on March 18-19, 2001. The purpose of the
writing retreat was to share survey results, discuss ideas for inclusion in a
Michigan-speciﬁc SIC curriculum, and gather perspectives and the expertise of a
variety of knowledgeable ﬁsheries and education stakeholders.

The information gathered in Phase I aided in Phase II, the curriculum
writing retreat. Some respondents to the surveys were invited to attend this
writing retreat. A multi-step process was applied to decide which survey
participants were invited to the writing retreat. First, all SIC teachers, Fisheries
Division personnel, and aquaculture teachers who returned their surveys and
indicated interest in helping with the development of the Michigan SIC program
were sent invitations. A large percentage of respondents indicated interest in
involvement in the development of the Michigan SIC program. The demographics
and geographical locations Of all stakeholders as well as educator settings and
teaching certiﬁcates of education stakeholders were considered in selection of
stakeholders interested in assisting in the development Of the Michigan SIC
program. Since limited space was available, not all interested respondents were
asked to attend the writing retreat. Rather, the comments Of non-SIC educators
and Opinion leaders were examined; if there was an indication of interest in
helping with the development of the ﬁsheries and watershed program, individuals
were considered as invitees. After reviewing the comments, 3 list of participants
was developed and invitations mailed (Appendix H). A list that included at least

one member Of each interest group surveyed was assembled. Included in the list

41

of invitees were ﬁve survey respondents whose comments on the survey
indicated the need to include in the Michigan curriculum the negatives Of
introducing salmon into the Great Lakes.

During the development of the list Of writing retreat invitees, researchers
learned the contact information for additional SIC teachers not previously
surveyed. Five of these additional SIC teachers were invited to the retreat
without being surveyed. Of those ﬁve, two were able to attend.

Writing retreat participants were asked for their consent to use the work
developed during the retreat (Appendix I). An agenda (Appendix J) was followed
tO meet the goals and objectives of the retreat.

The ﬁrst half of the retreat was Spent Ieaming about the participants and
providing participants with knowledge Of ﬁsheries and watershed information
sources and education frameworks. Time was taken to explain preliminary mail
survey ﬁndings. The latter half of the retreat was spent brainstorming and
discussing concepts, subjects, activities, and format for the Michigan SIC
curriculum. Participants were grouped into elementary, middle school, and high
school levels. Within each group was at least one SIC teacher, a curriculum
framework expert, a non-SIC educator, a ﬁsheries biologist, and a note taker.
Each group was asked to brainstorm for forty minutes about concepts and
information that should be included in the ﬁsheries and watershed education
program. Once each group developed its list, the groups were then asked to
organize the concepts into subjects and topics. Finally, each group was asked to

identify activities that could be used to teach their concepts. Activities came from

42

those Michigan SIC teachers already using the program in their classrooms, the
California SIC curriculum, other SIC curricula, other resources, or from newly
brainstormed ideas. The groups were asked tO consider information needed for
all age groups. The participants then presented their work to all of the retreat
attendees. At the end Of the retreat, participants ﬁlled out a feedback survey
used to evaluate participants” reactions to the retreat process and outcomes
(Appendix K).

A summary Of the meeting proceedings presents the ideas recorded
during the retreat (Appendix L). From the retreat, information was compiled with
survey data to make recommendations regarding a ﬁsheries and watershed

curriculum manual for Michigan.

43

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Overview

This Chapter summarizes data obtained from two research phases, the
mailed surveys and a writing retreat. Data were analyzed to compare responses
among either the two types of stakeholders (ﬁsheries and education), or across
the four groups: ﬁsheries opinion leaders, Fisheries Division personnel, Salmon
in the Classroom teachers (SIC), and non-SIC educators. The data collected
from the surveys and writing retreat were analyzed by research question.

In the results, which follow, ﬁrst, response rates for each study group that
participated in the study will be discussed. Next, stakeholder backgrounds will
be examined. Finally, each Of four sections will present a synopsis Of the

ﬁndings, organized by each Of the major study research questions.

Response Rates

The overall survey response rate was 76.9% (N=387 surveys returned)
(Table 3). This is the adjusted percentage after the removal Of duplicates,
undeliverables, unusables, and refusals. Less than three percent (N=15) of all
surveys mailed were undeliverable. A follow-up study of non-respondents was

not performed, since the overall response rate was generally high, and a

Table 3. Response rates Of survey participants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group # Mailed Out # Surveys % *
Received
Fisheries Division 13 13 100
8 Federation of Fly Fishers 11 5 45.5
a o
g g Trout Unlimited 28 24 85.7
.r:
j 3 Michigan Steelhead & 34 27 79.4
“- .‘3 Salmon Fishermen”s
m Association
Watershed Groups 79 59 75.0
Aquaculture Educators 29 23 79.3
2 Michigan Alliance for 237 184 77.6
§ Environmental and
2 Outdoor Education
:3 members
8 Environmental Education 5 5 100
‘2 Proggm Coordinators
,2 Math and Science Center 33 25 75.8
‘5 Directors
3 Salmon in the Classroom
1“ Teachers 28 22 78.6
TOTAL 503 387 76.9

 

* Percent of surveys returned, after adjustment for the removal of duplicates,
undeliverables, unusables, and refusals.

45

 

relatively even distribution from all groups Of respondents participated in the
study.

A small percentage of completed surveys were unusable in the study.
Two surveys were removed from the study due to name duplication in the group
mailing lists. These respondents had association in more than one of the
stakeholder groups. One survey was removed from the non-SIC educator group
and one from the opinion leaders group.

One survey was removed from the education stakeholders study group
because it was mostly incomplete and the participant’s responses did not ﬁt the
proﬁle of an active education or ﬁsheries stakeholder. Seven people who were
sent surveys refused to complete the survey. These people returned the
uncompleted surveys. Reasons for refusal included: living out-Of-state, being
retired educators, and believing themselves to lack knowledge in ﬁsheries and
watershed education.

From the SIC teacher responses, six returned surveys were removed from
the study because the teachers did not teach the Salmon in the Classroom
program. One of the respondents raised salmon in the classroom but did not use
the SIC curriculum. For three of these respondents, it was the ﬁrst year of
teaching the program and there had been complications with the aquarium set-
up. These three respondents did not raise ﬁsh or use the SIC curriculum; hence
they did not consider themselves to be SIC teachers.

The response rate Of all education stakeholders was 78.0% (N=259), and

all ﬁsheries stakeholders was 74.8% (N=128). Of the education stakeholders,

46

the MAEOE members had the highest response rate (77.6%, N=185). Among
ﬁsheries stakeholders, all of the Fisheries Division respondents returned surveys.
Watershed coalition organizational leaders constituted the greatest number of
respondents (42.2%, N= 59) of all ﬁsheries organizational leaders.

The referrals given by ﬁsheries stakeholders were added directly into the
original study groups. Referrals included Fisheries Division personnel (1
person), Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fisherman’s Association members (2
persons), and watershed coalition members (4 persons).

One nominal contingency question, “Are you an educator?" asked
respondents to self-classify themselves. If the participant answered “no” to this
question, then he or she was asked to skip the next ﬁve questions for educators.
In analyzing the survey data, nine education stakeholders skipped the
contingency question and another ﬁve answered no, yet these fourteen
respondents continued to answer the questions speciﬁcally for educators.
Review of their individual response proﬁles indicated these persons were most
likely active educators. The data from the fourteen participants were included in
the analysis Of educators” responses.

Another thirty-one respondents received the educator survey, but did not
consider themselves “educators.” Two Of these respondents were Math and
Science Center Directors. Twenty-nine of the thirty-one respondents were drawn
from the MAEOE list. Seven of these individuals were listed in the MAEOE
membership list as students, thus probably did not consider themselves as

practicing educators. The twenty-two remaining respondents had jobs and/or

47

degrees related to the environment or to education. Three of the respondents
were members Of the MAEOE Statewide Advisory Council, and their only
association with environmental education was to attend advisory group meetings
and take part in review Of programs. All Of the respondents” responses were
used in the study as educators because Of their connection to environmental
educaﬁon.

Other surveys from SIC teachers were not answered completely. Four Of
the respondents skipped over one or two pages of questions. Of these four
respondents, two appeared to have skipped over the pages by mistake. One of
the respondents was an administrator that has used the SIC program in the past.
The fourth respondent was an administrator of a SIC school and a biologist who
took part in the implementation Of the SIC program at the school. That
respondent did not answer any of the open-ended questions pertaining to
classroom use Of SIC. The questions that were answered by these respondents
were used in the study because of their current or past involvement in the SIC

program.

Respondent Backgrounds

Once the surveys were returned, data regarding stakeholder background
were analyzed. Though all of the stakeholders had an interest in ﬁsheries and
watershed information, different types of stakeholders had obviously different

personal backgrounds. Knowledge Of these backgrounds has helped Michigan

48

SIC curriculum designers consider how to build a program that will cater to many
markets.

Sociodemographic Background

The gender composition of the stakeholder groups varied. All of the
Fisheries Division respondents (N=13) were male, and most of the opinion leader
respondents (87.9%, N=102) and the SIC teacher respondents (63.6%, N= 14)
were male. Less than half of the non-SIC educator respondents (42.9%, N=102)
were male.

The highest percentage of respondents in all Of the groups, except the SIC
teachers, were born between the years of 1941 and 1960. The SIC teacher
respondents were younger than the other stakeholders; most (72.7%, N=16)
were born after 1960.

All stakeholders were asked, “What is your highest level of formal
education that you have completed?” Many Of the respondents held graduate
degrees. Two-thirds Of the Fisheries Division respondents (N=8) had graduate or
professional degrees. More than sixty percent of the SIC teacher respondents
(N= 13) held graduate or professional degrees. Almost sixty percent of the non-
SIC educator respondents (N=136) held a graduate or professional degree.
However, notably less than 25% of the opinion leader respondents (N=27)
possessed a graduate or professional degree. Many Of the Opinion leader

respondents (45.6%, N=51) had received four- year college degrees.

49

Outdoor Activities

All stakeholders were asked, “How many times In the past year have you
participated in the following outdoor activities?” All of the stakeholder
respondents had high participation rates in wildlife viewing (Figure 5).

Generally, there was a low percentage of all of the respondents who went
salmon ﬁshing in the Great Lakes in the past year. A statistically signiﬁcant
difference was found between the percent of ﬁsheries stakeholders (34.7%,
N=42) and education stakeholders (8.1%, N=20) that participated in salmon
ﬁshing in the Great Lakes. There was also a signiﬁcant difference found between
the percent of ﬁsheries stakeholders (43.9%, N=54) and education stakeholders
(9.3%, N=23) that participated in salmon ﬁshing in streams. The percent Of
ﬁsheries stakeholder respondents that participated in ﬁshing three or more times
in the past year (84.8%, N=106) was signiﬁcantly greater than the education
stakeholder respondents” (41.5%, N=103). A signiﬁcantly greater percent of
ﬁsheries stakeholders (87.3%, N=110) participated in boating in the past year
than education stakeholders (57.6%, N=144). A signiﬁcant difference was found
between the percent of ﬁsheries stakeholders (50.4%, N=62) and education
stakeholders (21.3%, N=53) that participated in hunting.

A signiﬁcantly greater percentage Of education stakeholder respondents
(84.6%, N=215) participated in hiking than the ﬁsheries stakeholders (67.7%,
N=84). There was also a signiﬁcant difference between the percent of education
stakeholder respondents (75.4%, N= 187) and ﬁsheries stakeholder respondents

(56.3%, N=67) who participated in bird watching.

50

 

Fish Salmon, Stream“ .-

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

FISh Sdnm,G‘eat Ld<es*

.............................................
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
.............................................

 

 

 

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
.............................................................................................................

g ..-...c....-.-e...-..ua...-.....o.-.................

 

Recreational Activities Pursued

 

 

 

 

WIdife Viewing
0 20 40 60 80 100
% Of Respondents (3+Iimeslyeer)

BerionLeeders ll-‘rsheiiesﬁvision DSICTeachers lNcn-SlCEdmtors

Figure 5. Percentages of ﬁsheries and watershed education survey respondents
who participated in speciﬁc outdoor activities 3 or more times in the past year.
(* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where p<0.05)

51

The degree of participation in outdoor activity participation differed
between the SIC teachers and non-SIC educators. Many of the SIC teacher
respondents were avid anglers. Signiﬁcantly more SIC teachers (81.8%, N=18)
than non-SIC educators (37.6%, N=89) ﬁshed in the past year. About one-third
of the SIC teacher respondents ﬁshed for salmon in the Great Lakes (31 .8%,
N=7), and in streams (40.9%, N=9) three or more times in the past year. The
percent Of non-SIC educator respondents that had ﬁshed speciﬁcally for salmon,
either in the Great Lakes (5.7%, N=14) or streams (6.2%, N=15), was low.
Boating was an outdoor activity Of almost three-fourths of the SIC teachers
(72.7%, N=16) in the past year. In comparing the education stakeholders, over
seventy percent of the non-SIC educator respondents were involved in these
outdoor activities three or more times in the past year. wildlife viewing (91%,
N=216), hiking (86.2%, N=204), and bird watching (77.5%, N=184). A
signiﬁcantly greater percent of non-SIC educators (77.4%, N=125) than SIC
teachers (54.5%, N=12) participated in bird watching.

Further analysis of the Opinion leader respondents indicated that only
11.2% (N=6) Of respondents from the watershed coalition groups participated in
ﬁshing for salmon in the Great Lakes three or more times in the past year, In
comparison with 51 .6% (N= 31) Of the respondents from ﬁshing organizations.
The same pattern between watershed coalition groups and ﬁshing organizations
was seen in response to ﬁshing for salmon in streams. A signiﬁcant difference
was found between the watershed coalition respondents (24.1%, N=13) who

participated in salmon ﬁshing in streams in comparison to 51.6% (N=16) of the

52

respondents from ﬁshing organizations. Further analysis also showed a
signiﬁcant difference between only 66.1% (N=37) of respondents from the
watershed coalition groups that participated in ﬁshing three or more times in the
past year, in comparison with 100.0% (N= 31) of the respondents from ﬁshing
organizations. A signiﬁcant difference was found between the respondents from
ﬁshing organizations (54.8%,N=17) who hunted in comparison to the 32.1%
(N=18) Of watershed coalition respondents. In contrast, a signiﬁcant difference
was found in higher percentages Of watershed coalition respondents (94.7%,
N=54) than sport ﬁshing organization respondents (74.2%, N=23) that
participated in wildlife viewing. A signiﬁcant difference was also found between
the higher percent of watershed coalition respondents (81.0%, N=47) in the

activity of hiking than sport ﬁshing organization respondents (60.0%, N=18).

F isheriesgnd Watershed Activities

Fisheries stakeholder respondents were asked to list one type Of
organization in which they were afﬁliated. More than three-fourths of the ﬁsheries
stakeholders (77.3%, N=99) belonged to non-proﬁt organizations. Another
15.6% (N=20) were employed by a governmental agency, and 7.0% (N=9) were
members of some other organization.

Fisheries stakeholders held a variety of positions within organizations. A
large percent of the Fisheries Division respondents (84.6%, N=11) held the
position of paid staff in comparison to the percent Of opinion leader respondents
(8.7%, N=9) (Figure 6). A signiﬁcantly greater percent of Fisheries Division

respondents (46.2%, N=6) than the percent of opinion leader respondents

53

(10.4%, N=12) were program coordinators within their own organizations. In
comparison, many Of the Opinion leaders were elected ofﬁcers (40.9%, N=46),
volunteers (40.0%, N=45), and presidents (33.9%, N=38) of their organizations.

Some involvement of ﬁsheries stakeholders, particulariy opinion leaders,
in EE programs was noted (Table 4). Among the ﬁsheries stakeholders, the
greatest percent, 5.5% (N=7) were certiﬁed in Project F.I.S.H..

The ﬁsheries stakeholders were asked: “ Indicate which Of the following
activities in which your organization participates.” There were some differences
between the opinion leaders and Fisheries Division responses. A signiﬁcantly
greater percent Of Fisheries Division respondents (100%, N=13) noted
involvement in habitat assessment and information collection in contrast to the
percent of opinion leader respondents. All Fisheries Division respondents
(100.0%) and most Opinion leader respondents (75.7%) indicated their

organization participated in restoration activities (Figure 7).

Educators; Experience and Involvement Levels

The average number Of years of teaching by the SIC teachers was 11.4 years.
Non-SIC educators (who were slightly Older) had been teaching an average of
16.1 years. ‘Nearly all SIC teachers (95.5%, N=21) noted that they taught in
schools, in comparison with only 51.3% (N=122) of the non-SIC educators
(Figure 8). Public school was the most common education setting of education
stakeholder respondents (48.9%, N=127). None Of the SIC teachers taught in

interpretive centers, nature centers, or within an Extension system.

54

 

Paid Staff“

Program
Coordinator“

 

1

Elected Ofﬁcer“

 

Volunteer“ ..

 

President*

Board Member

Organizational Roles

Committee Chair

Committee
Member

Board Chair

Executive Director

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 20 40 60 80 100
“/- of Respondents

B Opinion Leaders I Fisheries Division

Figure 6. Percentages of ﬁsheries stakeholders who held various roles within
their organizations. (* indicates a statistically Signiﬁcant difference between
groups, where p<0.05)

55

Table 4. Percentages of ﬁsheries stakeholders certiﬁed in environmental
education programs. Due to low sample amounts, no statistical comparisons
were made between the two groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent of Percent of Opinion
EE Programs Fisheries Division Leader
Respondents Respondents
Certiﬁed in EE Certiﬁed in EE
Programs Programs
Project F.I.S.H. 7.7 5.5
Leopold Education Project 0.0 3.1
Wonders Of Wetlands 0.0 3.1
Project WET 0.0 0.0
Project WILD—Aquatic 0.0 3.1
Project Learning Tree 0.0 0.8
Project WILD 0.0 0.0

 

56

 

 

 

Fisheries and Watershed Activities

 

 

 

%d W
B Quirion Leaders I Fisheries Dvision

Figure 7. Perceptions of ﬁsheries stakeholder respondents concerning the
ﬁsheries and watershed activities performed by their organizations. (* indicates a
statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where p<0.05)

57

Most SIC teachers (72.7%, N= 16) were certiﬁed to teach grades K-5, in
comparison with only 24.9% (N=59) of the non-SIC educators (Figure 9). A
signiﬁcant difference was also found between the percent of SIC teachers
(59.1%, N=13) certiﬁed to teach grades 6—8, and the proportion of non-SIC
educators (33.3%, N=79). Less than a quarter Of the SIC teachers (22.7%, N=5)
held grade 9-12 teaching certiﬁcations in contrast to the percent of non-SIC
educator respondents 39.1% (N=93) that were certiﬁed to teach high school
grades.

Half of the SIC teacher respondents (N=11) were certiﬁed to teach all
subjects and certiﬁed to teach math and science. Roughly a third (36.1%, N=86)

of the non-SIC educator respondents were certiﬁed to teach math and science.

SIC Teacher Perspectives

Research question #1: What are the participating Salmon in the Classroom
teachers” perspectives on the current curriculum?

To address this research question, current SIC teachers were asked
open-ended questions concerning their personal perspectives on the SIC
program. On average, nine activities from the California manual were used each
year, though the number ranged from three to twenty. SIC teachers were asked
“Have you varied the number Of activities you use in your Salmon in the
Classroom teaching each year?” and almost 60% indicated they did (Appendix
M). Those teachers that did not vary the number of activities stated that this was
their ﬁrstyear using the SIC program and that they were getting accustomed to

the program. The teachers varied the activities depending on the needs Of the

58

 

Montessori P

—-4

 

Parochial * ‘
Private Setting
Interpretive Center

Extension System

 

Teaching Settlng

Nature Center"

PUb'IC Setting W
SChOOI * W 1 '

I T

 

 

 

 

 

 

-r———(

0 20 40 60 80 100
% of Respondents”
Non-SIC Educators El SIC Teachers

Figure 8. Percent of education stakeholders teaching in various education
settings. (* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where
p<0.05) ** Note: percentages will not total 100% due to multiple responses

given by the respondents.

59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

g 9th—12th
E
8
.3
Ti 6th-8th*
,2
E
i -
g K-5th“ I
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of Respondents
Non-SIC Educators D SIC Teachers

Figure 9. Percent Of education stakeholders with teaching certiﬁcations in
various grade levels. (* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between

groups, where p<0.05)

students and time available for the SIC program. SIC teachers were also asked,
“DO you Often alter the SIC activities to meet your needs?” All of the teachers
altered the California curriculum activities they used in their classrooms
(Appendix M).

The SIC teachers were asked to “Describe how you incorporate the
Salmon in the Classroom program into your teaching.” Teachers incorporated
the SIC program into daily activities using various methods and topics (Appendix
M). Most SIC teachers used the program throughout the school year, some
weekly, some monthly. Activity use was dependent on the age level, available
time, subjects, and key topics taught at each grade level. Science and math
were clearly connected to many Of the activities. Language arts and art were
also subjects that SIC teachers targeted within the program.

SIC teachers were asked, “Do you plan to continue using the Salmon in
the Classroom curriculum?“ Except for two SIC teachers who were not returning
to their schools the following school year, all of the SIC teachers planned to
continue use of the curriculum. All of the SIC teachers believed that the SIC
program made a positive impact on their students” knowledge of environmental
science, geography, and history (Appendix M). SIC teachers noted that the

students learned about stewardship and experienced real life situations.

61

Knowledge and Attitudes about the SIC Program Activities

Research question #2: What are the participating educators” knowledge and
attitudes about concepts and activities included in the SIC program?

SIC teachers were asked, “What concepts do you use from the (California)
manual?“ SIC teachers used some concepts from the California manual more
than other concepts (Figure 10). Nearly all Of the SIC teacher respondents
(90.9%, N=20) taught the concepts Of habitat and the life cycle. Many taught
about the raising Of ﬁsh (86.4%, N=19) and ﬁsh anatomy (77.3%, N=17). Around
half Of the SIC teacher respondents used the California manual to teach students
about restoration and conservation (63.6%, N=14), ﬁsh as resources (50.0%,
N=11), and ﬁsh physiology (45.5%, N=10). Only ﬁve of the SIC teacher
respondents (22.7%) used the California manual to teach students about ethics.

SIC teachers often taught concepts that were not in the California Salmon
in the Classroom curriculum (Figure 11). SIC teachers were speciﬁcally asked,
“What other concepts (10 you teach?” Across all age levels, most Of the SIC
teacher respondents (86.4%, N=19) taught about the concepts of food webs and
the water cycle. Many Of the teachers (72.7%, N=16) taught about water
pollution and how human inﬂuences affect salmon. Some of the SIC teacher
respondents taught about the concepts Of biodiversity (45.5%, N=10),
stewardship (45.5%, N=10), and aquatic life (40.9%, N=9). About a quarter of
the teachers (22.7%, N=5) taught about water chemistry, sustainable ﬁsheries or
ethics.

Fisheries and watershed knowledge by SIC teachers and non-SIC

educators was investigated. The educators self-rated their knowledge of several

62

 

Ethics W
Fish Physiology V/////////////////////////2
Resources WW
RestorationandConservation WWW
Fish/Anatomy}

I
Raising Fish WWW

 

 

 

 

Life (Aide WWW

SIC Concepts from California Manual

 

 

0 20 40 60 80 100
%OfRespondents
ISICTeacheIs

Figure 10. Percentages of Michigan SIC teachers that addressed concepts from
the California SIC manual.

63

00.00... U.W .ﬂCO_u.UU<

 

 

  

Sistaindile Fisheries
Fish Ethics

Water Chem'stry
Aquatic Life
Stewadship
Biodversily

Water Pollution
I-m'm Influences
Water Qde

Food Webs

   
 

///////////A
7///////////A

 
 
  

   

’////////////A

 

7/////////////////////.

’////////////////////%

’/////////////////////////////////////

    

   
 
        
  

   

 

Additional SIC Topics

 
  

  

7//////////////////////////////////A

 

  

’//////////////////////////////////////////A

 
  
 

I f T I T

0 20 40 60 80100
%ofmsponderts ISICTI

 

 

Figure 11. Percent Of SIC teachers who addressed other concepts that are n_ot
directly covered in the California SIC manual.

topics concerning ﬁsheries and watersheds in response to the question “What is
your knowledge about the following topics?” Regarding ecological topics, SIC
teachers reported signiﬁcantly greater mean comfort in their knowledge to teach
about ﬁsh anatomy and physiology (Figure 12). Also, all Of the education
stakeholders considered themselves rather knowledgeable in the topics Of life
cycles, the water cycle, and food webs.

Of the resource management topics, the non-SIC educators had a
signiﬁcantly higher mean self-rating of knowledge about the topic Of stewardship
(Figure 13). For resource management topics, all education stakeholders were
knowledgeable in teaching about habitat Conservation and human inﬂuence. Both
SIC teachers and non-SIC educators considered themselves to have low
knowledge about teaching ethics.

Educators surveyed were asked to “Indicate the occurrence of ﬁsheries
and watershed issues you think are being taught by educators in Michigan
currently.” Within this survey question, the respondents had the choice of
“unsure.” For analysis, the “unsure” answers were removed in order to compare
answers among respondents who had clear Opinions.

SIC teachers and non-SIC educators had similar ideas about which topics
were taught more Often than others. The topics of the water cycle, food webs,
human inﬂuences, life cycle, habitat, and pollution were considered to be taught
more Often than other topics (Figure 14). Education stakeholders believed the

topics Of building and managing sustainable ﬁsheries, responsible ﬁshing, and

65

 

Fish Anatomy and Physiology“ W

Life CYCIeS ///////////// ///////////////////////////////

 

 

Water CYCIe ’////////////////////////////////////////////////A

Food Webs
Biodiversity
Aquatic Life W
Watersheds W
Water Chemistry W

l
I 1 I

 

Ecological Topics

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Mean Response”
0 SIC Teachers Non-SIC Educators

Figure 12. Mean self-ratings of ecological knowledge of ﬁsheries and watershed

topics, comparing SIC teachers” and non-SIC educators” knowledge.

(* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where p<0.05)
"Where: 1 = Unaware of this topic or its meaning, 2 = Aware of this topic

and/or its meaning, 3 = Have some knowledge about this topic but feel

inadequate to teach, 4 = Have adequate knowledge for teaching this topic,

5 = Have above average knowledge for teaching this topic.

66

 

Stet , ardship“ 7////////////////////////////////////////////A
mug Fisﬁrg* W
T
ﬁshen-ﬁir W1

FWtat Won ////////////////////////////////////////////////,
m" Influence //////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Water PdIUﬁm 7/////////////////////////////////////////////.
I-bbltat Won 7///////////////////////////////////////////

History of M’s Great Lakes W
Ethics W5

 

 

 

Resource Management Topics

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Meat Response”
DSICTeacherS INon-SIC Educators

Figure 13. Mean self-ratings of resource management knowledge of ﬁsheries
and watershed topics, comparing SIC teachers” and non-SIC educators”
knowledge. (* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups,
where p<0.05)

”Where: 1 = Unaware of this topic or its meaning, 2 = Aware Of this topic and/or
its meaning, 3 = Have some knowledge about this topic but feel inadequate to
teach, 4 = Have adequate knowledge for teaching this topic, 5 = Have above
average knowledge for teaching this topic.

67

ethics to be taught on fewer occasions than the other topics listed in the survey

question.

The Value and Use of Teaching Methods

The education stakeholders rated the value Of various teaching methods
(Figure 15). These respondents were asked to “Indicate whether you agree or
disagree that the following teaching methods are valuable for teaching about the
environment.” The SIC teachers and non-SIC educators viewed the value of
certain teaching methods in the same manner. The methods valued the most
were outdoor teaching, ﬁeld trips, and experiments. Lectures and computer
activities were the teaching methods valued the least.
The education stakeholders were asked “How Often do you use the following
teaching methods?” The percent Of non-SIC educators (75.6%, N=149) that used
the teaching method of environmental investigations was signiﬁcantly greater
than the percent of SIC teachers (52.4%, N=11). Education stakeholders were
inclined to use the methods they believed to be valuable such as problem solving
(93.1%, N=241), outdoor teaching strategies (89.4%, N=232), individual and
group projects (87.25, N=226), and experiments (86.6%, N=224) versus the less
valuable methods of case studies (50%, N=130) and computer activities (53.9%,
N=140) (Figure 16). Although lectures were the most often used methods,

educators did not believe that the lecture teaching method was very valuable.

68

 

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

’////////////

 

 

r I I

Lib % 7/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////.
T i I j a

m /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////l;

I - j ?
HJTHI “1% 7/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////.
MM /////////////////x////////////////////////////////////////////////

T

 

 

 
 

: I I ' i I
’////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////l

 

 

' /////////////////l////l/////////////////////////I.
Hstay o‘ M 5 God Laes
T
W ad W ’//////////////////////////////////////////////

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fisheries and Watershed Issues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

010203040506070m931m
USICTeadIes INIi-SICErims

% Of Respondents (3+ times/Year)

Figure 14. Percent of SIC teachers and non-SIC educators who believed speciﬁc
ﬁsheries and watershed issues were taught by educators in Michigan three or
more times per year. Due to low sample amounts, no statistical comparisons
were made between the two groups.

69

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lectures
. . -—
Computer Actvrfes
Role Playing/Dram at'zalions
-__

Case Studies -
g Self-Directed Learning
g Independent or Group Projects
2 Simulations

2' .
é Data Gathering and Analysis

is _
,2 Enviromental Investigations

Problem Solving/ Crillcal Thinking ,

I
Experim enls
Field Trips
Outdoor Teaching

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
Mean Rating of Importance ’
I Education Stakeholders

Figure 15. Mean rating Of importance by education stakeholders about valuable
teaching methods. “Where: 1: Strongly agree that the method is valuable, 2=
Agree, 3= Disagree, 4=Strongly Disagree (“Undecided”’ and “DO not know"
answers were removed.)

70

 

 

 

 

CmeStudes
_—
'0 C I “H.
5.“ Reenayingioanauzarions
——
In Envirorrertalmestigaions
E Self-DrededLearing
a. _—
=0 Fme ——
——
g Slrruaims
.. ——_—
.5 Lectues
——_
a . .
.2 DaaGahenngmdAndySIs
Boerirru'ts
IndepencbrtorGupPrtjeds
T , —_—
_—
PrdiemSoMrg/Oilicd‘l‘riridrg i i l
0 20 4O 60 so 100
%dF-hspondents
3+tirres/yea
IMmStdreholders

Figure 16. Percent of education stakeholder respondents who used speciﬁc
teaching methods three or more times a year.

Sources Educators Use to Obtain Knowledge about Fisheries and
Watershed Topics

Research question #3: What sources do educators use to obtain knowledge
about ﬁsheries and watershed subject matter’?

There are many different types of sources educators may utilize to
improve their teaching (Figure 17). Education stakeholders were asked, “ Which
sources do you use to Obtain information about ﬁsheries and watershed
information?“ At this time, the majority Of information that SIC teachers use
comes from Fisheries Division personnel, personal experiences, and the intemet.
A Signiﬁcantly greater percent of SIC teachers (81.8%, N=18) used the Fisheries
Division for information than did the non-SIC eduators (23.5%, N=56). Non-SIC
educators Obtain much of their information from magazines, journals, and
curriculum manuals. Less than half (42.5%, N=1 10) of education stakeholders
use in-service training to Obtain supplemental information for teaching.

The SIC teachers were asked to “List the resource(s) you use to assist in
teaching the Salmon in the Classroom curriculum.” Some Of the SIC teachers
used the California manual primarily as reference material. Other sources SIC
teachers used included: the MDNR Web site, commercial and home videos,
articles from newspapers and magazines, and books, especially Come Back
S_aI_IT_iO_n by Molly Cone and The Magic School Bus: Salmon Migration by Joanna
Cole (Appendix M).

Other possible sources for educators include environmental education
(EE) programs. Education stakeholders listed the environmental education

programs in which they were certiﬁed. The greatest proportion of education

72

 

 

‘ I ,
Fisheries Division“ M I ‘,
,mememeb W
persona. ”Memes Wﬁ

Magazines [IOU mals 7/////////////////////////////////////////////////,

. .
Newspape, W3

Curriculum manuals

Television shows W

 

 

 

 

lntormatlon Sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Organizations
Trainingﬁn-service W .
I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of Respondents
El SIC Teachers Non-SIC Educators

Figure 17. Percent of education respondents who Obtained their ﬁsheries and
watershed knowledge from various information sources. (* indicates a
statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where p<0.05)

stakeholders were certiﬁed in Project WILD, which has the longest history in
Michigan (Figure 18). Smaller percentages of educators were certiﬁed in the
newer programs (e.g., Project F.I.S.H.). Signiﬁcant differences were found
between the SIC teachers and non-SIC educators for many EE certiﬁcations. A
small proportion Of SIC teachers (9.1%, N= 2) were certiﬁed in Project WET, in
comparison with 31.2% (N=74) Of the non-SIC educators. There was also a
signiﬁcant difference between the small percent of SIC teachers (13.6%, N=3)
and the percent Of non-SIC educators (40.5%, N=96) that were Project WILD-
Aquatic certiﬁed. The percent of SIC teachers certiﬁed in Project Learning Tree
(13.6%, N=3) was signiﬁcantly less than the proportion of non-SIC educators that
were certiﬁed (50.2%, N=119). There was also a signiﬁcant difference between
the percent Of SIC teachers that held a Project WILD certiﬁcation (22.7%, N=5)
and that Of non- SIC educators (59.9%, N=142). Less than 25% of SIC teacher
respondents were certiﬁed in any EE program.

Associations were also a possible source. Education stakeholders were
asked, “DO you belong to any educational/professional associations?“ More than
three-fourths Of the education stakeholder respondents (80%, N=190) were
members of associations. The SIC teacher respondents” membership (27.3%,
N=6) was greatest in educator associations and math and science associations.
Almost half of the non-SIC educator respondents (47.9%, N=113) were members
Of an environmental association. .

The ﬁsheries stakeholders were asked to “Indicate to which Of the

following groups your organization actively provides information.” Fisheries

74

 

 

Project F.I.S.H.

Leopold Education Project

 

.1

 

Wonders of Wetlands

Project WET"

 

Project WILD-Aquatic“

 

4

EE Program Certiﬁcations

Project Learning Tme“

 

 

Project WILD“

 

 

 

 

 

 

L

I

0

El SIC teachers

I

T

10

L

7 T T T T

20 30 4O 50 60

% of Respondents
Non-SIC educators

Figure 18. Percent Of educators who held certiﬁcations in environmental
education programs. (* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between

groups, where p<0.05)

75

3f

as

 

 

ﬁe
CU
I'm;
slat

QIEa'

stakeholders reported their audiences were the general public, organizations,
and anglers (Figure 19). In comparison, teachers, families, and youth were not
as frequently mentioned as target audiences.

Further analysis of the opinion leader respondents showed a Signiﬁcant
difference between the 96.8% (N=30) Of sport ﬁshing organization respondents
who believed their organization provided information to anglers and the
watershed coalition respondents (44.8%, N= 26). Further analysis also showed a
signiﬁcant difference between the 22.6% (N=7) Of sport ﬁshing organization
respondents that believed their organization provided information to teachers and
the watershed coalition respondents (53.4%, N= 31 ). A signiﬁcant difference was
also found between the percent of watershed coalition respondents (79.3%,
N=46) and the Sport ﬁshing organization respondents (54.8%, N=17) that

believed their organization provided information to riparian owners.

Concerns by the Stakeholders about Fisheries and Watershed lnforrnation
Research question #4: What are stakeholders” concerns about ﬁsheries and
aquatic resources subject matter (ﬁsh biology, watersheds, and ﬁsheries
management) that a Michigan SIC program should teach?

All Of the stakeholders were asked to “Indicate the need for various
ﬁsheries and watershed issues to be taught in a ﬁsheries and watershed
curriculum by their importance.” The stakeholders considered all of the topics
important. Analysis of the responses identiﬁed differences among the

stakeholders. The mean Of education stakeholders” responses was signiﬁcantly

’ greater for topics such as the water cycle, life cycle, food webs, and history Of

76

 

“amt” M
_ I J

Youth

    
 

 
  

Families

 

 

Riparian Owners ‘

 

Anglers“

 

Organizations“

Audiences of Fisheries Stakeholders

4

 

General Public 1

 

I I

T T T T T T T

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of Respondents

I Fisheries Division 15 Opinion Leaders

Figure 19. Perceptions Of ﬁsheries stakeholders about which audiences receive
ﬁsheries and watershed information from their organizations. (* indicates a
statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where p<0.05)

77

Michigan’s Great Lakes, as important to include in the program in comparison to
ﬁsheries stakeholder responses (Figure 20). These topics Of importance to
education stakeholders meet the Michigan Curriculum Framework benchmarks.
The mean of ﬁsheries stakeholders” responses was signiﬁcantly greater for
resource management topics, such as building and managing sustainable
ﬁsheries, ethics, and responsible ﬁshing, as important topics to be addressed

(Figure 21).

Factors that Influence Educator Participation in New EE Prpgrams

 

Many Circumstances can affect an educator’s decision tO participate in a
new environmental education program. All stakeholders were asked, “In your
Opinion, which of the following situations would inﬂuence teachers to participate
in new environmental programs?” A signiﬁcantly greater percent of ﬁsheries
stakeholders (78.1%, N=100) than education stakeholders (66.7%, N=172)
believed a connection with local ﬁsheries groups would be important in an
educator’s decision to participate (Figure 22). Signiﬁcantly more education
stakeholders (83.3%, N=215) than ﬁsheries stakeholders (57.0%, N=73)
indicated a correlation to Michigan Curriculum Framework Standards and
Benchmarks would inﬂuence educator participation. A Signiﬁcantly larger

percentage Of education stakeholders (85.3%, N=220) than ﬁsheries

78

Fisheries and Watershed Topics

 

I
7///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////.

Water more:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

................................................................................................................

mmi —

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Life Glide" —

.'.....a;;;;;;;;;;3;s. ........................................................................................
.............................................................................................................

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

...........................................................................................................................

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

IIICIOICODIQIO’IOQOIIOOIODCCID.000......Il00....0.0I...OOlIIC...I.O...IIICIOOIIOCCOIIIIOIIIIOIIOIOIIOIIl;;oo ........
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
.......................................................................................................

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

 

MemRatingdln'portaice”
BOpinionLeaders IFISheries Dvision DSICTeaehers lhbn-SlCEdrwtors

Figure 20. Mean stakeholders” beliefs about the importance of ecological
ﬁsheries and watershed topics to include in a Michigan SIC program.

(* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where p<0.05)
“Where: 1 = Not Important at all, 2 = Somewhat Unimportant, 3 = Somewhat
Important, 4= Very Important

 

7//////////////////////////////////////////////A

Hstayd‘MSGredees“

 

 

 

8 Sustairweﬁsheries*
”5
@23me
erg.
.9_>I— . .
i—S‘E Wheﬁdlrg‘
= o
3; _
8s
~55 l-trrmlrlluanees
.C
U)
“- Sternedsh‘p

ErMIormrtaCaeeIs

1 2 3 4
melairgdlrrpcrta'oe“

BQJirionLeaders ll-‘isheriesmisim DSICTeachers lhbn-SICEdmtors

Figure 21. Mean stakeholders” beliefs about the importance Of resource
management topics to include in a Michigan SIC program. (* indicates a
statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where p<0.05)

"Where: 1 = Not Important at all, 2 = Somewhat Unimportant, 3 = Somewhat
Important, 4= Very Important

80

 

eredeLoeaGrorm*

 

 

MerioriunFra'remr?
'3 ln-service*
.9 I
g5 Furirg ‘
Uri '
5 § Time
cat:
as . .
8 MnrstraionSLppat
It: i
C

Access to ln‘omaion

 

Irterest

 

 

If I T T T

20 4O 60 80 1(1)

%ofW
EOpirionLeaders ll-‘rsterissﬁvision EISICTeadrers lNJn-SICEdraors

C

Figure 22. Percent of respondents reporting that various circumstances would
inﬂuence educator participation in new environmental education programs.
(* indicates a statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups, where p<0.05)

81

 

(n

ﬁll

an:

stakeholders (74.2%, N=128) indicated in-service training to obtain knowledge on
a topic would inﬂuence educator participation. A signiﬁcantly greater percent of

educators certiﬁed in WILD-Aquatic (91.9%, N=91) considered in-service training
to obtain knowledge on a topic to inﬂuence educator participation than educators

not certiﬁed in WILD-Aquatic (81.0%, N=129).

Interest and Involvement

Stakeholders were asked ”Would you like information sent to you about
the SIC program?” and “Would you like to help in the development of a Michigan
SIC program?” Of the non-SIC educator respondents 82.4%(N=195) wanted
more information on SIC and, 56.5% (N=134) wanted to help with the
development of a ﬁsheries and watershed curriculum. Three-fourths of the SIC
teachers (N=15) were interested in receiving more information about the SIC
program. Many of the SIC teachers (86.4%, N=19) wanted to be involved in the
development of a Michigan-speciﬁc ﬁsheries and watershed program.

Three-fourths of the Fisheries Division respondents (N=9) were interested
in receiving more information about the SIC program and in being involved in the
development of a ﬁsheries and watershed program. Over eighty percent of the
opinion leader respondents (N=95) wanted more information on SIC, and over
ﬁfty percent (N=66) wanted to help with the development of a Michigan ﬁsheries

and watershed program.

82

Qualitative Data

The open-ended questions asked on the mail survey provided valuable
information. Some of the survey respondents provided individual comments on
other issues to address within the program (N=27), their own involvement in
ﬁsheries and watershed activities (N=12), suggestions of how to obtain funds
(N=5), and interest in the program (N=52). Some participants indicated speciﬁc
topics that needed to be addressed by the ﬁsheries and watershed program.
The most frequently mentioned topic (N=10) was the need for discussion of the
Paciﬁc salmon as an exotic species in the Great Lakes and both the beneﬁts and
problems related to their existence in Michigan.

Survey respondents (N=4) wrote of problems within environmental
programs at present. Teachers had so many programs from which to choose,
and many programs either overlapped in information or large gaps have been left
that need attention. Regarding the development of a SIC curriculum, participants
seemed ooncemed about Michigan Curriculum Framework Standards and
Benchmarks, time constraints, training, and ease of use of a program. The
information gathered from personal comments by ﬁsheries and education

stakeholders surveyed will enrich the Michigan SIC curriculum.

Writing Retreat

The two-day retreat involved twenty-one participants who had interest in
the development of the ﬁsheries and watershed curriculum. One-third of the
writing retreat participants were SIC teachers. Another third of the participants

were MAEOE members. The remaining participants consisted of Fisheries

83

 

Sc

an

im;

38

in;

 

Division personnel, members of conservation organizations, and a Math and
Science Center staff member.

The retreat provided participants time to review materials from other states
and Canada, to obtain new resources, and to network. During the retreat, SIC
teachers educated the participants on the activities and concepts they were
implementing from the California manual, and they shared their students’ projects
as well as other resources they used to obtain activities. Fisheries stakeholders,
in particular, were taught about the Michigan Curriculum Framework.

Retreat participants were separated into smaller groups that focused on
elementary, middle, and high school levels; in these groups the participants
worked together to create concepts and activities appropriate for their respective
grade levels to be included in the Michigan SIC program. Each group contained
at least one educator, ﬁsheries biologist, curriculum designer, and SIC teacher.
After listening to all of the group reports, the participants discussed
commonalties.

Participants suggested that, at the elementary level, an interdisciplinary
pattern could be used, since students are taught almost all of their subjects by
one teacher. At the middle and high school levels, themes can be used to teach
students. Participants also identiﬁed additional information that should go into
the program including: the mechanics of operating an aquarium, how to get a
permit for the salmon from MDNR Fisheries Division, contacts for ﬁsh food and
equipment, mentors to help teachers get started, a list serve to provide a

communications network for educators, and in-service/training about using the

84

 

 

be
lhi
pa

ext

 

the
Ge
par

par

let!
the
Thl

ffor

materials. The importance of including the negative aspects of hatcheries and
non-native species in the Great Lakes was discussed as well as deﬁning the term
“ethics.”

All (n = 21) of the retreat participants believed the writing retreat to be
beneﬁcial to themselves. Open-ended questions supplied further detail regarding
the effectiveness of the retreat in relation to the program and participants. All
participants believed the retreat provided vital networking, sharing of
experiences, resources, and ideas pertaining to Salmon in the Classroom.

All participants believed the retreat was advantageous in the development
of the Michigan SIC program. Curricula from other states and Canada provided
the retreat participants with existing ideas and concepts to apply to the
development of a ﬁsheries and watershed program. The broad expertise of the
participants allowed for many perspectives to enrich the curriculum. Four of the
participants noted that the retreat provided an opportunity for them to Ieam more
about the history of salmon and SIC use in education settings. Overall, the
retreat was considered a success by all involved. Some participants concluded
that a few, minor changes (e.g., more time) would have improved the retreat.

The outcome of knowledge, enthusiasm, and sharing that was attained at and

from the writing retreat will be implemented in the Michigan SIC program.

85

 

be
us

ed

CUI

lllu:

Fish
lied
beIWE

apub

DISCUSSION
CHAPTER 5

Overview

Approximately thirty Michigan teachers were using the California SIC
curriculum with the assistance of Michigan DNR Fisheries Division personnel
prior to the beginning of this study. This study was designed to collect
stakeholder information and views to develop a broadly supported, Michigan-
based SIC curriculum. Feedback from mail surveys and a writing retreat were
used to determine what stakeholders valued in a ﬁsheries and watershed
education curriculum.

The involvement of education stakeholders in the development of a
curriculum has been shown to be essential for the adoption of the curriculum
(Crockenburg and Clark 1979). The information learned through this study
illustrated the signiﬁcance of considering multiple stakeholders’ views and
concerns in the development of curriculum. Commonalities and dissimilarities
were found between the views and concerns of ﬁsheries and education
stakeholders as expressed in the survey responses.

The valuable feedback acquired from this study supplied the MDNR
Fisheries Division with views of ﬁsheries and watershed stakeholders. The
World Conservation Congress (1997) noted the positive aspects of partnerships
between natural resource managers and stakeholders. A more involved public is

a public that is more educated and supportive of ﬁsheries and watershed

86

decisions. This end goal of an informed, involved citizenry is desired by both

ﬁsheries managers and education stakeholders.

Interest in the SIC Program

The more than 75% response rate to surveys indicated a high amount of
interest by the participating stakeholders about the content of a Michigan-speciﬁc
SIC curriculum. High percentages of respondents (more than 75%) indicated
interest in ﬁsheries and watershed education by responding that they would like
additional information or to be involved in the development of a Michigan SIC
program. Non-SIC educators commented that they wanted to Ieam about the

SIC program and how they could bring the program into their own classrooms.

. The current SIC teachers had a great stake in the program. By obtaining more
information, they learned of programs that beneﬁt their classroom teaching.
Comments by many educators indicated that they lack time to be involved in the
development of a Michigan SIC program, but are interested in the ﬁnal product.

The ﬁsheries stakeholders also had interest in acquiring additional
information about the SIC program and in participating in the development of the
curriculum. Although the ﬁsheries stakeholders want to participate in program
development, time and knowledge of education standards and benchmarks may
hinder their involvement. The ﬁsheries stakeholders noted the importance of
accurate representation within the Michigan SIC program of the Fisheries
Division’s role in salmon management and salmon biology. These stakeholders

can assist in contributing factual biological information. Also, ﬁsheries

87

 

 

kn

rec

del
lea
20l
Edi

inle

be

Ga

wm.
IOpi;

9M}

stakeholders play a part in communities, and their involvement in educational
activities may provide information to others, thus fostering local stewardship of
ﬁsheries and watersheds.

Past studies have revealed that as a result of involvement in long-term
partnerships with natural resource professionals, educators indicated more
knowledge of environmental science and greater conﬁdence in their competence
to teach EE effectively (Bainer et al. 1997). There are some EE programs that
require the user to network with natural resource professionals. By collaborative
education and ﬁsheries stakeholder involvement, goals can be collectively
determined. School-based partnerships are necessary to elicit interdisciplinary
Ieaming through professional development of the educators (Sattler and Kiley
2000). The results of such partnerships include positive beneﬁts for ﬁsheries and
education, networking of stakeholders, and removal of obstacles for educators
interested in collaborative programs (Alberts and Tuomi 1995; Bainer et al.
1997). For an environmental stewardship education program to ﬂourish, it must
be planned and nurtured in, for, and by the entire community, as noted by

Gallagher and Hogan (2000).

Writing Retreat

The curriculum writing retreat ﬁrst served to interpret the survey data,
which supplied valuable comparisons of stakeholder beliefs concerning SIC
topics as well as information about inﬂuences on educators’ participation in new

environmental programs. Furthermore, the results of the curriculum writing

88

 

 

will

Pro

Ed

R0

Der

USE

”lei

retreat provided clear input from stakeholders about concepts, activities, and
curriculum formats to incorporate into the Michigan SIC curriculum. By having
the various stakeholders work together, concerns and ideas were shared and
addressed. Fisheries and education stakeholders Ieamed of each other's main
ﬁsheries and watershed education concerns and topics relevant for inclusion in a
SIC program. Participants left the retreat with a better understanding of other
stakeholders” perspectives on ﬁsheries and watershed education. As noted in
other studies, during curriculum writing workshops, participants are able to take
part directly in educational changes occurring as a result of such workshops
(Mathison 1992). Past studies have noted that dissemination of materials
through workshops results in greater use of the resource by instructors (Mayer
and Fortner 1987). The participants of the writing retreat can become mentors

within the Michigan SIC program, since they are well acquainted with the

program.

Educators’ Perspectives

Participating educators’ perspectives were noted by May (2000) and
Romjue and Collins (1996) to be important to the success of a program. The
perspectives of the education stakeholders provided better understanding of their
use of programs, knowledge of subject matter, and both information sources and

methods used when teaching to students.

89

SIC Teachers' Perspectives

The perspectives of the SIC teachers will greatly determine the success of
the Michigan SIC program. All of the SIC teachers were early adopters of the
program. The majority of SIC teachers were younger than the other
stakeholders. Past studies have noted that the typical ”early adopters" are
younger teachers (Rogers 1983). Many of the SIC teachers had graduate
degrees and may have been aware of more hands-on curriculum opportunities
than more experienced teachers.

All of the teachers currently using the California SIC program had to be
creative in their ideas and take the time to teach themselves material that is not
typically included in classroom activities. They were willing to spend extra time,
effort, and often money to incorporate this new program into their classrooms to
beneﬁt their students. The positive attitudes these teachers had about the
program were reﬂected in their practice. SIC teachers liked the program and
planned to continue to use it, because they believed the program to be
worthwhile and were committed to it. Studies by Simmons (1998) and Walsh
(2000) indicated that educators' beliefs about a program’s worth are important to
the implementation of the program.

SIC teachers who had used the program for more than one year became
very familiar with the program and were able to develop additional teaching
ideas. SIC teachers reported that they vary activities depending on student
abilities, age level, subjects, key topics taught at each grade level, and available

time. Time is an important factor in choosing activities (Simmons 1998).

A/—H

Teachers may use an activity that takes one class period instead of three to “ﬁt”
an activity into their daily teaching.

There were drawbacks to using the California SIC curriculum in Michigan.
All of the SIC teachers noted having to alter the California SIC material. A
Michigan-speciﬁc program would allow educators to implement more activities.
Michigan SIC teachers had to alter the activities in part due to the fact that the
California manual only covers grades K-6. Michigan high school teachers trying
to use the program had to alter the activities in order to challenge their students'
skills. Teachers also have adapted the activities to incorporate Michigan
information, and to meet Michigan Curriculum Framework Standards and
Benchmarks.

These ﬁndings are consistent with Littledyke’s (1997) and O'Keefe and
Johnson’s (1989) belief that educators willing to adapt material to individual
situations increase the success of a program. These Michigan SIC teachers took
ownership of the material they used by altering the activities. These teachers
became more knowledgeable in the topics they taught by searching for
information and teaching themselves the background needed to conduct the
activities.

SIC teachers both infuse and separate SIC teachings from basic studies.
Many teachers, however, infuse SIC into math, science, art, and language arts
disciplines. The high percent of SIC teachers certiﬁed to teach all subjects in a
self-contained atmosphere is probably related to the high percent of the SIC

teacher respondents who have grade K-5 certiﬁcations. This indicates that the

91

 

 

 

 

CL

l0

sal
abs
Gull.

sllor

SIC program is appealing and practical at the elementary level. The effectiveness
of the SIC program may have been a factor in the teacher's decision to use the
curriculum.

SIC teachers reported that the program has been advantageous for
student Ieaming. SIC teachers noted that students had Ieamed responsibility and
how their actions affect the environment around them through participating in the
visual, hands-on activities of the SIC program. Environmental knowledge was
gained through active Ieaming where environmental concepts were integrated
into established disciplines, and hence interrelationships were recognized
(Goldstein and Lockwood 1980). Goldstein and Lockwood (1980) discussed how
curriculum conveyed through a multi-disciplinary approach encouraged students
to understand interdependent, associated concepts.

SIC teachers used most of the California manual concepts. There was a
relationship between many of the concepts used and Michigan Curriculum
Framework standards being met. In particular, many teachers addressed habitat
and life cycle concepts using the California SIC manual.

Few Michigan SIC teachers used the California manual to teach about ﬁsh
physiology. The physiology of salmon in California is rather different than that of
salmon in Michigan (i.e. the saltwater phase in the California salmon life cycle is
absent in salmon in the Great Lakes). The importance of salmon ﬁshing is also
quite different between the two regions, since the Michigan salmon are primarily

sport ﬁsh in comparison to Califomia’s commercial salmon industry.

92

Another topic not well addressed by Michigan SIC teachers was ethics.
Ethics are the personal rules or guidelines used when making decisions
(Matthews and Riley 1995). Ethics govern our actions by giving individuals
knowledge of what is right and the ability to act using this knowledge hence,

choosing the most just decision.

SIC and Other Educators’ Use of Fisheries and Watershed Education

Sources

SIC teachers use other sources to aid them in their teaching and to
address certain Michigan Curriculum Framework topics, such as food webs and
the water cycle. It is important to know where educators obtain their information,
and what sources are not being utilized. Ham and Sewing (1988) noted that
limited resources restrict an educator's information on the topic being taught.

There is a great amount of information obtained by the SIC teachers from
Fisheries Division personnel. Permits must be obtained by teachers from
Fisheries Division to possess the salmon; in addition, a Fisheries Division unit
manager initiated the use of the California manual and SIC program in Michigan
and remains the key contact.

Few SIC teachers obtained information from in-service training or
organizations. At this time, formal training is not offered as a part of the SIC
program in Michigan, although signiﬁcant one-on-one mentoring occurs.

Many of the education stakeholders obtained their ﬁsheries and watershed

information from the intemet. A web page for the Michigan SIC program would

93

be an optimal way to keep educators current on ﬁsheries information as well as
to target a large number of educators at once.

Environmental education programs could enhance the Michigan SIC
curriculum with information regarding ﬁsheries and watersheds that they contain.
There is a need to incorporate into a Michigan SIC program important concepts
related to ﬁsheries and watersheds without reinventing activities from other
programs, such as Project WILD-Aquatic or Project WET. These EE programs
play a role in the development of any new program, because those educators
certiﬁed in existing programs are already knowledgeable about aquatic resources
and teaching materials. Only a few of the SIC teachers were certiﬁed in other EE
programs, such as Project WILD or Project WET. Perhaps the SIC teachers
were unaware of these other programs, or were too busy with the SIC program.

Associations offer educators the opportunity to develop skills in and
knowledge of certain areas, and they offer networking channels in order to share
information about ﬁsheries and watersheds. Almost three-fourths of the
education stakeholder respondents were members of associations, indicating
that some networking already exists. Conferences offer a speciﬁc channel for
educators to ﬁnd out about new programs. In fact, at least ﬁve SIC teachers
currently use the SIC program because of a presentation they attended at a
Michigan Science Teachers Association Conference about Salmon in the
Classroom.

Fisheries stakeholders can provide ﬁsheries and watershed informational

resources for educators. Fisheries stakeholders were asked who their

94

audiences were, so that any possible links which already exist between the
ﬁsheries and education stakeholders could be known. It was not surprising to ﬁnd
that the sport ﬁshing organizations were targeting anglers, and the watershed
coalition groups were targeting riparian owners. Over seventy percent of all of
the ﬁsheries stakeholders believed their organization participated in educational
activities, yet teacher and youth audiences were less frequently mentioned as
audiences reached by ﬁsheries stakeholder organizations. Signiﬁcantly more
watershed groups than sport ﬁshing organizations currently target teachers. It
was noted by Zint and Crook (1998) that watershed coalitions acknowledge that
youth education is important in order to develop a responsible and informed
citizenry.

A Michigan SIC program focused on ﬁsheries and watershed
management would provide an opportunity for ﬁsheries stakeholder
organizations to communicate directly with teachers and youth. More
involvement by youth and families in ﬁsheries and watershed activities may lead
to improved conditions for ﬁsh and possibly greater membership and active
involvement within organizations. Members of these ﬁsheries stakeholder
organizations, serving as role models, could be incorporated directly into the

classroom.

Perspectives Regarding Educators’ K_nowledge and Teaching Methods

 

Knowledge of subject matter helps educators become comfortable in

teaching the topic and, in turn, leads to positive implementation of a program

95

(Bethel et al. 1982). Educators were asked to self-rate their knowledge to teach
certain topics. The levels of knowledge of all education stakeholders were
analyzed to target topics that need to be thoroughly addressed for ﬁrst-time users
of a ﬁsheries and watershed curriculum. In addition, this analysis pinpointed the
areas with which teachers are familiar and the areas where teachers lack
knowledge. The education stakeholders believed themselves to be most
knowledgeable to teach the topics of food webs, life cycles, habitat conservation,
and the water cycle. These topics are a part of the Michigan Curriculum
Framework Science Standards and Benchmarks.

Signiﬁcant differences were found between the percent of SIC teachers
and non-SIC educators reporting high knowledge in teaching various topics.
More SIC teachers than non-SIC educators considered themselves
knowledgable in topics directly related to issues addressed in the SIC curriculum
and not a part of “basic" subjects, such as math or social studies for example.
There was a signiﬁcantly greater percent of non- SIC educators than SIC
teachers who considered themselves knowledgeable in the topic of stewardship.
The non-SIC educators, environmental educators, often participate in programs
that convey the importance of stewardship to youth. All of the education
stakeholders lacked knowledge regarding the topic of ﬁsh ethics, and many did
not believe it to be an important topic that the Michigan SIC program should
address.

While developing a Michigan SIC curriculum, it is important to consider the

knowledge of educators who may use this program. Clearly, the Michigan SIC

96

curriculum should address the topics in which educators lack knowledge (e.g.,
ethics). From data gathered through the surveys and writing retreat, a
relationship was observed between comfort in teaching topics and personal
interest in salmon. The SIC teacher respondents were more involved in aquatic
outdoor activities, such as salmon ﬁshing and boating, while the non-SIC
educator respondents were more involved in outdoor activities that were
terrestrial and non-consumptive. These differences were meaningful; the
importance of aquatic activities in the SIC teachers’ lives may have contributed
greatly to their motivation for bringing SIC into their classrooms. Overall, the
various education stakeholders had similar ideas of the occurrence of teaching of
ﬁsheries and watershed topics currently taught by educators.

The teaching methods that the education stakeholders used and methods
they considered valuable may affect their views of which concepts should be
taught in the Michigan SIC curriculum. SIC teachers and non-SIC educators
ranked valuable teaching methods similarly. Each individual educator, within their
own teaching context on a daily basis, determines the value of both the material
taught and the method used. One method of teaching cannot engage all students
in the Ieaming process. Through the evaluation of various teaching methods that
the education stakeholders used in their classrooms, many useful teaching
methods will be incorporated into a Michigan SIC program, such as critical
thinking and outdoor teaching strategies.

SIC teachers and non-SIC educators ranked valuable teaching methods

similarly. Educators know the importance of hands-on, applied Ieaming.

97

Although lectures were often used to convey information to students, these
education stakeholders did not believe that the lecture teaching method was very
valuable. Any curriculum should include teaching methods that educators ﬁnd
valuable, in order that the curriculum is later used by educators.

Through their survey responses and their participation in the writing
retreat, the education stakeholders have assisted in the development of the
Michigan SIC program. These education stakeholders have provided information
about current use of programs and their views on teaching methods and topics to
address in the Michigan curriculum. By including these educators in the
development of a ﬁsheries and watershed program, there is a sense of
ownership of the material and hence, as Wright (1985) noted, the program is
likely to be implemented in the manner written. The Michigan SIC curriculum will

be tailored to participants’ needs.

Interests of Survey Participants

By investigating the recreational activities of the stakeholders, program
designers have Ieamed information useful in implementing the SIC program.
Survey results show that personal experiences with outdoor recreation activities
such as ﬁshing may have inﬂuenced interest in participation in SIC. Signiﬁcantly
more of the ﬁsheries than education stakeholders participated in the outdoor
activities of boating, hunting, ﬁshing, and ﬁshing for salmon both in streams and
the Great Lakes three and more times in the past year. In comparison, a

signiﬁcantly higher percent of education than ﬁsheries stakeholders participated

98

in other types of outdoor activities (such as bird watching and hiking). There was
a high number of SIC teachers that held an interest in salmon ﬁshing prior to
using the California SIC curriculum. Such results suggest a potential for
marketing the Michigan SIC program ﬁrst among teachers who are anglers or

familiar with water-based recreation.

The Michigan SIC Program

The topics that should be considered in the Michigan SIC curriculum can
be determined by examination of which topics survey respondents and writing
retreat participants rated as important. Signiﬁcant differences were found
between the ﬁsheries stakeholders and education stakeholders concerning the
importance of topics to be addressed. A greater percent of ﬁsheries than
education stakeholders believed that the resource management topics were
important to be addressed in a ﬁsheries and watershed education program. On
the other hand, a greater percent of education stakeholders noted that topics
included in the Michigan Curriculum Framework Standards (i.e. life cycles, food
webs, and the water cycle) were important for inclusion. Meeting the Michigan
Curriculum Framework Standards and Benchmarks is very important in local
school districts today. The SIC curriculum must address both Michigan
Curriculum Framework and ﬁsheries management topics.

Speciﬁc topics needed for inclusion were noted by the survey respondents
and writing retreat participants. Restoration and conservation were topics that

ﬁsheries stakeholders rated as more important than did education stakeholders.

99

The education stakeholders considered themselves knowledgeable in the topic of
conservation but not restoration. The topic of human inﬂuences on the aquatic
environment was important to all stakeholders, and many of the education
stakeholders considered themselves knowledgeable about this topic. The topic of
ethics was important to ﬁsheries stakeholders, although education stakeholders
were not knowledgeable about teaching this topic.

The activities in the Michigan SIC curriculum need to be suitable for
teaching ﬁsheries and watershed concepts to all age levels, including secondary
grades. Curricula from other SIC states have included activities for use in high
schools. The low percent of current SIC teachers who teach at the high school
level may indicate the need to market this program with aquaculture educators,
environmental education program coordinators, and MAEOE members who
teach high school. The Michigan SIC program could be a part of biology classes.
Also, implementation of the program at the high school level could be made
possible through after-school clubs.

The Michigan SIC program could be used in many'education settings. At
this time no interpretive centers, nature centers, or Michigan State University
Extension system staff participate in the SIC program. From the survey, it was
Ieamed that educators in nature centers wished to participate in the program.
Interpretive centers would be optimal settings for local Michigan SIC programs,
so that partnerships between schools and natural resource facilities may be

created.

100

Limitations of time, space, support, and resources vary amongst
educators (Simmons 1998). The SIC curriculum should address these potential
limitations. Fisheries stakeholders believed that a connection with local groups
was important in educators’ decisions to use new environmental programs.
These local watershed and ﬁsheries related organizations desired to be involved
in a SIC education program. Additional time, effort, and money are required to
bring new ideas to students. Often, ﬁsheries stakeholders search to fund new
education projects that will reach youth.

The SIC teachers knew ﬁrst-hand the roadblocks that deter an educator
from participating in SIC, such as lack of training and educator networking. The
education stakeholders noted in-service training to obtain knowledge on topics to
be important, though at present time, such training for the SIC program is not
offered. Speciﬁcally, educators certiﬁed in Project WILD-Aquatic, just one of
many EE programs, believed in-service training played a role in educators’
decisions. These educators have been through training and appreciate the
positive impacts of such programs and the associated teacher networks.
Educators need training on how to use curriculum materials and how to seek
follow-up assistance in implementing the teaching activities. Success of a
ﬁsheries and watershed education curriculum, such as SIC, may be dependent
on providing such training for users.

A signiﬁcantly greater percent of education than ﬁsheries stakeholders
believed a correlation to Michigan Curriculum Framework Standards inﬂuenced

education participation. Because educators have to deal with Michigan

101

Curriculum Framework Standards and Benchmarks and MEAP test requirements
daily, they know the importance of meeting such criteria. The Michigan
Curriculum Framework should be addressed in the Michigan SIC program
through clearly showing how each SIC activity or topic helps in teaching speciﬁc

Standards or Benchmarks.

Study Limitations

There were a number of possible limitations to this study. These
limitations were categorized into four areas:

0 study groups,

0 representation of ﬁsheries and watershed groups by individuals,

0 survey instruments, and

. response rates.

Not all possible ﬁsheries and education stakeholders of Michigan were
included in this study. The study groups included were those which, for the most
part, are already involved in education programs or are supportive of the SIC
program. For example, staff members from the US. Fish and Wildlife Service
(US. FWS) were not included in this study. Since the US. FWS and some other
groups support lake trout rehabilitation rather than Paciﬁc salmon introduction in
Great Lakes waters, responses from representatives of these groups might have
affected observed results in this study.

The majority of education stakeholders were MAEOE members. These

educators’ perspectives may not have been representative of all educators in

102

 

 

Mi

Be
edl

EC(

ﬁsl

wa
grc
me
prc

the

F0

an

not
res
SDe
36d

knob

Michigan. Most MAEOE members are educators, and most educators know the
importance of teaching the Michigan Curriculum Framework Standards and
Benchmarks. So, MAEOE members’ beliefs in environmental and outdoor
education may have affected their strong ratings of certain stewardship or
ecological topics to include in SIC.

Since there was a limited budget for this study, every member of sport
ﬁshing clubs and watershed coalitions could not be surveyed. For ﬁsheries
stakeholders, only one person served as the voice of each organization or
watershed coalition. It was believed that the president, an ofﬁcer, or director of a
group could serve as the voice for their organization, since they were chosen by
members to hold their position. There is some likelihood that these participants
provided feedback as individuals, and may not have represented the opinions of
the entire group.

The surveys used in this study may have had limitations caused by item
construction as well as by possible misinterpretations by the survey respondents.
For some survey questions, deﬁnitions might have assisted respondents as they
answered the questions. For example, better deﬁnitions of “educator" and
“ethics” may have helped respondents, since many education stakeholders were
not formal educators, and “ethics” is a difﬁcult term for many to deﬁne. The
respondents may have sometimes misinterpreted directions for completion of
speciﬁc survey questions. A few participants mistakenly completed or skipped
sections of the survey. Finally, respondents were asked to self-rate their

knowledge; a more valid measure of knowledge might have been obtained if the

103

researcher had created a “test” of actual knowledge, but this would have
lengthened the survey considerably.

Finally, the response rate may have been a possible study limitation.
Since there was not a 100% response rate, non-respondents’ perspectives might
have differed from those of respondents. However, the percent of non-response
was equivalent across all study subgroups (Fisheries Division staff,
organizational opinion leaders, SIC teachers, and non-SIC educators). This
seems to indicate that ﬁsheries and watershed education is equally important to
all of the survey groups, and study results probably reﬂect equally well the

perspectives of all these groups.

104

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
CHAPTER 6

The ﬁndings of this study can to be applied readily in the development of
the SIC curriculum for Michigan. The input of the stakeholders will have value in
the development of a practical Michigan SIC curriculum. By Ieaming about SIC
teachers’ needs and successful use of activities, a program can be designed that
is better suited for Michigan than the California SIC manual. The decisions by an
educator of what to teach are dependent on personal knowledge of and attitudes
toward the material, state and local standards and benchmarks, and school and
community support. The active involvement of the educator in curriculum
development is essential to the success of a program.

A curriculum should be developed with many factors in mind. Student
Ieaming is the main objective of any program. What students Ieam and how they
Ieam the material are inﬂuenced by how the educator implements the curriculum
and the teaching strategies that are used. A Michigan Salmon in the Classroom
program would teach students the history of human impacts on ﬁsheries and on
watersheds throughout Michigan, the watershed’s importance for salmon and
other ﬁshes, the need for conservation of ﬁsh habitats, and the role that ﬁsheries
biology plays in ﬁsheries conservation and management. Learners will come

away from the program experience with a more informed perspective about the

105

complexity of life in Michigan watersheds and with motivation for involvement in
watershed and ﬁsheries improvement.

Conclusions and recommendations from this study are listed in order of
their importance for the Michigan SIC program. These conclusions and

recommendations include ten points.

0 The program should be developed to increase awareness, appreciation,
and scientiﬁc knowledge of the importance of ﬁsheries and ﬁsheries
management. Additionally, the management goals and environmental
conditions of the Great Lakes region need to be included in Michigan SIC

curriculum.

0 Involvement of ﬁsheries stakeholders in the development and
implementation of the program ensures their concerns are met. Directly
involving these ﬁsheries and watershed experts and enthusiasts in public
outreach will help the public to become more knowledgeable about ﬁsh

production, hatcheries, and human inﬂuences on habitats.

o The Michigan SIC program curriculum should encourage organization and
community involvement. Educators can gather much information from
local ﬁsheries and watershed agencies and organizations. Community and
organization involvement also provides a diversity of information for the
Ieamers. The. involvement of interest groups in the Michigan SIC program
would increase the organizations’ contributions to youth, teachers, and

families.

106

The curriculum must be teacher-friendly, and ﬂexible in design so that
educators can choose activities matched with their time available, interests,
goals, and various priorities. Also, the SIC program should be interwoven

into basic studies and the material infused over the entire school year.

The Michigan SIC curriculum needs to incorporate hands-on, applied
teaching methods. The lecture teaching method should be included in the

Michigan SIC curriculum to convey background information to educators.

A standardized procedure within the curriculum for aquarium set-up will
help educators avoid the frustrations of trial and error and will foster

salmon survival.

The curriculum should be developed to allow segments of the program to

be used even if ﬁsh are not available in the classroom.

The Michigan SIC program should consider and alleviate the challenges

faced by educators wanting to participate in new environmental programs.

Required in-service training will provide educators with background
knowledge, will develop their comfort in teaching, and will provide

resources for additional ﬁsheries and watershed information.

The recommendations of in-service training and web page access
suggests that the available curriculum should be administered through an
educational institution, such as Michigan State University. A joint

partnership with MDNR Fisheries Division could be maintained for

107

 

 

 

 

 

deVeI
Its ma
sialkel

IIIiOrm'

technical assistance, providing accurate biological and management

information.

Future Research and Evaluation
The results of this study may help guide prospective research in the area
of education program design. For future research and evaluation related to the

SIC program, there are three suggestions.

9 The ﬁrst version of the Michigan SIC curriculum should be piloted by the
current Michigan SIC teachers and a few educators new to the program.
Feedback from these educators could be used make revisions and

strengthen the curriculum.

9 A long-term study should determine if involvement in the SIC program
enhances students’ awareness, knowledge attitudes, and stewardship

behaviors toward salmon, ﬁsheries, and watersheds.

9 Further studies on the SIC program could investigate whether participation

in the program improves students’ MEAP scores.

The goal of the Michigan SIC program was not to reinvent the wheel, but to
develop a solid ﬁsheries and watershed education program that uses salmon as
its main focus. This study assessed the perspectives of ﬁsheries and education
stakeholders concerning ﬁsheries and watershed education. Integrating the

information Ieamed from stakeholders about program objectives to include in the

108

__.—-—""‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

development of curricula, and using partnerships for implementing the program,

will lead to the creation of the best possible stewardship education program.

109

Literature Cited

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Resources and Materials for the study of
Salmonids in Alaska Classrooms. [Online] Available
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/Region2/ie/sicc/html/classres.stm, July 23,
2001.

Alberts, B.M. and J. Tuomi. 1995. Educating Students for the 21st Century. On
Common Ground 4: 6-7.

Armstrong , 0.6., and T.V. Savage. 1994. Secondary education : an
introduction. Macmillan, New York.

Bainer, D.L., D. Cantrell, and P. Barron. 1997. Professional development of
environmental educators through partnerships. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the North American Association for Environmental
Education, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service, ED 412 118).

----- 2000. Professional development of non-formal environmental educators
through school-based partnerships. Journal of Environmental Education
32(1): 36-45.

Bainer, D.L. and D. Williams. 1995. Evaluating the effects of environmental
science programs on teachers, students, and communities (Part II:
Partnering for Elementary Environmental Science Program). Draft copy.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service, ED 391 667).

Ballantyne, RR. and J.M. Parker. 1996. Teaching and Ieaming in environmental
education: developing environmental conceptions. Journal of
Environmental Education 27(2): 25-32.

Beiswenger, R., E.L. Sturges, and R. Jones. 1992. Water education in Wyoming:
assessing educators’ knowledge of water topics and their use in the
elementary curriculum. Journal of Environmental Education 23: 24-29.

Benjamin, 0M. 1998. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytcha) population
dynamics in Lake Michigan, 1985-1996. Unpublished M.S.Thesis.
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Bethel, L.J., J.D. Ellis, and JP Barufaldi. 1982. The effects of a NSF institute
on in-service teachers’ views of science and attitudes toward
environmental science education. Science Education 66(4): 643-651.

110

Bloom, K., compiler. 1997. Watershed group survey information. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources project. Lansing, MI.

Blum, A. 1988. Think globally, act locally, plan centrally. The Journal of
Environmental Education 19(2): 3-8.

Borzadt, DA. 1975. Series of interviews. Unpublished report. Professor of
Science Education, College of Education Oakland University, Rochester,
Michigan.

Bowers, B. 1991. Teacher involvement in curriculum development. Research
Roundup 7(3): 1-5.

Bowers, P. Oregon Department of Fisheries and Wildlife education
personnel. Hines, Oregon. Personal communication. 2001.

Brody, M.J. 1993. Student understanding of water and water resources: a
review of the literature. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service, ED 144 779).

Buttner, J.K., F. Hanes, C. Lewis, D. Leavitt, S. Scares, and R. Audet. 1999.
Teaching science through aquaculture: the AQUA experience.
Proceedings: Ninth National Extension Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Aquaculture Conference (pp.181-184). Portland, Maine.

Carl, L.M. 1982. Natural reproduction of Coho salmon and Chinook salmon in
some Michigan streams. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 2: 375-380.

Chase, L.C., T.M. Schusler, and DJ. Decker. 2000. Innovations in stakeholder
involvement: What’s the next step? Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1): 208-
21 7. .

Childress, RB. 1978. Public school environmental education curricula: A
national proﬁle. The Journal of Environmental Education 9 (3): 2-11.

Cole, Joanna.1997. The Magic school bus goes upstream: A book about salmon
migration. Scholastic Inc. NY. 32pp.

Cone, Molly. 1994. Come back salmon: How a group of dedicated kids adopted
Pigeon Creek and brought it back to life. Sierra Club Juveniles, CA. 48pp.

Connelly, N.A., T.L. Brown, and BA. Knuth. 2000. Do anglers and ﬁshery
professionals think alike? Fisheries (25): 21-25.

111

Clark, R.D. Jr. 1996. Status of Chinook salmon in the upper Great Lakes,
1995. MDNR Fisheries Division Administrative Report. Lansing, MI.

Crockenburg, V. and WW. Clark. 1979. Teacher participation in school
decision making: the San Jose teacher involvement project. Phi Delta
Kappan 60(10):118.

Crocker, R.K. and H. Banﬁeld. 1986. Factors inﬂuencing teacher decisions
on school, classroom, and curriculum. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 3(9): 805-816.

Cronin-Jones, LL. 1991. Science teacher beliefs and their inﬂuence on
curriculum implementation: two case studies. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 28(3): 235-250.

Dann, S.L. 1993. The Life of the Lakes: Great Lakes Fishery. Michigan Sea
Grant. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 43pp.

Day, JoAnne. Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans Education
curriculum specialist. British Columbia, Canada. Personal communication.
2001.

DeBono, P. 1996. September's St.Joe salmon and steelhead: the salmon are
running via the 13-year $15 million interstate anadromous ﬁsh project.
Indiana Game and Fish Magazine.

Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Education and Communication
Systems (ANRECS). 1999. Michigan Agriscience Program Directory.
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Department of Environmental Quality. Michigan Watershed List. [Online]
Available http://www.deq.state.mi.us/swawatershd/, September 10, 2000.

Dillman, DA. 2000. Mail and intemet surveys: The tailored design method.
John Wiley & Sons , New York, NY.

Eshenroder, R.L., M.E. Holey, T.K. Gorenﬂo, and R.D.Jr. Clark. 1995. Fish-
community objectives for Lake Michigan. Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Special Publications 95-3. Ann Arbor, MI. 56pp.

Fazio, RH. and MP. Zanna. 1981. Direct experience and attitude-behavior
consistency. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 14:161-198.

112

Ferguson, P. and ST. Womack. 1993. The impact of subject matter and
education coursework on teaching performance. Journal of Teacher
Education 44(1): 55-63.

Fielding, M. 1994. Valuing difference in teachers and Ieamers: building on Kolb’s
Ieaming styles to develop a language of teaching and Ieaming. The
Curriculum Journal 5(3): 393-417.

Fortner R.W. and R.L. Meyer. 2000. Discrepancies among teachers’ priorities
for and knowledge of freshwater topics. Journal of Environmental
Education 31(4): 51-53.

Gallagher, J.L. and K. Hogan. 2000. Intergenerational, community-based
Ieaming and science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
37(2): 107-108.

Garling, D. and Dann, S.L. 1995. Status and Potential of Michigan Natural
Resources, Special Report 74, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Garling, D. Professor in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan
State University. East Lansing, MI. Personal Communication, 2001.

Goldstein, B.V. and LG. Lockwood. 1980. Experimental basics: ahead to
basics. Journal of Environmental Education 12(1):24-28.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 1971. Minutes, annual lake committee
meetings (1970) for Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie,
and Lake Ontario. Ann Arbor, MI.

Grifﬁn, CB. 1999. Watershed coalitions: an emerging form of public participation
in natural resource management. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 35(3): 505-517.

Habron, G. Assistant professor in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at
Michigan State University. Michigan Watershed Groups. [Online] Available
http://www.msu.edu/~habrong/miwtrshd.htm#watershedgroups,
September 12, 2000. East Lansing, MI.

Ham, SH. and DR. Sewing. 1988. Barriers to environmental education.
Journal of Environmental Education 19(2): 17-23.

Hesse, J. 1994. Contribution of hatchery and natural Chinook salmon to the

eastern Lake Michigan ﬁshery. Unpublished MS. Thesis. Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

113

Hunting and Fishing Heritage Task Force. 1996. Governor John Engler’s
hunting and ﬁshing heritage task force recommendations: A report
submitted to Governor John Engler, ﬁnal report. MDNR,

Lansing, MI. 17pp.

The Informal Education Webpage. KoIb-Experimental Learning. [Online]
Available http:/lwww.infed.org/biblio/b-explm.htm>, January 30, 2001.

IL School Board Journal. 1999. 21St century . 67(2):26-28.

Jaus, H. 1978. The effect of environmental education instruction on teachers’
attitudes toward teaching environmental education. Science Education
62(1): 79-84.

Keller, M., K.D. Smith, and R.W. Rybicki, editors. 1990. Review of salmon and
trout management in Lake Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Fisheries Special Report 14, Charlevoix, Ml.

King, L.E. Jr., and V.C. Applegate. 1969. Report of appearance of salmon in
Hammond Bay of Lake Huron and of salmon runs in the Ocqueoc River,
Presque Isle County, Michigan- 1969. US. Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries. Great Lakes Fisheries Laboratory. Administration Report . Ann
Arbor, MI.

Kolb, D.A. 1976. Learning Style Inventory: Technical manual. McBer, Boston,
MA.

Knapp, CK. 1992. Lasting lessons: A teacher’s guide to reﬂecting on
experience. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools,
Charleston, WV.

Knuth, B.A., S. Lerner, N.A. Connelly, and L. Gigliotti. 1995. Fishery and
environmental managers’ attitudes about and support for lake trout
rehabilitation in the Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research
21 (Supplement 1): 185-197.

Landau, M. 1992. Introduction to Aquaculture. John Wiley 8 Sons , NY, NY.
Lane, J., R. Wilke, R. Champeau, and D. Sivek. 1994. Environmental education
in Wisconsin: a teacher survey. Journal of Environmental Education
5(4):9-17.
--—--- 1995. Strengths and weaknesses of teacher environmental education

preparation in Wisconsin. Journal of Environmental Education 27(1): 36-
45.

114

Leeper, RR. 1966. Curriculum Change: Direction and Process. Speeches
presented at Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Annual Conference (21st, San Francisco, California, March 12-17, 1966).
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Washington,
DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 072 535).

Lemons, J. 1989. The need to integrate values into environmental curriculum.
Environmental Management 13 (2):133-147.

Littledyke, M. 1997. Science education for environmental education? Primary
teacher perspectives and practices. British Educational Research Journal
23(5): 641 -659.

Lorson, M. 1993. Integrating science mathematics, and environmental
education: resources and guidelines. Journal of Science Teacher
Education 4(3): 92-96.

Mathison, S. 1992. An evaluation model for in-service teacher education.
Evaluation and Program Planning 15:255-261.

Matsche, CW. 1981. Degree of inﬂuence by teachers and principals in
curriculum development. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Wayne State
University, Detroit, MI.

Matthews, BE. and OK. Riley. 1995. Teaching and evaluating outdoor ethics:
Outdoor ethics education programs. National Wildlife Federation,
Washington 0.0.

May, TS. 2000. Elements of success in environmental education through
practitioner eyes. Journal of Environmental Education 31(3): 4-11.

Mayer, V.J. and R.W. Fortner. 1983. Ohio students' knowledge and attitudes
about the Oceans and Great Lakes. Ohio Journal of Science 83(5): 218-
24.

McCaw, SC. 1979. Teacher attitudes toward environmental education.
Journal of Environmental Education 11(2):18-23.

McGlinn, E. 1996. The anglers' environment in Michigan. The Riverwatch, A
Quarterly Newsletter of the Anglers of the Au Sable 22.

Michigan Department of Education (MDE). 1996. Michigan Curriculum
Framework. Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, MI.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 1989. Fisheries Division
planting records. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Lansing, MI.

115

Microsoft Corporation. 2000. Getting results with Microsoft Ofﬁce for windows
2000. (Computer program). Redmond, WA.

Murphy, AP, and R.K. Coppola. 1997. GLOBE: a science/education
partnership program. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service, ED 414 155).

Newhouse, N. 1990. Implications of attitude and behavior research for
environmental conservation. Journal of Environmental Education
22(1):26-32.

Nevala, A.E. 1997. An evaluation of educators’ participation in the Great Lakes
Education Program (GLEP). Unpublished MS. Thesis. Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE). 2000.
Guidelines for the initial preparation of environmental educators. North
American Association for Environmental Education. Rock Spring, GA.

Norusis, M.J. 1999. SPSS for windows: Base system user’s guide release 9.0.
(Computer program). SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.

O’Keefe, P. and M. Johnston. 1989. Perspective taking and teaching
effectiveness: A connecting thread through developmental literatures.
Journal of Teacher Education 40(3): 20-26.

Parsons, J.W. 1973. History of salmon in the Great Lakes, 1850-1970. US.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Technical Paper 68, Washington,
DC, USA.

Patton, MO. 1987. How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Sage
Publications, Newberry Park, CA.

Peltier, G. 1967. Teacher participation in curriculum revision: an historical case
study. History of Education Quarterly 7:47.

Post, H. 1894. Fish culture in Michigan. Bulletin U.S. Fisheries Comm. 13: 201-
211.

Rakow, SJ. 1982. Teachers and aquatic education—a survey. Paper
presented at the Minnesota Academy of Sciences Meeting at Gustavus
College, St. Peter, MN (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 233

437)

116

---- 1984. Development of a conceptual structure for aquatic education
and its application to existing aquatic curricula and needed curriculum
development. Journal of Environmental Education 19(1):25-30.

Richardson, C. and S. Rushton. 2000. Aquatic resource education and sport
ﬁsh restoration. Celebrating 50 years of the sport ﬁsh restoration
program, supplement to Fisheries, 25(7):68-70.

Ritter, T. Normal, chi-square and Kolmogorov-Smimov statistics functions in
JavaScript. [Online]. Available
httpzllwww.io.com/~ritter/JAVASCRP/NORMCHIK.HTM>, June 18,2001.

Rogers, C. 1969. Freedom to Learn. Merrill, Columbus, OH. 406pp.

Rogers, E.W. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press of Glencoe, NY.
367pp.

Romjue, MK. and L.J. Collins. 1996. The inﬂuence of teacher attitude upon
teacher effectiveness: vignettes in environmental science education.
Science Education International 7(3): 24-29.

Rozich, Tom. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division
Central Lake Michigan Unit Manager. Cadillac, MI. Personal
communication. 2000-2001.

Samuel, H. (1993). Impediments to Implementing Environmental Education.
Journal of Environmental Education 25(1): 26-29.

SAS Institute. (1999). Statistical Analytical System 8.0. (Computer program).
SAS Institute, Cary, NC.

Sattler, J. and T. Kiley. 2000. It takes a village: promoting multidisciplinary
leadership through a professional development school (PDS) partnership.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service,
ED 440 075).

Schroeder, Brandon. Michigan United Conservation Clubs Fisheries Specialist.
Lansing, MI. Personal Communication. 2000.

Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-
Hill, NY. 312pp.

Simmons, D. 1998. Using natural settings for environmental education:
perceived beneﬁts and barriers. Journal of Environmental Education
29(3): 23-31.

117

Simpson, P.R., J. McLaughlin, T. Volk, and H. Hungerford. 1989. A survey
concerning teachers” perceptions of the Importance of SRSI issues.
Journal of Environmental Education 21(1):31-37.

Sizer, TR. 1996. Horace’s hope: what works for the American high school.
American School Board Journal 183 (9): 37-40. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service, EJ 537516 ).

Slater, Ted. A Deﬁnition and Model for Communication. [Online] Available
<www.ijot.com/tedlpapers/communication.html>, January 28, 2001.

Smith, D.M. and D.A. Kolb. 1986. User's guide for the Learning Style Inventory:
A manual for teachers and trainers. McBer, Boston, MA.

Smith-Sebasto, NJ. 1998. Environmental education in the University of Illinois
Cooperative Extension service: an educator survey. Journal of
Environmental Education 29 (2): 21-30.

Smith-Sebasto, NJ. and TL. Smith. 1997. Environmental education in Illinois
and Wisconsin: a tale of two states. Journal of Environmental Education
28 (4): 26—36.

Soulé, ME. 1980. Thresholds of survival: maintaining ﬁtness and evolutionary
potential. Pages 151-170 in Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary -
Ecological Perspective. Sinauer Associates Sunderiand, MA.

Southham, Teresa. Southham Consulting Curriculum President. British
Columbia, Canada. Personal communication. 2001.

Stanford, JP. 1984. The inﬂuence of class ability level on biology teaching
practices. Pages 75-89 in Bethel. Curriculum evaluation , classroom
methodology, and theoretical models/ research and curriculum
development in science education. Science Education Center, Austin,
TX.

Stinton, Carl. Seattle Public Utilities. Seattle, WA. Personal communication.
June 1,2000.

Stratemeyer, F. 1957. Developing a curriculum for modern living. Bureau of
Publications, NY . 661pp.

Tody W.H. and HA Tanner. 1966. Coho salmon for the Great Lakes. Michigan

Department of Conservation, Fish Management Report 1, Charievoix, MI.
38 pp.

118

Wade, K. 1996. EE teacher in-service education: the need for new
perspectives. Journal of Environmental Education 27(2): 11-17.

Walsh, J. 2000. 4-H and sport ﬁshing programs-a natural partnership. Page 8 in
National 4-H Sport ﬁshing Program draft curriculum. Texas A 8. M. College
Station, TX.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (VVDFW). 1996. Salmon in the
Classroom 1991-1995 program evaluation. WDFW. Seattle, WA.

Weeder, J.A. 1997. A genetic comparison of Lake Michigan Chinook salmon to
their source population. Unpublished MS. Thesis. Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

Wint, D.M. and W.R. Kennedy. 1977. Strategies affecting successful
implementation of an environmental curriculum into Ohio schools. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ohio Academy of Science,
Columbus, OH (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 144 779).

World Conservation Congress! IUCN 1997. Partnerships: the way forward. 3-
4:30.

Wright, R. 1985. Motivating teacher involvement in professional growth
activities. The Canadian Administrator 24(5):1-6.

Yager, RE. 1991. The constructivist Ieaming model. The Science Teacher
58(6): 52- 57.

Young, C. and D. Simmons. 1992. Urban teachers’ perspectives on teaching
natural resources. Women In Natural Resources 13(3): 39-42.

Zint, M. and A. Crook. 1998. A needs assessment of ﬁsheries education
materials for youth. Fisheries 23(10):24-34.

119

APPENDICES

120

Appendix A: The History of Salmon Introduction in Michigan

Over the past 125 years, exotic species of trout, such as rainbow
steelhead and brown trout; and salmon, such as chinook, coho, pink, masu,
kokanee, and landlocked Atlantic salmon, have been stocked into the waters of
Michigan (Parsons 1973). One main reason for planting these salmonids was the
decline of native stocks of ﬁsh in the Great Lakes. This decline was due to
commercial exploitation, the invasion of exotic species, eutrophication, and
inadequate management of resources (Keller et al. 1990). Many factors,
including the arrival of alewife, sea lamprey, and smelt, played roles in the
decision to stock coho and chinook salmon in the Great Lakes and in the
successes and failures of the salmon plantings.

Three exotic ﬁsh species have greatly affected native and introduced ﬁsh
stocks through predatory and competitive interactions: alewife, sea lamprey, and
smelt. The opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1829 allowed alewife, a
forage ﬁsh, to invade the lower Great Lakes systems (Debono 1996). In the
19603, 80% of the ﬁsh biomass in Lake Michigan was alewife (Keller et al. 1990).
In addition, the alewife changed the ecology of the Great Lakes by their
competition with native forage ﬁshes. In the mid-19605, the alewife die-off
reached the millions due to rapid changes in water temperature. Dead alewife
littered the beaches of some of the Great Lakes.

The opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway also allowed the sea lamprey, a

parasite, to journey into the lower Great Lakes systems (Debono 1996). The

121

reduction by the parasitic sea lamprey of the native predatory ﬁshes, lake trout
and burbot, allowed the alewife to become highly abundant (Smith 1970).

As early as 1912, smelt were deliberately introduced as a forage ﬁsh into
the Great Lakes (Dann 1993). Smelt prey heavily on young-of-year ﬁsh, and their
introduction into lakes led to major declines of native species, particularly lake
trout, whiteﬁsh and cisco (Keller, 1970).

The initial introduction of exotic chinook and coho salmon in the 1870s
was to enhance Great Lakes ﬁsheries and was intended to develop self-
sustaining populations to support commercial and recreational ﬁsheries (Parsons
1973). The ﬁrst attempts at planting chinook salmon used small lots of fry
distributed into a broad range of habitats including many streams, inland lakes,
and all of the Great Lakes surrounding Michigan (Post 1894). Later
introductions, from 1920-1949, were of larger plantings of ﬁngerlings in streams.
Fingerlings were planted rather than fry because they are larger, and their
chances of survival were greater than the fry. The plantings from 1873-1947 of
chinook and coho salmon were considered failures since a sustained ﬁshery was
' not established (Parsons 1973).

In the 19505, ﬁsheries managers planned long-term introductions of
salmonids in the Great Lakes to establish self-sustaining populations, for
biological control of non-native planktivorous ﬁshes and the development of new
recreational ﬁsheries. (Parsons 1973). In 1966 and 1967, the Michigan
Department of Conservation began planting millions of coho and chinook salmon

smolt into the Great Lakes. Since earlier plantings of coho and chinook salmon

122

had not become self-sustaining populations, it was believed that stocking salmon
in the Great Lakes would provide a put-and-take sport ﬁshery. The planting of
coho salmon in 1966 was intended to amplify the ﬁsheries resource of the Great
Lakes to its maximum potential for recreational ﬁshing (Tody and Tanner 1966).
The ultimate aim was to convert the excess of low value ﬁsh, primarily alewife,
into an abundant, high value sport ﬁshery. Through intensive management of
high value ﬁsh species capable of consuming the superabundant “trash” ﬁsh as
forage, a depressed commercial ﬁsheries could be restored to a productive and
economically feasible recreational industry (Tody and Tanner 1966). Hence, a
multi-million dollar sport ﬁshery was born in Michigan.

For the salmon ﬁshery to develop and be a success, experiments had to
be conducted to determine the precise combination of sizes, age, number of ﬁsh
to be planted, and appropriate stocking sites. The early years of planting chinook
salmon provided valuable lessons for Michigan. The success of coho and
chinook salmon plantings varied in each of the Great Lakes. The chinook and
coho salmon sport ﬁshery has been most successful in Lake Michigan. Yet, the
capacity of Lake Michigan to support salmon is limited. Some conservationists
wondered if the numbers of planted coho, chinook, brown trout, lake trout, and
steelhead in Lake Michigan would exhaust the forage base (Parsons 1973).
Coho salmon ate smelt, sculpin, and bloater chubs in addition to alewives (Keller
et al. 1990).

Other questions and concerns arose regarding coho and chinook salmon.

By of 1970, salmon in Lake Huron showed signs of severe sea lamprey

123

predation. There was concern that increasing the number of chinook and coho in
Lake Huron would suppress the splake, a hybrid between lake trout and brook
trout (Mears 1972). Alewife populations in Lake Huron were not as large as
those in Lake Michigan. Since there was a limited forage base for salmon in
Lake Huron, salmon did not grow as large as the salmon of Lake Michigan.

The other three Great Lakes had less success in maintaining a self-
sustaining salmon ﬁshery. The habitat of Lake Erie was not well suited for
salmon. Oxygen depletion and eutrophication restricted the distribution of
salmon in the lake (King and Applegate 1969). In the late 1960s, it was
determined that a salmon ﬁshery would not be possible in Lake Ontario until sea
Iampreys were controlled (King and Applegate 1969). In Lake Superior, growth
and survival rates of coho and chinook salmon were low due to the cold waters.

Once the goal of a sport ﬁshing industry was realized, further steps were
necessary to maintain its success. An optimal balance of forage and salmon
were necessary to maintain maximum salmon growth. It was important that the
habitats of salmon, lakes and streams, be healthy for salmon to sustain their
signiﬁcant existence in Michigan waters. With the introduction of salmon into the
Great Lakes came more intensive stream ﬁsheries management. Many large
dams, which restricted the upstream movement of salmonids, were removed and
replaced by low head dams so that they could run upstream, but sea lamprey
movement would be blocked (Keller et al. 1990). Fish ladders were added to

some rivers to aid salmon in traveling above higher dams.

124

Keller et al. (1990) listed the habitat requirements biologists should use in
order to assess habitat quality for salmon in Michigan. First, the environmental
quality of the habitats should be monitored for changes that affect the salmon.
Human activity has constantly altered the habitats of salmon. Habitat loss and
degradation has been caused by land-use patterns. The management of
watersheds aids in restoring and maintaining stream habitat quality for salmonids
(Garling and Dann 1995). Secondly, predator-prey interactions must be
monitored, modeled, and managed, so that dramatic population shifts do not
occur. Third, the effects of inter- and intra-speciﬁc competition are important
within the ecosystem. Competition can occur for resources such as territory and
food both within and between different species of ﬁshes. This competition often
displaces the weaker ﬁsh. Individual stocks should be identiﬁed so that stocks
are not genetically altered through genetic drift (Keller et al. 1990).

Genetic drift is the random change in allelic frequencies (Weeder 1997).
Causes of drift in Great Lakes salmon include breeding practices and genetic
bottlenecks. All ﬁsh in the Great Lakes, even if perhaps once native to the
waters, cannot be considered "truly" native anymore due to the genetic
alterations caused by previous ﬁsh stocking. programs (Garling, personal
communication, 2001). A study by Weeder (1997), determined that there had
been signiﬁcant genetic drift in salmon in Lake Michigan from the original Green
River strain of salmon.

Due to past management decisions, genetic drift in Great Lakes chinook

and coho salmon has occurred. The average number of ﬁngeriings stocked into

125

Lake Michigan from 1976-1987 was 4 million (MDNR, 1989). The founding
stocks of chinook and coho salmon were relatively small. The vast majority of
these ﬁngerlings originated from less than 2500 brood ﬁsh annually captured
from the Little Manistee River, Michigan (MDNR, 1989). A bottleneck occurred
because of the number of eggs from the initial small number of spawners and the
few ﬁsh spawned annually. The difference in individual female reproductive
success was important in the genetic variability of stocks. Past hatchery practices
involved combining multiple males’ milt and fertilizing many females. The genetic
contribution of less successful females and males was lost (Weeder 1997). In the
past, hatcheries took eggs over only a few days in a short span of time.
Harvesting of spawning salmon currently occurs for many days over a 3-4 week
period of the spawning run (Hesse, 1994). Harvests taken consecutively over
the spawning run increase the genetic diversity.

Genetic diversity is a useful index to determine the health and stability of a
population. Low levels of diversity have indicated reduced disease resistance,
slow development, high mortality rates, and reduction of fertility (Weeder 1997).
Adaptation and long-term perseverance of animals in ever-changing
environments depends on genetic variation within the populations (Soulé 1980).
The understanding of the genetic variation of salmon is necessary for
management success of the chinook salmon (Weeder 1997).

Natural reproduction of chinook salmon has been observed in Michigan’s
waters (Cari 1982). Hesse (1994) estimated a natural reproduction rate of 35%

for chinook salmon in Lake Michigan in 1993. This trend of increasing natural

126

reproduction has probably been due to habitat and water quality improvement in
some spawning areas. Though natural reproduction of salmon is occurring, the
amount of production in the wild is dependent on the environmental conditions
and habitat characteristics of each stream and river (Hesse 1994). The
contribution of chinook salmon spawning in the wild must be accounted for in the
population estimates for the species to accurately adjust stocking levels so the
salmon number do not exceed the capacity of their forage base (Hesse 1994).

Efﬁcient management is crucial to the future success of the chinook
salmon ﬁshery (Hesse 1994). Ecosystem dynamics modeling may be useful to
predict the extent of changes within the lakes’ ecosystems. Modeling may
provide valuable information to MDNR Fisheries Division so that lake-wide
salmonid stocking plans can be determined and species-speciﬁc harvest levels
regulated (Benjamin 1998; Clark 1996; Eshenroder et al. 1995).

Studies have shown that the introduction of Paciﬁc salmon has altered the
ecology of Michigan waters. A reduction in stream benthic macroinvertebrate
populations has occurred due to the presence of salmon. This reduction
has limited the growth of native trout (e.g., brook and lake trout) in Michigan
waters (Keller et al. 1990).

Hesse (1994) observed chinook salmon spawning on and chinook salmon
eggs in various developing stages on a shoal traditionally used by lake trout.
There is concern that the salmon migrate into streams reducing some resident
ﬁsh populations and over-enriching these waters (McGlinn 1996). In the early

1990s, little was known about the potential impacts of salmon on the production

127

of forage stocks. Questions were also asked where the emphasis on
investments should be placed, into stocking salmonids or protecting habitat
(Dann 1993). Through scientiﬁc studies, more information is being discovered
about the amount of natural reproduction, the potential effects of the Paciﬁc
salmon in the waters of Michigan, and how much relative investment needs to be
made in hatchery rearing and stocking of salmon vs. protecting and improving
habitats for “naturalized” Paciﬁc salmon production. The MDNR Fisheries
Division still heavily supports the sport ﬁshery with hatchery-raised salmon.
Though the salmon have been beneﬁcial to the sport ﬁshery industry and
tourism, it must be remembered that Paciﬁc salmon are exotics in the Great
Lakes.

Some conservationists argue that more effort and money should be spent
on the reestablishment of native species, (e.g., lake trout), rather than on the
continued encouragement of non-native species, such as the Paciﬁc salmon.
However, it must be remembered that rainbow and brown trout are not native to
Michigan. With the introduction of many exotic species, Michigan ecosystems
have changed. Paciﬁc salmon inhabit the same areas of the Great Lakes as
alewives and consume many alewife as a part of their diets. Rehabilitation of only
native ﬁsh of the area is not possible because many of the native ﬁsh stocks are
extinct. Introduction of other strains of the species would be required.

The future of salmon ﬁsheries in Michigan is dependent on many
socioeconomic factors including goals set by management agencies, desires of

various sport ﬁshing groups, and related segments of the tourism industry.

128

Stakeholders need education based on strong scientiﬁc and ethical principles in
order to accomplish wise, natural-use resource planning. The development of a
SIC curriculum, using the input from diverse stakeholder groups can help reach a

sustainable ﬁsheries management in the Great Lakes and their tributaries.

129

Appendix B: Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS) Project Approval

 

RSEAROH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

university committee a
m m
It“ 8“
W at m
246 W am
Ell W10. W
0824-1046

517055-21”

FM snmzm

Web: museum/team
E-Mall. «armada

MICHIGAN STATE
0 N I v E R s I T Y

December 13. 2000

TO: Shari DANN
13 Natural Resources Bldg.

RE: IR8# 00-752 CATEGORYz1-C
APPROVAL DATE: December 11, 2000

TITLE: INLAND FISHERIES EDUCATION USING SALMON: SWIMS PROGRAM

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects’ (UCRIHS) review of this
project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human
subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval
date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green
renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to
continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written
request to the UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRBﬂ
and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments,
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMSICHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work.
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email
UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http:/lwww.msu.eduluserlucrihs

Sincerely,

.2th WW”?

Ashlr Kumar, MD
Interim Chair, UCRIHS

AK; rj
00: Laura 1. Granack
13 Natural Resources

130

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

March 16, 2001

TO: Shari DANN
13 Natural Resources Bldg.

RE: IRB # 00-752 CATEGORY: 1-C EXEMPT
TITLE: INLAND FISHERIES EDUCATION USING SALMON: SWIMS PROGRAM

ANNUAL APPROVAL DATE: December 11. 2000
REVISION REQUESTED: March 9. 2001
REVISION APPROVAL DATE: March 15, 2001

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project is
complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be
adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore. the
UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECT'S REVISION.

This letter approves the revised retreat questionnaire and revised consent.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal form.
A maximum of four such expedited renewal are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project
beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.
REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal form.
To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written request to the
UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project‘s IRBff and title. Include in
your request a description of the change and any revised instruments. consent forms or
advertisements that are applicable.
PROBLEMSICHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, notify
UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) Involving human
m or subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the
RESEARCH human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved. .
AND If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@piIot.msu.edu.

 

W S“! W ir Kumar, MD
“W W Interim Chair, UCRIHS
East Using. Mm
48824-1046
517355-le
FM 517553-2976
t: "MW AK; bd
E“: m'“ cc: Laura I. Granack

13 Natural Resources

131

Appendix C. Survey Cover Letters

DEPARIMENI Of
FISHERIES AND
WILDLIFE

W Slat Urmny

13 Nauru Rectum Balding

East Lansing. MI
48824-1222

517/355-4477
FAX fill/432 1699

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

NAME January 2. 2001
ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP

Dear NAME:

We need your input on bringing more ﬁsheries education into schools. In Michigan, the
introduction of the Salmon in the Classroom program into schools began in 1993. thanks to the
interest of enthusiastic teachers and Thomas Rozich. Michigan DNR Fisheries Division Central
Lake Michigan Unit Manager. The curriculum manual currently used by Michigan teachers is
from another state. This manual lacks speciﬁcs regarding ﬁsh habitats, watersheds, and
fisheries management in Michigan. A Michigan-specific Salmon in the Classroom program,
Schools Welcoming In Michigan Salmon (SWIMS). would be an advantageous way for teachers
to relate students' natural interests in watersheds, water quality, and ﬁsh to the Michigan Core
Curriculum Standards. We require your participation in order to develop a curriculum that best
combines all interests. For this reason, we are asking for about 15 minutes of your time to
complete the enclosed questionnaire regarding ﬁsheries and watersheds education in Michigan.

An investigation of personal knowledge and attitudes concerning ﬁsheries and watersheds of
the Great Lakes can provide information to strengthen and improve teachers’ impact on
students' knowledge of the ecological sciences. This investigation will help to identify what
interest group members believe to be the most important concepts for students to obtain from
the program. THEREFORE YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS SURVEY Is VERY IMPORTANT. Only a relatively
small number of educators and opinion leaders are being sent this questionnaire. Your
response is therefore essential to getting an accurate representation of what key groups think
about ﬁsheries education. Your response to this survey is completely voluntary. You indicate
your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality when ﬁlling out this survey. The survey has
identifying information for mailing purposes only. This is so that we may check your name off of
the mailing list when your survey is returned. Your name and address will never be
associated with your responses In any way. Only we, the facilitators of the project, will
summarize information from the surveys. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Feel free to call me at 517-353-
0675. If you have any further questions about participating in this study, you may also write to
Dr. David Wright, Chair of the Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects at 246 Administration Building, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824. or call him at
(517)355-2180.

If you respond by January 16, 2001, your name will be entered in a prize drawing to receive a
$50 gift certiﬁcate to Wal-Mart. Thank you for your assistance. Your contribution to the
success of this study will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely.

Shari L. Dann
Associate Professor of Fisheries and Wildlife

132

DEPARTMENT OF
FISHERIES AND
WILDLIFE

Manon Slat University

13 Natural Rescues; Balding
East taming. MI

«382‘- I222

517355-4477

FAX 5177432- 1699

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

NAME January 22, 2001
ADDRESS
ClW/STATEIZIP

Dear NAME:

Recently, we mailed you a ‘Fisheries and Watershed Education Survey'. As of today. we have
not received your completed survey. If you have just sent us your completed survey. we would
like to thank you for participating. If you have not yet ﬁlled out the survey, we hope you will take
the opportunity to do so now. We are sending you another survey. along with a stamped return
envelope, to make it easier for you to respond.

We need your input on bringing more ﬁsheries education into schools. We require your
participation in order to develop a curriculum that best combines all interests. For this reason.
we are asking for about 15 minutes of your time to complete the enclosed questionnaire
regarding ﬁsheries and watershed education in Michigan.

An investigation of personal knowledge and attitudes concerning ﬁsheries and watersheds of
the Great Lakes can provide information to strengthen and improve teachers' Impact on
students' knowledge of the ecological sciences. This investigation will help to identify what
interest group members believe to be the most important concepts for students to obtain from
the program. THEREFORE YOUR RESPONSE to THIS SURVEY is VERY IMPORTANT. Only a relatively
small number of educators and Opinion leaders are being sent this questionnaire. Your
response is therefore essential to getting an accurate representation of what key groups think
about ﬁsheries education. Your response to this survey is completely voluntary. You indicate
your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire.

You may be assured of complete conﬁdentiality when filling out this survey. The survey has
identifying information for mailing purposes only. This is so that we may check your name off of
the mailing list when your survey is returned. Your name and address will never be
associated with your responses In any way. Only we. the facilitators of the project. will
summarize information from the surveys. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Feel free to call me at 517-353-
0675. If you have any further questions about participating in this study, you may also write to
Dr. David Wright, Chair of the Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects at 246 Administration Building, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824. or call him at
(517)355-2180.

If you respond by February 28, 2001, your name will be entered in a prize drawing to receive
a $50 gift certiﬁcate. Thank you for your assistance. Your contribution to the success of this
study will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Shari L. Dann
Associate Professor of Fisheries and Wildlife

133

Appendix D. Survey Mailed to Fisheries Stakeholders

YOUR Interests
Concerning the Salmon in the Classroom Program and teaching about
MICHIGAN’S FISHERIES and WATERSHEDS

 

This survey assesses your knowledge and attitudes concerning ﬁsheries and
watershed education within the Great Lakes. Your participation will help in the
improvement of the SalmOn in the Classroom program and teacher recruitment to
this program. You do not have to participate in ﬁshing related activities in order to
fill out this survey. Space has been provided on the ﬁnal page for any comments
or concerns you have that have not been covered within the survey.

“Salmon In the Classroom” Is a program that combines the hands-on activity of
raising salmon in aquariums with curriculum activities that teach various ﬁsheries
topics such as ﬁsh biology, habitats, and watersheds, infused with basic school
subjects. Salmon in the Classroom is a program designed to foster public
stewardship of fisheries and the watersheds needed to support ﬁsh populations. A
Michigan-specific Salmon in the Classroom program, Schools Welcoming In
Michigan Salmon (SWIMS), would be an advantageous way for teachers to relate
students’ natural Interests in watersheds, water quality, and fish to the Michigan
Core Curriculum Standards in science, language arts, math, and social studies,
and to the specific topics of Michigan environmental science, geography, and
history.

As a member of a watershed or fisheries Interest groupI your background and

ideas about watersheds and fisheries are impprtant to the improvement of a
watershed and fisheries education program.

 

 

134

     
 

Environmental
Activities

We would like to ask you about your participation In outdoor activities.
1. How many times In the past year have you participated in the following outdoor activities?
(Circle one response for each activity.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activities Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently
0 times 1 - 2 times 3-5 times 6 or more
times

Bird watching N R S F
Boating N R S F
Camping N R S F
Fishing N R S F
Salmon ﬁshing in N R S F
the Great Lakes
Salmon fishing in N R S F
streams and rivers
Hiking N R S F
Hunting N R S F
Wildlife viewing N R S F
Other N R S F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. With what type of organization are you afﬁliated? ( Check one.)

Non-proﬁt (non-governmental)
Governmental ( MDNR, MDEQ, etc.)

 

Other
3. What is your role within your organization? (Check all that apply.)-
Volunteer Paid staff Committee Chair
Elected Ofﬁcer President Committee member
Board Chair Board member Executive Director
Program Coordinator Other

4. We would like to survey at least one member in your organization who is interested in
ﬁsheriesor watershed education. Do you hold such interests '7

 

 

 

NO c:>

If not, to whom in your organization should this survey be sent
Yes to?

Name

Address

City/ Zip

 

If you are not able to reply as representing your organization,
please do not continue ﬁlling out this survey.
Return the survey in the designated envelope.

 

 

 

135

5. Please indicate which of the following groups your organization actively provides information
to about your organization. (Check all that apply.)

general public riparian owners
youth teachers
families anglers
watershed or ﬁsheries organizations other

6. Please indicate which of the following activities in which your organization particpates.
(Check all that apply.)

Restoration or enhancement of ﬁsh and or streams and rivers
Habitat assessments of streams and rivers
Clean-ups of streams or rivers
Educational activities about ﬁsh, streams or rivers
Collect information or samples about ﬁsh, streams or rivers.
Other

7. Which resources do you use to obtain information about ﬁsheries or watershed information?
(Check all that apply.)

Internet - web Newspaper

Television shows Organizations

Curriculum manuals Personal experiences

Training linservice Fisheries Division personnel
Magazines Other DNR orDEQ personnel
Scientiﬁc journals Conferences
Other

 

8. Please check any of the listed evironmental education programs in which you are trained
or certiﬁed. (Check all that apply.)

Project F.I.S.H. Project WET

Project Wild- Aquatic WOW (Wonders of Wetlands)
Project Wild Project Learning Tree
Leopold Education Project Other

9. Are you an educator?

 

No
Yes (Please describe the setting where you teach- Check all that
apply)
School Public Parochial
Nature Center Private Montessori
Extension Interpretive Other
Center

 

 

136

Program
Needs

This set of questions relates to your Ideas on Ieaming and teaching.

10. Please indicate the need for the following ﬁsheries and watershed issues to be taught in
the Schools Welcoming In Michigan Salmon (SWIMS) curriculum by their importance.
(Circle one answer for each issue.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not Somewhat Unsure Somewhat Very
ISSUE Important Unimportant Important Important
at all
Biodiversity NI SU U SI VI
Building and NI SU U SI VI
managing '
sustainable
ﬁshenes
Responsible NI SU U SI VI
ﬁshing
Environmental NI SU U SI VI
careers
Habitat NI SU U SI VI
Stewardship NI SU U SI VI
Pollution NI SU U SI VI
Fish anatomy and NI SU U SI VI
physiology
Watersheds NI SU U SI VI
Water chemistry NI SU U St VI
History of NI SU U SI VI
Michigan’s Great
Lakes
Restoration and NI SU U SI VI
Conservation
Fish ethics NI SU U SI VI
Food web NI SU U SI VI
Life cycle NI SU U SI Vl
Water cycle NI SU U SI VI
Human inﬂuences NI SU U SI VI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

137

11. Please indicate the occurrences of each of the following ﬁsheries and watershed issues you
think are beinltaught by educators in Michigan currently. (Circle one answer for each issue.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not Rarely Unsure Taught Often
Issue Taught Taught Sometimes Taught
at all
Biodiversity NT RT U TS OT
Building and NT RT U TS OT
managing
sustainable ﬁsheries
Responsible ﬁshing NT RT U TS OT
Environmental NT RT U TS OT
careers
Habitat NT RT U TS OT
Stewardship NT RT U TS OT
Pollution NT RT U TS OT
Fish anatomy and NT RT U TS OT
physiology
Watersheds NT RT U TS OT
Water chemistry NT RT U TS OT
History of Michigan’s NT RT U TS OT
Great Lakes
Restoration and NT RT U TS OT
Conservation
Fish ethics NT RT U TS OT
Food web NT RT U TS OT
Life cycle NT RT U TS OT
Water cycle NT RT U TS OT
Human inﬂuences NT RT U TS OT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12. In your opinion, which of the following situations would inﬂuence teachers to participate in
new environmental programs? (Check all that apply.)

ln-service training to obtain knowledge on topic Interest
Correlations to Michigan Standards and MEAP Funding

Good access to information resources Time Availability
Support from administration Other,

Connection with local watershed and
ﬁsheries related organizations

138

  

Background
lnforrnation

    
 

In order for us to more fully understand people’s responses to the previous questions, we need
to know a few things about your background. Please remember that all responses are kept
completely conﬁdential and that neither your name nor address will be directly linked to your

responses in any way.

13. What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?
(Please check one)

Some High school

High school graduate or GED

Vocational or Trade School (Profession: )

Associate’s Degree (Major: )

Some College (Major: , Minor: )
College Graduate (Major: , Minor: )
Some Graduate level courses
Graduate or Professional Degree (Major: )

 

 

14. Are you male or female?

Male
Female

15. In what year were you born?
19
16. Would you like information on the SWIMS program?
No
Yes

17. Would you be interested in helping in the development of a Salmon in the Classroom
program (SWIMS) that would beneﬁt Michigan ﬁsheries and watershed education?
No

Yes

Thank you for your participation!

If you have any other comments you would like to share with us, please use the space
below (add additional sheets if necessary).

139

Appendix E. Survey Mailed to Educator Stakeholders

YQQR Interests
Concerning the Salmon In the Classroom Program and teaching about
MICHIGAN’S FISHERIES and WATERSHEDS

 

This survey assesses your knowledge and attitudes concerning ﬁsheries
and watershed education within the Great Lakes. Your participation will
help in the Improvement of the Salmon in the Classroom program and
teacher recruitment to this program. You do not have to participate In

 

fishing related activities in order to ﬁll out this survey. Space has been
provided on the final page for any comments or concerns you have that
have not been covered within the survey.

 

 

  

Environmental
Activities

    
 

1. How many times In the past year have you participated in the following outdoor activities?
(Circle one response for each activity.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activities Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently
0 times 1 - 2 times 3-5 times 6 or more
times
Bird watching N R S F
Boating N R S F
Camping N R S F
Fishing N R S F
Salmon ﬁshing in N R S F
the Great Lakes
Salmon ﬁshing in N R S F
streams and rivers
Hiking N R S F
Hunting N R S F
Wildlife viewing N R S F
Other N R S F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Which resources do you use to obtain information about ﬁsheries and watershed information?
(Check all that apply.)

lntemet Newspaper

Television shows Organizations

Curriculum manuals Personal experiences
Training linservice Fisheries Division personnel
Magazinesfjoumals Other

 

140

3. Please check any of the listed evironmental education programs in which you are trained or
certiﬁed. (Check all that apply.)
Project F .I.S.H. Project WET Project Wild- Aquatic

Project Wild WOW (Wonders of Wetlands) Project Learning Tree
Leopold Education Project Other
4. Are you an educator?
No (Please skip to question 10.)

Yes (Please describe the setting where you teach- Check all that
apply)

 

School Public Parochial
Nature Center Private Montessori

Extension Interpretive Other
Center

 

 
  

 
    
 

Teaching
Expenences

These questions pertain to your background as an educator .

5. Approximately how many years have you been teaching?
Years

6. Please indicate the teaching certiﬁcate(s) you currently hold.

NONE Subject
K-5

6-8

9-12

 

 

 

7. Do you belong to any educational/professional associations?
No

Yes , please list association (s):

 

141

8. What is your knowledge in teaching about the following topics? (Circle one response for
each topic.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unaware of Aware of Have some Have Have
this topic or this topic knowledge adequate above
Topic its meaning and/or its about this knowled average
meaning topic but go for knowledge

feel teaching for
inadequate this topic teaching
to teach this topic

History of .

Michigan’s Great UW AW SK AD AA

Lakes

Food webs UW AW SK AD AA

Human inﬂuence

on the UW AW SK AD AA

environment

Fisheries UW AW SK AD AA

Aquatic life UW AW SK AD AA

Biodiversity UW AW SK AD AA

Stewardship UW AW SK AD AA

Fish ethics UW AW SK AD AA

Fish anatomy

and physiology UW AW SK AD AA

Life cycles UW AW SK AD AA

Responsible UW AW SK AD AA

ﬁshing

Habitat UW AW SK AD AA

conservation

Habitat UW AW SK AD AA

restoration

Water chemistry UW AW SK AD AA

Watersheds UW AW SK AD AA

Water pollution UW AW SK AD AA

Water cycle UW AW SK AD AA

 

 

142

9. Cognitive education methods can be used to encourage awareness of environmental
concepts and problems, to increase knowledge of ecological foundations and environmental
issues, and to develop skills that can be used to resolve environmental issues.

How often do you use the following teaching methods in your teaching?
(Circle one response for each method.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently
0/year 1-2/year 3-5/year 6+lyear
Experiments N R S F
Simulations N R S F
Outdoor teaching N R S F
strategies
Data gathering and N R S F
analysis
Lectures N R S F
Case studies N R S F
Field trips N R S F
Computer activities N R S F
Role playing / N R S F
dramatizations
Problem N R S F
solving/critical
thinking
Independent or group N R S F
projects
Environmental N R S F
investigations
Self-directed Ieaming N R S F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

143

Program
Needs

This set of questions relates to your ideas on Ieaming and teaching.

10. Please indicate the need for the following ﬁsheries and watershed issues to be taught in the
Schools Welcoming In Michigan Salmon (SWIMS) curriculum by their importance. (Circle
one answer for each Issue.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not Somewhat Unsure Somewhat Very
Issue Important at Unimportant Important Important
all
Biodiversity NI SU U SI VI
Building and NI SU U SI Vl
managing
sustainable ﬁsheries
Responsible ﬁshing NI SU U SI Vl
Environmental NI SU U SI VI
careers
Habitat NI SU U SI VI
Stewardship NI SU U SI VI
Pollution NI SU U SI VI
Fish anatomy and NI SU U SI VI
physiology
Watersheds NI SU U SI VI
Water chemistry Nl SU U SI VI
History of Michigan's NI SU U St VI
Great Lakes
Restoration and NI SU U SI VI
Conservation
Fish ethics NI SU U SI VI
Food web NI SU U Sl Vl
Life cycle NI SU U St VI
Water cycle Nl SU U SI VI
Human inﬂuences Nl SU U SI VI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

144

11. Please indicate the occurrences of each of the following ﬁsheries and watershed issues you
think are being taught by educators in Michigan currently. (Circle one answer for each

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IssueJi
Not Rarely Unsure Taught Often
Issue Taught Taught Sometimes Taught
at all
Biodiversity NT RT U TS OT
Building and managing NT RT U TS OT
sustainable ﬁsheries
Responsible ﬁshing NT RT U TS OT
Environmental careers NT RT U TS OT
Habitat NT RT U TS OT
Stewardship NT RT U TS OT
Pollution NT RT U TS OT
Fish anatomy and NT RT U TS OT
hysiology
Watersheds NT RT U TS OT
Water chemistry NT RT U TS OT
History of Michigan’s NT RT U TS OT
Great Lakes
Restoration and NT RT U TS OT
Conservation
Fish ethics NT RT U TS OT
Food web NT RT U TS OT
Life cycle NT RT U TS OT
Water cycle NT RT U TS OT
Human inﬂuences NT RT U TS OT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

145

12. Indicate whether you agree or disagree that the following teaching methods are valuable for
teaching about the environment. (Circle one response for each method.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Methods Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Do not
Agree Disagree know

Experiments SA A U D SD DK
Simulations SA A U D SD DK
Outdoor SA A U D SD DK
teaching
strategies
Data gathering SA A U D SD DK
and analysis
Lectures SA A U D SD DK
Case studies SA A U D SD DK
Field trips SA A U D SD DK
Computer SA A U D SD DK
activities
Role playing I SA A U D SD DK
dramatizations .
Problem SA A U D SD DK
solving/critical
thinking
Independent or SA A U D SD DK
group projects
Environmental SA A U D SD DK
invesﬁgaﬁons
Self-directed SA A U D SD DK
learning

 

 

 

13. In your opinion, which of the following situations would inﬂuence teachers to participate in
new environmental programs? (Check all that apply.)

ln-service training to obtain knowledge on topic

Interest

Correlations to Michigan Standards and MEAP

Funding

Good access to information resources

Time Availability

Support from administration

Connection with local watershed and ﬁsheries related organizations
Other,

146

Salmon in the

Classroom

 

“Salmon in the Classroom” is a program that combines the hands—on activity of raising salmon in
aquariums with curriculum activities that teach various ﬁsheries topics such as ﬁsh biology,
habitats, and watersheds, infused with basic school subjects. Salmon in the Classroom is a
program designed to foster public stewardship of ﬁsheries and the watersheds needed to
support ﬁsh populations. A Michigan-speciﬁc Salmon in the Classroom program, Schools
Welcoming In Michigan Salmon (SWIMS), would be an advantageous way for teachers to relate
students’ natural interests in watersheds, water quality, and ﬁsh to the Michigan Core Curriculum
Standards in science, language arts, math, and social studies, and to the speciﬁc topics of
Michigan environmental science, geography,and history.

The following questions are for all teachers cprrently using the Salmon in the Classroom
program.

14. Do you currently teach using the Salmon in the Classroom program?

No (Please skip to question 26.)
Yes

15. How many years have you been teaching the Salmon in the Classroom program?
Years

16. Which state’s manual do you use?

 

17. How many activities do you use from the manual each year? (Please take out your
manual and count the number of activities you teach.)
Activities

18. What concepts do you teach from the manual?
(Please take out your manual and check all the concepts you use)

Resources Fish Physiology
Ethics Habitat

Life Cycle Other

Fish Anatomy Restoration and
Raising Fish Conservation

19. What other concepts do you teach? (Please check all the concepts you use)

Biodiversity Human inﬂuences
Water pollution Aquatic life

Water chemistry Water cycle

Food web Sustainable ﬁsheries
Stewardship Fish ethics

Other

147

20. Have you varied the number of activitiesyou use in your Salmon in the Classroom
teaching each year?

No (If not please explain why)

 

 

Yes (please explain why)

 

 

21. Do you often alter the activities to meet your needs?
No
Yes (please describe alterations.)

 

 

22. Describe how you incorporate the Salmon in the Classroom program into your
teaching.

 

 

 

 

 

 

23. Please list the resource(s) you use to assist you in teaching the Salmon in the Classroom
curriculum.

 

 

24. Do you plan to continue using the Salmon in the Classroom curriculum?
No (if not please explain why)

 

 

Yes

25. Overall, do you believe that the Salmon in the Classroom program is making a positive
impact on your students' knowledge of environmental science, geography, and history?

No (if not please explain why)

 

 

 

 

Yes (please explain why)

 

 

 

 

148

  

Background
Information

    
 

In order for us to more fully understand people’s responses to the previous questions, we need to
know a few things about your background. Please remember that all responses are kept
completely conﬁdential and that neither your name nor address will be directly linked to your
responses in any way.

26. What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?
(Please check one)
Some High school
High school graduate or GED

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vocational or Trade School (Profession: )
Associate’s Degree (Major: )

Some College (Major: , Minor: )
College Graduate (Major: , Minor: )
Some Graduate level courses

Graduate or Professional Degree (Major: )

 

27. Are you male or female?
Male
Female
28. In what year were you born?
19

29. Would you like information on the SWIMS program?
No
Yes

30. Would you be interested in helping in the development of a Salmon in the Classroom
program (SWIMS) that would beneﬁt Michigan ﬁsheries and watershed education?
No

Yes
Thank you for your participation!

If you have any other comments you would like to share with us, please use the space below
(add additional sheets if necessary).

149

Appendix F. Second Mailing: Postcard Reminder

January 12, 2001

Recently you were mailed a questionnaire seeking your interests and
concerns about ﬁsheries and watershed education in the state of Michigan.

If you have already completed and returned the survey, please discard this
note and thank you for participating. If not, this is a reminder to please do so.
Your response is essential to getting an accurate representation of what key
groups think about ﬁsheries education.

 

If you did not receive the questionnaire, or it got misplaced, please call me at
517-353-0675 and I will have another survey sent to you. Thank you for your
time.

Sincerely,

Shari L. Dann
Associate Professor of Fisheries and Wildlife

 

150

Appendix G. Return Slip for Prize Drawing as Incentive for Respondents

To have your name entered into the prize drawing for the $50 gift certiﬁcate
please ﬁll out this slip of paper and send it back along with your completed
survey. The information on this paper will be kept separate from the survey.

It will be used only in the prize drawing.

NAME
ADDRESS
CITY/ STATE
ZIP CODE
PHONE NUMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

151

Appendix H. Invitation to Writing Retreat

DEPARTMENT OF
FISHERIES MID
WILDLIFE

Midtown Stale Universuy

III Natint Resumes Budding
East tansmo. MI

48824-1222

51773564477

FAX 517702-1699

“$0 a an mite-sum
Monaural-tr term-on

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

February 16, 2001

Dear :

We can’t thank you enough for completing your survey to help us address the needs for

ﬁsheries and watershed education for Michigan. Now, we are asking for your help once

again. We would like to invite you to a ‘Writing Retreat.“ Please help us in drafting
Schools Welcoming In Michigan Salmon (SWIMS) curriculum, a Michigan-speciﬁc
Salmon in the Classroom program. Please join us Sunday March 18" and Monday the
19'", 2001 for a meeting of the minds. The retreat will take place at the Ralph A.
MacMullan (RAM) Conference Center located in Roscommon. Michigan.

We believe that educators' involve‘ment in developing a curriculum manual for Michigan
would be an essential asset for the future success of the program. Your participation in
the development of the curriculum will allow better implementation of the program. Your
knowledge and experience will strengthen the Michigan curriculum. You will help other
retreat participants team from your salmon, ﬁsheries. and watershed knowledge. Your
participation will help you and others reﬂect on and expand your knowledge base and
teaching ideas. Your contributions will ensure that SWIMS will meet educators’ and
ﬁsheries managers' goals for ﬁsheries and watershed education.

Please respond to our invitation by faxing or mailing back the enclosed RSVP form 5
W (pg Later than Mpg!) 2) so that we may make necessary

preparations. Though we would like to have additional input from all, we are limited in
our number of available spaces. Therefore, spaces are available on a ﬁrst-come
ﬁrst-serve basis. If you have any questions please call me at 517432-5037 or email
me at granackl@m§p.edu with any questions. Thank you for your assistance. Your
contribution to the success of this program will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely.
Laura Granack Shari Dann
Research Assistant Associate Professor of Fisheries and Wildlife

152

Appendix I. Writing Retreat Consent Form

TO: SWIMS Curriculum Writing Retreat Participants

FROM: Shari Dann and Laura Granack, Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife (517-353-0675; sldann@msu.edu; granackl@msu.edu)

RE: Participation in this retreat.

Welcome to the SWIMS Curriculum Writing Retreat. We appreciate your
willingness to voluntarily participate in this exciting venture to cooperatively
determine future directions for bringing salmon, ﬁsheries and watershed
education directly into Michigan schools.

 

We wish to inform you that we will be documenting comments of participants
throughout this writing retreat. We will be keeping detailed notes of ideas and
suggestions for a strong curriculum content and design. These notes will be
kept only for the purposes of use when drafting and revising curriculum materials
Your names will NOT be associated with speciﬁc comments or perspectives
within the notes or in the summary. Each participant will receive copies of these
minutes for your use.

In addition, at the end of the retreat, we will be conducting a brief participant
feedback survey (taking about 15—20 minutes) getting your reactions to the
retreat writing process. The results of this feedback survey may be summarized
in conjunction with the mail survey responses we have received in
research-related reports. However, your name and address will never be
associated with your responses in any way. Your privacy will be protected to
the maximum extent allowable bylaw. Your participation in this retreat and in
providing feedback is completely voluntary, and you may discontinue
participation at any time. You indicate your willingness and voluntary
agreement to participate by signing below and returning a copy of this memo
(a copy is provided for your information).

If you have any questions about this project, please contact us. Should you have
any further questions about your rights or participation, you may also contact Dr.
David Wright, Chair of the MSU Committee on Research Involving Human

Subjects at 246 Admin. Bldg., E. Lansing MI 48824 or call 517-355-2180.

Most of all, thank you for your assistance with this important project to broaden
the public’s aquatic resource stewardship in Michigan!

Signature Date

153

Appendix J. Writing Retreat Agenda

Schools Welcoming In Michigan Salmon (SWIMS)
Writing Retreat Sunday, March 18-
Monday, March 19 2001 AGENDA

Workshop Objectives
By the end of the writing retreat, participants will have agreed upon:

Major concepts to be addressed by SWIMS
A listing of activities to be included in SWIMS that will address the major concepts

Speciﬁc details about the activities to be included in SWIMS
«a- Teaching methods

«0» Length
e Michigan-speciﬁc information on ﬁsheries and watersheds

An action plan of who intends to be involved in ﬁnalizing development of SWIMS.

Sundgy March 18'“

3-4 pm Check-in

4-5:30 Goals and Objectives of Retreat
Introductions
Review of agenda

5:30 Dinner

7-9 Review existing Salmon in the Classroom curriculum and programs
Presentation of Michigan Survey Findings

Current Curriculum manuals will be available for viewing

Sundg March 18'“
7:15 am. Breakfast

8-10 History of Pacific Salmon in the Great Lakes- Tom Rozich

Brainstorm Major Concepts SWIMS could/should address

Michigan Curriculum Framework- Toni O'Neil MAEOE Education Comm.
10-10:15 Break
10:15 -Noon Writing of Concepts, Methods, and Activities

Noon Lunch

1-3 pm. Continue group work in curriculum writing
33:15 Break

3:15-4 Each working group presents its work

4-5 Discuss Action Plan for developing SWIMS

Wrap-up: post-workshop feedback

154

 

Appendix K. Writing Retreat Discussions
History of Use of SIC Curriculum

Tom Rozich (MDNR Fisheries Division) saw salmon in the classroom from California

At a Trout Unlimited meeting; Kevin and Dan Hughes got it going in MI. Activities include
monitoring water quality of aquarium, importance of careful observations, adapted
activities from Project WILD Aquatic. Together they worked through the California
curriculum depending heavily on David Arrnasito in California to help with questions.

At the retreat, SIC teachers were asked to talk about their SIC program use and future
ideas they had about the program.

U.P. Michigan Example- Elementary level
These educators had recently given a presentation to educators and business people
on how to partner with public education at the Govemor’s conference on Career
pathways.

0 Use of California curriculum

0 Where do their classroom ﬁsh come from? Rogers City ﬁsh weir —
fertilized eggs, collecting eggs, transportation, creating enthusiasm.
0 Parents play an active role in child’s education, salmon provide a non-
threatening way for people to come into the classroom.
0 Aquarium set-up- they use 2 canisters, an undergravel ﬁlter, 4 ﬁlters,
carbon is in the ﬁlters. They are able to take the water directly from .
the faucet since the water is not chlorinated in the area. .
0 Salmon rearing curriculum demonstrates job opportunities for kids. The
program shows people in real professions; stress partnerships with
DNR and schools to meet the needs of students.
Math connection; 32°F water, 750 Thermal Units required to hatch coho
Math/Art curriculums comes alive in a team building activity that
required students to make a 10 yard salmon to ‘scale’.
Integration- across curriculum subjects ( art, poetry, math).
Tlme constraints
0 Many curriculum activities occur in 5th grade (they have a lotto
cover, DARE, band, etc).
0 Time commitment to this project: set-up and care of tank: 45 min
once a week to clean tank, with volunteers & students.
0 Instructional time: 10 or 15 lessons per year (classiﬁcation, life
cycle, parts of a salmon)
0 Lesson times: 40-45 minutes (doesn’t count ﬁeld trips)
- SIC emphasizes students realizing responsibility and understanding of the
environment, water quality, and habitat issues.
0 SIC gives memorable educational experiences. Learning the Lingo “ﬁshy
words” activity uses a picture to tell the deﬁnition. Terminology use
allows a common network between curriculum and hatchery.
o The educators ﬁnished their presentation with a quote that reminds all of us
the importance of education; “If you are planning for a year plant rice, If
your are planning for 10 years plant trees, If you are planning for a lifetime,
Educate.”

155

. __ __._._ \r
l ‘ .

 

Appendix K. Writing Retreat Discussions Continued

SW Michigan Example Mid-Elementary level

In his classroom, this SIC teacher teaches about life cycles, habitats,
predator- prey relationships, classiﬁcations, and history of salmon.
Activities include writing activities, math, and problems with alewife in
lake.

Why is this teacher involved in SIC? Not only does he enjoy it, as a
charter boat captain he sees a need for children to be stewards of
environment.

Aquarium set-up includes a 30 gallon tank.

SE Michigan Example- High School level

Little use of California curriculum.

She has brought in salmon to compare with eggs.

Students have kept a log since the beginning of the project.

Activities include weekly entry to predict when the eggs will hatch, and

conservation research project using intemet resources.

As biology teacher, she can focus on concepts.

Community members have become involved as partners, making
connections to students.

Water quality issues are presented with questions concerning why
salmon cannot live in a south-eastern river/environment.

Struggle with hatcheries vs. natural environment.

Students are picking up more than the aquarium aspect of the
process.

Taking care of environment ﬁrst is the important part. This educator
uses a thematic approach.

SIC teaches cellular and genetic concepts, natural selection, ecology,
and aspects of salmon in Michigan.

NW Michigan Example- Upper elementary level In parochial school

Local groups, such as Federation of Fly Fishers (FFF), donated money
and equipment.

Units from California manual that she uses includes the life cycle,
classiﬁcation, and food webs.

Outside resources include Welcome Home Salmon by Molly Cone that
discusses stream clean up and the Magic School Bus book about salmon
migration.

This educator displayed some of her students’ work that included a
literature quilt.

Future ideas for Michigan curriculum includes a thinking log to respond
to needs, stages, and appearances of salmon, shipping the eggs, and
video of the egg taking process.

This teacher uses hands-on teaching of MEGOSE(Michigan
Curriculum Framework’s Science Benchmarks and Standards).

156

Appendix K. Writing Retreat Discussions Continued

Mid-West Michigan Example— Multl-age elementary level

0 This teacher has a classroom of 2"d and 3'“ graders (vets & rookies).

o The location of the school is ideal for a SIC program. There is a creek
located near the school.

a This teacher showed and discussed how his students are involved in

the SIC program including the importance of the DNR permits, photo
album that parents can view, poetry brainstorming, develop of a
newsletter, a “Go-Fish” vocabulary, a game-gravel ﬁsh ladder(similar
to Project WILD Aquatic Hooks and Ladders ), and DNR resources
such as regulations and pictures.

Brainstorming Concepts

We wanted to get perspectives and expertise of all of the participants. To
achieve this goal we spent most of the second day of the retreat in groups
sharing ideas. Participants were grouped into elementary, middle school, and
high school levels. Within each group was at least one SIC teacher, framework
expert, ﬁsheries biologist, and a note taker. Each group was asked to brainstorm
for a forty minute period concepts and information they believe should be
included in the Michigan SIC. Once a list was developed, the groups were then
asked to put the concepts into groups of subjects and topics. Each group was
to come up with activities that could be used to teach their concepts. Activities
came from activities already used in classrooms, the California SIC curriculum,
other SIC curriculum, other resources, or ideas from their heads. We also asked
the groups to think of information needed for all age groups. The participants
then presented their ideas to all of the retreat participants. The following are
outlines of brainstorming of concepts, subjects, activities, and format by the
three groups.

Concepts: for Elementary students
All subjects need- Terms and vocabulary, parent involvement, hands- on methods
Science:

Habitat - watersheds Scientiﬁc processes/methods
-water quality -predicting
-chemistry -data collection
-light and sound -analysis
-food Life cycle — Fish and biology
-shelter/space -anatomy/physiology
-limiting factors -adaptations
-carrying capacity -competition (inter and
-human inﬂuences intra species)
-Hydro/dams - life stages
-pol|ution -predator/prey
-DNR / management -populations vs.
-Habitat alterations individuals
-lmprovements vs. negatives
Conservation

157

Appendix K. Wn'ting Retreat Discussions Continued

Ecosystems —
-exotics
-biodiversity
-conservation
-human inﬂuences/
commitment

Math:
-terms and vocabulary
-graphing and measuring
—data collection- survey
-classify and analyze
-hands- on
-problem solving
-scale and ratios

Social Studies:

Historical —
-Michigan ﬁsheries/rivers/
watersheds
-DNR resources (hatcheries and
documents)
-culture (tribal, commercial, sport)
-human inﬂuences

Geography -
-DNR resources (watershed units)
-other regions (Paciﬁc NW)
-local resources (clubs, speakers,
sponsors)
-Regional orientations in Michigan
(i.e. stacking and natural
resources)

158

Water Cycle-
-hydrology
-ground water
-human inﬂuences (hydro/
dams)
-lakes/rivers
-states of matter (water)
-water quality/watersheds

English/Language Arts:
-Process writing
-expository text
-narrative text
-persuasive
-comparisonlcontrast
-letter writing

-terrns and vocabulary

Civics -

- Local resources
-ethics
-conservation
-service community
stewardship
-careers

Economics-
-conservation
—economic impact
-human inﬂuences
-licenses/ ﬁsh $ ﬁsh
management

Decision-making-
-ethics
-career preparation
-human inﬂuences

 

r Elementary Continued

 

ﬁwpuﬂw

Appendix K. Writing Retreat Discussions Continued

Activities for elementary level:

-Tank set up : meeting the needs of ﬁsh (habitat)
-Iimiting factors
- parts of the tank and what they do (teachers)
-Field trip : compare and contrast aquarium with normal environment
-Sampling and data collection
-Basic water testing - habitat
-Life cycle - life stages (putting in order as assessment)
-Classiﬁcation
-More activities:
-Refer to Project F.I.S.H. and WILD for activities
-Hooks and Ladders
-Go Fish (habitat)
-Extensions of curriculum- ﬁshing ﬁeld trip and hatchery ﬁeld trip

Note: Format and writing of the curriculum needs to be In the order of the life
stages. Format (graphics and writing style) of Canada's curriculum Is an excellent
example. It provides teachers with background for each stage and student friendly
pages.
Notes from Individuals within the elementary group.
1. Game board deals with the issues of
. human inﬂuences
- commercial ﬁshing
- pollution
0 natural predation
0 water quality
a food chains/ webs
2. Life cycle ﬁsh
0 simply put- eggs, alevin, fry, smolt, adult
0 adaptation- older grades can write down what each one needs to survive
3. Poetry- use the words - eggs, alevin, fry, smolt, adult
. Use the ﬁrst letter of each one to develop a poem
. Michigan Tie- use the names of MI rivers, lakes, and creeks
4. Math
0 Create a budget - Have a student buy a Ml license, poles, hooks, sinkers, etc.

Each section should contain:
0 Vocabulary
o Anatomical features( pictures, language)
0 2-3 main objectives (more message, more gets lost- everybody becomes
overwhelmed) 2-3 activities for each objective or 1 activity for each objective across
curriculum
0 Time required
. Have a section that is “student friendly” for information
0 Have a section that is “teacher friendly" for informational text, ideas, and

 

resources .
0 Materials list Elementary Contrnued

 

159

Appendix K. Writing Retreat Discussions Continued

0 "DO THE OUTLINE IN FORM OF THE “ACTUAL” LIFE CYCLE OF THE
SALMON
List where it ﬁts into the MI Curriculum Framework and MEGOSE (Science)

. Rubrics/ Creative Assessment (not just standardized testing)
0 Resources/ web sites/books/videos/ experts?
o Timelines

Using California Guide

0 Animal classes, p. 3

. Classifying animals, p. 9

0 MI salmon and steelhead, p. 11

0 Expand- add all trout species, possible other species since trout are not found in
all areas where salmon are reared.

. Dissection- led by ﬁsh biologist (parent and volunteers), portions useful in
dissection in CA guide, p. 24-31

. Fish scales, p. 32

. Life cycle, excellent, p.36-60

a Life of salmon(NEEDS UPDATING, text uses ocean- should change to Great
Lakes),p. 61-70

. Snifﬁn—salmon, p. 76-79- Styrofoam cups wl scents- ﬁlm canisters w/ scents ﬁnd
each other- scents on cottonballs in school or room (ﬁnd your stream)

0 Fin Rummy, p. 94-99 good center activity

0 _ River system- p. 116-117- design a river system w/ components

0 Michigan’s rivers, p. 120-122 outlines rivers in CA manual — something similar
would be helpful incorporating MI

0 Construct a watershed, p. 129-132 good hands- on activity for children

. What’s wrong, p. 175-178, students use analytical skills to determine what is
wrong with each picture.

 

Canada Pilot- Primary

Handout 1.1, salmon words, p. 6 could be used- vocabulary, life cycle
Background life cycles ( MI speciﬁc), p.11

Why salmon- but make salmon speciﬁc (Introduction)

People and connections (contacts)

Life cycle- mealwonn, butterﬂy, bean, p. 14 (Check AIMS)

-Needs of Living Things, p. 16 (or relate to habitat)

Dissect lima beans/ chicken eggs, relate yolk sac to “ stored food” cotyledon
Anatomy, p. 25

Resources and Materials that would be desirable for a SIC curriculum
0 Sport ﬁshing ﬁsh ID poster

Taxidermy mounts of various ﬁsh species

Stages model- similar to Wl [ Elementary Continued

Come Bgsk Sallmon- Molly Cone

mgic School Bus- Sa_|mon Migration- Cole

Well produced video on Platte River weir

The Great Lakes- An Environmental Atlas and Resource Back

Virtual tour of weir or hatchery through DNR or other agency

 

 

160

Appendix K. Writing Retreat Discussions Continued

Brainstorming Concepts
Concepts: for middle school students:

Educators' background information
-Basic Iist- housekeeping
-Local contacts
-Set up aquarium
-Watershed maps
-Glossary
-Calendar
-Objectives and goals
-Correlate MEAP, MEGOSE
-Needs, goals, correlation, directions
1- History
-Activities
-Timeline/ picture puzzle
-Refer to Life of the Lakes
-Essays
-Graphs w/ Tom’s data
-Lake Trout and lamprey
-Salmon and alewife

-Local history
2- Needs of fish
-Habitat
-Scientiﬁc methods
-Water quality
-Aquarium set-up appendices?
-Activities
-Who am |- California manual (CA)
-Fin Rummy- CA

-Refer to Water Resource Back
-When will they hatch?- CA - Science
-2 sets of eggs- alter variable, Temp.
-Hooks and Ladders- P. WILD
-Go sample water
-Gravel/redd concept
-Overhauled Canada p. 42-48- habitat
3- Life cycle of salmon
-Activities
-Pyramid- p.73 Math - CA
-How many make it? - p. 75 Math -CA
-Graphs/Maps- What distance do they travel? Geography and math
-Mobile— Art -CA-
-FoId-out book- Language Arts- CA-
-Similarities and differences of various animals— science
-Poetry- Language Arts
-Life cycle- Overhauled Canada p.5-9
-Life cycle puzzle- CA
-Needs of stages- CA
-Plaster of Paris hooked jaw- Art

161

Appendix K. Writing Retreat Discussions Continued

4- Evolutlonlclasslficationlanatomy
-Activities
-Anatomy- teacher info p. 61-71 and handout p. 76-80- Overhauled Canada
-Dissection- computer program
-Fish scales- CA- p.33 (T om’s overhead)
-Build a ﬁsh- paper mache
-Classiﬁcation- p.8-10
-Phylum key- student generated
-Fashion a Fish- P. FISH
-Streamline- Canada Inter. P 293-299
5- Ecosystem

-watersheds -competition
-food web -indicators
-stream ecology- water cycle
macroinvertebrates -biodiversity
-water quality

-Activities

-Refer to P.FISH- indicator, habitat, stream ecology

-Refer to P. WILD, WET, and WILD Aquatic

-Ask DNR- what is an ecosystem?

-Refer to Life of the Lakes- Food web/ diversity

-Refer to Wild Things

-Refer to Great Lakes Instrument

-Release spots

-Stream check list- Canada Inter. P. 301- 307

-Canada- watersheds

-A river map— CA p. 116-119

-Make a map of the watershed

-Parking lot

-Genetic diversity- Canada

-Predator-prey

6- Human inﬂuences

ecosystem -rehabilitation and
-social/economic conservation
-exotics -stewardship
ethics -pollution

-Activities

-Refer to H20 Watershed software

-P.FISH Tragedy of the Commons and Pollution

-watersheds

-towns and tourism- math

-habitat loss

-exotics

-Refer to Project F.I.S.H. and Watershed Manager
7- Appendices

Aquarium set-up #

['33 31:23? Middle School Continued

Glossary

 

 

162

 

Appendix K. Writing Retreat Discussions Continued

Each chapter. MEAP, Background info, Wrap-up

Each activity: Directions, Subject, Tlme, Materials, Extensions

Have 1 curriculum with pull out sections for elementary, middle, and high school
levels.

Brainstorming Concepts

Concepts for High School students:

Assuming they have never had Salmon in the Classroom before High School,
skills such as record keeping, measurement, and data analysis should be
incorporated into activities.

Themes-
1- Program Logistics
-What is SIC? (Introduction)
-Equipment needs! How to obtain! funding
-Permit needs/ how to obtain
-Contactsl resources ( personal, annual exchange, email, web page,
listserve) ,
-Step— by- step “How To“ instructions for rearing and stocking
2- History of Chinook In Great Lakes
-Discussion/ lecture! video- national issues
-Guest speakers- Great Lakes Salmon
-‘i"rmeiine- project for students
-Scientiﬁc article- breakdown into components (grade 11 and 12)
-Current events- class discussion
-Hatchery and interpretive centers- visit
-Lamprey: lake trout, alewife: Chinook links
-Salmon in Paciﬁc Ocean fresh water to salt water (marine and freshwater
physiology)
3- Physiology/anatomy
-dissection
-classiﬁcation
-morphology
-Iife cycle- reports
-genetics/ natural selection- evolution, Darwin; cellular(mitosis)
-physiology- lecture, video
-diseases
-stages of development (egg- alevin) lab work
-anatomy
-life cycle (of salmon)
4- Habitat
-Nitrogen, Carbon, Water cycle- make a model for water cycle (Life of the
Lakes)
-Food web- GL food web (Life of the Lakes), riverine (Life of the Lakes)
-Pollutionl Water quality- contaminants (Life of the Lakes) (Water
Resource Book)
-Airbome, siltation, chemical, pH, point and non-point source

163

Appendix K. Writing Retreat Discussions Continued

-guest speakers, water quality experts
-aquarium monitoring, data gathering
-habitat requirements at different life stages
-riverine vs. open water- ﬁeld trips, video, projects(pupil), displays
-limits to growth- “Go Fish " game
5- Ecosysternl watershed concepts
-connect to headwaters health
-watersheds and ecosystems- human inﬂuence
-sa|mon as chum
-biodiversity
-hydroelectric dams 8. threats to survival of ﬁsh
-impediments to population stability
-carrying capacities
6- Management of fisheries
-lnvasive vs. exotic
-“Management” of Natural Resources
-charter business
-sport ﬁshing world
-ﬁsheries management DNR ﬁsheries division
-process
-hatcheries- aquaculture tours
-weirs
-careers
-politics of resource management
-working with neighbors- Canada
-user conﬂicts
-economics of the ﬁsheries
7- Stewardshipslethlcs

 

High School Continued

 

164

Appendix L. Post-Writing Retreat Feedback Survey

POST-WRITING RETREAT FEEDBACK SURVEY

Please take a few minutes to provide us with some feedback. Your
participation in providing this feedback is voluntary, and all answers you
provide will remain confidential. Your name will n_o_t_ appear in any summary
of this feedback.

1 Please check the term(s) that best describe you
Fisheries Division personnel

Salmon in the Classroom Teacher

Math and Science Center staff
Conservation organization representative
MAEOE member

Teacher or other educator

[3000130

2 Which portion(s) of the writing retreat did you attend?
(Check all that apply)

Cl Sunday evening Cl Monday morning DMonday afternoon

3 Was this writing retreat beneficial and effective for you as a participant?

(Please explain)
CI No CI Yes

4 Do you believe this writing retreat has helped or will help in the design of SWIMS?

(Please explain)
Cl No CI Yes

5 What did you consider the best aspect of the workshop? (Please explain)

6 What would you have changed to improve the workshop? (Please explain)

Thank you for your participation in the writing retreat and feedback survey.
Please feel free to use this space to add any additional comments.

165

Appendix M: Responses of Salmon in the Classroom Teachers to open-
ended survey questions

Have you varied the number of activities you use in your Salmon in the
Classroom teaching each year?

 

Dependent mroup of kids.

 

There are differences in group ability or interest

 

l have found a better way

 

No- I feel I am still getting the hang of raising the ﬁsh. Also, when I began the program
I taught 4th grade. | now teach 1"t and 2"“. It is hard to ﬁnd material at their level.

 

Time constraints

 

Yes- We vary them to how students respond to them

 

Try different activities according to time limits.

 

Depended on pace of rest of curriculum.

 

No- not all need to be covered and I don’t have time to do many.

 

Each year material is added to lessons

 

Each year has become more in-depth with more activities

 

Field trips to salmon river prgram

 

 

1‘it year only, just gettigg started

 

Do you often alter the activities to meet your needs?

 

Depends on level of class

 

Based on 2""l3rd grade level.

 

MI speciﬁc, age appropriateness, time restrictions

 

It is ﬁrst grade and sometimes we make it less comlicated.

 

We last ﬁsh because of power outage and we had to get more ﬁsh.

 

Some material at too high a level

 

Make activities age appropriate for yougger/older students.

 

Yes- Special needs students

 

Gifted students

 

Modiﬁcations to make more applicable to 8-9 year olds

 

Tailored chﬂges to ﬁt gggraphic area.

 

 

 

 

I always try to adapt material to ﬁt Great Lakes- relative to GL

 

More age-related to high schgoj

 

Background, relevancy, age level, curriculum subjects

 

Always

 

l have used the ﬁsh as an “interactive” project to teach life cycles.

 

The materials are more relevant to CA. The change in physiology is not as important in
MI. -

 

 

Tried to make it for Michigan but don’t have information.

 

166

 

Describe how you incorporate the Salmon in the Classroom program into your
curriculum.

 

I used it for my unit on habitats and life cycles and then used lessons scattered
throughout the rest of the year.

 

ThrouLhout the year. 1 time a week.

 

We measure length of ﬁsh, TU’s, pH, temp of water. We graph data and analyze.

 

Ties in with food webs and chains, life cycles, habitat.

 

It is an exmllent example of a life cycle. Also, depositing the ﬁsh in the spring
demonstrates our role in assisting the ﬁsheries.

 

We use approximately 10 periods to Ieam about various topics and separate from
regular studies.

 

We graph the water temp daily and graph and chart the results. We write in ﬁsh
journals 1-2 times a week. Write ﬁsh stories and poetry. Check “cool” web sites out
that deal with ﬁsmg.

 

Our grade level responsibilities include life cycles, food chains, food webs, effects of
humans on environment, life needs, habitats, adaptations

 

With math- thermal units, LA- “If I were a Salmon”, Art— Life cycle drawings
Science- Anatomy of a ﬁsh

 

We have incorporated SIC program as part of our 6th grade curriculum. Units were
developed to meet state benchmarks. Each 6th grade team has (3) chiller/aquarium
set-up.

 

My salmon hatchery is a daily/ weekly activity where students keep logs on the
development of the ﬁsh and are involved in the daily upkeep. In addition the salmon
are tied into various biology curriculum topics including classiﬁcation, genetics, natural
selection, kingdoms, ecology, cells, and others. It is a year-long project ending with a
student research project.

 

It ﬁts in with our ecosystems, and human body study.

 

When I’m teaching the water cycle and water quality. I also have the students graph
the ﬂwth of the salmon.

 

I visit salmon on a weekly basis. We dedicate Fridays to our ongoing salmon study

 

 

 

One week thematic unit around egg arrival, then one or two activities per month until
release time.

 

Daily discussion, salmon game, salmon memory game, habitat, water quality,
measurements

 

I try to match science MEAP benchmarks.

 

L.A.- stories, poetry

 

Environmental Science- Shiawassee River Task Force (watershed)

 

Art- Life cycle picture books, mobile

 

Social Studies- History of Great Lakes

 

I teach science and social studies, whenever I can I try to make a connection to the
salmon.

 

The program offers me an opportunity to integrate my curriculum (history, math,
science)

 

 

Build food webs around salmon. Compare river chemistry to tank chemistry. Use it for
many objectives.

 

167

 

Please list the resource(s) you use to assist you in teaching the Salmon
in the Classroom curriculum.

 

The state book.

 

Come Home Salmon, Magic School Bus Salmon Migration

 

I ordered trade books on salmon that were helpful.

 

Many books. I used a friend from the DNR. California curriculum and many other
books.

 

Math lessons

 

MSU ﬁsh cards 4-H 1370 ( GL Fishes 4-H Fact Sheet)

 

Book- “Come Back Salmon”

 

Outside speakers

 

Gail Gibbons style books

 

Fish Pathology textbook

 

Personal experiences

 

Internet

 

Local experts

 

Books/ Current magazine

 

California salmon and steelhead curriculum

 

MDNR personnel

 

Tom Rozich, local ﬁsheries, Islands Wildlife

 

DNR Web site

 

Videos- commercial and home

 

Articles- Newspapers and Magazines

 

Internet, CA guide (mainly for information), Organizations

 

Michigan Out-Of-Doors, interviews, Northwoods Call, observation, newspaper, ﬁeld
tnps

 

Teachers, DNR, Salmon videos-National Gemraphic Explorer

 

 

MI DNR Fisheries Division was very helpful.

 

168

 

 

Overall, do you believe that the Salmon in the Classroom program is
making a positive impact on your students' knowledge of environmental
science, geography, and history?

 

Enjoyed the ﬁsh very much and liked to impress people with their knowledge.

 

It is wonderful, but teachers really need a Michigan speciﬁc curriculum.

 

It’s been a great Ieaming experience to see the life cycle unfold in the classroom. It is a
powerful teaching tool.

 

They are more aware of the environment and the need to take care of it.

 

It is an exciting hands-on project. They take ownership and are eager to Ieam about
the salmon

 

Students are very concerned and interested in this project.

 

Children in the area learn stewardship and learn more about the environment around
them.

 

Children are Ieaming about and to respect one of our natural resources. They are
Ieaming what they do affects more than just themselves.

 

It demonstrates many aspects of how “Man” is involved with maintaining/interacting
with the environment.

 

Our students simply love to take care of our “guests”. They take extreme responsibility
and we feel they carry out that responsibility out into the environment.

 

It brings environmental science to life in the classroom. It exposes children to the
growth, and development of an animal unique to our region. Students Ieam about the
needs of salmon and other living things. The cold aquarium also provides examples of
the water cycle in action.

 

Salmon in the Classroom teaches our students about the richness of our natural
resources while higﬂghting the interconnectedness of our world.

 

 

Yes- life experiences
The UPS environment must be preserved
Most kids ﬁsh!

 

Students are actively engaged in the project and are able to have a visual of many
topics we Ieam throughout the year.

 

 

Great motivation, hands on, cross curriculum

 

169