V ‘
A.

nun-.919

 

 

an “an.

 

 

 

It?" (9 as. 00H4UK'IOIIHHI'

. 1»
I... :11
3.. f \A;

I. x

., 3.‘?"IJIN"‘.

 

1 n.“-

 

 

nflu .

.9.“

 

.4 3‘ .. t ..

. a: La. 2
§ 3. 2:

a... :r:.:r..3.r
, a 13.3%. .

 
 

 
 

 

w"- «nu-mm»

 

”.mv.».,,u.

n

nu..."

 

 

! cur-v

 

 

 
 

‘J\‘
L:
'f _ AV:
0* ,’//

(3'?(€/75’

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

THE GREAT LAKES FISHERIES LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE:
EVALUATION OF AN EXTENSION PROGRAM’S IMPACTS
IN RELATION TO

REGIONAL SEA GRANT AND LOCAL MICHIGAN PARTICIPANTS'

EXPECTED LEARNING OUTCOMES

presented by

Brandon Charles Schroeder

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Fisheries and Wildlife

 

 

)1” MI ILI >7/ @611 LA“)

 

Major Professor’s Signature

2"?) If“:
I 7

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

LIBRARIES
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048

~o—l-a-O- —- .

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

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 clleC/DatoDmJndd—p. 15

 

 

 

THE GREAT LAKES FISHERIES LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE:
EVALUATION OF AN EXTENSION PROGRAM’S IMPACTS IN RELATION TO
REGIONAL SEA GRANT AND LOCAL MICHIGAN PARTICIPANTS’ EXPECTED
LEARNING OUTCOMES

By

Brandon Charles Schroeder

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

2004

ABSTRACT

THE GREAT LAKES FISHERIES LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE: EVALUATION OF
AN EXTENSION PROGRAM’S IMPACTS IN RELATION TO REGIONAL SEA
GRANT AND LOCAL PARTICIPANTS’ EXPECTED LEARNING OUTCOMES

By
Brandon Charles Schroeder

In 2003-04, the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network piloted the Great Lakes Fisheries
Leadership Institute (GLFLI), an adult Extension education program. Qualitative and
quantitative methods were used to describe program activities, impacts, and values from
the perspectives of regional GLFLI program organizers and 22 Michigan program
participants. This evaluation found that the GLFLI provided program coverage for nearly
all identified learning outcomes through training curriculum modules, lakewide, and/or
statewide training sessions (or a combination of all three). Motivations for participation
included values related to a specific participant cause, increased understanding, and
social related opportunities. Program outcomes included networking of diverse fishery
stakeholders, as well as knowledge of Great Lakes fisheries history, biology/ecology,
management, and related issues. As intended stewardship activities, participants were
most likely to carry out educational activities, policy or legislative work, and/or fisheries
habitat work, and these actions were most likely to occur at a local geographic or specific
fisheries organizational level. Most participants (81.8%) indicated they had learned
things beyond what they had originally hoped, and overall, felt their learning experience
to be beneficial. Recommendations include maintaining existing programming format
that promotes networking of diverse stakeholders and understanding of basic knowledge
and understanding relating to Great Lakes fisheries. Advanced training opportunities

exist for learners to practice specific skills necessary to carry out leadership actions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (GLFLI) is a fisheries Extension
education program, focusing on development of adult citizen fishery leaders. The GLFLI
was developed and carried out through the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network with program
funding support provided by the National Sea Grant College Program [Project #
NA16RG1145], the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
US. Department of Commerce. The implementation and evaluation of the GLFLI
program in Michigan is a result of work with and support from the Michigan Sea Grant
College Program. I wish to thank staff from the Michigan Sea Grant program and Great
Lakes Sea Grant Network for the opportunity to contribute to the GLFLI program.

In regards to completing this evaluative research, my deepest acknowledgement is
rightfully deserved by Dr. Shari Dann, who has served as my major professor and
advisor, a mentor and a fiend. I cannot express enough thanks and appreciation for the
guidance and direction, opportunities and experiences, and most of all patience and
support afforded to me through her work and dedication.

I would also like to extend thanks and acknowledgement to the members of my
thesis committee, including: Dr. Geoffery Habron, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
and Department of Sociology, Dr. Joanne Keith, Department of Family and Child
Ecology, and Dr. John Schwartz, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and Program
Leader for the Michigan Sea Grant Program. For their time and patience, guidance and
support, I also wish to offer my sincere gratitude and appreciation.

I would also like to extend a special note of thanks and appreciation to the

following Extension personnel and researchers for their contribution to this evaluation:

iii

Dr. Rochelle Sturtevant, the GLFLI Regional Coordinator, of the Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) and the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network
for her input on survey design, development, and implementation, as well as her general
support in carrying out this evaluation; Mark Malchoff, Lake Champlain Sea Grant
Program for his feedback and contributions toward survey design and development; and
the many other folks of the Michigan Sea Grant program and Great Lakes Sea Grant
Network for their general support and encouragement throughout this project. Also
deserving of thanks are Dr. Angela Mertig of the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
and the Department of Sociology, as well as Dr. Dan Hayes of Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife, for their guidance on statistical analysis methods and procedures; and
finally, Dr. Joe Levine of the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Education and Communications Systems (ANRECS) for his guidance concerning adult
learning and education programming.

For their contributions to the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute and this
evaluation, I must thank all of the GLFLI participants who took part in this survey and
program evaluation.

Additionally, I wish to express my appreciation to all of the graduate students of
the Human Dimensions Lab for their support in reviewing work, sharing ideas,
developing survey instruments, and general morale support and camaraderie throughout
my graduate work at Michigan State University.

Finally, I wish to thank all of my family, friends, and especially Jenny for their
constant support and encouragement throughout the many twists, turns, and challenges of

my graduate studies journey.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ....................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ........................................................................................ x
Chapter I Introduction ....................................................................................................... l
The Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (GLFLI): Program Development
and Vision ....................................................................................................................... 1
Fostering Fisheries Leadership and Stewardship ............................................................ 2
Purposes for Program Evaluation of the GLFLI ............................................................. 4
Evaluation Design and Thesis Organization ................................................................... 5
Literature Cited (Chapter I) ............................................................................................ 7
Chapter II: Program Impacts in relation to Regional Sea Grant and Local Michigan
Participants’ Anticipated Learning Outcomes ............................................... 9
Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 10
Research Purpose and Questions .................................................................................. 14
Background and Literature Review .............................................................................. 15
Methods ......................................................................................................................... 22
Results ........................................................................................................................... 30
Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................................. 45
Limitations and recommendations for further study ..................................................... 63
Literature Cited -Chapter II .......................................................................................... 67
Figures - Chapter II ....................................................................................................... 71
Tables - Chapter II ........................................................................................................ 72

Chapter III: Participant Motivations, Learning Expectations, and Intended Stewardship
Actions of a New Extensino Fisheries Leadership Development

Program .............................................................................. 100
Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 100
Introduction....................... .......................................................................................... 101
Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 107
Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 115
Methods ....................................................................................................................... 115
Results ......................................................................................................................... 123
Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................................... 135
Limitations and recommendations for further study ................................................... 152
Literature Cited - Chapter III ...................................................................................... 155
Figures - Chapter III .................................................................................................... 160
Tables - Chapter III ..................................................................................................... 161

Chapter IV: Executive Summary ................................................................................... 181

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 8 1
Study Purpose ............................................................................................................. 185
Methods ....................................................................................................................... 186
Results and Discussion ............................................................................................... 187
Conclusions and Program Recommendations ............................................................ 197
Research Limitations .................................................................................................. 201
Further Evaluation Considerations ............................................................................. 201
Literature Cited - Executive Summary ....................................................................... 202
Complete Bibliography ................................................................................................... 205
Appendices ......................................................................................... 21 1
Appendix A: UCRIHS Approval Letters ....................................................................... 212
Appendix B: Review of Research Design and Protocol ................................................ 215
Appendix C: GLFLI Planning Documents .................................................................... 222
Appendix D: Review of GLFLI Instructors and Curriculum Components ................... 228
Appendix E: Review of GLF LI Session Agendas ......................................................... 231
Appendix F: GLFLI'Application ................................................................................... 241
Appendix G: GLFLI Survey Instruments ...................................................................... 244
Appendix H: Leadership and Community Discussion and Writing Exercises .............. 268
Appendix 1: Selected Results from Participant Pre- and Post-institute Surveys ........... 270

vi

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER II
Table II-l. Summary of Regional GLFLI Intended Learning Outcomes ......................... 72

Table II-2. Summary of GLFLI Curriculum Components Developed for Use in
the GLFLI Program ..................................................................................... 74

Table II-3. Michigan GLFLI Participants (n =22) and their Attendance at Each
GLFLI Training Session .............................................................................. 76

Table H-4. Demographic Characteristics of Michigan GLFLI Program
Participants (n =22) .................................................................................... 77

Table II-S. Coverage of Biology, Ecolog, and Fishery Science Related Learning
Outcome Areas for Michigan Participants .................................................. 78

Table II-6. Coverage of Leadership Skills Related Learning Outcome Areas for
Michigan Participants ................................................................................. 79

Table II-7. Examples of Participant Statements Related to Learning Expectations
and Actual Outcomes that Guided Coding Category Development ............ 81

Table II-8. Summary of Variability Analysis for Code Categories Developed to
Organize GLFLI Participant Open—ended responses Relating to
Learning Expectations and Outcomes ......................................................... 82

Table II-9. Summary of Open-ended Responses Regarding what Participants
Hoped to Learn or Gain Through their GLFLI Experience ........................ 84

Table II-lO. Summary of Open-ended Responses Regarding what Participants

Believed They had Learned or Gained Through their GLFLI
Experience .................................................................................................... 85

Table II-l 1. Comparison of What GLFLI Participants had Hoped to Learn or
Gain and What They Believed They had Actually Learned or Gained ........ 86

Table II-12. Participant Reactions Regarding What They Had Learned or Gained
Through Their GLFLI Learning Experience ......................................... 87

vii

Table II-13. General Participant Perspectives Relating to the Achievement of
their Expectations of Their GLFLI Experience Regarding Curriculum,
Experiential Opportunities, and Opportunities to Practice Knowledge
and Skills ...................................................................................................... 88

Table II-14. Summary of Participant Ratings of Curriculum Modules or Lessons
Considered MOST and LEAST Valuable ......................................... 89

Table II-15. Participant Responses Relating to MOST and LEAST Valuable
Experiential Opportunities .......................................................................... 90

Table II-16. Michigan Participant (n=22)Rating of Their Own KNOWLEDGE
and UNDERSTANDING of Biological and Ecological Aspects of
the Great Lakes Fishery Before and After the GLFLI ................................ 91

Table II-17. Michigan Participant (n=22) Rating of Their Own KNOWLEDGE
and UNDERSTANDING of Social, Political, and Cultural Aspects
of the Great Lakes Fishery Before and After the GLFLI ............................. 92

Table II-18. Michigan Participant (n =22) Rating of Their Own KNOWLEDGE
and UNDERSTANDING of Their Own Involvement with the Great
Lakes Fishery Before and After the GLFLI ................................................ 93

Table II-l9. Michigan Participant Rating (n =22) of Their Own COMFORT and
SKILLS Relating to their Own Involvement with the Great Lakes
Fishery Before and After the GLFLI ........................................................... 94

Table II-20. Summary of T raining Coverage Through Curriculum, Statewide and
Lakewide Sessions toward GLFLI Learning Outcomes .............................. 95

Table II-21. Summary of GLFLI Program Learning Outcome Areas, Content
Coverage, and Changes in Knowledge and Skills Compared with

Participant Expected Learning Outcome Areas what They Generally
Believe They had Gained Through Their GLFLI Experience ..................... 97

CHAPTER III

Table III-1. Michigan GLFLI Participants (n =22) and their Attendance at Each
GLFLI Training Session ......................................................................... 161

Table III-2. Demographic Characteristics of Michigan GLFLI Program
Participants (n =22) ............................................................................... 162

Table III-3. Motivations of Michigan Participants for Involvement in the GLFLI ........ 163

viii

Table 111-4. Combined Means and Reliability Results for Each Motivation Factor
Category .................................................................................................. 165

Table 111-5. Examples of Participant Statements Related to Learning Expectations
and Actual Outcomes that Guided Coding Category Development ....... 166

Table III-6. Summary of Variability Analysis for Code Categories Developed to
Organize GLFLI Participant Open-ended Responses Relating to
Learning Expectations and Outcomes .................................................... 167

Table III-7. Summary of Open-ended Responses Regarding what Participants
Hoped to Learn or Gain Through Their GLFLI Experience .................. 169

Table 111-8. Summary of Open-ended Responses Regarding what Participants
Believed They had Learned or Gained Through Their GLFLI
Experience ............................................................................................... 170

Table 111-9. Comparison of What GLFLI Participants had Hoped to Learn or Gain
and What They Believed They had Actually Learned or Gained ............ 171

Table III-10. Participant Reactions Regarding What They Had Learned or Gained
Through Their GLFLI Learning Experience .......................................... 172

Table III-11. Aspirations for Applying GLFLI Learning Experience with Various
Types of “Communities ” ......................................................................... 173

Table HI-12. Summary of Open-ended responses Related to Aspirations for Applying
GLFLI Learning Experience with Various Types of “Communities " 174

Table III-13. Participant Statements Related to Code Categories Used to Describe
Aspirations for Applying GLFLI Learning Experience with Various
Types of “Communities ” ........................................................................ 175

Table III-l4. Summary of Michigan GLFLI Participants ’ Service Projects,
Categorized by Types of Environmental Stewardship Action .................... 176

Table III-15. Examples of Participant Service Project Descriptions as Coded
and Categorized to Describe Diflerent Types of Stewardship Actions ...... 177

Table II-l6. Summary of Service Project Types Identified by Michigan Participants
Before and After their GLFLI Experience ................................................. 178

Table III-17. Likelihood of Michigan GLFLI Participants Carrying Out Various
Types of Stewardship Actions .................................................................... 179

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER II

Figure II— 1. Structure of the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (GLFLI),
representing the Components (Lake and Statewide meetings) relevant
to Michigan GLFLI Participants .............................................................. 71

CHAPTER III

Figure 111- 1. Structure of the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (GLFLI),

representing the Components (Lake and Statewide meetings) relevant
to Michigan GLFLI Participants ....................................... 160

 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

THE GREAT LAKES FISHERIES LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE (GLFLI):
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND VISION

Throughout 2003 and early 2004, the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network piloted a
series of Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (GLFLI) training sessions. This
initiative represented the coordinated efforts and resources of eight Great Lakes state Sea
Grant programs, with funding support from the National Sea Grant College Program.
The program purpose was to provide adult leadership education which to serve the needs
of Great Lakes fishery stakeholders throughout the Great Lakes region, covering the five
Great Lakes (Lakes Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie, and Superior), along with Lake
Champlain.

This Sea Grant Extension education program consisted of a series of regionally
developed and coordinated fisheries science and leadership education sessions intended
to serve adults considered to be future citizen leaders in the Great Lakes region. The
target participant audience for the Institute was identified by the Great Lakes Sea Grant
Network to include:

“New leaders of fisheries-related organizations, those likely to become

leaders of their organizations within the next few years, and particularly

those likely to be serving as advisors to Great Lakes fishery related

institutions (e.g., Lake Committees) (Sturtevant et al. 2002a, p. 5).”

From a regional program planning perspective, organizers of the GLFLI intended

to increase knowledge of Great Lakes fisheries and management while developing

networks and leadership skills among future citizen fishery leaders (Sturtevant et al.
2002a). The stated vision for the Institute was as follows:
“We envision a Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute operating on a
regional, lake and state level capable of providing emerging citizen fishery
leaders with the knowledge and skills to effectively interact with Great

Lakes fishery management organizations for the benefit of the fishery and
its stakeholders. (Sturtevant et al. 2002a, p. 4)”

FOSTERING FISHERIES LEADERSHIP AND STEWARDSHIP

Need for Fostering Fisheries Leadership and Precursors to Fisheries Stewardship

As an adult fisheries education program, the GLFLI was designed to encourage
greater citizen involvement and action regarding Great Lakes fisheries issues. A key
challenge for fisheries management institutions is overcoming the lack of information
necessary for resource users and decision makers to understand the broader impacts of
their decisions in relation to achieving sustainable Great Lakes ecosystems and fisheries
(Sturtevant et al. 2002a).

Environmental stewardship education programming, by definition, strives to
empower learners with skills to address environmental issues and to take positive
environmental action with a sense of personal and civic responsibility within their
community (Athman and Monroe 2001). Thus, a primary desired outcome of the GLFLI
was for participants to gain the awareness, knowledge, understanding, comfort, skills, and
resources by which they can then participate, contribute, or otherwise act to sustain Great
Lakes fisheries. Actions include service projects, acting as fisheries organization leaders,
or serving as advisors to Great Lakes fishery related institutions (Sturtevant et al. 2002a).

Essential pre-cursor variables that increase environmental action or stewardship

behaviors among learners include: entry level variables (e.g., awareness and basic
knowledge), ownership variables (e.g., in—depth understanding and personal investment),
and empowerment variables (e.g., comfort, skills and resources necessary to carry-out
actions) (Hungerford and Volk 1990).

Individually, learners are likely to consider a variety of different types of actions
or environmental stewardship behaviors, including: consumer related behaviors,
persuasion or education activities, ecomanagement (habitat) work, political or public
participation, or legal actions (Hungerford and Peyton 1980). Successful education
programs might also create an ability to bring coalitions of stakeholders together to

facilitate actions or programs within learners’ communities (Monroe 1999).

Value of Citizen Leaders in Community-based Conservation

Relationships exist between learner place attachment and environmentally
responsible behaviors (Vaske and Kobrin 2001 ). Relating education experiences to
leamers’ personal connections with familiar community natural resources is an important
aspect of creating successful programs designed to foster aquatic stewardship behaviors
(Matthews 1997, Fedler 2001).

Conservation efforts are more effective when they involve individuals working
collectively throng/2 the community to conserve natural resources of the community and
for the benefit of the community (Western and Wright 1994). Incorporating local
community values, goals, assets and needs can increase community support, motivation,
and participation toward moving efforts successfully forward (Scholl 1989, Cornwall and
Gaventa 2000). The ability of regional and statewide GLFLI programming to affect

positive Great Lakes impacts depends on actions of participating citizen leaders occurring

 

within their communities — whether the leamers’ community is geographic, social or

organizational (Hillery 1955, Flora 1992).

Building an Adult Learning Experience

Adult learners typically seek information or resources related to specific issues,
needs, or personal challenges that are current and foremost in the minds of respective
individuals (Levine 2000). Increased understanding, values, personal enhancement,
career advancement, and social purposes are among some of the reasons adult volunteers
choose to participate in specialized adult Extension education training programs (Schrock
et al. 20003). Learners seek information that relates to their own personal learning needs
or challenges, to their personal sense of service to natural resources issues within their
own community, or to their connections or familiarity with local natural resources
(Greenleaf 1977, Western and Wright 1994, Matthews 1997, F edler 2001). Participants
are likely to enter into a learning experience with their own personal goals and objectives

related to their learning (Robinson 1994).

PURPOSES FOR PROGRAM EVALUATION OF THE GLFLI

The purpose of this evaluation of the GLFLI is to investigate various levels of
intended and actual program outcomes from the perspectives of both regional Sea Grant
program planners, as well as the participants (Bennett 1978, Robinson 1994, Miller et al.
2001). Beyond development and implementation of the pilot GLFLI program there is a
distinct need for evaluating program outcomes (Shadish et al. 1995). The National Sea
Grant College Program encourages that the evaluation of Extension programs should

focus on the specific standards, goals, and objectives in determining program values

(Spranger and Wilkins 2001). Accordingly, GLFLI program planning proposals set forth
the value of evaluation in stating the need and intent to, “assess the effectiveness of

delivery (i.e. workshop evaluations) (Sturtevant et al. 2002a, p. 10).”

EVALUATION DESIGN AND THESIS ORGANIZATION

This research project consists of an evaluation to describe program impacts
resulting from the Michigan components of the regional Great Lakes Fisheries
Leadership Institute (GLFLI). I used qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods to
describe program impacts respective to expected outcomes set forth by the regional Sea
Grant program, as well as expectations of Michigan GLFLI participants. The research
protocol was approved by the MSU University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (UCRIHS) (Appendices A and B).

First, I used Sea Grant program planning and promotional documents (Appendix
C) to describe the program from the perspective of regional Institute organizers. The
GLFLI program consisted of eight core curriculum components and provided six
standardized supplemental resources (Appendix D), with training provided in six
different sessions to which Michigan GLFLI participants were exposed (see agendas in
Appendix E). Second, I investigated 22 Michigan participants’ motivations, values,
expectations and responses in relation to their GLFLI experience. Participant application
packages (Appendix F), pre- and post-institute participation survey evaluations
(Appendix G), and participant writing activities carried out during the GLFLI (Appendix

H) were components used in this portion of the evaluation.

 

Chapters 11 and III detail the results of this study. Chapter 11 describes intended
GLFLI program learning outcomes in comparison to program activities and participant
reactions that actually occurred through the Michigan components of the Institute. This
chapter is written as a basic program evaluation summary with intended benefits for and
use by Sea Grant Extension program staff and other professional fisheries audiences.
Chapter II is intended for submission for publication in the Journal of Great Lakes
Research.

Chapter III focuses on Michigan participants’ motivations, learning expectations
and outcomes, and intended application of their GLFLI program experience. Chapter III
is intended as appropriate for submission to the Journal of Extension or Journal of
Applied Environmental Education and Communication. The intended audience of this
chapter is Extension professionals who work with adult education programs, for use in
better understanding stakeholders served through similar efforts.

Chapter IV is an Executive Summary providing a brief description of results and
relevant recommendations for the GLFLI, for similar future programming, and for
evaluation research. This Executive Summary has already been incorporated into the
final project report for the GLF LI to the National Sea Grant College Program, and has
provided the basis for a paper presented at the 134th Annual Meeting of the American
Fisheries Society (2004 Conference), in the symposium entitled “Socio-economics and
Extension: Empowering People in Fisheries Conservation.” This Executive Summary
will also be presented during the 48th Annual (2005) Conference of the International

Association for Great Lakes Research (IAGLR) in the “Great Lakes Outreach” session.

LITERATURE CITED — CHAPTER I

Athman, J. A. and M. C. Monroe. 2001. Elements of effective environmental education
programs. In Defining best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship
education, eds. A. J. Fedler and B. E. Matthews, pp. 37-48. Arlington, VA:
Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation.

Bennett, C. F. 1978. Analyzing impacts of Extension programs. U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Extension Service, Washington, D. C. Report No. ECS-575.

Cornwall, A. and J. Gaventa. 2000. F rom users to choosers to makers and shapers:
Repositioning participation in social policy. IDS Bulletin, 31(4): 50-62.

Fedler, A. J. 2001. Defining best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship
education. In Defining best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship
education, eds. A. J. Fedler and B. E. Matthews, pp. l-l 7. Arlington, VA:
Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation.

Flora, C. B. 1992. Rural communities: Legacy and change. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. 1977. Servant leadership. New York, NY: Paulist Books.

Hillery, G. A. 1955. Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology
55(June): 111-123.

Hungerford, H. R. and R. B. Peyton. 1980. A paradigm for Citizen responsibility:
environmental action. In Current issues IV: The yearbook of environmental
education and environmental studies, eds. A. B. Sacks, L. L. Burrus-Bammel, C.
B. Davis, and L. A. Iozzi, pp. 146-154. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

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

Levine, J. S. 2000. The challenge of helping adults learn: Characteristics of adult
learners & implications for teaching technical information. In Proceedings,
International Master Gardener Coordinators’ Conference, September 13, 2000,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Matthews, B. 1997. Building connections: Remarks at the tenth annual conference of the
Michigan association for environmental and outdoor eduction. Taproot Journal,
11(1): 6-8.

Miller, B. K., B. T. Wilkins and M. Spranger. 2001. Flaming the Extension program:
How do we decide what to do? i_n Fundamentals of a Sea Grant Extension
Program, pp. 19-26. Ithaca, NY: Media and Technology Services, Cornell
University.

Monroe, M. 1999. What works: A guide to environmental education and
communication programs for practitioners and donors. Gabriela Island, BC:
New Society Publishers.

Robinson, R. D. 1994. An introduction to helping adults learn and change (revised
edition). West Bend, WI: Omnibook Co.

Schrock, D. S., M. Meyer, P. Ascher, and M. Snyder. 2000a. Reasons for becoming
involved as a master gardener. HortTechnology, 10(3): 626-630.

Scholl, J. 1989. Influences on program planning. Journal of Extension, 27(4): _.

Shadish, Jr., R. W., T. D. Cook, and L. C. Leviton. 1995. Foundations of program
evaluation: Theories of practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Spranger, M. and B. T. Wilkins. 2001. Evaluation: Why bother? In Fundamentals of a
Sea Grant Extension Program, pp. 27-31. Ithaca, NY: Media and Technology
Services, Cornell University.

Sturtevant, R., J. Gunderson, P. Moy, B. Miller, J. Schwartz, J. Read, F. Lichtkoppler, F.
Snyder, E. Obert, D. White, D. Baker, M. Malchoff, and J. Homziak. 2002a.
Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (proposal). Great Lakes Sea Grant
Network, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, US. Department of Commerce, <http://www.
glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/GLFLI/Notebook/Planning/Proposals/InstituteProposal.
pdf>. Accessed 2004 April.

Vaske, J. J. and K. C. Kobrin. 2001. Place attachment and environmentally responsible
behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4): 16-21.

Western, D. and R. M. Wright. 1994. The background to community-based
conservation. In Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based
conservation, eds. D. Western and R. M. Wright, pp. 1-12. Washington, DC:
Island Press.

CHAPTER II
THE GREAT LAKES FISHERIES LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE: PROGRAM
IMPACTS IN RELATION TO REGIONAL SEA GRANT AND LOCAL
MICHIGAN PARTICIPANTS’ ANTICIPATED LEARNING OUTCOMES
ABSTRACT: In 2003-04, the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network piloted the
Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (GLFLI), an adult fisheries
Extension-based education program. This study evaluates Michigan segments
of the GLFLI, using qualitative and quantitative methods to describe intended
and actual activities, participant involvement and reactions, and knowledge
and skills impacts of this fisheries Extension education program. The GLF LI
covered nearly all intended learning outcomes through curriculum modules
and training sessions. Participants entered with high pre-institute ratings of
their own knowledge and skills related to Great Lakes fisheries, yet indicated
significant increases for nearly all intended learning outcomes. Participants
most strongly valued the outcomes of networking (among agencies,
institutions, and stakeholder groups) and learning about diverse stakeholders
(e. g., sport, charter, commercial, tribal fisheries), followed by knowledge
gains related to history, biology/ecology, management, and related to the
Great Lakes. Overall, most (81.8 0 0) Participants believer] their GLFLI
experience to be beneficial, and indicated they gained beyond what they had
originally hoped. Future evaluation studies should measure actual change in
participant knowledge and skills, conduct participant follow—up surveys to
track long-term GLFLI impacts, and investigate the value of the program to

other partners and stakeholders (e. g., agencies).

INTRODUCTION

Background

Fisheries management institutions face the challenge that resource users and
decision makers often lack enough information to understand the impacts of their
decisions in relation to achieving sustainable Great Lakes ecosystems and fisheries
(Sturtevant et al. 20023). After consulting with many Great Lakes partner agencies,
Sturtevant et al. (2002a) noted, “A key element in meeting this challenge is an educated,
motivated and participating citizenry.”

Throughout 2003 and early 2004, the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network piloted a
series of Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (GLFLI) training sessions to address
these needs. The regional GLFLI, an adult fisheries Extension education initiative,
represented the coordinated efforts and resources of eight Great Lakes state Sea Grant
programs, with funding support from the National Sea GrantCollege Program. The
purpose of this program is to accomplish adult education which serves the needs of Great
Lakes fishery stakeholders throughout the region. The vision for the institute is:

“. .. a Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute operating on a regional,

lake and state level capable of providing emerging citizen fishery leaders

with the knowledge and skills to effectively interact with Great Lakes

fishery management organizations for the benefit of the fishery and its

stakeholders (Sturtevant et al. 2002a, p. 4).”

The purpose of this research is to evaluate impacts resulting from the Michigan
components of this pilot program. I investigated various levels of intended and actual
program outcomes from the perspective of both regional GLFLI program planners, as

well as those participating in the program (Bennett 1978, Miller et al. 2001, Robinson

1994).

10

Expected Outcomes of the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (GLFLI)

The Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (GLFLI) consisted of a series of
regionally developed and coordinated fisheries science and leadership training sessions.
The institute targeted adults considered to be future citizen leaders in relation to Great
Lakes fisheries. The target audience for the institute was described by the Great Lakes
Sea Grant Network to include:

“New leaders of fisheries-related organizations, those likely to become

leaders of their organizations within the next few years, and particularly

those likely to be serving as advisors to Great Lakes fishery related

institutions (e.g., Lake Committees) (Sturtevant et al. 2002a, p. 5)

From the perspective of regional program planners, the GLFLI was designed to
increase knowledge about Great Lakes fisheries and fisheries management while
developing networks and leadership skills among future citizen fishery leaders
(Sturtevant et al. 2002a). Program goals, outlined in various planning documents,
described multiple learning outcomes expected of participants (Table lI-l ). Regional
Great Lakes Sea Grant staff developed these goals after consulting with program partner
agencies (Sturtevant et al. 2002a).

Since participants were adult learners, they likely entered into the GLFLI learning
experience with objectives for their own learning experience (Robinson 1994).
Participant learning expectations usually (a) apply to needs specific to these individuals,
(b) reflect their personal sense of service to natural resources issues within their own

community, or (c) relate to their connections or familiarity with local natural resources

(Greenleaf 1977, Western and Wright 1994, Matthews 1997, Levine 2000, Fedler 2001).

11

Foundation for Evaluating the GLFLI Pilot Program

Beyond developing and carrying out the pilot GLFLI program lies the need to
evaluate the program to determine its effectiveness in achieving intended outcomes
(Shadish et al. 1995). The GLFLI grant proposal required an evaluation component in
order to, “assess the effectiveness of delivery (i.e. workshop evaluations) (Sturtevant et
al. 2002a, p. 9).” The National Sea Grant College Program directs that evaluation should
focus data collection and analysis on the specific standards, goals, and objectives of the
program in determining the value of the effort (Spranger and Wilkins, 2001).

Sea Grant programs often evaluate program effectiveness at various levels based
on Bennett’s (1978) hierarchical pyramid of program impacts (Miller et al. 2001).
Bennett's (1978) evaluation model focuses initially on program resources, activities,
participation. In hierarchal progression, evaluation must also focus on participant needs
and reactions to the program, as well as changes in knowledge, opinions, skills and
aspirations.

GLFLI organizers, representing staff from various Great Lakes state Sea Grant
programs, developed several different sets of program learning outcomes; these are
described throughout various planning and promotional documents and synthesized in
Table II-l. This evaluation applies Sea Grant’s recommended model of program
evaluation (Miller et al. 2001), and focuses on intended and actual GLFLI resources,
activities, and participation. Investigating the institute’s achievement of the regional Sea
Grant GLFLI program goals is one important component of program evaluation that will

provide insights to program practitioners (Shadish et al. 1995). Stake (in Shadish et al.

12

1995, p. 273) states that, “As educational researchers and program evaluators, we are
interested in improving instructional practice.” I

The Sea Grant evaluation model also includes consideration of participant initial
needs and eventual reactions in relation to the program (Miller et al. 2001).
Understanding changes in participant knowledge, attitudes, or skills in relation to their
program expectations and experience are also important aspects of evaluating program
impacts (Bennett 1978, Miller et al. 2001). Stake (Shadish et al. 1995) strengthens an
argument for considering participant perspectives in program evaluation, stating the
importance of “identifying the particular stakes that persons have in a program and a
desire to serve those whom the program is supposed to be helping (Shadish et al. 1995, p.
273).”

Evaluating the impacts and value of the GLFLI program cannot be as simple as
determining whether GLFLI program objectives, determined by regional planners, were
accomplished (Bennett 1978, Robinson 1994, Shadish et al. 1995). Nor can impacts or
value be determined solely by asking GLFLI participants what they thought or felt about
their GLFLI experience (Bethel pers. comm. 2004). Ultimately, there may be more than
one set of program values, and evaluators should not attemptto generate a single, correct
value system by which to evaluate a program (Shadish et al. 1995). Evaluation should
represent multiple perspectives in evaluating program values according to Stake’s
evaluation philosophy (Shadish et al. 1995).

Bennett’s (1978) model describes multiple layers of evaluation, and provides a
foundation for program evaluation encompassing several perspectives by which the

GLFLI might be evaluated (Miller et al. 2001). Stake’s (Shadish et al. 1995) evaluation

13

 

work provides a secondary foundation by which this evaluation can address each tier or
layer of Bennett’s (1978) program evaluation approach through: (1) describing intended
program antecedents, transactions, and outcomes and (2) comparing and contrasting these
program intentions against observed or actual program antecedents, transactions, and

outcomes (Robinson 1994, Shadish et al. 1995).

RESEARCH PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS
This evaluation focuses on impacts of the GLFLI in relation to expected outcomes
i dentified by both regional GLFLI program organizers and local Michigan participants.
I n this study, I use Bennett’s (1978) framework to describe ( l ) program resources and
i nputs, (2) GLFLI program activities, (3) participation, (4) participant reactions, and (5)

Changes in participant knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Miller et al. 2001).

Research questions explored through this evaluation include:

1 - What resources, inputs, and program activities did GLFLI organizers use to
implement the program that Michigan participants experienced?

2 - What types of participants took part in the Michigan component of the GLFLI
program, and what were the expectations and reactions of these participants to their

actual GLFLI experience?

3 - In relation to goals and objectives stated by regional program planners, how did
participants ' knowledge, skills and attitudes change through the GLFLI experience?

14

 

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

GLFLI: A Model for Educating Adult Fishery Leaders
The GLFLI, modeled after Extension’s Master Gardner program, required 40-45

hours of training and contact time with participants through two to three sessions as a part
of their institute learning experience (Bobbit 1997, Sturtevant et al. 2002a). Each Great
Lake state’s Sea Grant program identified and recruited program participants.

,Participants were expected to carry out a fisheries-related service project of their own

C hoosing after completing the training program (Sturtevant 2003).

Program organizers developed and delivered to participants a base curriculum
consisting of eight core learning modules and six supplemental resources (a total of 14
standardized curriculum components) (Table lI-2). This curriculum served as the
Primary resource by which the GLFLI training sessions were structured (Sturtevant et al.
2 OOZb). Individual state Sea Grant programs participated in organizing, coordinating,

and carrying out various GLFLI training sessions attended by their state’s participants

( S t urtevant et al. 2002a).
Institute training sessions had two general formats, including: (a) a statewide

SeSsion within each state, as well as (b) regional, lakewide sessions for each of the Great
Lakes (Sturtevant et al. 2002a). One statewide session held in each participating state
a1lowed participants to meet officials (managers and legislators), focus on regulations,

and discuss issues specific to the state. Participants also attended lakewide sessions along
With a cross section of participants from the different states surrounding each respective

13k e. Lake sessions were held for each individual Great Lake and Lake Champlain.

Lakewide sessions focused training on biology, ecology, management arrangements, and

15

 

issues specific to each lake. The actual set of training experiences that any one individual
participant experienced varied depending on the state (e.g., Michigan), as well as the
individual Great Lake (e.g., Lake Huron), that each participant represented (Figure II-l).
As an example, each of Michigan’s 22 program participants represented one of
the four different Great Lakes (Huron, Michigan, Erie, and Superior). Every participant,
regardless of which lake they represented, attended the Michigan statewide session.
During this statewide session, they networked and learned along with other state of
Michigan participants from the various lake regions (e. g., Huron, Michigan, Erie, and
Superior). Additionally, each of Michigan’s participants also attended a series of one to
two training sessions revolving around the fisheries biology and ecology, management
and issues specific to the Great Lake each represented. At lakewide sessions, Michigan
participants networked with other researchers, managers, and user groups from all of the

state programs bordering that individual Great Lake.

Defining Fisheries Leadership

One key component of the GLFLI program included learning about the sciences
related to Great Lakes fisheries and fisheries management. This aspect of training
included topics ranging from fish biology, ecology, fish habitat needs, fisheries
management techniques, and aquatic nuisances species issues. A second primary
component of the GLFLI training included leadership development. One challenge of
generating a leadership training process begins with defining the leadership concept
itself.

A review of literature identifies diverse theories by which leadership might be

considered and defined (Bass 1990, Crawford et al. 2000, Northouse 2001). Bass (1990)

16

 

notes there are various definitions, and he classifies leadership into twelve categories.
Bass (1990) suggests that leadership might be described as: a personality, compliance
gaining, influence, an act or behavior, a form of persuasion, power relation, an instrument
of goal achievement, an effect of interaction, a differentiated role, and/or the initiation of
a structure or a group process. Crawford et al. (2000) contribute five additional
categories, suggesting that leadership might also be classified as: a process toward
change, the outcome of leaders, the consistent improvement of an organization, the
advancement of people morally and organizationally, or the confrontation and challenge
of authority.

For the purpose of the GLFLI, I used contemporary theories of leadership. In
these theories, leadership definitions are vague in relationship to specific individual skills
or traits, and instead focus on achieving knowledge, skills and abilities toward
involvement in processes that achieve common, mutual goals of all involved (Crawford
et al. 2000, Northouse 2001). These theories view leadership as a process and as an agent
of social change for community or societal benefit (Drath and Palus 1994, Spears 1995,
Crawford et al. 2000, Northouse 2001). Collaborative leadership conceptualizes that
leadership occurs collectively among group driven processes (Chrislip and Larson 1994).
Spears (1995) describes Greenleaf’s theory of servant-leadership, where leadership
orients around intent and actions that benefit first a community and others outside of the
individual or group providing the leadership role. Thus leadership is viewed as a service
to others. Servant leaders/zip is applicable to leadership education that focuses on

generating service project outcomes as a result of participants’ program experience.

17

 

For the purpose of this study, leadership is defined as a group process as an agent
of social (and environmental) change achieved through community service and carried
out through learners engaged in fisheries stewardship or conservation activities (based on
Hungerford and Volk 1990, Western and Wright 1994, Drath and Palus 1994, Spears
1995, Crawford et al. 2000, Northouse 2001). Enhancing leadership should include
developing background knowledge, gaining infomiation and skills, increasing

understanding, and networking with peers and professionals (Chrislip and Larson 1994).

Aspects of Successful Environmental Education Programming

Though the GLFLI participant audience is composed of adult learners,
environmental education theory can be applied to understanding fisheries leadership
activities as environmental stewardship behaviors. GLFLI program expectations are that
participants demonstrate fisheries leadership actions as a result of their program
experience (Sturtevant et. al 2002a). Similar to the GLFLI vision (Sturtevant et al.
2002a), successful environmental education efforts are characterized by the development
of knowledge and skills, generation of environmental awareness and positive attitudes,
and ultimately, motivation and empowerment toward stewardship behaviors in relation to
natural resources and the environment (TICEE 1977, Hungerford and Volk 1990,
MEECAC 1992, NAAEE 1996, Fedler 2001). Variables affecting participants’
involvement in leadership activities as described by GLFLI program staff are similar to
variables involved in changing environmental stewardship behaviors of learners
(Hungerford and Volk 1990, Sturtevant et al. 2002a).

Variables related to stewardship behaviors can be described as entry level

variables, ownership variables, and empowerment variables (Hungerford and Volk 1990).

18

 

Entry level variables include basic awareness, knowledge, and attitudes. Ownership
variables include more in-depth knowledge and personal investment in issues. Finally,
empowerment variables include action skills and learners’ comfort in being able to carry
out environmental behaviors successfully. These variables should not be considered as a
linear process, but are all important, interrelated precursors related to fostering
environmental stewardship behaviors (Hungerford and Volk 1990, Zint 2001).
Moreover, environmental education toward stewardship behaviors should be viewed as a
life-long process, starting at an early age and consisting of continued learning
experiences that take place over time (Hungerford and Volk 1990, Dann 1993, Siemer

2001, Fedler 2001).

Adult Education - What Drives Learning?

Typically, adult learners are pragmatic in their learning, and are most likely to
look for ways to apply their learning to their present situations or needs (Robinson 1994,
Levine 2000). Adult learning is problem-centered in that adults are self motivated to
learn or purposefully decide to learn (Levine 2000) when they “experience problems or
recognize a gap between where they are and where they want to be (Robinson 1994,
p. 11).” Motivations for adults to learn increase when they can apply their learning
experience to specific needs or solving problems pertinent to themselves and their current
situations (Levine 2000). According to Robinson (1994, p. 8), “Adults come to a
learning situation with their own personal goals and objectives, which may or may not be
the same as those given for the learning situation.”

Learning is a process where individuals can ( 1) experience or participate in an

activity; (2) reflect on their actions or learning activity; (3) theorize, conceptualize or

19

 

interpret what they have learned and how it may apply to other situations; and (4)
translate their learning to other actions or applications (Kolb 1984). Kolb (1984)
identifies different styles of learning, understanding or ways of processing information.
These types of learning include: (1) active learning (hands-on, trying or doing something
and learning through experience); (2) reflective learning (watching or doing, concrete
reflection); (3) theorizing learning (watching and thinking, abstract reflection); or (4)

pragmatic learning (thinking and doing) (Kolb 1984).

A Framework for Program Evaluation

Miller et al. (2001) suggest that Sea Grant should evaluate programs at various
levels of effectiveness based on Bennett’s (1978) hierarchical pyramid of program
impacts. Bennett’s (1978) seven levels of evaluation include:

1) Resources

2) Activities

3) Participation

4) Participant Reactions

5) Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills, and Aspirations

6) Practices '

7) Social, Economic, and Enviromnental Outcomes.

Resources and program activities include the various inputs that go into planning,
development, and implementation of a specific program. Participation includes
understanding the numbers, types, and backgrounds of stakeholders involved as program
participants. Participant reactions relate to understanding perceptions, responses, or
feedback from those stakeholders involved in the program. Knowledge, attitudes, skills,
and aspirations can be understood as specific changes that occur among program

stakeholders as a result of carrying out the program. Practices are those specific actions

of program participants resulting from their involvement, and, in this study, might be

20

described as stewardship behaviors, environmental actions or fisheries leadership actions
(Hungerford and Peyton 1980, Hungerford and Volk 1990, Sturtevant et al. 2002a).
Social, economic, and environmental outcomes are the measure of actual impacts or
changes in society, the economy, and the environment that are desired and expected as

long-term results of carrying out the program.

A Second Model for Evaluation

Stake’s (Shadish et al. 1995) work toward program evaluation complements
Bennett’s (1978) evaluation model. His work provides a basis for evaluating programs in
the context of both program developers, as well as the stakeholders who benefit from the
program (Shadish et al. 1995).

Stake provides an approach to data collection that emphasizes the, “use of
multiple and even contradictory sources of information (Stake 1980a in Shadish et al.
1995, p. 79).” He identifies multiple types of data that the evaluator might gather,
starting with program rationale or goals and objectives (Robinson 1994). Stake indicates
that evaluators should focus on information related to intended program antecedents,
program transactions, and actual outcomes that occur through programming (Robinson
1994).

Intended antecedents are similar to what Bennett (1978) defines as program
resources and activities, or the types of things that are associated with program design,
development, and implementation. Actual or observed transactions include programming
as it actually occurs during the implementation phase. Bennett (1978) might also
describe these components as program activities, participation, or participant reactions.

Finally program outcomes are similar to Bennett’s (1978) description of changes in

21

participants’ knowledge or skills, practices, or ultimately environmental changes
occurring as a result of the program activity.

Evaluators should consider standards by which to evaluate these antecedents,
transactions, and outcomes related to the program (Robinson 1994). Stake highlights to
the importance of collecting data that help to build judgments of merit or quality
regarding the programs’ intended antecedents or inputs, actual or observed transactions or
activities, and outcomes related to programming (Robinson 1994). Stake emphasizes that
there is no one singular value system by which to judge merit or quality of programming,
and that multiple stakeholders or viewpoints must be considered in considering the value

or worth of the program being evaluated (Shadish et al. 1995).

METHODS

Overview

Following a protocol approved by the MSU University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS), I conducted a quantitative and qualitative
evaluation of (1) intended program goals and objectives, (2) actual GLFLI program
learning outcomes, and (3) activities and participant reactions that actually occurred
during the Michigan components of the institute.

The Michigan audience for the GLFLI consisted of 22 participants selected to
take part in the program. All participants were expected to participate in the full GLFLI
learning process. Of the total Michigan participants (n=22), 21 participants completed at
least one-half of the GLFLI training process, and 15 participants completed their full

GLFLI program requirements. All selected participants attended at least one GLFLI

22

training session (Figure II-l, Table lI-3). A demographic description of GLFLI
participants is summarized in Table II-4.

All Michigan participants (n=22) provided consent to respond voluntarily to the
GLFLI evaluation. Participants completed both a pre-institute survey and a similar post-
institute survey at the immediate end of their GLFLI program experience. Participants’
applications and their written works resulting from GLFLI training activities provided
qualitative data regarding motivations, expectations, program values and intended

actions.

Data Collection Instruments
GLFLI Planning and Training Session Documents

1 used program planning and promotional documents to describe program
expectations and impacts from the perspectives of regional GLFLI program organizers.
In describing actual GLFLI program activities to which Michigan GLFLI participants
were exposed, I conducted a qualitative content review and summary of 14 separate
resources provided in the standardized curriculum package and agendas from six

different training sessions attended by Michigan participants.

Survey Instruments

The design of the pre- and post-institute survey instruments followed guidelines
established by Dillman (1978, 2000) and Babbie (1998). Prior to survey administration,
validity of survey questions was addressed through a review by university faculty, Sea
Grant program staff responsible for GLFLI programming, and university fisheries

graduate students not involved in the study (Babbie 1998, Punch 1998, Ary et al. 2002). I

23

administered, in person, pre-institute surveys to each participant at the beginning of each
participant’s first GLFLI training session, and 1 administered post-institute surveys
immediately following the completion of each person’s final training session. For each
survey, completion time ranged between 10 and 20 minutes. All Michigan GLFLI
participants (n=22) completed surveys before and after their GLFLI training experience,
resulting in a 100% response rate for this study.

The survey instrument consisted mostly of Likert-type questions covering a range
of topics. Participants responded to questions about their background, knowledge and
skills, motivations for participation, learning expectations, intended service projects and
leadership action, reactions to various components of the GLFLI program, and basic
demographic information such as age, gender, and education (US. Census 2000).
Questions about participant knowledge, skills, motivations and intended fisheries
leadership involvement were modified and used from previous, similar studies
(Hungerford and Peyton 1980, Williamson 1996, Schrock et al. 2000a). I also developed
knowledge and skills questions to reflect information provided within GLFLI planning
documents (Sturtevant et al. 2002a).

The survey included open-ended questions designed to gain information related to
participant learning expectations and leadership actions (e.g., service project) (Ary et al.
2002). Open-ended questions provided insight to the most salient and foremost
knowledge and opinions of respondents (Dillman 1978, Geer 1991, Sheatsley 1993). In
using open-ended questions, respondents could answer freely and in their own frames of
reference, providing responses that were spontaneous and uninfluenced by suggested

answers or response categories (Dillman 1978, Sheatsley 1993).

24

Application and Writing Activities

I collected qualitative data through applications and various writing exercises
completed by participants. Application packages provided information related to
participant backgrounds, learning expectations, and intended actions or service projects
resulting from their GLFLI participation. The Michigan statewide training session
included discussions and writing exercises about fisheries leadership involvement and
communities in which leaders would be involved. I collected the results of these activities

to supplement this evaluation.

Overview of A nalysis

Quantitative survey data were analyzed using SPSS 10.0.7 for Windows, software
for designed for statistical analysis of social science data (2000). I matched pre- and
post-surveys for each individual Michigan GLFLI participant in order to analyze
differences between pre- and post-institute responses. Analysis included calculating
univariate statistics (frequencies, means, and medians) for all variables. Due to the small
number of participants (n=22), I used the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-ranks test for
bivariate analysis to determine whether significant differences (p < .05) occurred between
pre- and post-institute survey responses (SPSS 2000).

I conducted a preliminary analysis to compare results among those participating
in different lake groups. Smaller sample sizes resulting from looking at individual lake
groups (6. g. Lake Erie n=3) made it unlikely that I could identify statistically significant
differences that did or did not occur among these smaller groups. For the purpose of this
research, I conducted all statistical analysis on the full Michigan GLFLI participant

delegation (n=22), regardless of what lake group they represented.

25

I coded, categorized, and analyzed qualitative data for similarities, patterns, and
examples of experiences in order to identify and describe the responses of Michigan
GLFLI participants (Punch 1998, Ary et al. 2002). I coded and organized qualitative data
using one of three different methods depending on the specific research questions.

Where possible, literature guided the coding process and categories for qualitative data.
Where qualitative data were used to supplement quantitative data, Likert-type survey
question items guided the coding of data. Finally, some questions required an open
coding process to develop new code categories for participant responses. When
conducting open coding processes, I engaged additional outside coders to verify the

coding categories and process (Punch 1998, Ary et al. 2002).

GLFLI Learning Outcome Areas

I identified unique categories of intended GLFLI program learning outcomes that
appeared throughout various GLFLI planning and promotional documents. These
learning outcomes could be organized into one of three categories including: (1) broad
goal statements, (2) fisheries science related, or (3) leadership related statements. I then
classified all unique learning outcomes by category, and provided a summary of which
GLFLI planning and promotional documents indicated each specific learning outcome

area (Table II-l ).

Program Activity and Coverage of Learning Outcome Areas
I compared the learning experience that was intended by GLFLI programmers
with the GLFLI program resources and training activities actually provided to Michigan

participants. A review of the GLFLI curriculum package (8 core modules and 6

26

supplemental resources) provided a summary of basic content contained within each of
the 14 curriculum components and fomrat by which each was presented to program
participants (Table Il-2). I compiled agendas and meeting notes from each GLFLI
session. These data were classified as either (1) statewide, or (2) lakewide sessions. I
analyzed content and coverage of each training session in relation to intended GLFLI
learning outcomes. I determined degree of coverage of each learning outcome based on a
content review of curriculum components, the Michigan statewide session, and the

various lakewide sessions (Tables lI-5, 11-6).

Participant Learning Expectations and Actual Outcomes

Open ended questions on the participant applications and the pre-institute survey
asked participants what they had hoped to learn or gain through their GLFLI learning
experience. The application also asked participants to describe their interest in
participating in the GLFLI. The post-institute survey included an open ended question
asking participants what they had actually learned or gained through their GLFLI
experience.

Based on participant responses to pre- and post-institute surveys, I coded
participant responses into similar response categories (Table II-7) (Punch 1998, Ary et al.
2002). This coding process was repeated by two independent coders and l analyzed the
results for similarities and differences in developing a final coding system (Table 11-8).
Based on these results, the final coding scheme was slightly adjusted, and I categorized
all participant pre- and post-institute responses from all data sources under one of nine

categories (Tables Il-9, 11-10). I then compared pre-institute expectations against post-

27

institute responses to what participants believed they had gained looking for similarities

and differences (Table II-l 1).

Participant Reactions to the Program and Curriculum

In the post-institute survey, I asked a series of questions related to participants’
overall reactions to their GLFLI experience. Participants responded to questions about
whether they had learned what they had originally hoped, learned something
unanticipated, and generally considered their learning experience to be beneficial (Table
lI-12). Participants also responded to Likert-type questions asking if their expectations
had been met by the curriculum, lessons, or experiential (hands-on) opportunities. I also
asked participants if they believed they had opportunities to practice knowledge and skills
gained during the GLFLI (Table II-13). Participants rated each item on a 5-point scale,
with “strongly disagree” coded as l to “strongly agree” coded as 5.

Additionally, in the post-institute survey, I provided a list of curriculum
components to participants, and asked them to indicate which components they
considered to be most and least valuable to their overall learning experience (Table II-
14). Participants were able to choose as many curriculum components as they felt were
either most or least valuable. Through open-ended questions, I also asked participants to

indicate which experiential opportunities were most and least valuable (Table II-15).

Participant Knowledge and Skills
Based on four different sets of Likert-type questions, participants rated their own

knowledge, understanding, comfort and skills. The myriad of intended learning outcome

28

areas defined regionally for the GLFLI program provided the basis for these questions.
Participants responded to the same sets of knowledge and skills questions in both pre-
and post-institute surveys. I used Wilcoxon signed-ranks statistical tests to compare pre-
and post-institute responses on quantitative items. I then compared the results of this
analysis against the intended learning outcomes areas described regionally for the GLF L1
program and Michigan participants.

Guided by GLFLI objective statements concerning knowledge of biological and
ecological aspects of the Great Lakes fishery, I developed a set of sixteen Likert-scale
questions (Table lI-16). Likewise, a second set of twelve Likert-scale items
corresponding with GLFLI objective statements asked participants to assess their own
knowledge of social, cultural, political, and economic aspects of the Great Lakes fishery
(Table II-17). In pre- and post-institute surveys, participants rated their own biological,
ecological, social, cultural, political, and economic knowledge on a 5-point scale, with
“very unknowledgeable” coded as l to “very knowledgeable” coded as 5.

Corresponding with GLFLI objective statements, I asked participants a third set of
thirteen Likert-scale items related to knowledge of opportunities toward leadership and
involvement with the Great Lakes fishery (Table Il-l 8). In pre- and post—institute
surveys, participants self-rated their own knowledge for each item related to leadership
and involvement opportunities on a 5-point scale, with “strongly disagree” coded as l to
“strongly agree” coded as 5.

Participants were asked a fourth set of eleven Likert-scale items developed from
GLFLI objective statements and relating to participant comfort and skills toward

leadership and involvement with the Great Lakes fishery (Table 11-19). In pre- and post-

29

 

institute surveys, participants self-rated their own comfort and skills for each item related
to leadership and involvement opportunities on a 5-point scale, with “strongly disagree”
coded as l to “strongly agree” coded as 5.

I next developed multi-item scales from the Likert-type knowledge and skills
items that could be used to describe each general learning outcome area defined by
GLFLI program organizers. For each multi-item scale, I utilized the Wilcoxon signed-
ranks test to determine any statistical significant changes in pre- to post-institute
participant responses. Determining positive change for each program learning area was
based on statistically significant positive change occurring in 275% of the total items

associated with each multi-item scale.

RESULTS

GLFLI Program Intended Outcomes

In considering learning outcomes, the regional GLFLI program organizers
identified multiple learning objectives for participants through Visioning and planning
documents (28 objectives), promotional documents (9 objectives), and the participant
application package (8 objectives). These planning and Visioning documents described
both broad and specific learning outcomes in relation to knowledge, understanding,
comfort, and skills that participants should gain through their training.

When summarized, there existed 29 unique intended outcomes for the GLFLI
(Table II-l). These program outcomes were synthesized into three categories. The first
category consisted of three unique outcome statements which could be considered as

broad goals due to their lack of specificity. Ten learning outcomes represented science

30

 

related topics encompassing specific statements about Great Lakes biology, ecology or
fisheries management sciences. Sixteen learning outcomes focused specific attention to
leadership, with specific statements describing knowledge of networking, institutional
arrangements, fisheries issues, and other social, political, and economic aspects of Great

Lakes fisheries.

Program Resources and Activities

Curriculum Development

The GLFLI regional program staff developed a science-based and peer reviewed
set of curriculum components and provided these to each institute participant. Although
each participant’s training experience may have been slightly different, each person
received and worked from a standardized curriculum with eight core modules and six
supplemental resources (a total of 14 components) (Table II-2).

Prior to beginning the GLFLI training process, all participants received by mail
one curriculum module, “The Life of the Lakes: A Guide to the Great Lakes Fishery”
(Dann and Schroeder 2003). During the GLFLI process and prior to completion of the
training, all participants received a curriculum binder containing the remaining
curriculum modules. The Coaster Brook Trout Case Study and Fish ID CD ROM were
two components not completed and therefore not available to Michigan GLFLI
participants prior to their final training sessions. However, for the Fish ID component,
Michigan participants received substitute, supplemental materials to provide training on

identifying Great Lakes fishes.

31

Organizational and Instructor Involvement

The various GLFLI training sessions attended by Michigan participants featured
the knowledge, resources, and skills of 20 different Sea Grant program staff representing
five Sea Grant programs. These staff contributed to the planning, coordination, and
implementation process of the GLFLI. While all Sea Grant GLFLI staff had roles in
organizing or coordinating meetings, many also served as instructors and facilitators
throughout the sessions.

Additionally, 36 non-Sea Grant experts representing 22 unique agencies,
organizations or institutions also provided instruction and support for the GLFLI learning
experience. Twelve instructors were involved with the learning process of all Michigan
participants during the Michigan Statewide session. At least 24 additional instructors
contributed to the training of Michigan participants, with their resources distributed

among five lakewide training sessions.

Program Activities

The Michigan GLFLI program consisted ofa total of six training sessions (Table
II-3). The Michigan component of the GLFLI consisted of one statewide meeting for all
of the state’s participants. An additional five lakewide meetings (with two meetings for
the Lake Huron group) occurred, where Michigan participants met with instructors and
participants from other states bordering their respective lakes. During lakewide
meetings, the agenda, meeting structure, the set of speakers, and the learning experiences
varied for participants across the different lake groups.

A review of curriculum components and agendas from all six training sessions

determined coverage and participant exposure in relation to each GLFLI lcaming

32

outcome areas (Tables Il-5, 11-6). Of the ten intended science-related outcomes, eight
received coverage primarily through curriculum and lakewide training sessions only
(Table II-5). One outcome, related to history of Great Lakes fisheries management,
received coverage through curriculum and both lakewide and statewide meetings. This
makes sense given the general fisheries topic of the institute. One other outcome, related
to contaminants of Great Lakes fish, received coverage through curriculum only (and no
training sessions). A majority (ten) of the 16 leadership outcomes received coverage
through curriculum and both statewide and lakewide training sessions (Table 11-6). An
additional five leadership outcomes received coverage through curriculum and statewide
trainings only. Only one outcome, related to fish consumption advisories. received
coverage through curriculum only (and no training sessions).

Of the total set of 26 GLFLI intended learning outcomes, 1 I received exposure
through curriculum, and both statewide and lakewide training sessions (Table II-20).
Most outcomes with such complete coverage were leadership outcomes. with the
exception of one science outcome. The GLFLI identified outcomes receiving adequate
coverage in three formats (curriculum, lakewide and statewide trainings) included:

(1) basic knowledge and history relating to the Great Lakes fishery and

fishery management,

(2) networking among diverse stakeholders and experts from a variety of

backgrounds,

(3) understanding institutional arrangements and processes that feed into

fisheries management,

(4) understanding of fisheries issues related to the Great Lakes fisheries

and it’s stakeholders,
(5) understanding the economic importance of Great Lakes fisheries.

Intended outcomes covered through curriculum components and the statewide

training, but lacking in coverage during lakewide training sessions, included mainly

33

leadership outcomes. The outcomes were covered through the curriculum and statewide
training included:

(1) basic leadership skills,

(2) influencing policy decisions and legislative initiatives,

(3) sharing information (teaching) and increasing public participation in

relation to Great Lakes fisheries,

(4) understanding of funding authorities or opportunities.

Intended outcomes receiving coverage through curriculum components and
lakewide meetings, but lacking in coverage during the Michigan statewide meeting
included primarily science-related learning outcome areas. The outcomes receiving
training coverage through curriculum and lakewide training sessions included:

(1) a basic understanding of fish ecology, biology, or science,

(2) Great Lakes fish production,

(3) understanding food webs and trophic level changes,

(4) understanding effects of the aquatic nuisance species,

(5) understanding fish habitats, issues related to habitats, and habitat

restoration,

(6) identifying Great Lakes fish species.

Two outcomes received coverage through curriculum only, lacking adequate
coverage through most of the Michigan GLFLI training sessions (both statewide and
lakewide meetings). These two outcomes included one science and another leadership
outcome, both relating to contaminants and fish consumption advisories. No outcome
described regionally by the GLFLI planning team were found to be lacking coverage in

all three formats (curriculum, lakewide and statewide meetings) for any of the Michigan

GLFLI programming.

GLFLI Participation
GLFLI organizers anticipated that participation would reach seven persons per

state for each lake group. In Michigan, the actual GLFLI participation totaled 22

34

participants, representing four different Great Lake groups. The Michigan delegation for
Michigan and Huron lake groups totaled eight participants for each, while Lakes Erie and
Superior each had three adult learners (Table 11-3). Twenty-one of these Michigan
participants attended at least two different training sessions, including a statewide and a
lakewide training session.

The total Michigan GLFLI delegation consisted of 19 males (86.4%) and three
females (13.6%) (Table II-4). By comparison, the Michigan population is 51% female
and 49% male (US. Census 2000), and 2002 Michigan sportfishing license holders are
18.6% female and 80.7% male (Dann 2004, unpublished). Institute participants
underrepresented females when compared to the Michigan population, but the GLFLI
gender distribution more closely resembled the states’ licensed sport angling population.

Mean age of Michigan participants was 44.5 years (Median=46.5), with ages
distributed among the following categories: 2 (9.1%) were 20-24 years old; 3 (13.64%)
were 25-34 years old; 5 (22.7%) were 35-44 years old; 8 (36.4%) were 45-54 years old;
4 (18.2%) were 55-64 years old (Table 11-4). By comparison, the mean age for Michigan
residents is 35.5 years old (US. Census 2000), whereas Michigan sportfishing license
holders average 43.3 years (Dann 2004, unpublished). So institute participants on
average reflected an audience slightly older than the average Michigan resident or sport
angler.

Twenty participants (90.9%) identified themselves as white, with two participants
(9.1%) identifying themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native and one (4.5%) as
Hispanic or Latino (Table Il-4). The US. Census (2000) reports the following ethnic

distribution of Michigan residents: 80.2% white, 14.2% black or African American,

35

3.3% Hispanic or Latino, 1.8% Asian, 1.3% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander,
and 0.6 Native American or Alaska native.

Eight (36.36%) participants live in a rural farm or non-farm residence in
Michigan, and another five (22.7%) of the participants live in a small town (25,000
people or fewer) setting. Another nine (40.91%) participants live in urban or
metropolitan areas of Michigan (Table lI-4). Institute participants varied, with no distinct
pattern, in the types of residential settings where they lived.

Education of participants widely varied from having graduate or professional
degrees (9 participants, 40.9) to less than a high school diploma (1 participant, 4.5%).
One person (4.5%) completed only high school or GED equivalent, and another (4.5%)
completed vocational or trade school. Four participants (18.2%) completed some college,
whereas another four (4.5%) participants completed a college level Bachelor’s or 4-year
degree (Table II-4). Institute participants, while diverse in their education, generally
reflected a highly educated audience.

Participants represented 18 different occupations, including commercial fishing (2
persons). Other occupations included: educators, engineers, natural resources
professionals, journalists, graduate students, organizational managers, medical
professionals, and retired individuals.

The 22 Michigan participants directly affiliated with 43 unique organizations
related to Great Lakes fisheries. These included sportfishing, commercial fishing, fish
habitat, watershed, fisheries management professional, and outdoor writing sectors.

More than half of these participants identified that they directly associated with more

than one Great Lakes or fisheries related organization. Eleven participants listed

36

organizations with which they were not directly affiliated, but with which they worked
closely or communicated. These indirect organizational affiliations account for an added

13 unique organizations not accounted for in the list of direct affiliations.

Participant Learning Expectations

On their applications and pre-institute surveys, twenty-one participants identified
their expectations of what they hoped to learn or gain. I organized participant responses
into 9 response categories (Table II-9). Participant response categories varied widely by
individuals, and most participants (18 respondents) indicated more than one learning
expectation in relation to their GLFLI participation.

Over half of the participants listed learning goals of gaining knowledge and skills
necessary for educating or sharing information (57.1%), or understanding basic Great
Lakes fisheries history, biology, and ecology (57.1%). At least one-third of the
participants desired to gain understanding of fisheries management and policies (38.1 %),
networks or networking skills (38.1%), understanding of issues related to the Great Lakes
(33.3%), or access to additional resources or information (33.3%). Less than one-quarter
of the participants indicated that learning about diverse stakeholders (23.8%), (2) gaining
action or advocacy knowledge or skills (19%), or other general leadership skills ( 14.3%)
were learning priorities.

Participant responses also varied across different lake groups (Table II-9). For
example, 75% of Lake Huron representatives indicated education or information sharing,
networking, and knowledge and skills as outcomes they had hoped to gain. For Lake
Michigan, 75% of the group indicated understanding of fisheries management and

policies as learning expectations. All Lake Erie participants (100%) indicated that basic

37

 

Great Lakes fisheries history, biology, and ecology, as well as better understanding of
Great Lakes issues were important learning outcomes. Half of Lake Superior
representatives indicated education, learning about diverse stakeholders, and fisheries

history, biology, and ecology were expected outcomes.

Participant Reactions
Reactions to Curriculum

In response to curriculum, participants responded that the most valuable resources
included: The Life of the Lakes (86.4% of participants), Fisheries Habitat Module
(40.9%), Aquatic Nuisance Species Effects on Sustainability Module (40.9%), Fish ID
CD ROM (36.4%), and Fisheries Management Module (31.8%) (Table II-l4). Other
curriculum components were considered to be most valuable-for two to five (9.1% -
22.7%) participants, but were not mentioned as often as the most valuable five resources.
In all, 77.3% of Michigan GLFLI participants agreed that the cun'iculum components had
met their expectations in some way (Table II-l 3).

Eight curriculum components received mention as “least valuable” by at least one
(4.5%) but no more than 3 (13.6%) ofthe Michigan participants (Table Il-14). Only
three curriculum components were mentioned as “least valuable” by more than one
participant, including: the Great Lake Charter Fishing Survey (9. 1%), the Aquatic
Science Module (13.6%), and the Coaster Brook Trout Case Study (13.6%). Overall,
only 22.7% of participants rated the curriculum as not meeting their expectations (Table

1143).

38

Reactions to Program Activities

Each participant’s experiential opportunities were slightly different, as a result of
the GLFLI program design. Overall, 54.5% of participants agreed that their experiential
opportunities had met their expectations. On the contrary, nearly one-third (27.3%) felt
that their experiential opportunities were less than expected.

Twelve participants listed general experiential opportunities as most valuable to
their Ieaming, including: networking opportunities, “hands-on” opportunities that
involved such things as field trips (i.e., commercial fisheries tours or on-the-boat
involvement in research), or speakers or sessions that facilitated participant discussion or
at least some component of participant involvement during their learning (Table II-15).

Experiences that were considered least valuable by participants included activities
that: focused solely on “leadership” skills activities, such as discussing styles of
leadership (1 participant), or involved “lecture fomrat” learning, particularly where
information presented was “dry” or “outdated” (2 participants) (Table II-15). Four
respondents indicated that they considered “none” of their experiences as “least
valuable”. Another participant indicated that “more” experiential learning opportunities
would be valuable to their learning.

Generally, based on response to Likert-type questions, over half (54.5%) of the
participants reported they had adequate opportunity to practice knowledge and skills
gained during the GLFLI. Nearly one-fifth of participants (18.2%) disagreed that they
had enough opportunity to practice their newly gained knowledge and skills. Nearly one-

third (27.3%) of all participants responded neutrally (did not agree or disagree) when

39

asked through closed ended questions asking about having adequate opportunities to

practice newly gained knowledge and skills.

Participants 'Assessment of Actual Outcomes

Twenty participants identified through their post-institute survey that they
believed they had actually learned or gained in specific outcome areas (Table II-10).
Eleven of these participants indicated that they had learned or gained in more than one
category.

One-third or more of the participants identified the following actual outcomes that
they believed they had gained: developing networks and networking skills (45%),
understanding fisheries management and policies (35%), and learning about diverse
stakeholders (35%). About one fourth of participants (20-25%) reported they gained:
understanding of specific issues related to the Great Lakes (25%), access to resources or
additional information (25%), and basics of Great Lakes fisheries history, biology, and
ecology (20%).

No participants identified these areas as actual gains: knowledge and skills
relating to education or sharing information, action or advocacy, or other general
leadership skills. This is particularly noteworthy because these areas reflected Ieaming
goals identified as important by the GLFLI program staff, and these topics were learning
expectations of participants as they entered into their program experience.

Outcome areas where participants believed they had learned or gained varied
across the lake groups (Table II-10). Development of networks and networking skills
were identified as an actual outcome by Lakes Michigan (71.4%) and Huron (50%)

participants. Learning about diverse stakeholders, as well as understanding fisheries

4O

management and policies, were the only two outcomes identified by participants in all
four Great Lake groups. Basics of Great Lakes history, biology, and ecology, as well as
understanding Great Lakes issues, were actual outcome areas identified by three of the
four lake groups.

A comparison of pre-institute expected Ieaming outcomes identified by
participants and the post-institute participant assessment of their actual Ieaming outcomes
is provided in Table II-l 1. Networking and Ieaming about diverse stakeholders were the
only two areas demonstrating an increase in the number of participants who believed
these to be actual program outcomes when compared with Ieaming expectations
originally identified by participants (range in percent change of participants=+6.9% to
+1 1.2%). Learning about fisheries management and policies, understanding Great Lakes
issues, access to information and resources, and basic fisheries biology and ecology were
areas that several participants (20%) identified as actual program outcomes. However,
these Ieaming outcomes were identified by fewer participants than had originally
expressed these areas as Ieaming expectations prior to entering into their GLFLI
experience.

Three originally identified Ieaming outcome areas were not mentioned by any
participants as actual Ieaming outcomes resulting from their GLFLI experience. Of these
areas, it is worth note that knowledge and skills related to education or information
sharing was originally one of the top listed expected Ieaming outcomes (identified by
57.1% of participants). Action or advocacy (19%) and other general leadership skills
(14.3%) were expected outcomes identified originally by few participants, but then were

identified by no participants as actual outcomes.

41

In all, 72.7% (mean=3.64, where 5=strongly agree) of Michigan GLFLI
participants agreed that they had learned or gained what they had originally hoped from
their GLFLI experience. However, in contrast, 27.3% of Michigan GLFLI participants
disagreed that they had learned or gained what they had originally hoped. Of all
Michigan participants, 81.8% (mean=4.05, where 5=strongly agree) believed that they
had learned or gained something new or something that they did not anticipate Ieaming.
Overall, 81.8% (mean=4. 1 8) of the participants indicated that they considered their
GLFLI Ieaming experience to be beneficial, regardless of what they had hoped to learn or

believed they had actually learned or gained.

Changes in Participant Knowledge and Skills

Great Lakes biology and ecology knowledge scores, self-rated by participants, are
summarized in Table II-16. Prior to the GLFLI, participants’ self-ratings of their
knowledge for the different items ranged from a mean score of 2.71 to 4.00 (on a 5-point
scale, where 5= very knowledgeable). Following the GLFLI, participants’ average self-
rated scores ranged between a mean of 3.62 to 4.52. The difference in pre- and post-
evaluation means ranged from a 0.43 increase to an increase of 1.09 in participant scores
for items. Participants indicated a significant increase (p < .05) for all Great Lakes
biology and ecology knowledge items (Table 11-16).

Participant knowledge of social, political, and cultural aspects of the Great Lakes
fishery are summarized in Table Il-17. In pre-institute survey responses, participants’
self-ratings of their knowledge for the different items ranged from a mean score of 3.24
to 4.00 (on a 5-point scale, where 5: very knowledgeable). Following the GLFLI,

participants’ average self-rated scores ranged between a mean of 4. l 0 to 4.67. The

42

difference in pre- and post-evaluation means ranged from a 0.24 increase to an increase
of 1.00 in participant scores for items. Participants indicated a significant increase (p <
.05) for all but one item of the social, political, and culture related items (Table 11-17).
The one item for which participants did not achieve a statistically significant increase in
score was related to understanding of fish consumption advisories (a topic with weak
coverage within training sessions).

Knowledge relating to participants’ own involvement with the Great Lakes
fishery is summarized in Table II-18. Prior to beginning their participation in the GLFLI,
participants’ self-ratings of their knowledge for each item ranged from a mean score of
2.48 to 3.81 (on a 5-point scale, where 5= strongly agree). Following the GLFLI,
participants’ average self-rated scores ranged between a mean of 3.67 to 4.76. The
difference in pre- and post-evaluation means ranged from a 0.58 increase to an increase
of 1.43 in participant scores for items. Participants indicated a significant increase (p <
.05) for all Great Lakes involvement related items (Table II-18).

Comfort and skills relating to participants’ own involvement with the Great Lakes
fishery are summarized in Table Il-19. In pre-institute survey responses, participants’
self-ratings of their comfort and skills for the different items ranged from a mean score of
3.38 to 3.81 (on a 5-point scale, where 5: strongly agree). Following GLFLI
participation, participants’ average self-rated scores ranged between a mean of 4.29 to
4.76. The difference in pre- and post-evaluation means ranged from a 0.38 increase to an
increase of 1.05 in participant scores for items. Participants indicated significant gains
(p < .05) for all items about their comfort and skills toward Great Lakes fishery

involvement (Table 11-19).

43

Generally, means (and medians) for pre-institute knowledge items were relatively
high, indicating a high level of base knowledge, understanding, comfort and skills for
participants. However, in nearly all cases, participants indicated statistically significant
and positive increases in their knowledge, understanding, comfort, and skills following
their GLFLI participation experience. Only one Likert-type item failed to show a
statistically significant gain from pre- to post-participation surveys. This item relates to
participants’ understanding of fish consumption advisories or how contaminants affect
public safety. Even for this item participants still indicated high levelsof knowledge and
understanding for this item both before and after the GLFLI.

Grouped Likert-type items (multi-item scales) relating to knowledge,
understanding, comfort and skills were used to describe each identified GLFLI Ieaming
outcome. In all cases, all items grouped within each multi-item scale resulted in either all
significant positive changes or all non-significant changes based on Wilcoxon signed-
ranks statistical analysis. No group of Likert-type items for any specific Ieaming
outcome resulted in mixed results, where some items within the scale yielded significant
change and others resulted in no change.

Determinations of significant change in participant knowledge and skills for each
learning outcome area are summarized in Table II-21. Items related to all science
Ieaming outcomes resulted in significant positive changes in participant ratings of their
knowledge and understanding. Similarly, based on groups of items, significant positive
changes in participant knowledge and skills were demonstrated for nearly all leadership

Ieaming outcomes.

44

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Program Resources, Inputs, and Activities

This study provides a summary of actual program resources, inputs, and activities
as a comparison to what was originally intended by regional GLFLI planners (Bennett
1978, Robinson 1994). Generally, the implementation of the Michigan GLF L1
accomplished a level of programming that was anticipated through its design on a

regional scale.

Curriculum Development

Delivered to participants as intended were twelve of the fourteen standardized
curriculum components, including eight core Ieaming modules and four of the six
supplemental modules (Sturtevant et al. 2002b). A myriad of supplemental materials and
resources were also provided in the various training sessions and by instructors who
taught different sessions relating to the core curriculum components. The Life of the
Lakes curriculum module was rated the highest in value by participants (86.4%), with the
fisheries habitat module and aquatic nuisance species modules being rated most value by
the second highest number of participants (40.9%). No curriculum components delivered
to participants were considered to be least valuable by more than three participants
(13.6%).

The curriculum in general covered all expected Ieaming outcomes identified
regionally for the GLFLI. GLFLI curriculum development focused mainly on
understanding biological and ecological principles of fisheries, with significant coverage

toward understanding different fishery stakeholder groups (e. g., commercial fishing,

45

 

charter boat industry). Curriculum components provided adequate coverage in these
areas. However, a much smaller portion of the GLFLI curriculum was dedicated toward
leadership related Ieaming outcomes, and therefore curriculum coverage of basic
leadership skills may be considered as limited.

If considering revisions to GLFLI curriculum, the GLFLI program might focus on
expanding modules and resources for inclusion of leadership skills development.
However, leadership is broadly and variably defined (Bass 1990). GLFLI organizers
might consider addressing leadership skills as “tools” necessary in carrying out processes
toward change (Crawford et al. 2000, Northouse 2001). These might include increased
consideration toward networking, collaboration building, conflict resolution, building
opportunities for action, and education skills. Other areas of focus for leadership Ieaming
modules might include “tools” for organizing and facilitating group processes,
collaboration or partnership development, increasing public participation, or
understanding and navigating institutional arrangements and processes.

Contemporary theorists define leadership as engaging individuals in activities as a
process through groups toward con'nnunity service or change (in this case relating to
Great Lakes fisheries stewardship) (Drath and Palus 1994, Chrislip and Larson 1994,
Spears 1995). This suggests that engagement of participants during training sessions,
such as developing networks among themselves, may be some of the more valuable and
necessary leadership “skills” desired by participants rather than a dedicated leadership
component incorporated into a written curriculum.

Additional curriculum development related to leadership might help participants

understand strategies and processes for carrying out their intended leadership actions.

46

Such development might include: fundraising strategies, legislative or political
involvement, methods of public communication, education and outreach, carrying out
habitat work, or even means of influencing Great Lakes fisheries issues and management
through economic activity, buying habits, or even legal work (Hungerford and Peyton
1980).

Greater emphasis on skills necessary to carry out these actions was indicated by
participants as opportunities for GLFLI improvement. However, participants indicated
they had knowledge, but were lacking opportunities to practice related skills necessary to
apply this knowledge to leadership actions. This finding again supports the need to
improve the leadership development component of the GLFLI not through curriculum,
but rather through increased focus on skills development and practice during training

sessions.

Training Sessions

For training sessions the curriculum components served an important role in
supplementing and providing the organizational structure for instructors and Ieaming
processes that occurred through lakewide and statewide meetings. As anticipated,
leadership related outcomes, such as understanding institutional arrangements or
involvement in public policy, were primarily covered through statewide sessions (Table
11-20) (Sturtevant et al. 2002a). Biology, ecology or fisheries science related outcomes
were covered through lakewide program trainings sessions (Table 11-20) (Sturtevant et al.
2002a). This program content was consistent with original intentions of the program

design.

47

Experiential Ieaming opportunities and chances to practice knowledge or skills
may have been somewhat limited, according to participants. However, given the
numerous outcome areas covered during the limited time allotted during only two to three
sessions it may be unrealistic to expect a participant to transition quickly from knowledge
gain to fisheries leadership actions. Hungerford and Volk (1990) discuss that fostering
stewardship behaviors involves multiple variables. The knowledge that was achieved
during the GLFLI provides important precursor variables and first steps toward achieving
the desired actions of learners. Moreover, exposure to fisheries issues that are pertinent
to learners and their ties to a specific Great Lake, as well as networking among other
stakeholders, researchers, and decision-makers are also important precursor variables to
action.

Opportunities to practice learned knowledge and skills relate closely with what
Hungerford and Volk (1990) call locus of control or comfort in one’s ability to
successfully carry out an environmental action. These are also key variables in
developing fisheries leadership actions of participants, however, the GLFLI’s success in
developing action-oriented fisheries leaders involves successfully addressing and
developing all variables related to changing learners’ fisheries stewardship actions. To
achieve this degree of training and experience in a learner in only two to three training
sessions may be unrealistic, because Ieaming toward environmental stewardship
behaviors involves a lifelong learning process (Seimer 2001).

The GLFLI program may need to consider allocating more contact time with
participants to achieve these additional, but necessary, Ieaming opportunities. However,

since Sea Grant staff time and resources are limited, it may be more realistic that the

48

GLFLI program focuses training on building a knowledge and understanding foundation,
as well as involving the learner in their own roles as fisheries leaders. Additional,
advanced training opportunities or additional mentorship may be necessary to further
develop empowerment variables necessary to engage participants in leadership activities.
This may involve mentorship provided by Sea Grant staff outside of the GLFLI
experience. Developing among learners the appropriate comfort and skills, networks and
avenues by which the learners carry out their intended service projects will require
continued contact and support from the Sea Grant to successfully build upon the Ieaming
foundation established during the GLFLI program.

Generally, the resources and program inputs such as curriculum, statewide and
lakewide training sessions provided adequate coverage of nearly all Ieaming outcome
areas identified regionally for the GLFLI program. Understanding of fish consumption
advisories was one outcome that did not show significant improvements among
participants after training.

One explanation for lacking significant gain in the area of contaminants is that
participants entered into their learning experience with already high knowledge and
understanding of fish consumption advisories. Therefore, it would be difficult to
recognize significant gains even with greater content coverage during trainings. A
GLFLI contaminant module existed, providing coverage through the curriculum, but little
attention was given to the Ieaming outcome during face-to-face training sessions.
Regardless, fish contaminants and consumption advisories were areas found lacking in
training sessions, with only three participants exposed to contaminant learning

opportunities during program trainings.

49

A recommendation for the GLFLI is to emphasize to participants why some topics
and Ieaming outcomes are covered in many ways. Curriculum alone should not be
considered adequate in developing knowledge and skills among participants, and training
should include supplemental coverage, explanation, and opportunities for use during
lakewide or statewide sessions. While curriculum components were considered valuable,
overlapping exposure to and use of the curriculum during training sessions multiplied the

benefits and desired impacts of GLFLI programming.

Specific Program Objectives

As a recommendation relating to expected outcomes, GLFLI planning staff
should, for future programming efforts, develop more clearly defined Ieaming objectives.
For the purpose of this evaluation, multiple program documents, with multiple different
descriptions of program goals were used to identify organizers’ specific intended learning
outcomes. Streamlining these multiple sources of regionally identified Ieaming outcomes
into one, clearly-defined set of Ieaming objective would provide a more consistent
message regarding intentions of the regional GLFLI organizers. This study provides a
synthesis of program outcomes as currently described across various program planning
documents (summarized in Table II-l ). This synthesis should be considered as a baseline
for describing future GLFLI program objectives.

As program objectives, these should clearly identify criteria by which to evaluate
whether the objective is in the end accomplished by the GLFLI. These criteria include:
(a) the audience of each objective or who is to learn or benefit in relation to that outcome,
(b) what behaviors, knowledge, or skills participants are expected to demonstrate, (c)

conditions by which participants can or will demonstrate these sets of behaviors,

50

knowledge or skills, and (d) a tirneline by which each objective is to be accomplished
(i.e. by the first training session, after completion of training sessions, after one year)
(Jacobson 1999). Another consideration is that objectives should be simple, measurable,
attainable, realistic, time-oriented or time specific (Jacobson 1999). A more clearly
defined focus on program objectives prior to implementing future GLFLI programs
would be beneficial in both understanding program expectations, as well as designing

program resources and inputs to accomplish these ends.

Participation of A dult Learners

Another objective for this research was to describe what types of participants took
part in the Michigan components of the GLFLI program, as well as the reactions of these
participants to their GLFLI experience. Generally, the GLFLI achieved exposure to
diverse fishery stakeholders, through both participant diversity and instructors involved

in programming. Participants responded favorably to their GLFLI experience.

Participation: Recruiting a Diverse Fisheries Stakeholder Participant Group

The Michigan Sea Grant program anticipated seven participants for each of
Michigan’s four bordering Great Lakes (a total of 28 participants). In reality, Michigan
participants totaled 22 participants. Based strictly on numbers of participants, Lakes
Michigan and Huron exceeded expectations (eight participants each), but Lakes Erie and
Superior achieved a lower participant response (three participants each).

The Sea Grant GLFLI program organizers planned to attract a diversity of
participants from a variety of backgrounds (Sturtevant et al. 2002a). Depending on how

measured, this goal could be considered achieved from the perspectives of both GLFLI

51

regional programmers and Michigan GLFLI participants alike. Using the definition of
diversity in the context of user groups, the GLFLI regional programmers (Sturtevant et al.
2002a, p. 5) desired to,

“Create a network of Great Lakes leaders from the broadest possible

variety of backgrounds and organizations who are able to call upon each

other to effectively address and/or advocate regional needs.”

Similarly, Michigan GLFI participants indicated developing networks and networking
skills, as well as better understanding other Great Lakes stakeholders as important
Ieaming expectations.

In actuality, the Michigan component represented nearly all of the participant
stakeholder types originally identified in GLFLI planning documents, including:
environmental NGOs (non-profit governmental organizations), commercial fishermen,
tribes, sportfishing associations, visitor bureaus, science writers, and others. These
participants represented at least 43 different fisheries organizations, with indirect ties to
an added 13 institutions. Missing from the Michigan participant delegation were Great
Lakes charter captains and legislators (and legislative aides), but instead participants had
networking opportunities with these stakeholder types through lakewide and statewide
training sessions where these missing stakeholder types served as instructors or resource
staff. Although the GLFLI reached a small number of participants, their organizational
background and ties ensured that this program multiplied the value of the connections
among stakeholder types, organizations and institutions.

Networking opportunities with a variety of experts (e.g., scientists, managers,
legislators) were an intended program outcome of regional organizers. Participants also

recognized this networking opportunity, indicating it as an important program outcome

52

realized through their experience. This goal, too, could be considered achieved. A total
of 5 6 different instructors provided Ieaming opportunities for GLFLI participants,
including 20 Sea Grant program staff representing five different state Sea Grant programs
and 36 non-Sea Grant instructors representing 22 unique agencies, organizations and
institutions. Participants were successfully exposed to a diversity of researchers,
managers, and decision-makers, however this high number of expert resources may have
had implications for organizing and delivering a consistent program experience and
Ieaming opportunity across the various Great Lakes groups.

Another standard for considering participant diversity might be a comparison
against known sportfishery stakeholders. Michigan licensed sport angler demographics
closely resemble those of the GLFLI participant group, at least in age and gender. So it
can be argued that program diversity was also achieved in the context of a potential
fishery stakeholder audience that might participate in the GLFLI. One limitation of using
these data for comparison is that they are specific to sport anglers, and do not represent
state-licensed or tribal commercial fisherman or even other fisheries stakeholders who
may not purchase sport licenses.

GLFLI participation did not reflect demOgraphic diversity when compared against
the total Michigan population. A potential future opportunity for GLFLI programming to
further diversify participant stakeholders might include expanding the definition of
“diversity” to include a representation of the state’s citizen pOpulation, rather than

limiting participation to a known fishery stakeholder audience alone.

53

Participant Reactions and Program Values

Participant reactions indicated that curriculum, resources, and pre-forrnatted
lectures were all valuable resource provided by the GLFLI program. Overall, most
(77.3%) participants agreed that curriculum resources had met their expectations in some
way, whereas (54.5%) agreed that experiential opportunities had met their expectations in
some way. Experiential opportunities considered most important across Michigan
participants included a diverse set of instructors, field trips and hands-on experiential
opportunities, and networking opportunities among participants. These experiential
opportunities contributed to program values as important benefits recognized by
participants as a result of their GLFLI experience. Future GLFLI programming should
seek to incorporate additional experiential opportunities such as field trips, hands-on
activities, and time for networking into the participant Ieaming process. To accomplish
this may require a trade-off of the time required to cover curriculum components in
classroom, lecture formats.

These experiential opportunities increase programming value for participants, as
well as address desired outcomes identified regionally for the GLFLI. Program
organizers should seek creative ways to incorporate curriculum components or leamin g
outcomes as a part of experiential opportunities. As an example, the Lake Huron group
discussed commercial fishing briefly in class, but then more extensively through a field
trip visit with commercial fishers and their operations. The Lake Erie group covered
habitat topics through practicing research techniques to monitor fish habitats. Finally,
during the statewide session, participants learned about legislative process, and then

networked with their legislative representatives through a visit to the state capitol.

54

Overall, the majority (81.8%) of the Michigan participants believed their GLFLI
experience to be beneficial. A majority (72.7%) of Michigan GLFLI participants agreed
that they had learned or gained what they had originally hoped from their GLFLI
experience. Although 27.2% of Michigan GLFLI participants believed they had not
learned or gained what they had originally hoped, many (81 .8%) of the Michigan
participants believed to some degree that they had learned or gained something new or
something that they did not anticipate Ieaming through their GLFLI experience.

Most noted Ieaming outcomes identified by participants as areas where they had
most benefited from their GLFLI participation concerning networking and networking
skills (45%), as well as Ieaming about diverse stakeholders (35%). Networking was also
indicated as a Ieaming outcome desired by GLFLI program staff. In the end, more
participants indicated these two areas as important actual Ieaming outcomes than had
originally identified them as anticipated Ieaming outcomes (Table lI-l 1).

Participants reported that they valued program impacts involved with gaining
knowledge related to Great Lakes fisheries. Other Ieaming outcomes valued by
Michigan participants as benefits of their GLFLI experience, included: (a) understanding
fisheries management and policies (35%), (b) understanding issues related to the Great
Lakes (25%), (c) gaining access to resources or additional information (25%), and (d)
basics of Great Lakes fisheries history, biology, and ecology (20%). These Ieaming areas
of basic ecological awareness, knowledge, and understanding may represent important
entry level and ownership variables necessary as precursors to generate environmental

stewardship behaviors among learners (Hungerford and Volk 1990).

55

Finally, participants originally indicated, at varying levels of importance, that
knowledge and skills related to (a) education and information sharing, (b) action and
advocacy, and (c) other general leadership skills were Ieaming expectations for their
involvement in the GLFLI. These outcomes also reflect desired outcomes identified by
GLFLI program staff. These three learning areas represent either environmental actions
or those skills necessary to carry out actions (Hungerford and Peyton 1980).

Action and advocacy are key learning outcomes concerning public and political
involvement originally identified as important by Sea Grant staff for the GLFLI program.
Participants gained knowledge of political and public participation, and on Likert-type
questions they reported that they had significantly gained comfort and skills in these
areas. However, when asked through open-ended questions about their most important
Ieaming gains, action related skills were least frequently identified by participants as
gains they had made. Similarly, education and information sharing skills were listed by
participants as gains they had hoped to achieve through their GLFLI experience.
Likewise, participants indicated through Likert-type questions asked in pre- and post-
surveys that they had significantly gained in these areas. However, participants did not
indicate through open-ended questions that education related skills were a most valued
outcome of their GLFLI experience. It should not be concluded that participants did not
gain at all in these areas, but rather: (a) they realized other program benefits to be more
meaningful in their own minds, or (b) they desired even more gain than they believed
they had actually achieved.

Overall, the GLFLI program’s greatest impacts valued by Michigan participants

were generating networks and gaining knowledge about diverse stakeholder audiences.

56

Based on participant perspectives, a beneficial strength of the GLFLI program included
generating a base awareness, knowledge and understanding relating to fisheries
management/ policies, fisheries biology/ecology, issues, and resources related to the
Great Lakes fisheries. Future GLFLI programming should focus on these program
strengths as a foundation and on the program niche successfully served through this
program. These are important foundational variables necessary to develop fisheries
stewardship behaviors (Hungerford and Volk 1990). The GLFLI can build on these
successes in the future, so long as the program continues to provide quality experiences
that develop these base knowledge and empowerment variables.

While working to generate a meaningful Ieaming experience for the GLFLI
audience, organizers should seek to develop flexible programming that includes a blend
of curriculum and resources, discussions and talks related to specific topic areas, as well
as experiential or hands-on Ieaming opportunities (Kolb 1984). Participant Ieaming
expectations should be incorporated into development of the learning process, because
these Ieaming areas will be most salient to and readily engaging to adult learners
(Robinson 1994, Levine 2000). However, in creating program flexibility and
accommodating participant Ieaming expectations, GLFLI programming should not
neglect to continue providing curriculum, resources, and training in as many regionally
determined Ieaming outcome areas as possible. It is likely that participants have a
primary motivation for participating in theirleaming experience, but that they may also
pick up additional, unexpected information through their Ieaming experience (Levine
2000). Michigan GLFLI participants, in this case, found this additional, unexpected

information to contribute added value to their Ieaming experience (see Chapter III).

57

Therefore, there was added value due to program impacts generated through the GLFLI

program as a service to its stakeholders.

Participant Changes in Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes
A final evaluation research goal was to examine how the GLFLI program and
Ieaming process fostered changes in participants ' knowledge, skills and attitudes.
Generally, participant expectations were broad enough that they overlapped those
pro gram goals and objectives identified for the GLFLI program by regional organizers
(Table Il—21). However, not all regionally identified GLFLI program Ieaming objectives
were necessarily identified as Ieaming outcomes expected by program participants. Also
participants of the Michigan GLFLI pilot program varied in their individual expectations
Ofthe: GLFLI. This is not surprising because the GLFLI program was designed to serve a
diverse audience of stakeholders, representing a broad array of backgrounds and interests.
Partic ipants were also shown to have similar but varying motivations and purposes for
attending this learning process (see Chapter III), and ultimately to have varying levels of
inter—e st and value in program resources and experiences to which they were exposed.
This i 5 consistent with adult Ieaming theory and findings from other adult education
pro grams; adult learners will have individual Ieaming goals relevant to their own present
Sit‘lations and interests, and applicable to solving problems important to them (Levine
2000, Robinson 1994).
Broad and diverse regional GLFLI program goals meant that program
as: Dectations of participants were more likely to overlap with what was intended on a
Fegi onal scale. It was not likely that participants would expect or have interest in Ieaming

a] 1 that was offered by the regional GLFLI, however additional Ieaming Opportunities

58

that expanded beyond a participant’s expectations added program values for those who
i ridicated they had unanticipated Ieaming gains.
Beyond learning expectations, Michigan GLFLI participants entered into the
GLFLI program with considerable strong self-evaluations of their own knowledge and
u nderstanding, comfort and skills relating to their involvement as fisheries leaders. This
is also consistent with adult Ieaming theory which describes that adult learners are
knowledgeable, bringing significant information and life experiences to a Ieaming
exp erience (Levine 2003). GLFLI programming should emphasize these opportunities as
a fo undation to develop learning processes that incorporate existing knowledge and life
experiences of learners as a part of the group Ieaming process.
Overall, participants demonstrated statistically significant gains in nearly all areas
0f knowledge, understanding, comfort and skills identified as Ieaming outcomes for the
”810 Ida] institute program (Tables II-2 l ). Only one originally defined outcome, relating
to understanding fish consumption advisories, did not demonstrate significant changes
from pre- to post-institute evaluations. The topic of contaminants and fish consumption
advisories were covered in the curriculum, but these lacked coverage throughout training
seS‘Sions. Curriculum alone is not enough to generate meaningful Ieaming experiences;
p r0 gram training sessions should include all major curriculum components through
experiential opportunities designed to increase the likelihood of achieving significant
ga i hs in participant Ieaming.
Statistically significant changes between pre- and post-institute responses suggest
pal‘ticipants believed they had increased in their knowledge and skills, even in areas they

h
liq not originally identified as expected Ieaming outcomes. This is supported in that

59

most participants (81.8%) indicated that they had gained unanticipated benefits as a result
0 f their program experience. As a consideration, data relating to participant Ieaming
expectations were collected through responses to open-ended questions. It is likely that
p articipants did not list exhaustively everything they had expected or hoped to gain, but
instead they may have only listed only the expectations most salient and foremost in their
m 1' nds at the time of completing the surveys (Geer 1991 , Sheatsley 1993).

Generally, the greater the redundancy in covering a topic (i.e. through curriculum,
statewide, and lakewide sessions), the greater the likelihood that the Ieaming experience
stood out in open-ended participant responses describing benefits gained through the
G LFLI (Table II-21). For example, most noted actual Ieaming outcomes described by
Participants related to networking, as well as understanding diverse participant
Stakeholders. Regionally, the GLFLI identified four intended leadership outcomes that
related closely to these participant identified Ieaming areas. These outcome areas
recei Ved coverage through curriculum, lakewide, and statewide learning sessions — all
three possible modes of program delivery. This is consistent with Ieaming theory which
descI‘ibes the importance of Ieaming processes where participants can learn about a topic,
have an opportunity to practice what they have learned, and reflect on their experience
(Kolb 1984). Topics presented in different formats also increase the likelihood that the
Ieaming opportunity will appeal to a specific person’s Ieaming style (Kolb 1984).

Less frequently noted, but yet important Ieaming outcomes achieved by
pant‘ticipants included Ieaming about fisheries history, biology, and ecology, management
and policies, and understanding Great Lakes issues. These Ieaming outcomes overlapped

1 t1) regionally identified Ieaming outcome areas that received mixed modes of program

60

coverage. GLFLI leadership outcomes, such as understanding institutional arrangements
and exposure to current issues typically also received coverage through all three possible
modes of program delivery — curriculum, lakewide, and statewide Ieaming sessions.
GLFLI fisheries science related outcomes, such as understanding fish ecology or biology
or knowledge of Great Lakes fish habitats typically received coverage only through
c urliculum and lakewide training sessions - representing only two modes of program
(1 c l ivery.

The program outcomes most valued by participants represented Ieaming
expectations shared by regional GLFLI program developers. From the perspective of
GLFLI organizers, it was these most widely identified program Ieaming outcomes
receiving multiple formats of coverage that had also been identified and valued in the
min d s of participants. Understanding participant Ieaming expectations is equally as
imPO ltant as having clearly defined regional program Ieaming objectives. Mutual
learn ing expectations that exist among the regional programming and local participants
are rl'Iore likely to actually occur as a result of the GLFLI program, providing program
bene fits and value to both regional program intentions and participants alike.

In general, the most beneficial changes indicated by participants were gains in
knO\rvledge and skills in Ieaming areas related to their original program expectations.
Thi s finding is consistent with adult Ieaming theory, which notes that adult learners are
Sel f-motivated, and that adults learn best when information is pertinent to their current

11 6%ds or challenges and can be immediately applied (Levine 2000). It is reasonable to
e): Dect that greater Ieaming opportunities and program value occur where program and

D a~1‘ticipant goals overlap. Future GLFLI program organizers should continue to identify

61

and emphasize training around Ieaming outcomes that are of shared interest to GLFLI
program organizers and participants alike. However, regional goals not originally

i dentified by participants should not be neglected, because these provided unanticipated
1 earning outcomes and program value for participants.

The regional GLFLI program provides a lengthy list of program outcomes, but
only limited meeting time and resources existed to provide coverage to each topic area.
As a recommendation, those developing GLFLI training sessions should consider
pri critizing the amount of coverage and focus placed on each Ieaming outcome based on
pre liminary reviews of participant Ieaming expectations; this then should be carefully
weighted against the expected outcomes identified by regional program organizers and
Partners.

The GLFLI program should be viewed as a base Ieaming experience, upon which
“alun‘mi” can continue to build. Hungerford and Volk (1990) note this foundation as key
‘0 bu ilding stewardship behaviors in learners. The GLFLI has established this foundation
‘0 bu ild toward achieving the program goal of engaging learners in fisheries leadership
actio Ins. Additional, advanced trainings or a strategy for participant mentorship, support
and follow-ups should be considered to achieve continued education opportunities and

learhing experiences outside of the bounds of what the original GLFLI contact can offer.

62

LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Limitations of Study

A primary limitation in evaluating the Michigan component of the GLFLI is the
small number of 22 study subjects. This small number limited the statistical analyses that
c ould be utilized. On the other hand, the small number of participants allowed this
evaluation to utilize data from surveys and additional qualitative data collected from all
2 2 Michigan participants, achieving a 100% response rate. Interpretation of qualitative
data contributes depth to evaluation, but also presents a potential limitation to this study
through any researcher biases which may occur. This evaluation recognized this
potential bias as a limitation, and addressed potential threats to validity in interpreting
Clua I i tative data.
This research was conducted by investigators involved in the planning and
imp 1 e mentation of the Michigan GLFLI program. As a result, research biases may have
occurred related to this internal program evaluation, since organizers did not engage an
eXtEI“rial evaluation for the GLFLI.
The results of this study may be valuable in guiding and improving future GLFLI
p r 0 gramming, however the results from this evaluation cannot be generalized to a larger
Great Lakes stakeholder population. Nor can these results be generalized to participant
g1‘Qlltps from future GLFLI programming, because the needs, personal Ieaming objectives,
and perspectives about program outcomes may differ with each new set of participants.
Th i S evaluation cannot be generalized to other situations because data were not collected
FrQ . . __
111 a random sample. Instead, due to the small study population srze (n—22), data were

c
Q 1 l ected from all Michigan participants. Moreover, the Michigan participants choosing

63

to participate in the GLFLI were recruited and self—selected in their choice to participate,
and not necessarily a random representation of a larger Great Lakes fisheries stakeholder
audience.
Though similar in design, variability in delivery of GLFLI lake sessions provided
For different Ieaming experiences for participants representing different Great Lakes.
Furthermore, participants from different lakes were exposed to and networked with
d i fferent sets of participants and instructors from different states associated with a
pat‘1icular lake. In fact, Lake Huron participants lacked the opportunity to network with
oth er state residents altogether, because Lake Huron borders no other states.
Additionally, the number of sessions each participant attended and the order in which
GLF Ll sessions were offered to participants from different lake groups are variables
beyo rid control of this study. These variables all have potential impacts and influences
on th 6 results observed in this study.

Finally, a key study limitation is the inability to follow-up and conduct further
long- term evaluation of Michigan GLFLI participants beyond their immediate GLFLI
exPet‘ience. This limits this evaluation to immediate and reactionary responses of GLFLI
par-ti cipants in relation to their GLFLI experience. These responses represent
infoI‘I‘nation from participants when it was most fresh and foremost in their mind,
hOVVever this does not allow for a very clear discussion about long-term influences and

lmDacts of the GLFLI through participant actions and activities as fisheries leaders.

64

Recommendations for Further Study
This evaluation focused primarily on GLFLI impacts and value. This study
examined changes in participant knowledge and skills, as well as participant reactions
about the value of the program in relation to their intended service projects and fisheries
1 eadership activities. Additional follow-up surveys of participants would be valuable in

d etermining how GLFLI alumni actually carry out their service projects or other fisheries
re 1 ated action projects, and more importantly, how the Ieaming and resources provided
.11 rough the institute influenced their actions and projects.

Long-term evaluation of what participants consider most valuable in temrs of
wh at they learn or gain through their GLFLI participation would provide further insights,
allo Wing for differentiation between short-terrn and long-term programming impacts.

301 F— descriptions and open-ended questions provide responses that are most salient or in
he f‘crefront of participants thoughts. These can help understand the Ieaming outcomes
hat \JVCI’C most valuable or popular among participants, but may over look some more
”Pt 1 e and secondary values and outcomes of the GLFLI Ieaming experience that were
not top priorities in the minds of GLFLI participants.

This evaluation utilized participants’ self evaluation to monitor changes in their
{(I‘OWledge and skills relating to their GLFLI involvement. Future studies should
:thider directly testing participant knowledge and skills, rather than using survey items
) aSed on self-ratings. A limitation of self evaluations is that some participants may over-
late their actual knowledge and skills, whereas other participants may under-rate their
’Q tual knowledge and skills both prior to and following their GLFLI participation.

\ Q tual measures of participant knowledge and skills may also provide a more accurate

65

understanding of the background knowledge and understanding, comfort and skills with
which participants enter into their GLFLI experience.
Consideration should be given to repeating this study to provide comparisons of
participant Ieaming expectations, program reactions, and changes in knowledge and skills
among other states’ participants and future year classes of the GLFLI. Comparisons of
due results from this year class of Michigan GLFLI participants might be made against
Si milar evaluations (or any existing evaluations) made for other GLFLI participants from
0t her Great Lakes states. Evaluation through external investigators might be considered
to capture perspectives and insights of those unrelated to the internal planning and
programming ofthe GLFLI.
In this evaluation, GLFLI participants were the study subjects, and their
mot i vations, values, and Ieaming expectations were compared to those of GLFLI
Programmers. Future program evaluation might include surveys of other types of
Prog ram stakeholders and beneficiaries of the GLFLI, such as state, federal, or bi-
natiOnal agencies or institutions who maintain citizen advisory groups that may utilize

GL1: LI graduates.

66

LITERATURE CITED — CHAPTER II

Ary, I) -, L. C. Jacobs, and A. Razavieh. 2002. Introduction to research in education
(sixth edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Babbie, E. 1990. Survey research methods (second edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Co.

3358, B - M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial application (third edition). New York, NY: Free Press.

Bennett, C. F. 1978. Analyzing impacts of Extension programs. U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Extension Service, Washington, D. C. Report No. ECS-575.

Bethel 3 M. 2004. Extension on the leading edge: A case for optimism and adaptability
(pers. comm). Presented at Michigan State University Fall Extension
Conference, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI: October 12, 2004.

BObb i tt, V. 1997. The Washington State University Master Gardener program:
Cultivating plants, people, and communities for 25 years. HortTechnology, 7(4):
345-347.

Chri Slip, D. D. and C. E. Larson. 1994. Collaborative leadership: How citizens and
civic leaders can make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Claw ford, C. B., C. L. Brungardt, and M. Maughan. 2000. Understanding leadership:
Theories and concepts. Longmont, CO: Rocky Mountain Press.

Dann, S. L. 1993. Youth Recruitment into Fishing: the influence of familial, social, and
environmental factors and implications for education intervention strategies to
develop aquatic stewardship. Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI.

Dan n, S. L. 2004. Analysis of Michigan angler license sales (SHOR Initiative):
demographics and trends (unpublished). Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Dan 11, S. L. and B. C. Schroeder. 2003. The life of the lakes: a guide to the Great Lakes
fishery. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Extension Bulletin E-2440
(Michigan Sea Grant MICHU #03-400)

Dllltman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

67

Dillm an, D. A. 2000. Mail and intemet surveys: The tailored design method. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Drath, W. H. and C. J. Palus. 1994. Making common sense: Leadership as a meaning-
making in a community of practice. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative

Leadership.
A. J. 2001. Defining best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship

Fedler,
education. In Defining best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship
education, eds. A. J. Fedler and B. E. Matthews, pp. 1-17. Arlington, VA:

Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation.
(3661', J - G. 1991. Do open-ended questions measure “salient” issues? Public Opinion

Quarterly, 55(3): 360-370.
Greenl eaf, R. K. 1977. Servant leadership. New York, NY: ’ Paulist Books.

Hungerford, H. R. and R. B. Peyton. 1980. A paradigm for citizen responsibility:
environmental action. In Current issues IV: The yearbook of environmental

education and environmental studies, eds. A. B. Sacks, L. L. Burrus-Bammel, C.
B. Davis, and L. A. Iozzi, pp. 146-154. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

Hun gerford, H. R. and T. L. Volk. 1990. Changing learner behavior through
environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education 21(3): 8-21.
JaeOIDSon, S. K. 1999. Communication skills for conservation professionals. Washington
D.C./Covelo, CA: Island Press.
Kolb’ D. A. 1984. Experiential Ieaming: Experience as the source of Ieaming and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Lev inc, J. S. 2000. The challenge of helping adults learn: Characteristics of adult
learners & implications for teaching technical information. In Proceedings,

International Master Gardener Coordinators’ Conference, September 13, 2000,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Matthews, B. 1997. Building connections: Remarks at the tenth annual conference of the
Michigan association for environmental and outdoor eduction. Taproot Journal,

11(1): 6-8.

[MEECAC] Michigan Environmental Education Citizens Advisory Committee. 1992.
Report of the environmental education citizens’ advisory committee to the

Michigan state board of education and the Michigan natural resources
commission. State of Michigan, Lansing, MI.

68

Miller, B. K., B. T. Wilkins and M. Spranger. 2001. Planning the Extension program:
How do we decide what to do? i_n Fundamentals of a Sea Grant Extension

Program, pp. 19-26. Ithaca, NY: Media and Technology Services, Cornell
University.

[NAA EE] North American Association of Environmental Educators. 1996.

Environmental education materials: Guidelines for excellence. Troy, OH: North
American Association of Environmental Educators.

Northo use, P. G. 2001. Leadership: Theory and practice (second edition). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

PUUCh- K. F. 1998. Introduction to social research: quantitative & qualitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

ROPIDSon, R. D. 1994. An introduction to helping adults learn and change (revised
edition). West Bend, WI: Omnibook Co.

SChrOck, D. S., M. Meyer, P. Ascher, and M. Snyder. 2000a. Reasons for becoming
involved as a master gardener. HortTechnology, 10(3): 626-630.

Shad ish, Jr., R. W., T. D. Cook, and L. C. Leviton. 1995. Foundations of program
evaluation: Theories of practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sheatsley, P. B. 1993. Questionnaire construction and item writing. In Handbook of
Survey Research, eds. P. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright, and A. B. Anderson. New York,
NY: Academic Press.

Siemer, W. F. 2001. Best practices for curriculum, teaching, and evaluation components
of aquatic stewardship education. In Defining best practices in boating, fishing,
and stewardship education, eds. A. J. Fedler and B. E. Matthews, pp. 18-36.
Arlington, VA: Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation.

SPBaIS, L. C. 1995. Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of
servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Spranger, M. and B. T. Wilkins. 2001. Evaluation: Why bother? In Fundamentals of a
Sea Grant Extension Program, pp. 27-31. Ithaca, NY: Media and Technology

Services, Cornell University.

SPSS, Inc. 2000. SPSS for Windows, Release 10.0.7, standard version. Chicago, IL:
SPSS, Inc.

69

 

Sturtevant, R. 2003. Recruitment cover letter template (nomination package). Great
Lakes Sea Grant Network, National Sea Grant College Program, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US. Department of Commerce,
<http://www. g1erl.noaa.gov/seagrant/GLFLl/Notebook/Recruitment/Nomination.
pdf>. Accessed 2004 April.

Sturtevant, R., J. Gunderson, P. Moy, B. Miller, J. Schwartz, J. Read, F. Lichtkoppler, F.
Snyder, E. Obert, D. White, D. Baker, M. Malchoff, and J. Homziak. 2002a.
Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (proposal). Great Lakes Sea Grant
Network, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, US. Department of Commerce, <http://www.
g1erl.noaa. gov/seagrant/GLFLI/Notebook/Planning/Proposals/InstituteProposal.
pdf>. Accessed 2004 April.

Sturte‘vant, R., J. Gunderson, P. Moy, B. Miller, J. Schwartz, J. Read, F. Lichtkoppler, F.
Snyder, E. Obert, D. White, D. Baker, M. Malchoff, and J. Homziak. 2002b.
Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership curriculum development (proposal). Great
Lakes Sea Grant Network, National Sea Grant College Program, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US. Department of Commerce,
<http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/GLFLI/Notebook/Planning/Proposals/
F inalRegionalProposal.pdf>. Accessed 2004 April.

[TIC'EE] Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference of Environmental Education. 1977. The
Tbilisi Declaration (abridged): Intergovernmental conference on environmental
education, In eds. H. R. Hungerford, W. J. Bluhm, T. L. Volk, and J. M. Ramsey,
1998, Essential readings in environmental education, pp.13-l6. Champaign, IL:
Stipes Publishing.

U-S - Census. 2000. Table DP-l. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics for
Michigan: 2000. US. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce,
<http://www.census.gov/censusZOOO/states/mi.html>. Accessed 2004 Feb 8.

western, D. and R. M. Wright. 1994. The background to community-based
conservation. In Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based
conservation, eds. D. Western and R. M. Wright, pp. 1-12. Washington, DC:
Island Press.

Wi 1 1 i amson, A. 1996. The Great Lakes education program: an in-depth evaluation of
program impacts on fourth grade students. M. S. thesis, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

Zlnts M. 2001. Guidelines for aquatic, fisheries & environmental education. In Defining
best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship education, eds. A. J. F edler and
B. E. Matthews, pp. 61-68. Arlington, VA: Recreational Boating and Fishing
Foundafion.

70

 

 

 

Scenario A: Lakes Michigan (n=8) and Eric (n=3) Participant Groups

Scenario 8: Lake Huron (n=8) Participant Group
Scenario C: Lake Superior (n=3) Participant Group

 

 

rgure IL]

I

Structure of the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (GLFLI), representing the
Components (Lake and Statewide meetings) relevant to Michigan GLFLI Participants.

 

 

 

   

 

      
          

Gus
afieauam
Snag:

 

 

 

:2 £95: tab
Na
Exam :35. 8.1—

 

 

   

 

£5325“—
£28033

 

   

ATE
3532:“...
5&5:

 

 

 

 

 

3:36.53;
«68:52

  

:3 653::
:23 Eaton—5 3...—

       

m oESom

 

98am inseam 83 =a Soc
£5953 3522 .2.

                 

GE .uEmaax—V
5:83 9:595.
92.5925 :auEfl—Z

          

 

T5
acufiuEum
snag:

 

 

 

:2 icon—«G
3
Exam :95: 3.1—

_ U otmaoom

 

 

 

 

 

      

fififififam
«56:.

 

 

mean—6.5.8;
flag—320m

A mncv I.
ficdfiafim
gazes.

 

 

 

 

3590me
2865

 

BSEoEE

 

2:0

2.. at”:
.333 .3. 3.5

 

 

    
     

aEEoEum
5&5: l

 

 

 

Que IA asaaea
£23er

    

 

 

     
 

afieefim
mesa

:3 833.5%
5.83. .5222 s...—

      

:ee

71

Table 11-1

Summary of Regional GLFLI Intended Learning Outcomes

__

Source Documents:
Regional GLFLI Intended Learning Outcomes

Menus] Goal Statements:

1- M inimize frustration of both Great Lakes fisheries management agencies
and those citizen leaders who do not understand the complexities of Great
LaIces fishery-related institutional arrangements, history and science.

2- .EXplanations of the complexities of Great Lakes fishery-related
1nStitutional arrangements, history and science to minimize your

Strations.

3' The ecological, economic, political, and socio-cultural environment
within which Great Lakes fishery management operates and the fisheries
management techniques applied to achieve fishery management
Obj ectives.

Funding Proposala

>4

Promotional Brochureb

Participant Applicationc

 

—.\_
B'Q‘ng, Ecology, and Fishery Science Related Statements:
1' A basic knowledge of the history of Great Lakes fisheries and fishery
rflariagement
A basic understanding of fish ecology, biology, or science
"the biological basis for fish production in the natural waters of the Great
. es ..
4- A basic understanding of Great Lakes food webs - including the effects of
. , lower trophic level changes on fish (physiology and species composition)
5- A basic understanding of the effects and potential effects of aquatic '
nuisance species on Great Lakes fish
6- A basic understanding of the direct and indirect effects of contaminants
011 Great Lakes fish and sustainable Great Lakes fishery (habitat and
reproduction)
7' A basic understanding of Great Lakes fish habitat needs or what
composes essential fish habitat
8 ‘ A basic understanding of the impacts of land use on fish habitat
9’ Knowledge of Great Lakes fish habitat restoration successes

we tools necessary to identify Great lakes fish species

)4

 

-- continued, next page --

72

 

Table II-l , continued

 

Leadership Related Statements
(Networking, institutional arrangements, issues, political and social-
‘cultural processes, etc.):
_ I. B asic, leadership skills A
2. A network of expert contacts (scientists, managers, legislators, etc.) from x x
a Variety of backgrounds to call upon to effectively address and/or
7 advocate regional needs. A p _
3. Create a network of Great Lakes leaders or peers from the broadest x
Possible variety of backgrounds, organizations, or stakeholder groups who
are able to call upon each other to effectively address and/or advocate
regicsnal needs
- Basic understanding of Great Lakes institutional arrangements relevant to x X
the fishery
Q understand Great Lakes institutional arrangements and firnding X
anL‘ilmrities, , , .
amiliarity and basic knowledge with key federal and state fisheries x
managers and management institutions
Develop stakeholders from each Great Lakes state as Great Lakes Fishery x x
aders - a cohort of leaders with the knowledge and skills necessary to
8 Provide effective leadership on fisheries management issues,

A basic understanding of the processes which feed into fisheries x
management decisions _ . _
9- Empower these fishery'leaders with the ability to influence policy x x
decisions and legislative initiatives
10- Exposure to and understanding of current issues and concerns relevant to x x
the (Great Lakes fishery _
l 1 - Expose leadership from’one end of the Great Lakes region to the iSsues x
and concerns of the other parts of the region.
12 - 7 A enhanced ability to see multiple sides of any issue x
13 - A thorough understanding of fish consumption advisories or how x x X
. Contaminants affect public safety (consumption)
14 - Multiply the ability of Great Lakes Sea Grant Extension to reach x
Constituent audiences using a ‘teach-the-teacher’ model. 7
- A basic understanding of needs, opportunities and mechanisms for x X
enhancing public participation in the Great Lakes fisheries ’
1 6 ~ A11 awareness of the economic importance that Great Lakes fisheries have x x

-.\On regional, statewide and coastal community scales.

 

FLI Funding Proposal and Vision Documents (Sturtevant et al. 2002a), provided in Appendices F -l
b and F-2

c SLIM Promotional Brochure (Sturtevant et al. 2003), provided in Appendix F -3
o\rer Letter to GLFLI Applicants (Sturtevant 2003), provided in Appendix C-1

73

 

Table III-2

Sumnz cry of GLFLI Curriculum Components Developed for Use in the GLFLI Program

 

Curriculum Summary of Component Contents
0 Conrponent
3
A The Life of the - a regionally-based Extension publication providing an overview to basic

Lakes: A Guide
to the Great
Lakes Fishery

F isheries Habitat
I\/Iodule

Aquatic
uisance
Species (ANS)
Effects on
Sustainability
Module
Fish ID CD
ROM"

Fisheries
Management
Module

Aquatic Science
Module

biology and ecology, the history, current status, and future challenges related
to the Great Lakes fishery;

- 54 page Sea Grant Extension publication

- Michigan participants received prior to their GLFLI participation

- covers: 1) types of habitats, 2) fisheries habitat uses, 3) degradation of
habitat, 4) impacts of pollution, exotics, climate change, water level
fluctuations, and stocking on fisheries habitats

- 44 page curriculum component; + 12 page resource list; PowerPoint
presentation

- covered during lakewide meetings for Michigan participants

’ - covers: 1) ANS pathways, 2) interactions of ANS with fishery, 3) examples

of ANS

- 14 page curriculum component .

- covered during lakewide meetings for Michigan participants; supplemented
by ANS materials presented and provided through various agencies and

. programpartners.

- basic identification/status of Great Lakes fish families and species

- CD-ROM

* not completed in time to be available to Michigan participants; component
supplemented by “Fishes of Michigan” PowerPoint presentation provided
through the MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Michigan
Natural Features Inventory

-’ covers fisheries management background and principles, including: basic
fish biology (survival, growth, reproduction, etc.), stock assessment and
management strategies, and human interactions

- 36 page curriculum component; PowerPoint presentation

- covered during lakewide meetings, supplemented by fisheries management
lessons and discussions presented and provided through various agencies and

, program partners.

- covers basic chemistry, physical, and biological components of aquatic
ecosystems, including water chemistry, biotic and abiotic components of
aquatic ecosystems, effects of nutrients and temperature, food chains/webs,
etc.

- PowerPoint presentation with supplement discussion outline

- covered primarily duflg various lakewide meetings

-- continued, next page --

74

 

Table II-2, continued

 

G Great Lakes
Fisheries
Agencies and
Institutional V
Arrangements
Module
H Public
P articipation (in
fishing) Module

1 C:ornmunity
Guide to
creasing
F ishing
, articipation
J Genetic
Guidelines for
Fisheries
Management

Contaminants
Module

L Great Lakes
Charter Fishing
Survey

Commercial
Fishing Public
Participation

Coaster Brook
Trout Case
Study“
\

- covers structure, responsibilities, and contacts for bi-national, Federal,
regional, state, tribal and non-govemmental agencies and organizations.
- 79 page curriculum component; PowerPoint presentation '

- covered during MI statewide meeting by M1 Sea Grant staff and other
program partners

- covers regional participation and economic value in relation to Great Lakes
fisheries

- 15 page curriculum component
- minimal coverage at statewide meeting, and various coverage levels during
various lakewide sessions, supplemented by other resources
- covers planning and organizing of fisheries related programs and activities
' (e.g., education, marketing, community service, etc.)
- 15 page curriculum component
- minimal coverage at statewide meeting, and various coverage levels during
various lakewide sessions
- covers how fish management, stocking, harvest management, habitat, and
genetic engineering all effect genetic stocks of fisheries
- 10 page Sea Grant Extension publication
- minimal coverage during some lakewide meetings, supplemented by
discussions provided through various program partners
4 covers types of contaminants, effects on fisheries, and human health issues
(e.g., fish consumption)
- 43 page curriculum component; PowerPoint presentation
— minimal coverage during statewide and most lakewide training sessions
- summarizes numbers, trips, and value of Great Lakes charter fisheries by
region and by state

- one summary article for region and each Great Lakes state (approx. 9-10
pages each) '

- covered primarily during lakewide meetings, with some minimal coverage
during statewide meeting

- summarizes types, numbers, regulations, and harvest of Great Lakes
commercial fisheries

- 17 page curriculum component; PowerPoint presentation

- primary coverage during lakewide meetings

"‘ not completed in time to be available to Michigan participants, therefore this
component was supplemented during some lakewide meetings through

lessons and discussions presented and provided through various agencies and
program partners.

75

Table II—3

Michigan GLFLI Participants (n =22) and their Attendance at Each GLFLI Training

 

 

 

 

Session
1
‘ . # of Total
Lake Group Meeting Schedule Participants
Lake Lake Lake Michigan Lake Lake
Huron #1 Michigan Erie Statewide Huron #2 Superior
Sept. 26- Oct. 3-5, Oct. 3-4, Oct. 21- Nov. 7-8, Jan. 23-
27, 2003 2003 2003 22, 2003 2003 24, 2004
Port
Alpena, Manitowoc, Erie, Lansing, Huron, Ashland,
MI WI PA M1 M1 A WI
Lake Huron 6 -- -- 7 7 -- 8a
Lake Erie -- -- 3 3 -- -- 3
Lake
_ Michigan -- 8 -- 6 " -- 8
Lake Superior -- -- -- l -- 3 3
GRAND
TOTALS 6 8 7 3 l7 7 3 22

 

' Total number of unique participants attending any portion of the trainings intended for Lake Huron

participants.

76

 

Table lI-4

Demographic Characteristics of Michigan GLFLI Program Participants (n =22)

 

 

 

 

 

U.S.
Michigan Participants Census
. . . Data for
Characteristics Categories Michi an'
# % n %
Gender Male 3 19 86.4 22 49
Female 3 13.6 51
Age in 2003 15-19 years 0 0 22 7.2
20-24 years 2 9.1 6.5
25-34 years 3 13.6 13.7
35-44 years 5 22.7 16.1
45-54 years 8 36.4 13.8
55-64 years 4 18.2 8.7
65-74 years 0 O 6.5
75-84 years 0 0 4.4
85+ years 0 0 1.4
Mean 44.5 35.5
Median 46.5 --

 

 

 

4.5 20

Education level Less than high school graduate

 

1
High school graduate or GED 1 4.5 --
Vocational or trade school 1 4.5 --
Some college 4 18.2 --
Associate’s degree (2 yr degree) 0 0 --
College graduate (Bachelor’s / 4 yr degree) 4 27.3 --
Graduate or professional degree 9 40.9 --
Community size Rural, farm 3 13.6 22
Rural, non-farm 5 22.7
Small town (525,000 people) 5 22.7
Urban area (25, 001 up to 100, 000 people) 4 18. 2
Metropolitan area (>100, 000 people) 5 22. 7

 

'U. S Census. 2000. Table DP- 1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics for Michigan: 2000,
U. S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
http://www census ’ 2000/states/mi.html (retrieved March 2004)

I’Respondents may have indicated more than one category

77

 

Table H—S

Coverage of Biology, Ecology, and Fishery Science Related Learning Outcome Areas for
Michigan Participants

 

 

5 A 5 7< Coverage for
U a 9 V d
g j; g 2 on participants in:
8 g" 3 5 g 1=curriculum
5 '5 8 2 E) g 2=Statewide Session
Biology, Ecology, and Fishery .3 _, 8 2 5 g .5 3=Lakewide Sessions
Science Related Learning 5 ‘2 g g i“ 2 ‘5
Outcomes' 0 g g B .9. .8 g- 5 ...
:3 8. .M :1: 2 u: a: g .°° E
LI. 5 .5 o o o o 0 g 0 D
.4 0 -~ '25 i3 '25 '25 3 ~— 'I: ‘3'
O U 2 .4 .4 .4 .4 :1: E m :11
Basic knowledge of the history of a,b,e,f, Y Y Y Y ‘ Y 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2,
Great Lakes fisheries and fishery g,n 3 3 3 3
management
Basic understanding of fish a,b,c,e, Y Y Y Y 1,3 1,3 1 3 1,3
ecology, biology, or science f,j,n
Biological basis for fish a,b,e,f,i N ' Y Y Y Y 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3
production in the natural waters of ,n >
the GreatLakes
Basic understanding of Great a,c,e,f N Y Y Y Y 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3

Lakes food webs — including the

effects of lower trophic level

changes on fish (physiology and
7 species composition)

Basic understanding of the effects a,b,c N Y Y Y Y 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3
- and potential effects of aquatic

nuisance species on Great Lakes
, fish _

Basic understanding of the direct a,b,k N N N Y N 1 1 1,3 l

and indirect effects of

contaminants on Great Lakes fish

and sustainable Great Lakes
fishery (habitat and reproducti n)

o

 
  
 
   
 

f Great

    
  

 
 
 

Basic understanding of the
impacts fl ndu on fish habitat
..,, W, ,. . .,;..,._7._,_. 'h . .

   

 

      

Tools necessary to identify Great
lakes fish species
Y=Yes; N=No
’ Coverage determination based on curriculum components and content review (Table 1-2, Appendix G-2).
" Coverage determination through statewide program session agenda (Appendix H-1) and meeting notes.
° Coverage determination through lakewide session(s) agenda(s) (Appendices H-2, H-3, H-4, and H-5)and
meeting notes.
d Coverage for participants determined upon review of curriculum ', statewide b and lakewidec program(s)
‘ Learning outcome areas based on summary provided in Table H.

'N ~'NHYH

 

Y .

 

 

78

 

Table 11-6

Coverage of Leadership Skills Related Learning Outcome Areas for Michigan
Participants

 

 

ED 1‘ a 2,: Coverage for
3 3 :3 3‘ 5 participants in:
2 go a :3 En 1=curriculum
§ § 5 g I; g 2=Statewide Session
0 . = . .
Leadership related Learning a . 5 E 5 g .25 M
Outcomese g g a 5 LED 2 ‘c:
U o 5 _U .0 a '5
g 5 -‘ l: :3 r: 5 1::
:5 .w m 2 u: m o .oo o
u, E“ E g 0 :3 s E s ., %
.4 --— -~ -
O 5 2 .4 E .4 .3 2 :5 w
Basic leadership skills I h,i Y N N N N 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2
Network of expert contacts g Y Y Y Y Y 1,2, l 2 1,2, 1,2,
(scientists, managers, legislators, 3 3 3

etc.) from a variety of
backgrounds to call upon to
efi‘ectively address and/or

, advocate regional needs.

om Lakes leaders or h,i,trn Y Y

    

-. Basic understanding of Great I g I. i Y Y i
Lakes institutional arrangements
relevant to the fishery

 

‘ Understand Great Lakes g Y Y N ? N 1,2, 1,2 1,2 1,2
institutional arrangements and ? 3
fwding authorities,
Familiarity and basic knowledge a,g Y Y Y Y Y 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2,
with key federal and state 3 3 3 3
fisheries managers and

v HY Ii-Y - Y..- Y " Y 1.2.: .1422.- . ~ ' -

         

Basic understanding of the a,e,g Y Y Y Y Y 1,2, 1,2,

processes which feed into 3 3

fisheries management decisions

Empower these fishery leaders a,g Y N Y ?? N 1,2 1,2, 1,2 1,2
with the ability to influence policy 3

decisions and legislative initiatives
—- continued, next page --

 

79

 

Table II—6, continued

 

Exposure to and understanding of a,b,c,e,f Y Y Y Y Y 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2,
current issues and concerns ,h.j,k,l 3 3 3 3
relevant to the Great Lakes fishery

one ., h. _

 
    

       
  
 
 

 
 
 
 

hEnhancedabrlitytosee multiple-‘3' Y Y” Y Y” "Y 1:2, "1,2, 1,2, 1,2,
sides of any issue . _' a,c,1,m 3 3 3 3

 

N Y? N "1,2,; ”1,2 1,2 1,2'
3

   

Multiply the ability of Great
Lakes Sea Grant Extension to
reach constituent audiences using
. a ‘teach-the-teacher’ model.
Basic understanding of needs, a,h,i Y Y N ?? N 1,2, 1,2 1,2 1,2
opportunities and mechanisms for 3
enhancing public participation in

the Great Lakes fisheries
Awareness of the economic a,e,h,l, Y Y Y Y Y 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2,
importance that Great Lakes in 3 3 3 3

fisheries have on regional,
statewide and coastal community
scales.
Y=Yes; N=No
‘ Coverage determination based on curriculum components and content review (Table I-2, Appendix G-2).
b Coverage determination through statewide program session agenda (Appendix H-1) and meeting notes.
c Coverage determination through lakewide session(s) agenda(s) (Appendices H-2, H-3, H—4, and H-5)and
meeting notes.
‘ Coverage for participants determined upon review of curriculum ‘, statewide b and lakewidec program(s)
‘ Learning outcome areas based on summary provided in Table H.

80

Table II-7

Examples of Participant Statements Related to Learning Expectations and Actual
Outcomes that Guided Coding Category Development

 

Learning Category Learning Expectations and Actual Outcomes: Participant Response '
Understanding of fisheries issues
“Help me to gain insight and better understand the complexities and interactions that surround Great
Lakes issues.”
“Broaden my understanding of G.L. fishery management issues. ..involved in the Lake Michigan fishery.”
“A much better understanding of issues. . .of Lake Erie.” .
Understanding biolou, ecology, and fisheries ol' the Great Lakes
“Better understanding of our Great Lakes fishery...
“The Institute rs a great context in which I can learn more about the substance of the fisheries and what it
takes to support their health...
“More information about the Great Lakes fishery...”
“I also want a better understanding of the Lake Huron fishery as background for membership in the Lake
Huron Citizens Fishery Advisory Committee.”
Learning about fisheries research, management, and policy
. “More enhanced knowledge of research and policies conceming Great Lakes Fishery ecosystems.”
“To further my education in fisheries resource management...”
Learning about diverse stakeholders
“A greater understanding of the role of groups outside Michigan in managing the Great Lakes.”
“I hope to learn all I can about the Great Lakes and the different user or consumer groups.”
“General knowledge of.. .how the different stakeholders work together.”
Building networks and/or networking skills
“I am interested in participating in the Leadership Institute and becoming a Great Lakes fisheries leader so
I can meet new people concerned with the issues that face the Great Lakes in regards to fisheries and
water quality.”
, “The Institute” .ofi‘ers a chance to meet many others who are deeply involved in this Work. ”
“Knowledge of fisheries in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron and better networkingskills. ”
Gaining information and resources
“Information on funding and partnerships to educate youth and families on fishery management and
stewardship.”
“I have a strong interest in being a participant in the institute because of the knowledge that I will gain...”
“Resources for information.”

Developing leadership skills
“Additional Leadership skills.”

Developing action/advocacy related knowledge and skills
“I want to become a knowledgeable advocate for northern Lake Huron and the Lake Huron fishery.”
“I am very interested in public policy and promoting fishing activities.”
Increasing ability tp ggucate youth or adults
“Understanding of Lake Erie and Great Lakes Issues that k-12 students should learn about, and might help
address.”
“I am interested in gaining more knowledge about the Great Lakes fisheries that I can pass on in the
youth programs of present and future. I also own property in Georgian Bay, Canada, and I would hope to
share my knowledge with our Canadian neighbors.”
“Increase my knowledge to explain to my peers and fellow [organization members] the needs to be
, educated in policy-making through good management of our fisheries.”
“Gain knOWILdge to pass to readership.”
' Items used in developing coding categories include only participant responses from Pre- and Post-Institute
survey questions: (1) “Please list or describe what you hope to learn or gain through your participation in
the GLFLI...”; and (2) “After participating in the GLFLI, what do you consider the most important things
that you learned or gained?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81

Table H-8

Summary of Variability Analysis for Code Categories Developed to Organize GLFLI
Participant Open-ended responses Relating to Learning Expectations and Outcomes

 

Code Categories for a “a '3
Open-ended Participant 3 3 3
Res onses' ‘ .. ‘ _ Re-codin #1" .— %c Refcodin #2b fl , %°

       
  

         

Po twirl- Is"

 
   

 

" 88.9 Learning about '8 ' 88.9:

\o

C

l-l.

<

a

'1

B.
Q

o
Ha

E;
g

a .
o

a

U}

00

Learning about Diverse

Stakeholders and Perspectives and Viewpoints and difi‘erent groups’ and
Issues stakeholders'
perspectives
Information/ 1 11.1 Awareness/ 1 11.]
Resources to Use understanding of
Great Lakes fisheries

issues
7; 1‘? ..... , .. ..

 
  
 

 

 
        

'13” 92.9

A

Basics of Great Lakes 1 Fisheries Knowledge 9 64.3 Awareness/
Fisheries History, Biology, understanding of
and Ecology Great Lakes fisheries
issues
General Knowledge 5 35.7 Personal skills — (e.g. 1 7.1
and Awareness leadership,
networking,
resources)
Develop Networks and Personal Gain 4 44. Personal skills — (e.g. 8 88.9
Networking Skills leadership,
networking,

I‘CSOUICCS )

 

\O
J:-

-- continued, next page --

82

Table II-8, continued

 

 

 

Other General Leadership
Skills

 

' '5" rflnr'omifiaihies'afies" 3 6on
to Use
Personal Gain 1 20.0

Diversity of Attendees I 20.0
and Viewpoints and
Issues

 

Education or Informtion

Sharing Knowledge/Skills

' Iterns' used in developing, coding categories include only partici

Information to Pass on 4 80.0

General Knowledge 1 20
and Awareness

"sesame. '5‘;

'o

     

 

leadership,

confidence,

networking, capacity

building, resources/
opportunities, etc.

(i.e. funding)

Learning about 2 40.0
different groups’ and
stakeholders’

perspectives

Awareness/ 1 20.0
understanding of

Great Lakes fisheries

issues

  
  

W'-
Awareness/ 3 60.0
understanding of
Great Lakes fisheries
issues
Exposure to various 1 20.0
issues (i.e.
legislative/political)
Takin Action 1 20.0

 

pant responses from Pre- and Post-Insntute

survey questions: (1) “Please list or describe what you hope to learn or gain through your participation in
the GLFLI. . .”; and (2) “After participating in the GLFLI, what do you consider the most important

things that you learned or gained?”

" Categories and organization of participant responses based on independent coding of two different coders.
‘ Percent (%) representation of items coded in original code category

83

Table II-9

Summary of Open-ended Responses Regarding what Participants Hoped to Learn or
Gain Through their GLFLI Experience

 

 

a I-
: g, '3 TOTAL
1' a :a 0
Category 3 g “E 2' Unique
I H to participants
.. .. #° %° #‘ %c #° %° #° %° 11¢c %6
Education-or Information
Sharing Knowledge/Skills 6 75.0 3 37.5 2 66.7 1 50.0 12 57.1

Bisi°s°f§reatLakesmmes 5 62.5 3 37.5 3 100.0 1 50.0 12 57.1
History, B1ology, and Ecology

Understand Fisheries
Management and Policies 2 25.0 6 75.0 0 0.0 O 0.0 8 38.1
(Political, Regulatory, etc.)

Develop Networks and”
Networking Skills 6 75.0 1 12.5 1 33.3 0 0.0 8 38.1

Understanding of Specific
Issues related to the Great 2 25 .0 2 25.0 3 100.0 0 0.0 7 33.3

Lakes

Access to Resources or 1
Additional Information 5 62.5 2 25.0 0 0.0 O 0.0 7 33.3

Learning about Diverse
Stakeholders and Perspectives 2 25'0 2 25'0 0 0-0 1 50-0 5 23.8

Action or Advocacy Related
Knowledge /Skills 1 12.5 2 25.0 1 33.3 0 0.0 4 19.0

Other General Leadership Skills 2 25.0 1 12.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 14.3

TOTAL UNIQUE
PARTICIPANTS

‘ Application open-ended questions used include: (1) “Why are you interested in becoming a Great Lakes
Fisheries Leader ”; and (2) “Please include a brief statement describing potential service project(s) in
which you would be interested.”

" Pre-participation Survey question asked in open-ended question format, “Please list or describe what you
hope to learn or gain through your participation in the GLFLI. . .”

° Percent calculated based on number of responses as a proportion of the total number of participants in
each respective lake group (Lake Huron - n=8; Lake Michigan — n=8; Lake Erie n=3; Lake Superior n=3)

" Percent calculated based on number of responses as a proportion of total Michigan GLFLI participants
who provided a valid responses to Pre-Institute questions (n=21).

° Several (18) participants’ responses indicated multiple areas or categories in which they hoped to learn or
gain through their GLFLI participation

f Categories based on compiling, organizing, and coding of participant open—ended responses (Table [-7)

8 100 8 100 3 100 2 100 21 100

 

84

Table II-lO

Summary of Open-ended Responses Regarding what Participants Believed They had

Learned or Gained Through their GLFLI Experience

 

 

g r...
E in '2 "2' TOTAL
r = "‘ 3.
Category :1: g kl 5 Unique
participants
_ _ #e %° #. %° #e W #e %° #c %‘I
Develop Networks and
Networking Skills 4 50.0 5 71.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 45.0
Understanding Fisheries
Management and Policies 3 37.5 2 28.6 1 33.3 1 50 7 35.0
(Political, Regulatory, etc.)
Learning about Diverse
Stakeholders and Perspectives 2 25.0 3 42.9 1 33.3 1 50 7 35.0
Understanding of Specific
Issues related to the Great 2 25.0 2 28.6 1 33.3 0 0.0 5 25 .0
Lakes
Access to Resources or 5 62 5 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 5 25 0
Additional Information ' ' ' ' '
Basics Of Great Lakes Fisheries
History, Biology, and Ecology 1 12.5 2 28.6 1 33.3 0 0.0 4 20.0
Education or Information
'81 . g Knowledge/Skills O 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Action or Advocacy Related
Knowledge/Skills O 0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0
Other General Leadership Skills 0 0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0
TOTAL UNIQUE
PARTICIPANTS 8 100 7 100 3 100 2 100 20 100

 

‘ Post-participation Survey question asked in Open-ended question format, “After participating in the

GLFLI, what do you consider the most important things that you learned or gained?”
° Percent calculated based on number of responses as a proportion Of the total number Of participants in

each respective lake group (Lake Huron - n=8; Lake Michigan — n=8; Lake Erie n=3; Lake Superior n=3)
‘ Percent calculated based on number Of responses as a proportion of total Michigan GLFLI participants

who provided a valid responses to Post-Institute questions (n=20).

‘ Several (l 1) participants’ responses indicated multiple areas or categories in which they indicated they
had learned or gained through their GLFLI participation
' Categories based on compiling, organizing, and coding of participant Open-ended responses (Table L7)

85

Table H-1 1

Comparison of What GLFLI Participants had Hoped to Learn or Gain and What They
Believed They had Actually Learned or Gained

 

HOPED BELIEVED Difference

TO LEARN HAD between
Level OR GAIN ACTUALLY Expected and
of .1, LEARNED Actual
. . OR GAINED Learning or
Accr:(m:ir:§ment Category 1 c Gain
Particip'm TgT'AL: TOTAL TOTAL
Expectations par cgp an 5

participants d participants d
#1; %° #“ %‘ #‘P‘ %H

 

 

a~ “Gain”invllll¢ Develop Networks 311d

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lag-semfomcome Networking Skills. 8 ~38“ . . 9 . 45 . '1' . - 5639:???"
Learning about Diverse
Stakeholders and Perspectives 5 23.8 7 35 2 “'2
Understanding Fisheries . ' ' . C -
Management and Policies 8 38.1 7 35 -1 -331
(Political, Regulatory, etc.) , - . 5
Understanding of Specific Issues
related to the Great Lakes 7 33‘3 5 25 '2 ‘8'3
Accessto Resources or - .. - ‘ . . .
Additional Information 7 33'? 5 . 25 '2 ”8‘3
Basics of Great Lakes Fisheries
Histogy, Biology, and Ecology 12 57'] 4 20 '8 ‘37'1

Least valued Education or Information '

as actual outcome Sharing Knowledge/Skills 12 57'] 0 0 '12 57’]
Action or Advocacy Related
Knowledge/Skills 4 19'0 0 0 ‘4 '19
Other General Leadership Skills 3 14.3 0 0 -3 -14.3

TOTAL PARTICIPANTS RESPONDING 21 100 20 100 — —

' Application open-ended questions used include: (1) “Why are you interested in becoming a Great Lakes
Fisheries Leader?”; and (2) “Please include a brief statement describing potential service project(s) in
which you would be interested.”

b Pre-participation Survey question asked in open-ended question format, “Please list or describe what you
hope to learn or gain through your participation in the GLFLI. . .”

° Post-participation Survey question asked in Open-ended question format, “After participating in the
GLFLI, what do you consider the most important things that you learned or gained?"

G Total number of participants providing valid responses

° Percent calculated based on number of responses as a proportion of total Michigan GLFLI participants
who provided a valid responses to Pre-Institute questions (n=21)

fPercent calculated based on number of responses as a proportion of total Michigan GLFLI participants
who provided a valid responses to Post-Institute questions (n=20)

“Several (18) participants’ responses indicated multiple areas or categories in which they hoped to learn or
gain through their GLFLI participation.

h Several (I 1) participants’ responses indicated multiple areas or categories in which they indicated they

' had learned or gained through their GLFLI participation

‘ Categories based on compiling, organizing, and coding of participant open-ended responses (Table I-7)

 

86

Table II-12

Participant Reactions Regarding What They Had Learned or Gained Through Their
GLFLI Learning Experience

 

Michigan Participants

   
  

d.e

 

Survey Questions Response Categories

 

 

 

 

" '” gained gating-originally »

  
 
 

Learned or gained sOmething new or Strongly Disa

 

something not anticipated through GLFLI Moderately Disagree
experience _- __
Neither Agree nor
Disagree __ -_
Moderately Agree 5 22.7
Strongly Agree 13 59.1
MEAN " 4.05
MEDIAN ° 5
Consider GLFLI learning experience to be Strongly Disagree 4 18.2 22
beneficial ° Moderately Disagree -- --
Neither Agree nor
Disagree -- “
Moderately Agree 2 9.1
Strongly Agree 16 72.7
MEAN d 4.18
MEDIAN ° 5

 

' Participants were asked, “During your participation in the GLFLI, did you learn or gain what you had
originally hoped from this experience?”

b Participants asked, “Did you learn or gain ‘ ' new or ' ' that you did not
learning from the GLFLI?”

c Participants asked, “Do you consider your GLFLI learning experience to be beneficial?

‘ Mean response on 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5.

° Median response on 5-point scale with “Strongly Disayee” coded as l and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5.

87

pm

Table II- 1 3

General Participant Perspectives Relating to the Achievement of their Expectations of
Their GLFLI Experience Regarding Curriculum, Experiential Opportunities, and
Opportunities to Practice Knowledge and Skills

 

Michigan Participants

Survey Questions Response Categories d’ °
% J n

 

 

 

 

 

  

D. g. _
3 ».Modeate1r»_esrc¢2':
Strange-ester 1 ._

          

 

 

Experientlal or hands-on opportunities met Strongly Disagree 4 18.2 22
participant expectations? b Moderately Disagree 2 9.1
Nerther Agree nor 4 18.2
D1sagree
Moderately Agree 5 22.7
Strongly Agree 7 31.8
MEAN “ 3.41
MEDIAN ° 4
Participants felt they had opportunities to Strongly Disagree 3 13.6 22
practice knowledge and skills gained during Moderately Disagree 1 4 5
the GLFLI ° '
Neither Agree nor 6 27.3
Disagree
Moderately Agree 6 27.3
Strongly Agree 6 27.3
MEAN d 3.5

MEDIAN ‘ 4
' Participants were asked, “Did the curriculum or lessons meet your expectations?”
5 Participants asked, “Did the experiential or hands-on opportunities meet your expectations?”
° Participants asked, “Did you have adequate opportunities to practice knowledge and skills gained during
the GLFLI?”
‘ Mean response on 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree" coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5.
° Median response on 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5.

 

88

Table H-14

Summary of Participant Ratings of Curriculum Modules or Lessons Considered MOST
and LEAST Valuable

 

 

Most c Least c
CURRICULUM MODULE Valuable'I % Valuable” %
The Life Of the Lakes , _ 19 86.4 ,- --
Fisheries Habitat Module 9 40.9 1 4 5
’ Aquatic Nuisance Species Effects on 9 ' 40 9 __ __
. Sustainability Module '
Fish 1]) CD ROM‘1 8 36.4 -- -—
‘Fisheries Management Module 7 31.8 1 4 5
Aquatic Science Module 5 22.7 3 13.6
' G. L. Fisheries Agencies & Institutional 5 22 7 __ __
_ Arrangements Module. '
Public Participation (in fishing) Module 5 22.7 -- --
Community Guide to Increasing Fishing 5 22 7 __ __
Participation , .'
Genetic Guidelines for Fisheries Management 2 9.1 1 4.5
Contaminants Module _ , g 2 9.1 l 4.5.
Great Lakes Charter Fishing Survey 2 9.1 2 9.1
Commercial Fishing Public Participation _ 2 9.1 1 . 4.5
_Coaster Brook Trout Case Studye 1 4.5 3 13.6
‘ Participants were asked, “Which curriculum module or lesson (if any) was most valuable? (Check ALL
that apply)”

(3

e

1“

Participants were asked, “Which curriculum module(s) or lessons (if any) were least valuable? (Check
ALL that apply)”

Percent (%) calculated based on total responses for each category as a percent of total Michigan
participants (n=22)

Module not completed in time to be available to Michigan participants, therefore this component was
supplemented by a “Fishes of Michigan” PowerPoint presentation completed and provided through the
MSU Department Of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Michigan Natural Features Inventory

Module not completed in time to be available to Michigan participants, therefore this component was
supplemented during some lakewide meetings through lessons and discussions presented and provided
through various agencies and program partners.

Summaries and descriptions Of curriculum modules provided in Table I-2 and APPENDIX G-2

89

Table II- 1 5
Participant Responses Relating to MOST and LEAST Valuable Experiential
Opportunities

 

 

MOST VALUABLE Experiential LEAST VALUABLE Experiential
Opportunities ' . Opportunities 5
Networking and Discussions (x4 participants) Lecture by a particular speaker (x2
participants)

— “Networking”
- “networking with fellow participants and
presenters - building an alliance”
- “meeting and speaking with the ‘players and
decision makers’ in Michigan
— “the discussions resulting from the
presentations”
Visiting Commercial Fisheries (x 3
participants)
- “The commercial fishing visits”
- “Canada Trip [to visit Canadian Commercial
fish operation]”
— “visiting the commercial fishing boat &
seeing the catch”
Research and Monitoring (x2 participants)
- “hands on experience with research and
monitoring”
- “the experiential time in Erie, PA, in spite of
the rain and cold - especially the Aquanaut”
I..earning about the Legislative Process (x1
participant)
- “The legislative range of opinions experience
(Agree—Disagree)”
Fisheries Habitat Lecture/ Discussion (x1
participant)
- “habitat lecture”

* one additional participant noted that “All”
experiences were most beneficial

- “The Lake [Michigan] session had some
speakers who gave us dry, Often outdated
info in a lecture format.”

- "Top Hat" [lecture by agency representative]

Leadership Exercises (x1 participant)
- “some Of the "leadership” exercises [MI

Statewide session]”

Additional Experiential Opportunities needed
(x1 participant)
- “More???”

* 4 participants indicated that no or “none” of
their experiential Opportunities were considered

least valuable

; Participants asked, “Please list (if any) your experiential experiences that were most valuable?”
Participants asked, “Please list (if any) your experiential experiences that were least valuable?”

90

Table H-16

Michigan Participant (n =22)Rating of Their Own KNOWLEDGE and
UNDERSTANDING of Biological and Ecological Aspects ofthe Great Lakes Fishery

Before and After the GLFLI

 

 

 

8 a; E “a
a i :- 2 “r 5'
o u 8 2 = a é
a 0 E E_‘ '3
Knowledge and understanding related to i 3 . E '9 tn ,_
biology & ecology of G. L. fishery '3 2 ‘0
u I“: o v: i E
5 é 5 § 5 o! to ...
§ 2 i 2 2 E
Great Lakes issues and concerns 3.7 . 4 4.5 5 0.8 ,1 -3.002 0.003 .
Basic understanding of fish biology 3.7 4 4.3 4 0.6 0 -2.807 0.005
. Biological basis for fish production in Great ’ .
Lakeswaters . . . , 3.3 4 4.1 4 0.8 0 3.213 0.001 7
Understanding of essential fish habitats 3.6 4 4.2 4 0.6 0 -2.489 0.013
Fisheries management techniques applied to '
achieve fishery management (such as 3.3 4 4.3 4 1.0 0 -3.270 0.001
regulations and policies)
Effects of contaminants on Great Lakes
fishery goals or objectives (such as habitat 3.6 4 4.1 4 0.5 0 -2.668 0.008
and fish reproduction) _
Effects of aquatic nuisance species on the '
sustainability of the Great Lakes fishery 3.6 4 4.5 5 0.9 1 -3.082 0.002
Identifying Great Lakes fish 4.0 4 4.4 4 0.4 0 -2.060 0.039
The role of genetics in fisheries
. gement activities 2.7 3 3.6 0.9 1 -2.992 0.003
Native species rehabilitation efforts (such as
Coaster Brook Trout, Lake Trout) . 3'1 3 4'1 4 1'0 1 '3'056 (”002
Aquatic food webs associated with Great
I 1 es fisheries . 3.1 4 3.9 4 0.8 O -2.527 0.011
Plankton (zooplankton, phytoplankton) 2.8 3 3.7 4 0.9 1 —2.941 0.003
Forago fishes .. l ‘ * ' ' 3.2 3 4.1 4 0.9 1 -3211 0.001 '
Wetlands 3.4 4 4.0 4 0.6 0 -2.157 0.031
Aquatic plants 3.1 3 3.7 4 ' 0.6 1 -2.389 0.017
%tersheds 3.3 4 4.0 4 0.7 0 -2.360 0.018

 

a Prior to GLFLI participation participants were asked “We would like to gain a better understanding of
yow knowledge related to the biological and ecological aspects of the Great Lakes fishery prior to your
Participation in the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute. Ewe rate your own current knowledgg

., 0f the Great Lakes fishery based on the following statements.”

Fol lowing GLFLI participation participants were asked, “would like to gain a better understanding of
y Our knowledge related to the biological and ecological aspects the Great Lakes fishery after your
Participation in the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute. Please rate your own current knowledgg

c 0f the Great Lakes fishery based on the following statements.”

a Mean response coded on 5-point scale (“Very Unknowledgeable” = 1; “Very Knowledgeable” =5).

, I“’Iedian response coded on 5-p0int scale (“Very Unknowledgeable” = 1;”Very Knowledgeable” = 5).

, Bfis ed on negative ranks.

lgtlificance determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks statistical test (.05 confidence)

91

Table H- l 7

Michigan Participant (n =22) Rating of Their Own KNOWLEDGE and
UNDERSTANDING of Social, Political, and Cultural Aspects of the Great Lakes Fishery

Before and After the GLFLI

 

 

 

to . m ' ‘I’ “a
a - a 7.. a = E E
dfi 6w 33' 2
G g .e e 5;:
Knowledge and understanding of social, E a... i “f E 5; a,
political, & cultural aspects of the G. L. E 222'
fishery
.. “a .. ”a
I: ." e .9. t: a o
a i a a 8 '§ N r
z 2 z z z z
The economic importance that Great lakes
fisheries have on regional, statewide, and 3.7 4 4. 5 5 0. 8 1 _3. 169 0.002
. coastal commumty scales
1 Diversity of user groups or stakeholders of
Great Lakes fisheries 3.7 4 4.7 5 1.0 1 -3.038 0.002
Sportfishing in the Great Lakes 4.0 4 4.5 5 0.5 1 -2.456 0.014
Commercial fishing in the Great Lakes 32 3 42 1.0 1 3.115 0002
Charter fishing industry in the Great Lakes 32 3 4_1 0.9 1 4.970 0.003
Native American or tribal fishing in the Great
I akes 3.3 4 4.1 4 0.8 0 -2.859 0.004
Political environment within which Great
Mes fishery management Opcrates 3.4 4 4.2 4 0.8 O '2.884 0.004
Social and cultural aspects of the Great Lakes
fishery 3.4 3 4.2 4 0.8 1 -2.803 0.005
. Understanding of fish consumption advisories 3.9 4 4.1 0.2 0 -.905 0.366
History of the Great Lakes fishery 3.5 4.1 0.6 _2_3 59 0.018
HUman influences on Great Lakes aquatic
environments 3.5 4 4.3 4 0.8 0 -2.556 0.011
Iilfluences of Great Lakes aquatic
3.4 4 4.2 4 0.8 0 -2.754 0.006

environments on humans

fix.
Prior to GLFLI participation participants were asked “We would like to gain a better understanding of

y Our knowledge and understanding of social, political, and cultural aspects of the Great Lakes fishery

Prior to your participation in the_Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute. Please rate your own current

I, MM the Great Lakes fishery based on the following statements.”

c
d

F0 1 lowing GLFLI participation participants were asked, “We would like to gain a better understanding of

your knowledge and understanding of social, political, and cultural aspects of the Great Lakes fishery
re Sulting from your participation in the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute. Please rate your own

\current knowledge of the Great Lakes fishery based on the following statements.”
ean response coded on S-point scale (“Very Unknowledgeable” = 1; “Very Knowledgeable” =5).

, _38 ed on negative ranks.

lglilificance determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks statistical test (.05 confidence)

92

, Median response coded on 5-point scale (“Very Unknowledgeable” = 1;”Very Knowledgeable” = 5).

Table II- 1 8

Michigan Participant (n =22) Rating of Their Own KNOWLEDGE and
UNDERSTANDING of Their Own Involvement with the Great Lakes Fishery Before and
After the GLFLI

 

 

 

  

 

u , u ' a ”-8
§~ t?- ‘g ,, =~ a
U a U (I) 0 “.ol 6":
Knowledge and understanding relating to — a. — 2 E 3 g. '5
participants’ own involvement with the G. L. a ' 2 . E 8 .51“
m
fishery A.
. ”a . ”a s
a s s ~ ~
2 E E 2 E E
howtoprnvrdeefi‘ecuveleadershrpon T " ‘3‘ _ -. ’7 1
.. . e _ s. . . 3.2 3 - 4.2 4 1.0 4 -1 «3402000
I have access to a network of experts (such as
researchers, biologists) from a variety of 3 8 4 4.8 5 1 0 _3‘2 5 6 0.001

backgrounds to call upon to effectively address
and/or advocate regional needs.

I have a good understanding of G. L. issues/ 3,6 4 4.6 5 1,0 1 -3535 0
I understand fishery issues and concerns of other

fishery stakeholders (such as other fishery groups or 3.2 3 4.6 5 1.4 2 -3.945 0
those from other Great Lakes regions).

I have enough understanding of Great Lakes fishery
institutions and their roles.

I know about different skills needed for fisheries
leadership.

 

2.5 2 3.7 4 1.2 2 -3.328 0.001

3.2 3 4.5 5 1.3 2 -3.462 0.001
Iunderstandhow legislative process worksinmy 3_7 4 43 4 0.6 0 -2.652 0.008

tha
I understand my state agencies’ regulatory processes
toward fisheries management.

"‘aboutvanoussources ofmforrnatronrelatmg ' ' ‘ g
tlakesfishcry . . .. 1.346;. “$1915.5- ‘0 ~11 1:39.375... '

3.5 4 4.3 4 0.8 0 -2.924 0.003

  

[know of potential partners relating to fisheries I 3.8 I 4 r i 4.6 i 5 - 0.8 I l -2 887
sunr'r >>>>>>>>>> . » . ‘ . . . -'. .- - , . ' . ~ . -'.
a“ ahmrtmy Shite fisherymanagement . .- .1. ._ 3:6 . -431 47 5 Ll .1 l 3235
I know about regional or national fishery I 1
management institutions

I know of different funding authorities relating to the
Great Lakes fishery_ .1 3 4.1 4 1.0 1 '3.216 0.001

‘ Prior to GLFLI participation participants were asked, “Before participating in the Great Lakes Fisheries
Leadership Institute, how would you rate your own current knowledge in relation to your involvement
with the Great Lakes fishery?”

” Following GLFLI participation participants were asked, “After participating in the Great Lakes Fisheries
Leadership Institute, how would you rate your own current knowledge in relation to your involvement
with the Great Lakes fishery?”

° Mean response coded on 5-point scale (“Strongly Disagree" = l; “Strongly Agree” = 5).

" Median response coded on 5-point scale (“Strongly Disagree” = l; “Strongly Agree” = 5).

‘ Based on negative ranks.

1 Significance determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks statistical test (.05 confidence)

     

3.2 3 4.4 5 1.2 2 -3.477 0.001

 

93

._..__,_.

Table H-19

Michigan Participant Rating (n =22) of Their Own COMFORT and SKILLS Relating to
their Own Involvement with the Great Lakes Fishery Before and After the GLFLI

 

 

 

I o “0
“E 28 ti» s
Comfort and skills related to participants’ a s 2 A: '5 S ,E.
own involvement with G. L. fishery 2 V1
.. “a .. ...:
i: F :1 .2 n 5 ..
e a a a a: a; N e
Z 2 2 E 2 2
I have the skills necessary to provide ,
. leadership on fishery management issues. 3-4 4 4-5 5 1'1 1 ‘3-275 0-001
I can teach others what I know about Great
Lakes fishery resources. 3.8 4 4.6 5 0.8 1 -3.092 0.002
8 I can increase public participation in Great
Lakes fisheries. 3.8 4 4.7 5 0.9 1 -3.448 0.001
I feel I can influence policy dec‘isiOns made
by fisheries management agencies. 3-4 3 4-3 4 0-9 1 '3-094 0-002
I feel I have the ability to influence
legislation that relates to fisheries 35 4 4.5 5 1.0 1 3.220 0.001
management.
I am comfortable with my ability to work
with different fishery management agencies 37 4 4.6 5 0.9 1 4.970 0.003
and institutions.
7. 1 san lead a group mssting- ' 4.3 4 4.7 5 0.4 1 -2.126 0.033
I can provide leadership in a conflict
situation. 4.1 4 4.6 5 0.5 1 -2.653 0.008
" I can lOcate information and resources about
my Great Lake and its watershed 4-0 4 4’7 5 0-7 1 '2-803 0-005
I am likely to Work with people or partners 7
in addressing and/or advocating fishery 4.1 4 4.8 5 0.7 1 -3.127 0.002
needs.
3" I feel ‘I’can cemmunicate with Great Lakes
fishery stakeholders and leaders (such as 3.9 4 4.7 5 0. 8 1 -3.082 0.002

sport or commercial fishing organizations)
. from a variety of backgrounds.

; Prior to GLFLI participation participants were asked, “In the following statements please rate your

comfort and skills in relation to your involvement with the Great Lakes fishery.”
b Following GLFLI participation participants were asked, “In the following statements please rate your
comfort and skills in relation to your involvement with the Great Lakes fishery.”

° Mean response coded on 5-point scale (“Strongly Disagree” = 1; “Strongly Agree” = 5).

" Median response coded on 5-point scale (“Strongly Disagree” = l; “Strongly Agree” = 5).

‘ Based on negative ranks.

' Significance determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks statistical test (.05 confidence)

94

Table II-20

Summary of Training Coverage Through Curriculum, Statewide and Lakewide Sessions

toward GLFLI Learning Outcomes

 

Coverage for
1=curriculum ,

participants in:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

community scales.

E 2=Statewide Session °,
g o , , 3=Lakewide Sessions °
5 E; GLFLI Learmng Outcome Areas
E" Huron Michigan Erie Superior
Coverage in curriculum b, statewide ° and lakewide meetings °
Bio /Sci A basic knowledge of the history of Great Lakes fishery 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3
and fishery management
A network of expert contacts (scientists, managers,
legislators, etc.) from a variety of backgrounds to call
Leader upon to effectively address and/or advocate regional 1’2’3 1’2’3 1’2’3 1’2’3
needs.
Leader Create anetwork of Great Lakes leaders or peers from the
broadest possible variety of backgroundsprganizations, or 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
stakeholder groups who are able to call upon each other to ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
effectively address and/or advocate regional needs
Leader Bas1c understanding of Great Lakes mstitut1onal 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3
arrangements relevant to the fishery
Leader Familiarity and basic knowledge with key federal and 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
,_ 7 state fisheries wagers and Quagement institutions ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
Leader Develop stakeholders from each Great Lakes state as
Great Lakes Fishery Leaders - a cohort of leaders with 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
the knowledge and skills necessary to provide effective ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
leadership on fisheries management issues,
Leader ghasic understanding of the processes which feed mto 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3
shenes management dec1srons
Leader Exposure to and understanding of current issues and .
concerns relevant to the Great Lakes fishery 1’2’3 1’2’3 1’2’3 1’2’3
Leader Expose leadership from one end of the Great Lakes region 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
to the issues and concerns of the other parts of the region. ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
Leader A enhanced ability to see multiple sides of any issue 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3
Leader An awareness of the economic importance that Great
Lakes fisheries have on regional, statewide and coastal 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3

Coverage in curriculumb and statewide meeting °, but minimal coverage among lakewide meetings °

Leader Basic leadership skills

Leader To understand Great Lakes institutional arrangements and

fimding authorities,
Leader Empower these fishery leaders with the ability to

influence policy decisions and legislative initiatives

Leader I Multiply the ability of Great Lakes Sea Grant Extension to

reach constituent audiences using a ‘teach-the-teacher’
model.

Leader A basic understanding of needs, opportunities and
mechanisms for enhancing public participation in the
Great Lakes fisheries

-- continued, next page --

95

1,2
1,2,3

1,2

1,2,3

1,2,3

1,2
1,2

1,2,3

1,2

1,2

1,2
1,2

1,2

1,2

1,2

1,2
1,2

1,2

1,2

1,2

Table II-20, continued

 

Coverage in curriculum b and lakewide meetings ‘, but minimal coverage during statewide meeting °

Bio/Sci A basic understanding of fish ecology, biology, or science 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3
. . The biological basis for fish production in the natural
BIO/SCI waters of the Great Lakes 1’3 1’3 1’3 1’3
A basic understanding of Great Lakes food webs —-
Bio/Sci including the effects of lower trophic level changes on fish 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3

(physiology and species composition)
A basic understanding of the effects and potential effects

BIO/SCI of aquatic nuisance species on Great Lakes fish 3’3 1’3 1’3 1’3
. . A basic understanding of Great Lakes fish habitat needs or
BIO/SCI what composes essential fish habitat 1’3 1’3 1’3 1’3
Bio /Sci 33:21:: understanding of the impacts of land use on fish 13 1,3 1,3 1,3
Bio/Sci Knowledge of Great Lakes fish habitat restoration [,3 1,3 1,3 1,3
successes
Bio/Sci The tools necessary to identify Great lakes fish species 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3

 

Coverage in curriculumi’, but minimal coverage among both statewide ° and lakewide meetings °
‘ A basic understanding of the direct and indirect effects of

Bio/Sci contaminants on Great Lakes fish and sustainable Great '1 1 1,3 1
Lakes fishery (habitat and reproduction)
A thorough understanding of fish consumption advisories

Leader or how contaminants affect public safety (consumption)

1 1,3 1

 

' Based on summary of GLFLI regional program objectives (Table I-l)
b Based on review of curriculum components (Tables I-2, I-3 and L4, Appendix G-2)
° Based on content of session agendas and meeting notes (Tables I-3 and [-4, Appendix H)

96

Table II-21

Summary of GLFLI Program Learning Outcome Areas, Content Coverage, and Changes
in Knowledge and Skills Compared with Participant Expected Learning Outcome Areas
what They Generally Believe They had Gained Through Their GLFLI Experience

 

Related Participant

 

 

 
   

    

 

«2 2
Learning Expectations g 1% a .. E °" 3
2 o a a E 2
o a. "3 9‘ 9‘ o o
0 g 2 :8 u A a
3 2 E § g S 8
5 9“ u an a a g
o Eb < a a
GLFLI Intended Learning Outcomes: m
Biology, Ecology, and Fishery Science Learning Outcomes:
3' ' knowledge of the history of ~ "Basics of Great Lakes _ ' C,L,'S v Yes Lessf walnut
La}: 'fisheryandfishery ‘FisheriesHistOr-y, ._ »_. , . .

    

2. A basi understanding of fish ecology,
biology, or science

3. The biological basis for fish
production in the natural waters of the
Great Lakes

4. A basic understanding of Great Lakes
food webs — including the effects of
lower trophic level changes on fish
(physiology and species composition)

5. A basic understanding of the effects
and potential effects of aquatic
nuisance species on Great Lakes fish

6. The tools necessary to identify Great
lakes fish species

 

8. A basrcunderstandmg of the impacts

» - lfBiologandEcology

‘- Understandmgof Specific V

  
 
   

  

* -':-*:.f(Pohucal, Regulatory. etc.) ,
Basics of Great Lakes C,L Yes Less valued
Fisheries History, but significant
Biology, and Ecology
Basics of Great Lakes C,L Yes Less valued
Fisheries History, but significant
Biology, and Ecology
Basics of Great Lakes C,L Yes Less valued
Fisheries History, but significant
Biology, and Ecology
Understanding of Specific C,L Yes Less valued
Issues related to the Great but significant
Lakes
Basics of Great Lakes C,L Yes Less valued
Fisheries History, but significant

‘ Biology, andEcologyn

' C,L “Less-valued

 

of land use on fish habitat Issues related to the Great but significant
Lakes
9. Knowledge of Great Lakes fish habitat Basics of Great Lakes C,L Yes Less valued
restoration successes Fisheries History, but significant
Biology, and Ecology
10. A basic understanding of the direct Understanding of Specific C Yes Less valued
and indirect effects of contaminants on Issues related to the Great but significant
Great Lakes fish and sustainable Great Lakes
Lakes fishery (habitat and
reproduction)

 

-- continued, next page --

97

Table II-21, continued

 

 

Leadership Learning Outcomes:

~ ' DevelopNetworksand
. ' ; _,-Networ gSlulls '5

   

N12 Create a network of Great Lakes Develop Networks and U C,L,S Yes ‘ “Gain

 

 

leaders or peers from the broadest Networking Skills
possible varieg of backgounds,

or ' ’ groups Learning about Diverse “Gain”
who are able to call upon each other to Stakeholders and Perspectives
effectively address and/or advocate
regional needs
T ”13. Expose leadership from one end of Learning about Diverse C,L,S Yes “Gain”
f the Great Lakes region to the issues and Stakeholders and Perspectives
concerns of the other parts of the

 

 

 

region. Develop Networks and “Gain”
g, Networking Skills
14. A enhanced ability to see multiple Learning about Diverse C,L,S Yes “Gain”
sides of an issue Stakeholders and Perspectives
f 15. Familiarity and basic knowledge Learning about fisheries C,L,S Yes Less valued
_ With key federal and state fisheries research, management, and but significant
. and ‘ ' “ ‘ policies
16. A basic understanding of the Learning about fisheries C,L,S Yes Less valued
processes which feed into fisheries research, management, and but significant

management decisions policies
» imss of the economic ’ Understanding of Specrfic , '2 C,L,S . Yes" *- ‘ ‘ ‘-
, ’ ' that Great Lakes fisheries Issues related to the Great _ ' -
__'lregronal, statewide and coastal Lakes ‘ '

  
  

   

-, 1S Exposure to and understanding of Understanding of Specific C,L,S Yes Less valued:

 

current issues and concerns relevant to Issues related to the Great but significant
p the Great Lakes fishery Lakes
719. Basic understanding of Great Lakes Access to Resources or C,L,S Yes Less valued
institutional arrangements relevant to Additional Information but significant
; the fishery

20. To understand Great Lakes Access to Resources or OS Yes Less valued

institutional arrangements and funding Additional Information but significant

authorities
5'" thorough understanding of fish Understanding ofSpecific _ W 1, .essvalned
_ onfadvisories or how Issues relawd to the Great , ' . _ but significant
"tammantsafi‘ect public safety Lakes _ - - . » ' » ‘ :

 

  
  

 

'22. i Develop stakeholders from each Understanding of Specific I C,L,S Yes Less valued

Great Lakes state as Great Lakes Issues related to the Great but significant
Fishery Leaders - a cohort of leaders Lakes

with the knowledge and skills necessary Least valued
to provide effective leadership on Action or Advocacy Related as actual
fisheries %gement issues, Knowledge/Skills

 

-- continued, next page -—

98

Table II-21, continued

 

Leadership Learning Outcomes, continued:
23. Empower these fishery leaders with Action or Advocacy Related C,S Yes Least valued

 

the ability to influence policy decisions Knowledge/Skills as actual

. and legislative initiatives ,
24. Multiply the ability of Great Lakes Education or Information C,S Yes Least valued
Sea Grant Extension to reach Sharing Knowledge/ Skills ' as actual

constituent audiences using a ‘teach-
the-teacher’ model.

V 25. A basic 1mderstanding of needs, Education or lnforrnation C,S Yes Least valued
opportunities and mechanisms for Sharing Knowledge/Skills as actual
enhancing public participation in the .

Great Lakes fisheries 7
26. Basic leadership skills Other General Leadership C,S Yes Least valued

Skills as actual

 

‘ Participant expected learning outcome areas, based on participant responses organized by coding provided
in Table I-7

b GLFLI Regional learning outcome areas summarized in Table H

c Rating of coverage of expected participant learning outcomes based on pre- and post-institute responses
(summarized Table ??)

d GLFLI content coverage through programming (summarized in Table I-3), where: C=curriculum,
L=lakewide sessions, and S=statewide sessions

‘ Change in knowledge and skills calculated based on combined results of Likert questions (Tables I-14, I-
15, I-16, and I-17) organized and grouped according to each GLFLI learning outcome area (Table I-l).
Groupings are summarized in Appendices 1-6 and I-7.

f Participant learning expectations may relate to more than one GLFLI identified learning outcome area

99

CHAPTER III

PARTICIPANT MOTIVATION S, LEARNING EXPECTATIONS,
AND INTENDED STEWARDSHIP ACTIONS OF A NEW
EXTENSION FISHERIES LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM

ABSTRACT: The National Sea Grant College Program and Michigan State
University Extension require documentation of program impacts, beyond
simply describing inputs, activities, and participant satisfaction. In 2003-04,
the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network piloted the. Great Lakes Fisheries
Leadership Institute (GLFLI), an adult fisheries Extension education
program. This evaluation used qualitative and quantitative methods to
describe participation, program expectations and outcomes, and intended
fisheries stewardship actions by Michigan participants. Diverse Michigan
participants held diverse program expectations and intended applications of
their GLFLI experience. Motivations for participation included values related
to a specific participant cause or purpose, increased understanding related to
a topic, and opportunities related to social interaction. Program outcomes
identified by participants included networking and understanding of diverse
fishery stakeholders, as well as knowledge of fisheries history,
biology/ecology, management, and issues. Participants were most likely to
carry out stewardship actions consisting of educational activities, policy or
legislative work, and/orfisheries habitat work. They sought to apply this
learning mainly in local geographic and/or specificfisheries organizational
community settings, but they also intended to serve as leaders in statewide,

lakewide, and Great Lakes basin-wide contexts.

100

INTRODUCTION

Background

The concept of universities engaged with communities through application and
integration of research is the focus of much attention (Fear et a1. 2001, Fear et a]. 2002).
In fact, Michigan State University Extension strives to achieve transformational
education, where programs provide strong rigorous program content and in-depth,
sustained program delivery processes (Bethel 2002). These Extension program processes
facilitate transformations that empower learners to identify and accomplish positive
community change for their M benefits (Bethel pers. comm. 2004).

From a transformational education premise, evaluation of the impacts of
Extension program should consider participants’ perspectives concerning both the
content and processes of their program learning experience to foster their development as
empowered citizen stakeholders. This study uses qualitative and quantitative approaches
to evaluate transformational program impacts of the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network’s
Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute, an adult fisheries Extension education
program. Specifically, this research investigated motivations, Ieaming expectations,

program reactions, and intended stewardship actions of Michigan program participants.

GLFLI: Piloting an Adult Fisheries Leadership Education Program

In response to the needs identified regionally through Great Lakes fisheries
management institutions in addressing fisheries management issues, the Great Lakes Sea
Grant Network piloted the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (GLFLI)

throughout 2003 and early 2004. The Institute envisioned:

lOl

“. .. a Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute Operating on a regional,

lake and state level capable of providing emerging citizen fishery leaders

with the knowledge and skills to effectively interact with Great Lakes

fishery management organizations for the benefit of the fishery and its

stakeholders (Sturtevant et al. 2002a, p. 4).”

The GLFLI initiative represented the coordinated resources of eight Great Lakes
state Sea Grant programs, with funding support from the National Sea Grant College
Program. The audience for GLFLI identified by the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network

program organizers included:

“New leaders of fisheries-related organizations, those likely to become

leaders of their organizations within the next few years, and particularly

those likely to be serving as advisors to Great Lakes fishery related

institutions (e.g., Lake Committees) (Sturtevant et al. 2002a, p. 5).”

The purpose of this Extension program was to accomplish adult education which

Serves the needs of Great Lakes fishery stakeholders throughout the region, covering the
G V 6 Great Lakes (Lakes Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie, and Superior), and Lake
Champlain. Regional organizers of the GLFLI intended to increase participants’
kn leedge of Great Lakes fisheries and management while developing networks and
1 eadership skills among future citizen fishery leaders (Sturtevant et al. 2002a). It was
anticipated that adult citizen leaders trained through the program would be recognized as
218 S ets and advisors to Great Lakes fisheries management institutions.
As an adult fisheries education program, the GLFLI was designed to encourage
Q itizen involvement and action regarding Great Lakes fisheries issues. Environmental
e<1ucation programming, by definition, strives to empower learners with skills to address
erlvironmental issues and to take positive environmental action with a sense of personal

and civic responsibility within their community (Athman and Monroe 2001).

‘13 t‘I‘Apowerment of people, individually and collectively, to address environmental issues is

102

consistent with goals often cited for environmental education programs at state, national
and international scales (TICEE 1977, MEEC AC 1992, NAAEE 1996, Fedler 2001).
The context in which participants carry out stewardship actions might vary as they
apply their experience to specific needs or challenges identified individually, within their
communities, or some combination of both (Robinson 1994, Western and Wright 1994,
Matthews 1997). Applying community-based conservation research to the GLFLI
program suggests that involvement of program alumni locally as citizen leaders may
positively affect Great Lakes communities (Western and Wright 1994). However,
participants will view “community” in diverse ways, including geographic, social or
organizational communities (Hillery 1955, Flora 1992). Therefore, understanding
participants’ community context and consideration of local community values and goals,
assets and needs are also important aspects of Extension programming. This
C O nsideration can increase community support, motivation, and participation toward
’11 Oving programs successfully forward (Scholl 1989, Cornwall and Gaventa 2000).
Understanding participants’ motivations, needs and Ieaming expectations, and
i ntended application of (and community contexts for) the Ieaming experience are thus
1 i nked and all important components of Extension’s ability to successfully provide
transformational education programs. Documenting this information as part of a
prOgram evaluation effort can provide benefits, such as increased understanding about

program impacts likely to occur through participants following their program experience.

103

Evaluating Participant Motivations, Expectations, and Reactions toward a new
Extension Fisheries Leadership Program
The National Sea Grant College Program encourages Sea Grant programmers to
focus data collection and analysis on the specific standards, goals, and objectives of the
program, in order to determine whether the Sea Grant program accomplishes its intended
purpose (Spranger and Wilkins 2001). GLFLI program planning proposals also
highlighted the need and intent to, “assess the effectiveness of delivery (i.e. workshop
evaluations) (Sturtevant et al. 2002a, p. 9)”. Extension education programmers agree
that there is an increasing need to document program impacts, including the resulting
1 (mg-term social, environmental and economic impacts (Spranger and Wilkins 2001,
Bethel pers. comm. 2004).
Regional GLFLI organizers identified multiple outcomes intended as a result of
th e program (see Chapter 11). One specific program outcome identified was to “create a
rletwork of Great Lakes leaders from the broadest possible variety of backgrounds and
O1"s\:2,anizations (Sturtevant et al. 2002a, p.5).” However, any set of adult learners will have
di Verse backgrounds, awareness, knowledge, and experiences relating to the education
to pic, in this case fisheries (Levine 2000). These background variables are important for
understanding the likelihood of learners carrying out enviromnental stewardship
behaviors (Hungerford and Volk 1990). Diverse participants are likely to vary in their
1 evels of ownership or investment toward natural resources, as well as in their levels of
cOmfort, skills, and empowerment in regard to their involvement with fisheries and

01‘ganizations. These ownership and empowerment variables are also key considerations

104

in developing programs that enhance learners’ likelihood of carrying out environmental
stewardship behaviors (Hungerford and Volk 1990).

Participants will have different motivations and Ieaming expectations related to
taking part in a fisheries leadership education program (Simonson and Pals 1990,
Robinson 1994, Levine 2000, Schrock et al. 2000a, Schrock et al. 2000b). However,
GLFLI participants, as a requirement of their participation, were expected to apply their
learning experience in carrying out a service project of their choosing. GLFLI organizers
realized that these service projects would vary in relation to the specific Great Lakes
fisheries issues, challenges or needs of concern to each individual participant
(Hungerford and Peyton 1980, Levine 2000). Organizers also recognized that participant
stewardship service actions were likely to reflect a wide variety of community types
where learners would work; these contexts for action, included geographic, social or
organizational communities within which the participants would provide leadership
(Hillery 1955, Flora 1992, Western and Wright 1994).

Michigan State University Extension states a mission of, “Helping people
improve their lives through an educational process that applies knowledge to critical
needs, issues, and opportunities (MSUE 2004, p. 1).” Similarly, Stake (Shadish 1995, p.
273) supports this attention to the well-being of the program’s stakeholders, noting the
importance of “identifying the particular stakes that persons have in a program and a

desire to serve those whom the program is supposed to be helping.”

Empowering learners to affect social, economic, or environmental change within

their communities around issues of importance and of benefit to themselves is the desired

iI‘npact of any Extension program (Bethel pers. comm. 2004). Likewise, the highest

105

degrees of conservation success are achieved where community members carry out
conservation efforts in their community and for their own benefits (Western and Wright

1994). These social, economic, or environmental changes for Great Lakes resources and
fisheries stakeholders were the desired program impacts for the GLFLI (Sturtevant et al.
2002a).

Sea Grant Extension programs are regularly evaluated at various levels based on a
hierarchical pyramid of program impacts (Bennett 1978, Miller et al. 2001). Bennett's
program evaluation model focuses initially on program resources, activities, and
participation (1978). Yet, Extension leaders argue that documenting program activities,
audience participation, and satisfaction are important, but not sufficient (Bethel pers.
comm. 2004). Extension programmers must also strive to conduct in-depth evaluation
that documents short-, mid-, and long-term program impacts, such as changes in
knowledge, opinions, skills and aspirations as a result of the program (Bennett 1978,
Bethe] pers. comm. 2004). How participants apply their learning in practice, and the
impact these practices generate toward social, environmental, and economic change are
the ultimate aim of impact evaluation for Extension programs (Bennett 1978, Miller et al.
2001).

In order to evaluate Sea Grant Extension’s GLFLI we focused on investigating
participant needs, learning expectations, and their identified program outcomes in relation

to Great Lakes fisheries stewardship actions. We also focused on participants’ intended
Stewardship actions (and community context of these actions) in order to better
Understand social, environmental, and economic program impacts potentially resulting

fI‘om fisheries leaders GLFLI Ieaming experience (Bennett 1978, Miller et a1. 2001).

106

LITERATURE REVIEW

The GLFLI: A Model for Educating Adult Fishery Leaders

The GLFLI, developed based on the Master Gardner Program model, required 40-
45 hours of training/contact time with participants during two or three sessions
(Sturtevant et al. 2002a, Bobbit 1997). Specific goals, objectives, and multiple learning
outcomes are outlined in various program planning documents. The Great Lakes Sea
Grant program staff who planned and conducted the GLFLI program developed these
program goals after consulting with partner agencies (Sturtevant et al. 2002a). Each
Great Lake state’s Sea Grant program identified and recruited participants from its own
state (Sturtevant 2003). Participants accepted were expected to carry out a fisheries-
Ielated service project of their own choosing after completing their training program
(Sturtevant 2003).

Program organizers developed and delivered to participants a base curriculum
consisting of eight core Ieaming modules and six supplemental resources (a total of 14
standardized curriculum components). This curriculum then provided the structure for
the GLFLI training sessions (Sturtevant et al. 2002b). Individual state Sea Grant
programs participated in organizing, coordinating, and carrying out various GLFLI
training sessions attended by their state’s participants (Sturtevant et al. 2002a).

Institute training sessions were planned in two general formats, including: (a) a
State-level session within each state, as well as (b) regional, lakewide sessions for each of
the Great Lakes (Sturtevant et al. 2002a). Lake meetings were held for each individual
Great Lake and Lake Champlain; each lake meetings’ attendees were a cross section of

GLFLI participants from the different states surrounding each respective lake. Lake

107

meetings were on focused biology, ecology, management arrangements, and issues
specific to each lake. One state-level meeting held in each participating Great Lake state
allowed participants to meet officials (managers and legislators) and focus on regulations
and issues specific to their state. The actual set of training experiences that any one
individual experienced varied in relation to the state (e. g., Michigan), as well as the

individual Great Lake (e.g., Lake Huron) (Figure Ill-l ).

The Sea Grant Extension Framework for Program Evaluation

Sea Grant Extension programs use a hierarchical framework of seven levels for
program evaluation:

1) Resources

2) Activities

3) Participation

4) Participant Reactions

5) Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills, and Aspirations (KASA)
6) Practices

7) Social, Economic, and Environmental Outcomes (Bennett 1978,
Miller et al. 2001)

Resources and program activities include the various types of inputs that go into the

planning, development, and implementation of a specific program. Program participation

includes understanding the numbers, types, and backgrounds of stakeholders involved.

Participant reactions are the perceptions, responses, and feedback from those stakeholders

i nvolved in the program. Knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aSpirations (KASA) can be
described as changes that occur among program stakeholders as a result of carrying out
the program. Practices are those specific actions of program participants resulting from

their involvement; for the GLFLI, these might be described as stewardship

behaviors/actions or service projects (Hungerford and Volk 1990, Hungerford and Peyton

108

1980, Sturtevant et al. 2002a). Social, economic, and environmental outcomes are the

long-term program impacts or changes resulting on a large scale.

Adult Learning and Education Programs

As adults, GLFLI participants enter into a learning experience with their own sets
of knowledge and objectives for their learning experience (Levine 2000). Typically,
adult learners are pragmatic in their Ieaming, and are most likely to look for ways to
apply their Ieaming to their present situation or needs (Robinson 1994, Levine 2000).
Motivations for learning increase for adults when they can apply new information to
current situations, specific needs, or problems pertinent to themselves (Levine 2000).
Adult Ieaming is usually problem—centered, in that adults are self-motivated to learn or
purposefully decide to learn (Levine 2000) when they “experience problems or recognize
a gap between where they are and where they want to be (Robinson 1994, p. 1 1).”
Adults typically enter into a Ieaming situation with their own individual expectations,
goals, and objectives, and these may be similar or very different than those intended by
the program as it was developed (Robinson 1994).

Learning can be described as a cyclical process where learners can (1) experience
or participate in an activity; (2) reflect on their actions or learning activity; (3) theorize,
conceptualize or interpret what they have participated in, learned, and consider how it
may apply to other situations; and (4) apply or translate their learning to other actions,
activities or settings (Kolb 1984). Kolb (1984) describes different learning styles defined

by preferred ways of perceiving and processing information. These types of learners
include: (1) active learners (those who prefer to learn through hands-on activities in

Which they try or do something, then learn through experience); (2) reflective learners

109

(those who watch or do, then learn through concrete reflection); (3) theorizing learners
(those who watch and think, then learn through abstract reflection); or (4) pragmatic

learners (those who learn by thinking and doing) (Kolb 1984).

Understanding Adult Learners ’ Motivations: Research on Master Gardener Program
Participants

Motivations for participation in the Extension-based Master Gardener Program
have been classified into six categories, including: knowledge for self, general self-
improvement, knowledge for job, hobby, to help others, and “other” reasons (Simonson
and Pals 1990). Another evaluation identified Master Gardener participant motivations
by utilizing a survey instrument adapted from the Volunteer Functions Inventory (Clary

et al. 1998, Schrock et al. 2000a, Schrock et al. 2000b). These categories of motivations

included:

1) Understanding (U),

2) Values (V),

3) Enhancement (E),

4) Social (S),

5) Protective (P), and

6) Career (C).

Understanding (U) motivation factors are strong when volunteers desire to gain
knowledge and understanding of topics, issue areas, and concepts. Values (V)
motivations relate to volunteers’ personal feelings, concerns, or intentions in relation to
doing something for a specific purpose or cause. Enhancement (E) motivational factors

are ranked highly when volunteers seek improvements for themselves. Social (S)

motivational factors involve volunteering mainly to be actively connected to other people

Or within a community. Protective (P) motivation factors relate to volunteering as a way

110

to escape personal troubles or forgetting about bad feelings. Finally, career (C) related
motivational factors are in effect when one seeks experiences in order to enhance

resumes, gain job opportunities, or gain and improve skills for existing jobs (Schrock et

al. 2000a, Schrock et al. 2000b).

Environmental Education toward Fisheries Stewardship Action
A primary desired outcome of the GLFLI is for participants to gain the awareness,
knowledge, understanding, comfort, skills, and resources by which they can then
participate, contribute, or otherwise act in relation to Great Lakes fisheries (Sturtevant et
al. 20023). Examples of such actions listed in GLFLI program proposals included
fisheries related service projects, acting as new fisheries organization leaders, or serving
as advisors to Great Lakes fishery related institutions (Sturtevant et al. 20023).
Environmental education theory can be applied to understanding fisheries
leadership activities as environmental stewardship behaviors. Hungerford and Volk
(1990) argue that there are essential variables that are antecedents to environmental
action or stewardship behaviors among learners including: entry level variables (e.g.,
awareness and basic knowledge), ownership variables (e. g., in-depth understanding of
issues, personal investment in these issues), and empowerment variables (e. g. comfort,
skills, resources necessary to carry out actions) (Hungerford and Volk 1990). These
antecedent variables should not be considered as a linear process, but all must be
Considered as important when designing educational programs to foster environmental

Stewardship (Hungerford and Volk 1990, Zint 2001).

111

A Typology of En vironmental Actions: Anticipating Individual Fisheries Stewardship
Service Projects
To more specifically describe environmental stewardship behaviors and increased
community-based conservation action requires an understanding of the types of fisheries
actions individuals might be expected to carry out (Hungerford and Volk 1990, Western
and Wright 1994). According to Hungerford and Peyton ( 1980) there are five types of
environmental actions that might be carried out by individual learners. These are:
1) consumer behaviors,
2) persuasion/education activities,
3) ecomanagement or habitat work,
4) political or public participation, and
5) legal work (Hungerford and Peyton 1980).

Consumer behaviors are those types of activities where individuals understand

and act based economic relationships to natural resources (e.g., purchasing decisions).
Persuasion/education activities include actions of teaching, sharing or passing on
information, as well as attempting to get others to understand varied points of view.
Ecomanagement or habitat work represents those activities involving physical changes,
alterations, or improVements to natural resources, landscapes, and watersheds to achieve
desired end goals. Political or public participation includes involvement in public
decision making processes at the community, state, or other levels. Finally, legal work

involves pursuing issues through the courts or undertaking actions that achieve legal

precedents (Hungerford and Peyton 1980).

112

In evaluating participant behavior changes as a result of an environmental
education program, it is not always possible to know if an individual carried out an actual
behavior. Understanding intended actions of individuals can then serve as one measure

0 f probable program impacts that will occur (Hungerford and Volk 1990, Kollmuss and

A gyeman 2002).

C ommunity-Based Conservation: Fisheries Leadership from a Community Perspective
To have lasting impacts, conservation efforts should be also connected with local
community benefits (Western and Wright 1994). Conservation is generally discussed as
the sustainable management and wise use of natural resources (Western and Wright
1 994). Conservation is a broad and diverse idea, involving new and traditional strategies
t1) at may originate from within or outside the community; however, for community-based
C O n servation to occur it must involve action by the community, with community benefits
21S a desired outcome (Western and Wright 1994). Conservation efforts are more effective
when they involve individuals working collectively at the local level to conserve natural
reSO urces of the community and for the benefit of the community (Western and Wright
1 99 <1).
Key to community-based conservation is the reversal of top-down conservation
efforts of state, regional, national and international levels by focusing on the people who
are affected by the costs and the benefits of conservation at the community level
( Western and Wright 1994). Community is usually discussed in relation to location, but
Waterburton (1998) notes that “community” as a concept is complex and should not be
Q \v'ersimplified. However, there is some consensus that “community” can be defined as 3

’FchS on “groups of people” (Flora 1992) in varying contexts, including: relation to place

113

 

or geographic location, social system or configuration of social networks, and some
notion of shared identity or collective action (Hillery 1955, Flora 1992).
Connections between an individual and their interactions as a part of a community
are strong. Siemer (2001) argues that belonging to and identifying with a group is
i rrrportant for individual development. An individual’s identification with a group also
contributes to improved community interaction, which is critical for achieving successful
community-based conservation efforts (Kleymeyer 1994). Therefore, fisheries Extension
education programming to achieve stewardship must not only consider the individual
adult learner but also the community context where that learner is likely to apply his/her
1 earning experience.
Incorporating learners’ personal connections with familiar or local community
T) at ural resources is an important aspect of creating successful environmental education
Pro grams to foster aquatic stewardship (Matthews 1997, Fedler 2001). A relationship
ex i 8 ts between learner place attachment and fostering environmentally responsible
beh aviors (Vaske and Kobrin 2001). This is consistent with the emphasis that

Hungerford and Volk (1990) place on ownership variables (i.e., investment of a learner

With particular natural resources) as antecedents to environmental stewardship behaviors.

114

 

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Existing models for Extension program evaluation provide the basis for this study
(Bennett 1978, Miller et a1. 2001). Using these models as a guiding framework, this
evaluation describes learners’ participation (audience and motivation), their knowledge,
attitudes, skills, and aspirations (KASA), and their intended post-institute practices

( stewardship service projects) (Bennett 1978, Miller et al. 2001).

Research questions include:

1) Regarding program participation, what types of fishery stakeholders choose to
participate in the GLFLI, and what are the motivations that they have?

2) Regarding GLFLI participants’ knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspirations
(KASA):

a. What are specific learning expectations that adults seek through their
GLFLI participation?

b. What program outcomes do participants report as a result of their GLFLI
experience?

3) How do participants intend to apply their GLFLI experience in practice:
a. What types of fisheries stewardship projects (e.g., types of activities) do
participants intend to carry out following their GLFLI experience?
b. What context of communities do participants intend to serve in applying
their GLFLI Ieaming through stewardship projects?

METHODS

1 ¢irticipant Involvement in Evaluation

Following a protocol approved by the MSU University Committee on Research
I Ilvolving Human Subjects (UCRIHS), I conducted a quantitative and qualitative
§Valuation to describe GLFLI participant learning expectations, program reactions, and

1 Iitended applications of their experiences toward stewardship actions.

115

 

Twenty-two participants took part in the Michigan component of the GLFLI
program. All participants were expected to attend the full GLFLI Ieaming process. Of
the total Michigan participants, 21 completed at least one-half of the GLFLI training
process, and 15 participants completed their full GLFLI program requirements (Table III-
1 ). Demographic characteristics of Michigan participants are described in Table 111-2.
A 11 Michigan participants voluntarily took part in this evaluation study. Participants were
asked to complete both a pre-institute survey and a similar post-institute survey. I also

collected and analyzed participant applications and written products resulting from

G LFLI training activities.
Data Collection Instruments

GL F L1 Planning and Training Session Documents

1 used program planning and promotional documents to identify desired program
6x1) cctations and impacts from the perspectives of regional GLFLI program organizers.
In d escribing actual GLFLI program activities to which Michigan GLFLI participants
We‘re exposed, I conducted a qualitative content review and summary of 14 separate

r330 urces provided in the standardized curriculum package and agendas from six

different training sessions attended by Michigan participants.

Si! rvey Instruments

The design of the pre- and post-institute survey instruments followed guidelines
eStablished by Dillman (1978, 2000) and Babbie (1998). Prior to survey administration,
Validity of survey questions was addressed through a review by university faculty, Sea

Qrant program staff responsible for GLFLI programming, and university fisheries

116

   

graduate students not involved in the study (Babbie 1998, Punch 1998, Ary et al. 2002). I
administered, in person, pre-institute surveys to each participant at the beginning of each
participant’s first GLFLI training session, and I administered post-institute surveys
i rnmediately following the completion of each person’s final training session. For each
s urvey, completion time ranged between 10 and 20 minutes. All Michigan GLFLI
p articipants (n=22) completed surveys before and after their GLFLI training experience,
resulting in a 100% response rate for this study.
The survey instruments consisted mostly of Likert-type questions covering a
range of topics. Participants responded to questions about their background, knowledge
and skills, motivations for participation, Ieaming expectations, intended service projects
and leadership action, reactions to various components of the GLFLI program and basic
d emographic information such as age, gender, and education (US. Census 2000).
Questions about participant knowledge, skills, motivations and intended fisheries
lead ership involvement were modified and used from previous, similar studies
(H11 mgerford and Peyton 1980, Williamson 1996, Schrock et al. 2000a). I also developed
knO Vvledge and skills questions to reflect information provided within GLFLI planning
(1°C uments (Sturtevant et al. 2002a).

The surveys included Open-ended questions designed to gain information related
to participant Ieaming expectations and leadership actions (e.g., service project) (Ary et
al . 2002). Open-ended questions provided insight to the most salient and foremost
l(llowledge and opinions of respondents (Dillman 1978, Geer 1991, Sheatsley 1993). 1n

'4 S. ing open-ended questions, respondents could answer freely and in their own frames of

117

reference, providing responses that were spontaneous and uninfluenced by suggested

answers or response categories (Dillman 1978, Sheatsley 1993).

Application and Writing Activities
I collected qualitative data through applications and various writing exercises
c cmpleted by participants. Application packages provided information related to
p articipant backgrounds, Ieaming expectations, and intended actions or service projects
resulting from their GLFLI participation. The Michigan statewide training session
i ncluded discussions and writing exercises about fisheries leadership involvement and
Communities in which leaders would be involved. I collected the results of these activities

to supplement this evaluation.

OVerview of Analysis
Quantitative survey data were analyzed using SPSS 10.0.7 for Windows, software
f0? designed for statistical analysis of social science data (2000). I matched pre- and
poSt-surveys for each individual Michigan GLFLI participant in order to analyze
differences between pre- and post-institute responses. Analysis included calculating
univariate statistics (frequencies, means, and medians) for all variables. Due to the small
number of participants (n=22), I used the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-ranks test for
b ivariate analysis to determine whether significant differences (p < .05) occurred between
Dre- and post-institute survey responses (SPSS 2000).
I conducted a preliminary analysis to compare results among those participating
i 11 different lake groups. Smaller sample sizes resulting from looking at individual lake

%roups (e.g. Lake Erie n=3) made it unlikely that I could identify statistically significant

118

 

di fferences that did or did not occur among these smaller groups. For the purpose of this
research, I conducted all statistical analysis on the full Michigan GLFLI participant
delegation (n=22), regardless of what lake group they represented.

I coded, categorized, and analyzed qualitative data for similarities, patterns, and
examples of experiences in order to identify and describe the responses of Michigan
C} LFLI participants (Punch 1998, Ary et al. 2002). I coded and organized qualitative data
1.1 sing one of three different methods depending on the specific research questions.
Where possible, literature guided the coding process and categories for qualitative data.
Where qualitative data were used to supplement quantitative data, Likert-type survey

(:1 uestion items guided the coding of data. Finally, some questions required an open
COding process to develop new code categories for participant responses. When
C Onducting open coding processes, I engaged additional outside coders to verify the

coding categories and process (Punch 1998, Ary et al. 2002).

PC? rticipant Motivations
To collect data on motivations, I adapted a set of closed ended, Likert-type scale
iteIns from a motivational factors index developed for a study of Master Gardeners
(Schrock et al. 2000a). Each item was associated with a category of motivation factors,

il‘rcluding: Values (V); Understanding (U); Social (S); Enhancement (E); Career (C) and
1Protection (P) (Table 111-3). Participants rated their motivations to participate in the
GLFLI on a 5-point scale, with “strongly disagree” coded as one to “strongly agree”
Qoded as five. Reliability of the resulting multi-item scale was estimated using

Cronbach’s alpha scale reliability test (SPSS 2000). Reliability analysis yielded an alpha

119

 

value of: 0.9464. A minimum Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.7 is the commonly accepted value
for establishing a scale’s reliability (Mertig pers. comm. 2003).

I conducted an analysis of reliability for each sub—group of motivation scale items
corresponding with the sub-scales used in the Master Gardener motivations study (Table
111-4) (SPSS 2000). Reliability alpha values for each sub-scale ranged from a low of
0.6457 to a high of 0.8909. Social (S), Enhancement (E), Career (C), and Protective (P)
motivations sub-scales all yield alpha values higher than 0.7. Understanding (U) and
Values (V) sub-categories provided alpha values slightly lower than 0.7, but these sub-
scales can still be considered as reliable for the purpose of this study (Mertig pers. comm.
2003).

For exploratory purposes, I completed a factor analysis on participant responses to
motivation questions; the motivations scale items loaded into eight new and different
components that explained 84.3% of the total scale variance. Six components explained
between 41.9% and 5.1% of the total scale variance, with the two remaining components
explaining less than 5% of the total variance and resulting in only one item for each
component/factor. Reliability tests for each new component as a sub-scale resulted in
alpha values ranging between 0.61 to 0.95. These factors are worth noting, and may
warrant consideration in future studies. However, due to a small number of respondents
(n=22) these new factors cannot be described conclusively. Therefore, for this research, I
analyzed motivation data using the motivation categories as tested in the Master Gardener

study (Schrock et al. 2000a) (Tables 111-3, 111-4).

120

Participant Learning Expectations and Participant Reactions to the Program

Open ended questions on the participant applications and the pre—institute survey
asked participants what they had hoped to learn or gain through their GLFLI Ieaming
experience. The application also asked participants to describe their interest in
participating in the GLFLI. The post-institute survey included an open ended question
asking participants what they had actually learned or gained through their GLFLI
experience.

Based on participant responses to pre- and post—institute surveys, I coded
participant responses into similar response categories (Table 111-5) (Punch 1998, Ary et
al. 2002). This coding process was repeated by two independent coders and I analyzed
the results for similarities and differences in developing a final coding system (Table III-
6). Based on these results, the final coding scheme was slightly adjusted, and I
categorized all participant responses from all data sources under one of 9 different
categories (Tables 111-7, 111-8). I then compared pre-institute expectations against post-
institute responses to what participants believed they had gained looking for similarities
and differences (Table 111-9).

In the post-institute survey, I asked a series of questions related to participants’
overall reactions to their GLFLI experience. Participants responded to questions about
whether they had learned what they had originally hoped, learned something
unanticipated, and generally considered their Ieaming experience to be beneficial (Table
III-10). Participants rated each item on a 5-point scale. with “strongly disagree” coded as

1 to “strongly agree” coded as 5.

121

Types of Intended Fisheries Stewardship Actions

To gauge participants’ intended stewardship actions (service projects), this study
analyzed responses to open ended questions on the application and on pre- and post-
institute surveys. These service project descriptions were coded and organized based on
the typology of environmental actions in environmental stewardship literature
(Hungerford and Peyton 1980) (Table III-14). Pre-institute intended stewardship actions
included any participant descriptions occurring prior to their first GLFLI experience;
post-institute stewardship descriptions included those responses occurring during and
after GLFLI participation. Examples of responses indicating types of stewardship actions
intended by participants are included in Table III-15. An analysis was also made to
determine whether participants’ intended actions may have evolved or changed
throughout the GLFLI training process (Table III- 1 6).

I also asked a set of closed ended, Likert-type items asked participants about their
intended fisheries actions during both the pre- and post-institute surveys. Participants
responded to ten different items related to their “current leadership intentions and how
[they] view [their] involvement and leadership toward the Great Lakes fishery in [their]
community and organizations (Table II-17).” For each item, I asked participants to
respond using a 5—point scale, with “strongly disagree” coded as one to “strongly agree”

coded as five.

Participant Intentions for Applying Their GLFLI Learning within Their “Communities ”
I asked questions regarding community contexts of participant stewardship
applications. On pre- and post-institute surveys, I asked participants a set of seven

Likert-type items relating to community contexts in which they might use their

122

information or knowledge gained from their GLFLI participation (Table 11-11).
Participants rated each item on a 5-point scale, with “strongly disagree” coded as one to
“strongly agree” coded as five. Each item represented a category indicating whether
participants might utilize the GLFLI experience for the benefit of themselves
individually, for a specific fisheries organization, several different fisheries organizations,
a local geographic community, their state, their respective individual lakes, or for the
entire great lakes fishery and ecosystem. Guided by these categories, participant
responses to various open ended questions on the application, training session writing
activities, as well as pre- and post-participation surveys were reviewed to determine
additional insight to communities in which participants intended to apply their GLFLI
experience (Table 11-12). Examples of participant responses (and how they were coded)
relating to communities where they aspired to apply their learning are included in Table

III-13.

RESULTS

Participation: Background of GLFLI Learners

Michigan GLFLI participants represented four different Great Lake groups. The
Lake Michigan and Huron groups totaled eight participants each, while the Lake Erie and
Lake Superior groups each had three adult learners (Table 111-1). Twenty-one Michigan
participants attended the statewide training session.

The total Michigan GLFLI delegation consisted of 19 males (86.4%) and 3
females (13.6%) (Table 111-2). By comparison, the total Michigan population is 51%

female and 49% male (US. Census 2000), and Michigan sportfishing license holders are

123

80.7% male (Dann 2004, unpublished). Thus, the GLFLI audience was similar to the
male-to-female ratio among Michigan’s licensed sportfishing stakeholders.

Mean age of Michigan participants was 44.5 years (Median=46.5), with ages
distributed among the following categories: 2 (9.1%) were 20-24 years old; 3 (13.64%)
were 25-34 years old; 5 (22.7%) were 35-44 years old; 8 (36.4%) were 45-54 years old;
4 (18.2%) were 55-64 years old (Table 111-2). By comparison, the mean age for
Michigan residents is 35.5 years old (US. Census 2000), whereas Michigan sportfishing
license holders average 43.3 years of age (Dann 2004, unpublished). The GLFLI
audience (on average) was older than the Michigan population, but similar in age to
Michigan sportfishing stakeholders.

Twenty participants (90.9%) identified themselves as white, with two participants
(9.1%) identifying themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native and one (4.5%) as
Hispanic or Latino (Table 111-2). The US. Census (2000) reports the following ethnic
distribution of Michigan residents: 80.2% white, 14.2% black or African American,
3.3% Hispanic or Latino, 1.8% Asian, 1.3% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander,
and 0.6 Native American or Alaska native.

Participants represented 18 different occupations, including commercial fishing (2
persons). Other occupations included: educators, engineers, natural resources
professionals, journalists, graduate students, organizational managers, medical
professionals, and retired individuals.

The 22 Michigan participants directly affiliated with 43 unique organizations
related to Great Lakes fisheries. These included sportfishing, commercial fishing, fish

habitat, watershed, fisheries management professional, and outdoor writing sectors.

124

More than half of these participants identified that they directly associated with more
than one Great Lakes or fisheries related organization. Eleven participants listed
organizations with which they were not directly affiliated, but with which they worked
closely or communicated. These indirect organizational affiliations account for an added

13 unique organizations not accounted for in the list of direct affiliations.

Participation: Motivations of GLFLI Learners

Michigan GLFLI participants were most strongly motivated by the opportunity to
gain understanding (group mean=3.8) and as a result of their values (group mean=3.79)
(Table II-3). Values motivations reflected a participant’s individualized feelings or
intentions toward a specific purpose or cause. Social (group mean: 2.88) and
enhancement (group mean=2.54) motivational factors rated second and third in priority
for Michigan GLFLI participants. Enhancement motivations are those where
participants’ intended that their participation would benefit themselves. Career (group
mean=2.39) and protective (group mean=1.73) motivational factors were only weakly
reported reasons for GLFLI participation.

In examining individual items, the three highest ranking items reflected
statements of understanding, two reflected statements of value, and one reflected a
statement about social motivations for participating in the GLFLI. These items all ranked
with an average of 4.0 or higher (on a scale of 5.0, where 5.0 represents the highest
motivation). In contrast, the seven lowest ranking items (averaging mean ranks of 2.0 or
lower) included one protective item, one career related item, one personal enhancement

item, and one social item as least motivational reasons for GLFLI participation.

125

Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills and Aspirations (KASA): Knowledge and Skills Desired
and Reported as Outcomes by GLFLI Learners

Twenty-one participants identified what they hoped to learn or gain from the
program when they provided responses to applications and pre-institute surveys.
Participant responses were organized into nine categories (Table 111-7). Eighteen
respondents indicated more than one interest or Ieaming objective for their GLFLI
participation.

Over half of the participants desired to gain to knowledge and skills necessary for
educating others or sharing information (57.1%), or understanding basic Great Lakes
fisheries history, biology, and ecology (57.1%). One—third of the participants indicated
they desired an understanding of fisheries management and policies (38.1%), how to
develop networks or networking skills (38. 1%), issues related to the Great Lakes
(33.3%), or how to gain access to additional resources or infermation (33.3%). Fewer
than one-quarter of the participants indicated Ieaming about diverse stakeholders
(23.8%), gaining action or advocacy knowledge or skills (19%), or other general
leadership skills (14.3%) as priorities.

The most frequently noted participant expectations somewhat contrast with key
Ieaming outcomes identified regionally by GLFLI program planners. Leadership skills
development and knowledge, understanding, comfort and skills in action/advocacy were
frequently mentioned in GLFLI program documents as organizers’ intended outcomes.
Few of the GLFLI organizers’ desired Ieaming outcomes related directly to development
of participants as educators or information providers. Yet participants most frequently

desired to focus their Ieaming on intended outcomes of knowledge and skills to share

126

information with others. Knowledge and understanding of fisheries science and
management principles is one area widely identified in both GLFLI program planning
documents and by participants in their responses concerning Ieaming expectations.

Participant responses also varied across different lake groups (Table 111-7). For
example, 75% of Lake Huron representatives indicated education or information sharing,
networking, and knowledge and skills as outcomes they had hoped to gain. For Lake
Michigan, 75% of the group indicated understanding of fisheries management and
policies as Ieaming expectations. All Lake Erie participants indicated that basic Great
Lakes fisheries history, biology, and ecology, as well as better understanding of Great
Lakes issues were important learning outcomes. Half of Lake Superior representatives
indicated education, Ieaming about diverse stakeholders, and fisheries history, biology,
and ecology were expected outcomes.

After their GLFLI experience, twenty participants identified through their post-
institute survey that they believed they had actually learned or gained in specific outcome
areas (Table 111-8). Eleven of these participants indicated that they had learned or gained
in more than one category.

One-third or more of the participants identified the following actual outcomes that
they believed they had gained: developing networks and networking skills (45%),
understanding fisheries management and policies (35%), and Ieaming about diverse
stakeholders (35%). About one fourth of participants (20-25%) reported they gained:
understanding of specific issues related to the Great Lakes (25%), access to resources or
additional information (25%), and basics of Great Lakes fisheries history, biology, and

ecology (20%).

127

No participants identified these areas as actual gains: knowledge and skills
relating to education or sharing information, action or advocacy, or other general
leadership skills. This is particularly noteworthy because these areas reflected Ieaming
outcomes identified as important by the GLFLI program organizers, and at least the
education related outcome was frequently identified by participants as a learning
expectation.

Outcome areas where participants believed they had learned or gained varied
across the lake groups (Table 111-8). Development of networks and networking skills
were identified as an actual outcome by Lakes Michigan (71.4%) and Huron (50%)
participants. Learning about diverse stakeholders, as well as understanding fisheries
management and policies, were the only two outcomes identified by participants in all
four Great Lake groups. Basics of Great Lakes history, biology, and ecology, as well as
understanding Great Lakes issues, were actual outcome areas identified by three of the
four lake groups.

A comparison of pre-institute expected Ieaming outcomes identified by
participants and the post-institute participant assessment of their actual Ieaming outcomes
is provided in Table 111-9. A larger proportion of participants reported networking and

Ieaming about diverse stakeholders as actual outcomes than the smaller proportion who

 

reported these as Ieaming expectations. Learning about fisheries management and

 

policies, understanding Great Lakes issues, access to information and resources, and
basic fisheries biology and ecology were areas that several participants (20%) identified

as actual program outcomes. However, these Ieaming outcomes were identified by fewer

128

participants than had originally expressed these areas as Ieaming expectations prior to
entering into their GLFLI experience.

Three originally expected Ieaming outcome areas were not mentioned by any
participants as actual learning outcomes resulting from their GLFLI experience. Of these
areas, it is worth note that knowledge and skills related to education or information
Sharing was originally one of the top listed expected learning outcomes (identified by
5 7.1% of participants). Action or advocacy ( 19%) and other general leadership skills
( 1 4.3%) were expected outcomes identified originally by few participants, but then were
i dentified by no participants as actual outcomes.

Overall, 81.8% (mean=4. 18) of the participants indicated that they considered
their GLFLI Ieaming experience to be beneficial, regardless of what they had hoped to
I earn or believed they had actually learned or gained. 72.7% (mean=3.64, where
5 =strongly agree) of Michigan GLFLI participants agreed that they had learned or gained

What they had originally hoped from their GLFLI experience (Table III-10). However, in
Contrast, 27.3% of Michigan GLFLI participants disagreed that they had learned or
gained what they had originally hoped. Of all Michigan participants, 81.8% (mean=4.05,

Where 5=strongly agree) believed that they had learned or gained something new or

SOmething that they did not anticipate Ieaming.

Practice: GLFLI Learners ’ Intended Fisheries Stewardship Service Projects
As identified through qualitative analysis of responses to open-ended questions on
applications and pre- and post-institute surveys, nineteen Michigan participants (86.4%)
i rlciicated at least one specific service project that they anticipated carrying out in relation

tO their GLFLI participation. The remaining three participants (13.6%) indicated that

129

they were undecided or unsure of a specific service project at the time of completing their
G LFLI training experience.

At least half of all participants indicated that they intended to conduct service
projects related to education/persuasion activities (59.1%) or habitat improvement/
ecomanagement activities (50%). Additionally, more than one-third of participants
indicated they planned to do activities related to political or public participation (36.4%).
Activities related to consumerism and legal action were areas not indicated by
participants as expected service project actions. Detailed information regarding
participant service project types and examples of specific participant responses describing
service projects are outlined in Tables 111-14 and II-15.

Nearly two—thirds of all participants (63.6%) stated they intended to conduct
service projects relating to more than one environmental action type. Most of these
( 5 4.5%) described stewardship activities relating to two different types of environmental
action, while two participants (9.1%) described fisheries projects relating to three
di fferent types of environmental action.
Table III-16 provides a summary comparing participants’ pre- and post-institute
intentions regarding types of fisheries stewardship service projects. Nearly three-quarters
( 72.7%) of participants indicated no change over the course of the GLFLI in the types of
actions they intended to carry out. Three participants (13.6%) provided different answers
reigarding their service project intentions on their post-institute survey. This change may
have reflected participants who started with many ideas for types of service projects, and
then they selected and refined their project during the course of the GLFLI. Only, two

participants (9.1%) indicated a completely new type of action on post-institute responses.

130

Ob servations indicate that at least one of these participants may have gained new ideas or
recognized opportunities to carry out different stewardship service projects then those
he/ she had originally selected.

Quantitative survey responses showed both consistent and contrasting findings.
Prior to taking part in the GLFLI, learners had the highest mean scores showing their
Strongest intentions were for conducting persuasion/education and consumer behavior
Service projects (Table 111-17). The consistent finding was that persuasion/education
types of service projects were highly noted through open—ended responses, but in contrast
projects related to consumer behaviors were not indicated in qualitative responses by any
participants. Two items describing habitat work and legal work ranked as the least-

i ntended activities, on average, for participants. Qualitative responses contrasted in that
participants were very likely to carry out habitat related projects, but consistency existed
in that no participants indicated legal types of actions through open-ended responses.
Items relating to political or public participation were moderately likely as activities to be
Carried out by participants; this finding was consistent with qualitative data.

In post-institute survey responses, items relating to persuasion/education activities
and consumer behaviors remained as the top five items ranked by mean (Table III-l7).
Political or public participation, habitat work, and legal work remained the lowest five

I‘ar1ked items in post-institute results. Political or public participation and habitat work
reI‘nained as items that were likely, although rated lower. Legal work remained the least
1 i k ely type of activity participants would pursue.
The differences between pre- and post-institute participant intentions were not

Statistically significant for any particular item, indicating intended applications of GLFLI

131

learning were somewhat predetermined by participants. However, for nearly all actions,
th e post-institute intentions of participants, on average, were slightly higher than the pre
institute intentions. The only exception to this pattern was for: . .providing educational
Opportunities for my fisheries organization or club.” Pre- and post-institute survey means
and medians, as well as significance test results, are summarized in the Table III~17.
Taken together, both qualitative and quantitative evaluation results indicate that
persuasion or education, habitat work or ecomanagement, and political or public
participation are the most likely types of activities which this set of Michigan GLFLI
'1 earners will undertake. Consumerism related activities rated high in Likert-type survey
q uestioning as a type of activity that GLFLI participants might carry out. However, in
Open-ended responses both before and after the institute, no participants indicated any
aspects of consumerism related activities as intended fisheries service projects. It may be
that fisheries stakeholders are aware of the positive benefits of their consumer activities
(e- g., purchase of fishing licenses or gear) in relation to fisheries management, but that
Changing consumerism activities might be viewed as an individual activity rather than an
area of action lending itself to a community oriented stewardship project to be carried out
by participants. Legal action was one type of fisheries stewardship rated as unlikely for
Michigan GLFLI participants, both in qualitative and quantitative results. This is not

SUI—prising given that this type of action was not highlighted in participant recruitment

m aterials by GLFLI organizers.

132

Practice: Understanding Community Contexts of Participants ’ Intended Stewardship
A ctivities
Michigan GLFLI learners generally agreed in both pre- and post-institute
Quantitative survey responses that that gaining infomration for themselves individually,
as well as for use with a wide diversity of community types, were contexts that they
intended to apply the GLFLI experience into practice (Table Ill-l l). Learners, on
average, indicated high ratings for applying their GLFLI experience in service to:
Specific fisheries organizations, multiple general fisheries organizations, and local
geographic communities. Additionally, they rated as strong their intent to apply their
GLFLI knowledge and skills statewide, for specific Great Lakes, and for the entire Great
Lakes region or ecosystem as “communities.”
Pre-institute survey responses to qualitative questions indicated statewide and
Great Lakes basin-wide communities as the most important reasons participants sought
information and knowledge through their learning. This makes sense, given the primary
tepic of the institute and that it was promoted as a Great Lakes, basin-wide program. In
Dre-institute surveys, the lowest rated reasons by participants included information or
resources for themselves (mean=3.64 on a scale of 5.0) and for a specific Great Lake
(m ean=3.55). In post-surveys, participants reported average responses higher than 4.0 on
a S .0 scale for all other community contexts of application, ranging from a specific
fi Sheries organizations to the entire Great Lakes ecosystem.
When asked about service on an individual level and at various levels of
e()Ilrmunity, participants indicated high initial ratings, as well as slight increases

f0] ] owing their GLFLI involvement, for each community context related item and area

133

they were likely to serve through their learning (Table III-l 1). However, there was no
statistical significance in changes from pre- to post-institute surveys, except for one item;
p articipants significantly more frequently agreed (post-institute) that they were seeking
information that primarily would benefit a specific great Lake. So the GLFLI probably
influenced participants’ likelihood of applying information they learned at a lakewide

l evel for an individual Great Lake. These quantitative data indicate that participants
remained generally consistent in describing their community contexts for action. With

1 ake-level involvement as an exception, participants generally maintained their pre-

determined intentions regarding the communities for which they sought to apply

knowledge and information from their GLFLI experience.

A review of participants’ open-ended, qualitative responses collected throughout
the GLFLI process (pre-, during, and post-institute) provided additional insight on
reasons why participants sought information or knowledge through their GLFLI
experience (Table Ill-12). Qualitative data indicated that participants might be seeking to
gain information primarily for their own personal gain or benefit. This was true for over
half (59%) of the participants who indicated in some way the information they gained
Was for themselves. However, at least one half of all participants indicated that they also

Sought information for either a specific fisheries organization (50%) or for their local
geographic community (68.2%). In contrast to the findings from quantitative data,
‘1 ualitative findings showed that serving the entire Great Lakes basin-wide ecosystem

( 3 l .8%) was the least indicated intent for how participants sought to use their learning

W i t hin communities (Table III-l 3).

134

S U MMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
U n derstanding GLFLI Program Participation

D iversity of Fishery Stakeholders

Regionally, the GLFLI identified participant diversity as one desired program

Outcome, stating as a program goal to,

“Create a network of Great Lakes leaders from the broadest possible
variety of backgrounds and organizations who are able to call upon each
other to effectively address and/or advocate regional needs. (Sturtevant et

al. 20023, p. 5)”

S imilarly, Michigan participants also identified networking with and Ieaming about

(:1 i verse stakeholders and user groups as important expected, and realized, Ieaming

o utcomes. Generally, it was identified that through participation and programming that
participant diversity developed through the GLFLI program met expected program
Outcomes identified through both regional program staff and Michigan participants.

The GLFLI did accomplish a diverse cross section of Great Lakes fishery
Stakeholders, including sport and commercial fisheries user groups, fisheries habitat and
Watershed groups, fisheries management and natural resources professionals, outdoors
Writers, and educators. Great Lakes charter captains were one targeted stakeholder group
I‘lot represented among the Michigan group of participants. Regardless, the 22

participants constituting the Michigan GLFLI delegation represented 43 unique and
d i fferent fisheries related stakeholder groups, as well as providing an additional 13
i ndirect ties to fisheries related organizations or institutions. Though there were few
participating in the Michigan GLFLI by number, the participants’ ties, networks, and

193d ership among many different organizations and institutions generated a great

135

opportunity for multiplying program impacts across many diverse user groups. Michigan
G LFLI participants did not reflect demographic diversity when compared against the
population of Michigan (US. Census 2000), and therefore the program did not represent
the broadest diversity possible of all Michigan citizens. However, the GLFLI participant
group more closely resembled the diversity of license purchasing sport anglers, but as a
Standard these data are limited in that they do not represent state-licensed or tribal
Commercial fisherman or other non-licensed Great Lakes fishery stakeholders.
Regardless of participant diversity, the Michigan GLFLI successfully relied upon
Various stakeholder representatives to serve also as program instructors, thus integrating
connections with stakeholder segments (e. g., charter captains) found lacking within the
participant delegation. In the post-institute evaluation, participants indicated that they
had indeed learned about diverse stakeholders and issues related to this diversity. More
notably, networking and Ieaming about diverse stakeholders were the two most widely
recognized benefits gained by participants through their GLFLI experience. More
participants indicated these as key program benefits or gains than had originally listed
these areas as expected learning outcomes prior to their participation. In the context of
networking among diverse user groups, this program outcome could be considered
achieved in the eyes of both GLFLI regional programmers and Michigan GLFLI
participants.
These results indicate that the GLFLI as a program does not necessarily need to
ac complish the “broadest possible” diversity of participants in order to successfully
aCComplish a program objective of networking and Ieaming about diverse stakeholders.

1n contrast, however, it is possible that even with a wide diversity of participants that the

136

desirable outcomes of networking and Ieaming about stakeholder diversity may not have
been achieved if participants did not have enough opportunity during the GLFLI to
express and discuss their similarities, differences, and issues related to their diverse
perspectives. According to Michigan participants’ responses, adequate networking

Opportunities existed to achieve these outcomes during the pilot-GLFLI experience.

Motivations 0f GLFLI Learners

When asked directly about motivations, Michigan GLFLI participants indicated
that values (related to a specific cause or purpose) and understanding (Ieaming about
topics or issues) were primary reasons they sought to participate. These findings are
consistent with similar studies regarding motivations for participating in the Extension
Master Gardener Program, where personal values and understanding were the highest
motivational reasons for becoming involved as a Master Gardener (Schrock et al. 2000a).
Adult learners are motivated from within themselves , usually seeking information for a
Specific purpose (Robinson 1994, Levine 2000). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that
participant values would generate the greatest motivations for participating in the GLFLI
GXperience.

For GLFLI participants, social reasons, such as being connected with others, were
a] so highly indicated as motivations, more so than personal enhancement, protective, or
Career related reasons. Similarly, for Master Gardner participants, personal enhancement
and social motivations were moderately indicated as reasons for participating in this
E X tension program, while protective and career motivations were listed as least likely
mo tivations (Schrock et al. 2000a). GLFLI participants rated social motivations more

favorable to personal enhancement motivations, compared to Master Gardeners, who

137

indicated personal enhancement as more motivating than social factors. However,
GLFLI participants’ motivations, in general, were found to be comparable to those
motivations described for Extension’s Master Gardener program.

Short of asking directed questions about motivations, participant—identified
expected Ieaming outcomes identified by participants can also be used to understand
participant motivations. Consistent with motivation data, participants most regularly
indicated Ieaming expectations reflective of values statements, including: (1) education
or information sharing (5 7.1%) or (2) action or advocacy (19%). Also participant most
frequently noted Ieaming expectations related to areas of understanding, including: (1)
basics of Great Lakes fisheries history, biology, and ecology (57.1%), (2) understanding
fisheries management and policies (38.1%), and (3) understanding of specific issues
related to the Great Lakes (33.3%). Social motivations, another high ranking
motivational factor, are also reflected through the participants who identified networking
and networking skills (38. 1%), as well as better understanding perspectives of various
different stakeholders and user groups (33.3%), as important Ieaming outcomes sought.
Career and protective motivational factors were considered least important among
Michigan participants, and similarly, there were no participant Ieaming outcome
expectation areas that readily described these motivational factors.

Participants’ motivations can also be gauged through their descriptions of
stewardship service projects. Service projects required by the GLFLI were self-selected
by participants; therefore, these most likely reflected participants’ own issues, challenges,
or concerns that a learner faces in their immediate life situations (Robinson 1994, Levine

2000). As a group, the Michigan GLFLI participants’ service projects reflected diverse

138

leadership applications ranging from educational activities (59.1%) to habitat
improvement projects to political advocacy roles (36.4%). These diverse types of
service projects reflect more specifically the different types of participant values
indicated as important motivational factors for participation in the GLFLI.
Understanding participant values in the context of these different types of service
projects provides more detailed insight toward what knowledge and skills are important
to participants in achieving their intended fisheries stewardship activities. Participant
understanding, another key motivation, can be described more specifically through the
types of knowledge and skills necessary for participants to carry out their fisheries
stewardship service projects.

Future GLFLI programming should recognize that adult participants involved in a
fisheries leadership education program might be motivated by factors related to
understanding, their own individual values, and social purposes. However, this analysis
relates only to this particular class of GLFLI participants, and motivational factors are
likely to vary across individuals, different year classes, and various regional sessions
related to GLFLI programming. Pre-institute questioning of participants is useful in
describing and understanding motivations, learning expectations, and intended
applications of future GLFLI participant groups. This information can be utilized to
adapt programming to address specific issues and needs related to each new GLFLI

participant class.

139

Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills, and Aspirations (KASA): Knowledge and Skills desired

and Reported as Outcomes by GLFLI Learners

Participant Identified Program Outcomes

The GLFLI program’s most recognized outcomes, as indicated by Michigan
participants, related to generating networks among and knowledge about diverse
stakeholder audiences. Another significant, though less noted by participants, strength of
the GLFLI program included development of a base awareness, knowledge and
understanding relating to fisheries management/policies, fisheries biology/ecology, issues
and resources related to the Great Lakes fisheries. Foundational awareness and
understanding related to Great Lakes fisheries are important factors toward fostering
stewardship investment and action among learners (Hungerford and Volk 1990). GLFLI
programming was unique in that it offers this awareness and understanding foundation on
both biological and social aspects, where lake-wide sessions focus on biology and
ecology (fish and habitat) and state—wide sessions that address social (people) aspects of
Great Lakes fisheries. Future GLFLI programming should focus on these program
strengths as a foundation and program niche successfully served through this program.

Overall, the majority of participants (81.8%) indicated that their GLFLI
experiences were beneficial and worthwhile, and many partiCipants (81.1%) noted that
they had learned or gained something new that they hadn’t anticipated. Therefore,
regardless of a program’s ability to accommodate all participant Ieaming expectations, it
should not necessarily be a foregone conclusion that participants will not benefit from
their involvement in the program. So, GLFLI program planners should not completely

disregard their own existing, foundational program goals in an effort to direct attention or

140

resources to accommodate Ieaming expectations identified by GLFLI participants prior to
their Ieaming experience. However, understanding and adapting programming around
participant Ieaming expectations can enhance the likelihood that program impacts will

occur through participant stewardship activities.

Participant Identified Learning Expectations in Comparison with Program Outcomes

Expected Ieaming outcomes originally defined by GLFLI participants are similar
to those identified by regional GLFLI organizers (Sturtevant et al. 2002a). In particular,
bringing together diverse stakeholders and developing networking opportunities were
learning outcome areas defined by Michigan GLFLI participants (Table 111-7). After
GLFLI programming, these two outcome areas were among the top Ieaming outcomes
indicated by one-third or more of Michigan participants as some of the most valuable
Ieaming outcomes of their GLFLI experience. These outcomes represented the only
areas where more participants indicated they had actually gained than had originally
indicated as important learning expectations.

Other important program expectations from the perspective of participants related
to gaining knowledge, understanding and resources related to the Great Lakes fisheries
(Table III-7). These expectations were also identified as actual program Ieaming
outcomes by Michigan participants as benefits of their GLFLI experience, included: (a)
understanding fisheries management and policies, (b) understanding issues related to the
Great Lakes, (c) gaining access to resources or additional information, and (d) basics of
Great Lakes fisheries history, biology, and ecology. These learning areas related to basic

awareness, knowledge, and understanding may represent important entry level and

141

ownership variables necessary as precursors to generate environmental stewardship
behaviors among learners (Hungerford and Volk 1990).

Participants originally indicated, at varying levels of importance, that knowledge
and skills related to (a) education and information sharing , (b) action and advocacy, and
(c) other general leadership skills were Ieaming expectations for their involvement in the
GLFLI (Table III-7). These three learning areas represent skills necessary to carry out
specific types of stewardship actions (Hungerford and Peyton 1980, Hungerford and Volk
1990). Through open-ended responses, no participants identified these three expectations
as actual Ieaming outcomes that occurred through their GLFLI participation.

Interestingly, gaining education related skills was rated as one of the most
important participant learning expectations of their GLFLI experience. Yet this area of
Ieaming received little note from participants as a realized program outcome upon
completing the GLFLI. This might indicate that at least some of the participant needs
and expectations of the GLFLI program were left unmet. However, using open ended
questions to collect these data may limit evaluation to only the responses most salient or
foremost in the minds of the respondent at the time they completed their evaluation (Geer
1991, Sheatsley 1993). Another explanation may be that participants believed they had
gained in these areas, but that these were not the most important program outcomes
realized in the minds of participants. Using complementary closed-ended Likert
questions, participants indicated a significant positive response to their comfort and skills
related to education or infomration sharing (see Chapter 11). Therefore it is likely that
participants gained in these areas, but upon completing their GLFLI experience

recognized or valued more important and unexpected program benefits.

142

Incorporating Learner Input into Program Development Processes

Other Michigan State University Extension programs, such as the Master
Gardener and Citizen Planner programs, provide models by which to implement
regionally serving programs to accomplish core program goals, while integrating and
addressing participant expected learning outcomes (Master Gardener 2003, Wiesing pers.
com. 2004). Both Extension programs offer their own core set of curriculum and
learning modules, as well as resources and networks that are developed more globally.
The GLFLI offers the same regional curriculum and resource development offered
through trainings that are also structured consistently across the Great Lakes region

(Sturtevant et al. 2002a).

These Extension programs also offer a model where a regionally serving program
can be adapted to serve the needs of a more localized audience (Master Gardener 2003,
Wiesing pers. com. 2004). The content and process of delivery during program
implementation reflects the needs and input of the localized audience (and program
instructors) who determine what learning modules and resources offered through the
program are most pertinent and valuable to that local audience, and therefore receiving
additional emphasis and attention (Master Gardener 2003, Wiesing pers. com. 2004).
Adoption of a program format similar to these other Extension program models allows
the GLFLI to continue development and programming around a core curriculum, and at
the same time to offer a program that is uniquely adapted to serve the needs of localized

audiences.

Expansion of the GLFLI program might be through a series of additional or

advanced curriculum modules that can be added to the program menu without diluting

143

the core program intent and program objectives. Local Sea Grant Extension agents,
participants, a program advisory group, or some mix of these stakeholders should be
engaged in the process of determining which additional or advanced program
components are necessary, prioritizing their development based on need, and eventually

determining how these best fit to address the needs of localized audiences.

In many ways, participants’ expected Ieaming outcomes reflected what they most
frequently indicated that they had actually gained through their GLFLI learning
experience. Most Michigan participants (72.7%) believed that they had gained what they
had originally hoped from their GLFLI experience. Future GLFLI program planners
should work to identify GLFLI participant needs as a part of the program development
process. Sandmann (1993) contends that programs designed to facilitate community-
based outcomes need to be flexible, accounting for uncertainties and taking advantage of
opportunities that will occur in the program delivery environment. Scholl (1989) and.
Samuel (1993) suggest that local advisory committees or local development teams are
possible strategies to involve community stakeholders in identifying critical problems or
community needs.

The GLFLI, by design, has an already established structure for including locally
oriented Sea Grant professionals and a stakeholder advisory group into the program
planning process. The pilot-GLFLI program relied on a stakeholder advisory group and
localized district Sea Grant Extension agents to identify and recruit potential GLFLI
participants, and in cases these advisors and Sea Grant agents were involved in GLFLI

program development. Future GLFLI programming should expand the roles of these

144

locally oriented program staff and stakeholder advisory groups in planning and carrying
out future Institute programming.

Engaging community networks, through advisory committees or otherwise, is a
critical consideration in building or integrating effective environmental education within
communities. Cornwall and Gaventa (2000) argue the importance of citizen
involvement, making participants accountable to their community and engaging them in
the building or integration of the products they create. Involving community values and
goals, assets and needs as identified by citizens (not distant program designers) (Cornwall
and Gaventa 2000), can increase community support, motivation, and participation

toward moving efforts successfully forward (Scholl 1989).

Practice: GLFLI Participants ’ Intended Application of Their GLFLI Experience

GLFLI Participants ’ Intended Fisheries Stewardship Service Projects

In regards to service projects, GLFLI program planning documents specifically
identified involvement in citizen advisory committees as one specific example of desired
post-program involvement by newly trained fisheries leaders (Sturtevant et al. 20023).
According to Hungerford and Peyton (1980) this outcome desired by regional program
planners represents an example of a political or public participation action. GLFLI
program documents often spoke of these actions occurring on statewide, lakewide, or
Great Lakes basin-wide scales. This evaluation indicates that participants positively
responded in regards to their willingness and likelihood of carrying out these types of
fisheries leadership actions and on these larger scales of application. However, Michigan

GLFLI participants indicated that they were also willing and likely to carry out a much

145

broader and diverse set of stewardship actions and to apply their leadership within many
different community scales.

In fact, participants most widely noted education and persuasion as types of
fisheries leadership action where they would involve themselves. Habitat work or
ecomanagement types of activities were also highly noted fisheries leadership actions
anticipated by participants. Moreover, participants regularly noted multiple types of
fisheries leadership work, and were not limited to one specific intended action. GLFLI
programming should remain flexible, in order to provide information and resources that
support participant leadership activities in a broad variety of types of stewardship action.

Application of adult learning theory (Levine 2000, Robinson 1994) suggests that
intended stewardship actions (e. 3., education, habitat work, political advocacy) may
represent needs or opportunities viewed as most meaningful to participants contexts of
their current situations. Where the GLFLI can successfully serve these participant needs,
the GLFLI program value and impacts may extend far beyond the originally intended
program outcomes identified by regional program developers.

Actual knowledge and skills related to carrying out fisheries stewardship actions
were not mentioned as frequently as program impacts among participants. Future GLFLI
programming should consider providing additional opportunities for participants to gain
these specific knowledge and skill sets related to their projects. GLFLI programming
should consider the various types fisheries stewardship actions that may be represented
among individual participants (Hungerford and Peyton 1980). GLFLI programming

could consider expanding future programs to include these additional components or

146

possibly consider generating additional, advanced Ieaming sessions for already trained
GLFLI participants to gain skills in these respective action areas.

Consumerism and legal types of action were not noted by this particular set of
Michigan GLFLI participants in describing their intended fisheries leadership service
projects. Yet participants indicated a willingness to apply leadership toward these types
of action areas. From a fisheries leadership perspective, it may be that participants
viewed consumerism and legal action areas as more individualistic activities rather than
community needs or processes requiring leadership. This is also not to say that these
consumerism and legal areas of fisheries leadership action will not be important to future

GLFLI participants or those participants of other states.

Community Contexts of Participants ’ Intended Stewardship Activities

There was also wide diversity of community contexts (different scales or levels of
action) for which participants indicated they were willing to serve and likely to apply
their leadership training. Application of their learning to their own individual situations
was consistently rated as important in both quantitative and qualitative data. Over half
(59%) of the participants indicated in some way the information they gained would be
used for their own personal benefit and growth. It is consistent with adult Ieaming theory
that participants would look to gain information or resources that could be applied
immediately to their individual needs, problems, or situations (Levine 2000). Moreover,
this individual desire to increase understanding related to fisheries serves as an important
motivational factor influencing a participant’s interest and willingness to take part in the

program in the first place. This is an important consideration for an adult fisheries

147

Extension education program, as Levine (2000) describes that adult learners are indeed
self-motivated in their learning commitments.

Using only quantitative, Likert-type questions, where Great Lakes basin-wide
service was ranked highest by participants, it might be concluded that besides self
interests participants were most likely to act on a regional Great Lakes basin-wide scale.
However, similar qualitative data collected in this study provides more in depth
information about participants’ intended communities of work. The qualitative data was
consistent in showing that participants sought individual gain, and that they were also
willing to apply their training on multiple community scales (e.g., state-, lake-, and basin-
wide activities). However, in contrast, qualitative data resulting from service project
descriptions indicated more clearly that local geographic communities or specific
fisheries organization were instead the most likely community contexts in which
participants would apply their fisheries stewardship activities. These additional insights
about participant program application support the value of collecting additional
evaluative information through multiple sources when conducting program evaluations
(Shadish et al. 1995).

It is recognized that participant connections with local geographic community
natural resources are important to learners (Matthews 1997, F edler 2001, Vaske and
Kobrin 2001). While participants indicated a willingness to work on regional state-,
lake-, and basin-wide scales, it is more likely that they will apply their GLFLI learning at
local geographic or specific organizational community levels. This makes sense given
that it is more likely that individual learner interests, problems, or situations to which

they might apply their learning are also connected with the natural resources of the

148

communities in which they exist. If this is true, then transformational Ieaming and
community based—conservation theories can be applied to better consider potential GLFLI
program impacts (Western and Wright 1994, Bethel 2002). Converting participant
Ieaming into program impacts resulting from fisheries stewardship actions occurring at
local community levels would provide an example of what is intended of
transformational Ieaming as described by Michigan State University Extension (Bethel
pers. comm. 2004).

In providing a transformational Ieaming experience it is important then that the
GLFLI is capable of providing information and resources that enable learners to better
work or take actions to address needs or solve problems identified by them and their
community. Community-based conservation theory explains that actions at this level
would be most effective as the benefits provided are toward local natural resources most
important to the participant, and for the benefit of the participant and their local
community (Western and Wright 1994).

Although activities within local geographic communities and specific fisheries
groups emerged as the most widely identified contexts of stewardship action intended by
participants, it is important to consider that responses were diverse and varied among
individual participants. Participants also indicated a willingness and interest in applying
their Ieaming in some way at many various levels of community. Responses indicated
that nearly one-third or more (231.8%) participants would also likely serve state-wide,
lake-wide, and the entire Great Lakes basin-wide communities.

Therefore, it can not be concluded that the GLFLI should promote any one

community context or type of fisheries stewardship action as being a more important area

149

of work than the other. Instead, it should be recognized that the identified contexts of
fisheries stewardship action varied across individual participants. Future GLFLI
programming should consider the intended application and the community contexts of
these applications in selecting and training future GLFLI participants. Participant
application packages and open-ended questions, providing responses most salient and
foremost in the minds of participants, may be best suited to gathering this information

from participants (Geer 1991, Sheatsley 1993).

Program Influences on Participants ' Intended Practices

It appears that the GLFLI experience did not significantly influence the types of
intended stewardship activities or service projects (or the community contexts of these
leadership applications) likely to be carried out by participants. Quantitative analysis
indicated that generally participants did not significantly change in their attitudes toward
types of fisheries related activities they were likely to carry out (Table III-l7). Although,
participants’ mean responses toward each type of action were on average slightly higher
following their GLFLI experience.

The types of service projects (and community contexts of these projects) that
participants were interested in carrying out did not generally change, based on qualitative
responses. Participants’ intended service projects remained broadly similar (i.e. those
who started with education in mind, ended with education in mind). However, the actual
specific details of service projects often became more detailed or changed to represent
different strategies of action as their GLFLI program Ieaming experience progressed.
The GLFLI program may have had some influence on how strongly participants felt

about their originally intended service projects, as well as helping to focus on specific

150

actions and refine how participants decided to eventually carry out their originally
intended stewardship actions.

It is plausible to expect that what participants indicate they intend to do is a very
good indicator of what participants will actually carry out through their stewardship
actions or service projects (Hungerford and Volk 1990, Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002).
Although participants gained knowledge and skills in relation to several different Ieaming
outcomes, it is most likely that these gains in knowledge and skills will be applied toward
intended fisheries stewardship activities specific to participants’ own interests and
challenges (Robinson 1994). For this set of Michigan GLFLI participants, types of
fisheries stewardship service projects indicated prior to entering the GLFLI Ieaming
process provided a good indicator of how participants intended to apply their leadership
training following completion of the GLFLI.

Future GLFLI programming should give added attention to participant service
project descriptions. Quantitative evaluation methods, such as pre- and post-institute
surveys, provide complementary information in describing where participants might be
willing and likely to provide fisheries stewardship. This information should be
incorporated into the process of developing future GLFLI programming. Also,
documentation of participants’ intended stewardship projects provides baseline data by
which to evaluate mid- and long-term program impacts through tracking the progress and

resulting benefits of participants as they apply their GLFLI program experience.

151

LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Limitations of Study

A primary limitation in evaluating the Michigan component of the GLFLI is the
small sample size of n=22 total Michigan participants. This small sample size limited the
statistical analyses that could be utilized in interpreting data collected. On the other hand,
the small number of participants allowed this evaluation to effectively collect both pre-
and post-institute survey data from all 22 participants, as well as to collect detailed
qualitative data from the entire set of Michigan’s GLFLI participants. Interpretation of
qualitative data, though adding depth to evaluation, also presented a potential limitation
to this study through any researcher biases which may have occurred. However, outside
coders were utilized to reduce this bias during data analysis and interpretation.

The results of this study may be valuable in improving future GLFLI program
planning and delivery. However, the results from this evaluation cannot be generalized
to a larger Great Lakes stakeholder population of Michigan or across the Great Lakes
basin. Nor can these results be generalized to future participant groups. The first GLFLI
participants, as early adopters of the program, will likely differ from future participants
who later adopt the GLFLI learning process (Rogers 1995). Participant values,
motivations, needs and personal Ieaming objectives may differ with each new set of
participants. Moreover, the Michigan participants were recruited and self-selected in
their choice to take part in the GLFLI, and thus did not represent a random sample of the
larger Great Lakes fisheries stakeholders in Michigan.

Variations in different GLFLI lake sessions available to each Michigan

participant, though similar in design, provided slightly different learning experiences for

152

those representing different Great Lakes. Furthermore, different lake groups were
exposed to and networked with different sets of state participants and instructors
associated with each individual lake-session. Lake Huron lacked this opportunity
altogether, as Lake Huron borders no other states Sea Grant programs. Additionally, the
number and order of sessions that each individual participated in varied for each lake
group, introducing variables beyond control in this study. These variables all have
potential impacts and influences on participants’ process of learning, perceptions, and
responses to their particular GLFLI experience.

Finally, a key study limitation is the inability, during the short time frame of this
study, to conduct further follow-up evaluation of Michigan GLFLI participants beyond
their immediate GLFLI participation. This limits this evaluation to short-term impacts
and immediate reactionary responses of GLFLI participants in relation to a recently
occurring experience. Though these responses represent information from participants
as it is most fresh in their mind, this study reflects only a short-term evaluation
perspective. However, this evaluation provides insights toward prospective long-term
influences on participants and GLFLI program impacts through understanding intended
participant actions and activities as fisheries leaders. This study does not provide
definitive results in describing actual long-term impacts generated through the GLFLI,
but instead provides a baseline by which to conduct future mid- and long-term evaluation

of GLFLI program impacts.

Recommendations for Further Study
This evaluation focuses primarily on fisheries projects or environmental action

intended by Michigan GLFLI participants. Additional research or evaluative follow-ups

153

would be valuable in determining if GLFLI participants actually carry out their intended
service projects or other fisheries related action projects as a result of the GLFLI, and
more importantly, how the GLFLI Ieaming process and resources influenced their actions
and projects. Evaluation over time of what participants consider to be the most valuable
Ieaming experience or gain through their GLFLI participation, as well as what aspects of
the GLFLI they apply, would provide further insights about long-temi program impacts.

For future GLFLI programming, consideration should be given to repeating this
study to provide comparisons of participant motivations and expectations, program
outcomes, and stewardship intentions among various and future year classes. Utilizing
both quantitative and qualitative methods to understand participant motivations, values,
reactions, and intended applications contributes added value in evaluating program
impacts. The use of multiple sources of data contributes depth to program evaluation,
and even in the short-term, allows for a better understanding program impacts beyond
simply knowing participant satisfaction from the program. Also comparisons of the
results from this year class of Michigan GLFLI participants might be made against
similar evaluations (or any evaluations) made for other GLFLI participants from other
Great Lakes states.

For this study GLFLI participants were considered primary program stakeholders,
and their motivations, expectations, and identified program outcomes were considered in
relation to intended outcomes identified by GLFLI organizers. Future program
evaluation might consider secondary stakeholders and potential GLFLI beneficiaries,
such as state, federal, or bi-national agencies or institutions who maintain citizen advisory

boards or committees that may be served by trained citizen fishery stakeholders.

154

LITERATURE CITED — CHAPTER III

Athman, J. A. and M. C. Monroe. 2001. Elements of effective environmental education
programs. In Defining best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship
education, eds. A. J. F edler and B. E. Matthews, pp. 37-48. Arlington, VA:
Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation.

Ary, D., L. C. Jacobs, and A. Razavieh. 2002. Introduction to research in education
(sixth edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Babbie, E. 1990. Survey research methods (second edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Co.

Bennett, C. F. 1978. Analyzing impacts of Extension programs. U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Extension Service, Washington, D. C. Report No. EC S-575.

Bennett, C. F. 1978. Analyzing impacts of Extension programs. U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Extension Service, Washington, D. C. Report No. ECS-575.

Bethel, M. 2002. Vision for the Future (paper). Presented at Michigan State University
Fall Extension Conference, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI:
October 16, 2002.

Bethel, M. 2004. Extension on the leading edge: A case for optimism and adaptability
(pers. comm.). Presented at Michigan State University Fall Extension
Conference, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI: October 12, 2004.

Bobbitt, V. 1997. The Washington State University Master Gardener program:
Cultivating plants, people, and communities for 25 years. HortTechnology, 7(4):
345-347.

Clary, E. G., M. Snyder, R. D. ridge, J. Copeland, A. A. Studkas, J. Haugen, and P.
Miene. 1998. Understanding and assessing the motivation of volunteers: A
functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6): 1516-

1530.

Cornwall, A. and J. Gaventa. 2000. From users to choosers to makers and shapers:
Repositioning participation in social policy. IDS Bulletin, 31(4): 50-62.

Dann, S. L. 2004. Analysis of Michigan angler license sales (SHOR Initiative):
demographics and trends (unpublished). Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

155

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

Fear, F. A., C. L. Rosaen, P. Foster-Fishman and R. J. Bawden. 2001. Outreach as
scholarly expression: A faculty perspective. Journal of Higher Education and
Engagement, 6(2): 21 -34.

Fear, F. A., M. Adamek, and G. lmig. 2002. Connecting philosophic and scholarly
traditions with changes in higher education. The Journal of Leadership Studies,
8(3): 42-51.

F edler, A. J. 2001. Defining best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship
education. In Defining best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship
education, eds. A. J. F edler and B. E. Matthews, pp. 1-17. Arlington, VA:
Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation.

Flora, C. B. 1992. Rural communities: Legacy and change. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.

Geer, J. G. 1991. Do open-ended questions measure “salient” issues? Public Opinion
Quarterly, 55(3): 360-370.

Hillery, G. A. 1955. Definitions ofcommunity: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology
55(June): 111-123.

Hungerford, H. R. and R. B. Peyton. 1980. A paradigm for citizen responsibility:
environmental action. In Current issues IV: The yearbook of environmental
education and environmental studies, eds. A. B. Sacks, L. L. Burrus-Bammel, C.
B. Davis, and L. A. Iozzi, pp. 146-154. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

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

Kleymeyer, C. D. 1994. Cultural traditions and community-based conservation. In
Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based conservation, eds. D.
Western and R. M. Wright, pp. 403-427. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential Ieaming: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kollmuss, A. and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally

and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental
Education Research, 8(3): 239-260.

156

Levine, J. S. 2000. The challenge of helping adults learn: Characteristics of adult
learners & implications for teaching technical information. In Proceedings,
International Master Gardener Coordinators’ Conference, September 13, 2000,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Master Gardener. 2003. Master Gardener, Michigan State University Extension
homepage. <http://www.msue.msu.edu/mastergardener/
michigan_master_gardener_program.htm> Accessed 2003 April.

Matthews, B. 1997. Building connections: Remarks at the tenth annual conference of the
Michigan association for environmental and outdoor eduction. Taproot Journal,
11(1): 6—8.

Mertig, A. 2003. Personal communication. Survey Research Principles Course,
Department of Sociology, Michigan State Unversity, East Lansing, MI.

[MEECAC] Michigan Environmental Education Citizens Advisory Committee. 1992.
Report of the environmental education citizens’ advisory committee to the
Michigan state board of education and the Michigan natural resources
commission. State of Michigan, Lansing, MI.

[MSUE] Michigan State University Extension. 2004. MSUE homepage.
<http://www.msue.msu.edu/home/> . Accessed 2004 April 17.

Miller, B. K., B. T. Wilkins and M. Spranger. 2001. Planning the Extension program:
How do we decide what to do? i_n Fundamentals of a Sea Grant Extension
Program, pp. 19-26. Ithaca, NY: Media and Technology Services, Cornell
University. .

[NAAEE] North American Association of Environmental Educators. 1996.
Environmental education materials: Guidelines for excellence. Troy, OH: North

American Association of Environmental Educators.

Punch, K. F. 1998. Introduction to social research: quantitative & qualitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Robinson, R. D. 1994. An introduction to helping adults learn and change (revised
edition). West Bend, WI: Omnibook Co.

Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations (fourth edition). New York, NY: Simon
and Shuster, Inc.

Sandmann, L. R. 1993. Why programs aren’t implemented as planned. Journal of
Extension, 31(4): _.

157

Samuel, H. R. 1993. Irnpedirnents to implementing environmental education. Journal of
Environmental Education, 25(1): 26-29.

Schrock, D. S., M. Meyer, P. Ascher, and M. Snyder. 2000a. Reasons for becoming
involved as a master gardener. HortTechnology, 10(3): 626-630.

Schrock, D. S., M. Meyer, P. Ascher, and M. Snyder. 2000b. Benefits and values of the
master gardener program. Journal of Extension, 38(1).
<www.joe.org/joe/2000february/rb2.htrnl>. Accessed 2003 April 24.

Scholl, J. 1989. Influences on program planning. Journal of Extension, 27(4): _.

Shadish, Jr., R. W., T. D. Cook, and L. C. Leviton. 1995. Foundations of program
evaluation: Theories of practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sheatsley, P. B. 1993. Questionnaire construction and item writing. In Handbook of
Survey Research, eds. P. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright, and A. B. Anderson. New York,
NY: Academic Press.

Siemer, W. F. 2001. Best practices for curriculum, teaching, and evaluation components
of aquatic stewardship education. In Defining best practices in boating, fishing,
and stewardship education, eds. A. J. F edler and B. E. Matthews, pp. 18-36.
Arlington, VA: Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation.

Simonson, D. L. and D. A. Pals. 1990. Master gardeners: Views from the cabbage
patch. Journal of Extension, 28(2). <www.joe.org/joe/ 1990summer/rb3.html>.
Accessed 2003 April 24.

Spears, L. C. 1995. Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenlean theory of
servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Spranger, M. and B. T. Wilkins. 2001. Evaluation: Why bother? In Fundamentals of a
Sea Grant Extension Program, pp. 27-31. Ithaca, NY: Media and Technology
Services, Cornell University.

SPSS, Inc. 2000. SPSS for Windows, Release 10.0.7, standard version. Chicago, IL:
SPSS, Inc.

Sturtevant, R. 2003. Recruitment cover letter template (nomination package). Great
Lakes Sea Grant Network, National Sea Grant College Pro gram, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US. Department of Commerce,
<http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/GLFLI/Notebook/Recruitment/Nomination.
pdf>. Accessed 2004 April.

Sturtevant, R., J. Gunderson, P. Moy, B. Miller, J. Schwartz, J. Read, F. Lichtkoppler, F.
Snyder, E. Obert, D. White, D. Baker, M. Malchoff, and J. Homziak. 2002a.

158

Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (proposal). Great Lakes Sea Grant
Network, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, US. Department of Commerce, <http://www.
glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/GLFLI/Notebook/Planning/Proposals/InstituteProposal.
pdf>. Accessed 2004 April.

Sturtevant, R., J. Gunderson, P. Moy, B. Miller, J. Schwartz, J. Read, F. Lichtkoppler, F.
Snyder, E. Obert, D. White, D. Baker, M. Malchoff, and J. Homziak. 2002b.
Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership curriculum development (proposal). Great
Lakes Sea Grant Network, National Sea Grant College Program, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US. Department of Commerce,
<http://www. glerl.noaa. gov/seagrant/GLFLI/Notebook/Planning/Proposals/
FinalRegionalProposal.pdf>. Accessed 2004 April.

[TICEE] Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference of Environmental Education. 1977. The
Tbilisi Declaration (abridged): Intergovernmental conference on environmental
education, In eds. H. R. Hungerford, W. J. Bluhm, T. L. Volk, and J. M. Ramsey,
1998, Essential readings in environmental education, pp.13-l6. Champaign, IL:
Stipes Publishing.

US. Census. 2000. Table DP-l. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics for
Michigan: 2000. US. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce,
<http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/mi.htm1>. Accessed 2004 Feb 8.

Vaske, J. J. and K. C. Kobrin. 2001. Place attachment and environmentally responsible
behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4): 16-21.

Waterburton, D. 1998. A passionate dialog: Community and sustainable development.
In Community and sustainable development: Participation in the future, ed. D.
Waterburton, pp. 14-19. London, England: Earthscan Press.

Western, D. and R. M. Wright. 1994. The background to community-based
conservation. In Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based
conservation, eds. D. Western and R. M. Wright, pp. 1-12. Washington, DC:
Island Press.

Wiesing, J. J. 2004. Personal communication. Grand Traverse County MSU Extension
Director, Michigan State University Extension, Traverse City, MI.

Williamson, A. 1996. The Great Lakes education program: an in-depth evaluation of
program impacts on fourth grade students. M. S. thesis, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

Zint, M. 2001. Guidelines for aquatic, fisheries & environmental education. In Defining
best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship education, eds. A. J. Fedler and
B. E. Matthews, pp. 61-68. Arlington, VA: Recreational Boating and Fishing
Foundation.

159

 

 

8) Participant Group

Scenario A: Lakes Michigan (n=8) and Eric (n=3) Participant Groups

Scenario B: Lake Huron (n
Scenario C: Lake Superior (n=3) Participant Group

 

 

 

Structure of the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (GLF LI), representing the
Components (Lake and Statewide meetings) relevant to Michigan GLFLI Participants.

Figure III-l

 

 

 

 

 

 

ans
95925;
5232

 

 

 

   

:2 £95: r35
at

5.68m :95: 8...—

 

    

          

_ U otwnoom

         
 

 

ans
25325;
5&5:

 

 

 

 

 

3592:“;
cap—our?

 

   

$ch
85n663;
Swag:

 

 

 

 

 

35;.6Eu;
382:: 2

 

 
    

:3 6532:
5:35 Leta—5 8.1—

 

 

 
    

96% £95..» 83 =m E2;
.afieeea swap: .2.

                 

:2 named
568m ”559:.
02535 53:22

    

    

:2 5.2.29
t.
5.26m Eta—.— 3.1—

 

 

      

359665;
«56:—

 

915 25925..
3:36.53; flag—hues;
Swag:

 

 

 

 

 

5:36.53;

25

2.. at”:
.593. can 9....

 

 

352665;
«565

 

     

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L.

Quay I 3:36.55;
flcdn6FE; 53323
.5222
35235
$05:—

      

      

 

A; JESSE-Ev
Eganom =ds.—6:). 8.1—

_ <otaeoom _

 

160

Table 111-1

Michigan GLFLI Participants (n =22) and their Attendance at Each GLFLI Training

 

 

 

 

Session
. # of Total

Lake Group Meeting Schedule Participants

Lake Lake Lake Michigan Lake Lake

Huron #1 Michigan Erie Statewide Huron #2 Superior

Sept. 26- Oct. 3-5, Oct. 3-4, Oct. 21- Nov. 7-8, Jan. 23-

27, 2003 2003 2003 22, 2003 2003 24, 2004

Port

Alpena, Manitowoc, Erie, Lansing, Huron, Ashland,

MI WI MI WI
Lake Huron 6 -- -- 7 7 -- 8'
Lake Erie -- -- 3 3 -- -- 3
Lake
Michigan -- 8 -- 6 -- -- 8
Lake Superior -- -- -- l -- 3 3
GRAND
TOTALS 6 8 3 l7 7 3 22

 

‘ Total number of unique participants attending any portion of the trainings intended for Lake Huron

participants.

161

Table HI-2

Demographic Characteristics of Michigan GLFLI Program Participants (n =22)

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

U.S.
. . . . Census
. . . Michigan Partrcrpants Data for
Characteristics Categories Michi an“
# % n %
Gender Male 19 86.4 22 49
Female 3 13.6 51
Age in 2003 15-19 years 0 0 22 7.2
20-24 years 2 9.1 6.5
25-34 years 3 13.6 13.7
35-44 years 5 22.7 16.1
45-54 years 8 36.4 13.8
55-64 years 4 18.2 8.7
65-74 years 0 0 6.5
75-84 years 0 0 4.4
85+ years 0 0 1.4
Mean 44.5 35.5
__ Median 46.5 --
{Race 'or ethnicity" White 1 ' - . . 20, ; 90.9. - V 22 ‘ ‘ @802 ,
Q 1* '.'».thkorAfiicmAmerkan . 0. 0 -- - a p.141; :7
..HispanicOrLa‘tino 1} s . ' 1 4.51 T '- ' ' 5
American Indian or Alaskn Native __ I__‘2 .. _> (9.-1";
Asian ' . 7'0 i" 0. I
1 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander .0 I 0 ‘ _
' ' , ’ OtherRaee " ‘ 0 I 0» ' j _ .
Education level Less than high school graduate 1 4.5 20 --
High school graduate or GED 1 4.5 --
Vocational or trade school 1 4.5 --
Some college 4 18.2 --
Associate’s degree (2 yr degree) 0 0 --
College graduate (Bachelor’s / 4 yr degree) 4 27.3 --
Graduate or professional degree 9 40.9 --
Community size Rural, farm 3 13.6 22
Rural, non-farm 5 22.7
Small town (525,000 people) 5 22.7
Urban area (25,001 up to 100, 000 people) 4 18.2
Metropolitan area (>1 00, 000 people) 5 22.7

 

'U. S Census. 2000. Table DP- 1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics for Michigan: 2000,
U. S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C

hm //www. census. gov/censusZOOO/states/mi. htrnl (retrieved March 2004)
bRespondents may have indicated more than one category

162

Table III-3

Motivations of Michigan Participants for Involvement in the GLFLI

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan Participant
Respondents
gzgzggmb Motivation for Participation in GLFLI' a: a:
3 63' n
2 2
(U)nderstanding
Opportunity to learn more about Great Lakes 4 68 5 22
fisheries scrences and management '
Learn about fisheries management and issues .
through hands on experience 4'41 4 22
Allows me to gain new perspective on things 359 4 22
Can learn how to deal with a variety of people 3, 3 2 3 22
Can explore my own strengths . 3 3 22
Mean responses for all items in Category= 3.80 Sub-Scale Alpha==.6457
(V)alues
Genuinely concerned about Great Lakes 4.77 5 22
fishenes
Can do something for a fisheries cause 4.32 4 22
Feel it is important to help others 414 4 22
Feel compassion for people in need 3,14 3 22
I(filingletrned about those less fortunate than 259 3 22
Mean responses for all items in Category= 3,79 Sub-Scale Alpha =.6471
(S)ocial
People I know share interest in community 4,05 4 22
Those close to me value community service 3.18 3 22
highly
Volunteering is important to those I know best 2.73 3 22
Friends volunteer with fisheries related 2,68 3 22
People I’m close to want me to velunteer 1,77 1 22
Mean responses for all items in Category= 2.88 Sub-Scale Alpha =,s497
(Enhancement
Way to make new friends 3,36 3 22
I enjoy the status of belonging'to the Great 3.23 3 22
Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute
Helps me feel better about myself 2,45 3 22
Makes me feel needed 241 3 22
Increase my self-esteem 2,05 2 22
Makes me feel important 1_73 1 22

Mean responses for all items in Category= 2,54 Sub-Scale Alpha =.8302

 

-- continued, next page --

163

Table III-3, continued

 

 

(C)areer
Will help me succeed in my chosen profession 2.86 3 22
Can make new contacts that help my career 2.73 3 22
Allows me to explore different career options 245 3 22
Will look good on my resume 2.23 25 22
Can help me get a foot in the door where I want -
to work 1.68 1 22
Mean responses for all items in Category= 2.39 Sub-Scale Alpha =.7975
(P)rotective
Helps me work through my own problems 218 2 22
Is a good escape from my own troubles 1.77 1.5 22
Relieves guilt over being more fortunate than
others 1.59 1 22
By volunteering I feel less lonely 1.59 1 22
Helps me forget about how bad I’ve been
1.55 l 22

feeling

Mean responses for all items in Category= 1,74 Sub—Scale Alpha =.8909

 

' Participants were asked “Reasons for participating in the GLFLI. ...”

b Typology for a scale item, based on Schrock et al. (2000a).

° Mean response on 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as l and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5.

‘ Median response on 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as l and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5.

164

Table 111-4

Combined Means and Reliability Results for Each Motivation Factor Category”

 

Motivations
Category b

(U)nderstanding
(M)a1ues
(S)ocial
(E)nhancement
(C)areer

(P)rotective

Lake Huron °

2.9429

2.5476

1.9714

1.5143

Lake Michigan °

' (n=22)

3.9000

3.7500

2.8250

2.6042

2.7750

1 .9000

Lake Erie °

1.9444

1 .6667

1.2667

Lake Superior °

(n=22)

4.0667

4.0667

3.1333

2.7222

3.0667

2.2000

Total

Group Mean °

3.8000

3.7909

2.8818

2.5379

2.3909

1.7364

Sub—scale Alpha
values

.6457

.6471

.8497

.8302

.7975

.8909

 

' Participant’s asked “Reasons for participating in the GLFLI....”
b Typology, where: V=values; U=understanding; S=social; E=enhancement; C=career; and P=protection

(Schrock et al. 2000a).

° Category means determined for each lake group and for total group based on average of means for all
scale items coded under each motivations category b. Mean responses on 5-point scale with “Strongly

Disagree” coded as l and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5.

6 Alpha values calculated for all scale items under each motivations category b, and based on responses for
all Michigan participants (n=22).

165

Table III-5

Examples of Participant Statements Related to Learning Expectations and Actual
Outcomes that Guided Coding Category Development

 

LearninLCatggory Learning Expectations and Actual Outcomes: Participant Response '
Qnderstanding of fisheries issues
“Help me to gain insight and better understand the complexities and interactions that surround Great
Lakes issues.”
“Broaden my understanding of G.L. fishery management issues. ..involved in the Lake Michigan fishery.”
“A much better understanding of issues. . .of Lake Erie.”
Understanding biology, ecology, and fisheries of the Great Lakes
“Better understanding of our Great Lakes fishery...”
“The Institute is a great context in which I can learn more about the substance of the fisheries and what it
takes to support their health...”
“More information about the Great Lakes fishery...”
“I also want a better understanding of the Lake Huron fishery as background for membership in the Lake
Huron Citizens Fishery Advisory Committee.”
Learning about fisheries research, management, and policy
“More enhanced knowledge of research and policies concerning Great Lakes Fishery ecosystems.”
“To further my education in fisheries resource management...”
Learning about diverse stakeholders
“A greater understanding of the role of groups outside Michigan in managing the Great Lakes.”
“1 hope to learn all I can about the Great Lakes and the different user or consumer groups.”
“General knowledge of. . .how the different stakeholders work together.”
Building networks and/or networking skills
“lam interested in participating in the Leadership Institute and becoming a Great Lakes fisheries leader so
I can meet new people concerned with the issues that face the Great Lakes in regards to fisheries and
water quality.”
“The Institute...offers a chance to meet many others who are deeply involved in this work.”
“Knowledge of fisheries in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron and better networkingskills.”
Gaining information and resources .
“Information on funding and partnerships to educate youth and families on fishery management and
stewardship.”
“I have a strong interest in being a participant in the institute because of the knowledge that I will gain...”
“Resources for information.”

Developing leadership skills
:Additional Leadership skills.”

Developing action/advocacy related knowledge and skills
“I want to become a knowledgeable advocate for northern Lake Huron and the Lake Huron fishery.”
“I am very interested in public policy and promoting fishing activities.”
Increasing ability to educate youth or adults 1
“Understanding of Lake Erie and Great Lakes Issues that k-12 students should learn about, and might help
address.”
“I am interested in gaining more knowledge about the Great Lakes fisheries that I can pass on in the
youth programs of present and future. I also own property in Georgian Bay, Canada, and I would hope to
share my knowledge with our Canadian neighbors.”
« “Increase my knowledge to explain to my peers and fellow [organization members] the needs to be
educated in policy-making through good management of our fisheries.”
“Gain knowledge to pass to readership.”
‘ Items used in developing coding categories include only participant responses from Pre- and Post-Institute
survey questions: (1) “Please list or describe what you hope to learn or gain through your participation in
the GLFLI. . .”; and (2) “After participating in the GLFLI, what do you consider the most important things
that you learned or gained?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

166

Table III-6

Summary of Variability Analysis for Code Categories Developed to Organize GLFLI
Participant Open-ended Responses Relating to Learning Expectations and Outcomes

 

Code Categories for

Open-ended Participant 5

Re—codin #1”
4 f Polih‘célitsfisu‘cs: ‘

...= Items '

    

   

% ‘ Re-codin #2"

Vi Items '

    

Diversity of Attendees 8 1 88.9 Learning about}

   

 

 

Learmng about Diverse 8 88.9
Stakeholders and Perspectives and Viewpoints and difi‘erent groups’ and
Issues stakeholders’
perspectives
Information/ 1 11.1 Awareness/ 1 11.1
Resources to Use understanding of
Great Lakes fisheries

issue

 

  
  

 

     

 

Basrcs of Great Lakes 14 Fisheries Knowledge 9 64.3 Awareness/ 13 92.9
Fisheries History, Biology, understanding of
and Ecology Great Lakes fisheries
issues
General Knowledge 5 35.7 Personal skills — (e.g. l 7.1
and Awareness leadership,
networking,
resources
Z Develop Networks and 9 Personal Gain 4 44.4 Personal skills — (e.g. 8 88.9
Networking Skills leadership,

networking,

resources)

-- continued, next page --

167

Table III-6, continued

 

 

 

 

 

Develop Networks and Information/Resources 4 44.4 Learning about 1 11.1
Networking Skills, continued to Use different groups’ and
stakeholders’
perspectives

Diversity of Attendees 1 11.1 ‘

and Viewpoints and

Issues

Other General Leadership 5 Information/Resources 3 60.0 Personal skills — 2 40.0
Skills to Use leadership,
confidence,
networking, capacity
building, resources/
opportunities, etc.
(i.e. funding)

Personal Gain 1 20.0 Learning about 2 40.0
different groups’ and
stakeholders’
perspectives

Diversity of Attendees 1 20.0 Awareness/ 1 20.0

and Viewpoints and understanding of

Issues Great Lakes fisheries
issues

Action or Advocacy Related 4 Other 3 75.0 Taking Action 3 75.0
Knowledge/Skills ’
Information to Pass on 1 25.0 Awareness/ 1 25.0
understanding of
Great Lakes fisheries
issues
Education or Information 5 Information to Pass on 4 80.0 Awareness/ 3 60.0
Sharing Knowledge/Skills understanding of

Great Lakes fisheries

issues

General Knowledge 1 20.0 Exposure to various 1 20.0

and Awareness issues (i.e.
legislative/political)

Takin 1

   
 

 
 

‘ Items used in developing coding categories include only participant responses from Pre- and Post-Institute
survey questions: (1) “Please list or describe what you hope to learn or gain through your participation in
the GLFLI. . .”; and (2) “After participating in the GLFLI, what do you consider the most important
things that you learned or gained?”

Categories and organization of participant responses based on independent coding of two different coders.

c Percent (%) representation of items coded in original code category

168

Action 2

20:0

 

Table 111-7

Summary of Open-ended Responses Regarding what Participants Hoped to Learn or
Gain Through Their GLFLI Experience

 

 

i: i.
g. a
a ° '3 TOTAL
r e .3
Category *5 g Q g- Unique
l m in participants
#° %° #° %° #'~‘ %° #° %° #° %1
Education or Information '
Sl . gKnowledge/Skills 6 75.0 3 37.5 2 66.7 1 50.0 12 57.1

Basics of Great Lakes Fisheries

History, Biology, and Ecology 5 62.5 3 37.5 3 100.0 1 50.0 12 57.1

Understand Fisheries
Management and Policies 2’ 25.0 6 75.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 38.1
(Political, Regulatory, etc.)

Develop Networks and
Networking Skills

Understanding of Specific
Issues related to the Great 2 25.0 2 25.0 3 100.0 0 0.0 7 33.3
Lakes

6 75.0 1 12.5 1 33.3 0 0.0 8 38.1

Access to Resources or

Additional Information 5 62.5 2 25.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 33.3

Learning about Diverse
Stakeholders and Perspectives 2 25'0 2 25 '0 O 0'0 1 50-0 5 23.8

Action or Advocacy Related
Knowledge /Skills 1 12.5 2 25.0 1 33.3 0 0.0 4 19.0

Other General Leadership Skills 2 25.0 1 12.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 14.3

TOTAL UNIQUE
PARTICIPANTS

' Application open-ended questions used include: (1) “Why are you interested in becoming a Great Lakes
Fisheries Leader?”; and (2) “Please include a brief statement describing potential service project(s) in
which you would be interested.”

b Pre-participation Survey question asked in open-ended question format, “Please list or describe what you
hope to learn or gain through your participation in the GLFLI. . .”

° Percent calculated based on number of responses as a proportion of the total number of participants in
each respective lake group (Lake Huron - n=8; Lake Michigan - n=8; Lake Erie n=3; Lake Superior n=3)

d Percent calculated based on number of responses as a proportion of total Michigan GLFLI participants
who provided a valid responses to Pre-Institute questions (n=21).

° Several (18) participants’ responses indicated multiple areas or categories in which they hoped to learn or
gain through their GLFLI participation

1 Categories based on compiling, organizing, and coding of participant open-ended responses

8 100 8 100 3 100 2 100 21 100

 

169

Table III-8

Summary of Open-ended Responses Regarding what Participants Believed They had
Learned or Gained Through Their GLFLI Experience

 

 

a i-
E 1% 2 .8 TOTAL
r = a- 3.
category 3 E m 5; Unique
participants
. . , , ,. . #. W #e %c #. %° #. %° #. _ %‘1
Develop Networks and ‘
Networking Skills 4 50.0 5 . 71.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 45.0
Understanding Fisheries

Management and Policies 3 37.5 2 28.6 1 33.3 1 50 7 35.0
(Political, Regulatory, etc.) .

Learning about Diverse

Stakeholders and Perspectives 2 25'0 3 42‘9 1 33-3 1 50 7 350

Understanding of Specific
Issues related to the Great 2 25.0 2 28.6 1 33.3 0 0.0 5 25.0
Lakes

Access to Resources or
Additio lInfo_ tion 5 62.5 0 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0 5 25.0
Bisi°s°f9r°atukcsmems 1 12.5 2 28.6 1 33.3 o 0.0 4 20.0
History, Biology, and Ecology

Education or Informa’ tion
81' Knowledge/Skills O 0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0
Action or Advocacy Related
K owledge/Sl'lls O 0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0

Other General Leadership Skills 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

TOTAL UNIQUE
PARTICIPANTS
‘ Post-participation Survey question asked in open-ended question format, “After participating in the
GLFLI, what do you consider the most important things that you learned or gained?”
° Percent calculated based on number of responses as a proportion of the total number of participants in
each respective lake group (Lake Huron - n=8; Lake Michigan — n=8; Lake Erie n=3; Lake Superior n=3)
d Percent calculated based on number of responses as a proportion of total Michigan GLFLI participants
who provided a valid responses to Post-Institute questions (n=20).
‘ Several (l 1) participants’ responses indicated multiple areas or categories in which they indicated they
had learned or gained through their GLFLI participation
' Categories based on compiling, organizing, and coding of participant open-ended responses (Table L7)

8 100 7 100 3 100 2 100 20 100

 

170

Table 111-9

Comparison of What GLFLI Participants had Hoped to Learn or Gain and What They

Believed They had Actually Learned or Gained

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOPED BELIEVED Difference
TO LEARN HAD between
Level OR GAIN ACTUALLY Expected and
of "” LEARNED Actual
, OR GAIN ED Learning or
Accomplishment Category . c Gain
toward
Participant TOTAL
E tations participants TOTAL TOTAL
l d participants d participants 4
# 8 % c # h % ' # H % “
“Gain” in value Develop Networks and
as actual outcome Networking Skills 8 38‘] 9 45 1 6‘9
Learning about Diverse
Stakeholders and Perspectives 5 23'8 7 35 2 “’2
Less valued Understanding Fisheries
but significant Management and Policies 8 38.1 7 35 -l -3.1
as actual outcome (Political, Regulatory, etc.) '
Understanding of Specific Issues
related to the Great Lakes 7 33'3 5 25 '2 '8‘3
Access to Resources or
Additional Information 7 33'3 5 25 -2 .83
Basics of Great Lakes Fisheries
History, Biology, and Ecology 12 57'] 4 20 '8 .37'1
Least valued Education or Information
as actual outcome Sharing Knowledge/Skills 12 57'1 O O -12 '57"
Action or Advocacy Related ,
Knowledge/Skills 4 19'0 O O '4 '19
Other General Leadership Skills 3 14.3 0 0 -3 -l4.3
TOTAL PARTICIPANTS RESPONDING 21 100 20 100 - —

 

' Application open-ended questions used include: (1) “Why are you interested in becoming a Great Lakes
Fisheries Leader?”; and (2) “Please include a brief statement describing potential service project(s) in
which you would be interested.”

Pre-participation Survey question asked in open-ended question format, “Please list or describe what you
hope to learn or gain through your participation in the GLFLI”

° Post-participation Survey question asked in open-ended question format, “After participating in the
GLFLI, what do you consider the most important things that you learned or gained?”

d Total number of participants providing valid responses

° Percent calculated based on number of responses as a proportion of total Michigan GLFLI participants
who provided a valid responses to Pre-Institute questions (n=21)

fPercent calculated based on number of responses as a proportion of total Michigan GLFLI participants
who provided a valid responses to Post-Institute questions (n=20)

‘ Several (18) participants’ responses indicated multiple areas or categories in which they hoped to learn or
gain through their GLFLI participation.

h Several (11) participants’ responses indicated multiple areas or categories in which they indicated they
had learned or gained through their GLFLI participation

‘Categories based on compiling, organizing, and coding of participant open-ended responses (Table I-7)

171

Table III-10

Participant Reactions Regarding What They Had Learned or Gained Through Their
GLFLI Learning Experience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan Participants
Survey Questions Response Categories '1' °
# I % 1 n
Leamedor gainedw'hat hgd originally , ,7 Strongly Disagree 1 275 2_2.7 . ~f} 2J .7
Whip GLFLI experience' 7 . ModeratelyDisagree ‘ 1 ,4-5 -' " ‘
NeiflmAsmnor. i ' ‘ .. _ ,. .. . 1.
, Disagree ' . -- .. T I .
»ModeratelyAgree '2 7 " 31:8 g ,7 ,
- Strongly Agree ' ' 9_ f3 7 4097 ’
~ MEAN“:J:= 3.64 » ‘
MEDIAN” 4
Learned or gained something new or Strongly Disagree 4 18.2
something not anticipated through GLFLI Moderately Disagree
experience __ _-
Neither Agree nor
Disagree -- _-
Moderately Agree 5 22.7
Strongly Agree 13 59.1
MEAN“ 4.05
MEDIANc 5
Consider GLFLI learning experience to be Strongly Disagree 4 18.2 22
beneficial ° Moderately Disagree -- ~-
Neither Agree nor
Disagree -- --
Moderately Agree 2 9.1
Strongly Agree 16 72.7
MEAN " 4.18

MEDIAN ‘ 5
aParticipants were asked, ‘During your participation in the GLFLI, did you learn or gain what you had
originally hoped from this experience?”
b Participants asked, “Did you learn or gain “ ' new or ' ' that you did not
learning fi'om the GLFLI?”
:Participants asked,‘ ‘Do you consider your GLFLI learning e1_tperience to be beneficial?
dMean response on 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5.
° Median response on 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as l and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5.

 

172

Table III-1 1

Aspirations for Applying GLFLI Learning Experience with Various Types of
“Communities ”

 

 

 

I "0
it. s E i
" °' to 9 1:1 I 3
“Would you say you are i A. i g., Q .1: 5.. 'a
primarily seeking information ' ' 5 8 33”
that benefits...” ' “-1
u: ‘5 u: 1:; fl 5 e
s a s a a g Z P
2 2 2 2 z 2
You individually? 3.64 4 3.77 4 0.13 0 -0.650 0.516
Your specific fisheries related 3.91 4 4.14 4 0.23 0 -O.813 0.416
organization?
Many different fisheries 3.77 ' 4 4.09 4 0.32 0 -l .485 0.138
organizations? 4
Your local geographic community? 3.86 4 4.00 4 10.14 0 -.577 0.564
Your entire state? ’ 4.14 4 4.36 5 0.22 1 -1404 0.16 '
A specific individual Great Lake? 3.55 3.5 4.09 4 0.54 0.5 —2.232 1 0.026
The entire Great Lakes fishery and 4.50 s 4.45 5 .005 0 ' 0.000f 1.000
ecosystem?

 

‘ Prior to GLFLI participation participants were asked “It’s likely that you are seeking a great deal of
information from GLFLI. Would you say that you are primarily looking for information that benefits...”

b Following GLFLI participation participants were asked, “It’s likely that you are seeking a great deal of
information from GLFLI. Would you say that you are primarily looking for information that benefits...”

° Mean response on 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as l and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5.

" Median response on 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as 1 and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5.

° Based on negative ranks.

fThe sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks.

3 Significance determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks statistical test (.05 confidence)

173

Table III-12

Summary of Open-ended responses Related to Aspirations for Applying GLFLI Learning
Experience with Various Types of “Communities ”

 

Response Category

 

 

a i" .
3 '= 1’- ’a
3 3 (D g 8
60 h a g '3 x a
Q 3 .. .. E 3 a a
K .c :4. a a an 's A
5 4’ a g :1 I :4. cu .. g 8
Participants indicating a I; g ,3 Q ,3 a p .3 'g 2’. at
particular response :3 2 g :3 a a g g; E g a
category through «'5- '5 'g 5‘ 'a 7. E .2 1:: t; g S
responses to various 2 g, ,2" g E 8 g i a '35 :1 1.3
open ended questions: >‘ m ° ° .4 ° “1 m "1 ‘fl "‘
# %e # %° # %e # %° # %' # °/o‘ # %'
J ApplicationII 9 40.9 7 31.8 6 27.3 11 50.0 5 22.7 7 31.8 3 1 13.6
‘ Pre-Participation Survey” 5 22.7 1 4.6 1 4.6 4 18.2 2 9.1 1 4.6 1 4.6
Service Project‘ 7 1 4.6 1 4.6 g l 4.6 9 40.9 3 13.6 2 9.1 3 13.6
“mini” wmmg o 0.0 4 18.2 5 22.7 11 50.0 5 22.7 2 9.1 5 22.7
Exercrse
TOTAL # Unique
Participant Reponses for 13 59.1 11 50.0 10 45.5 15 68.2 10 45.5 9 40.9 7 31.8
each Category

 

‘ Application open-ended questions used include: (1) “Why are you interested in becoming a Great Lakes
Fisheries Leader?”; and (2) “Please include a brief statement describing potential service project(s) in
which you would be interested.”

b Pre-participation Survey question asked in open-ended question format, “Please list or describe what you
hope to learn or gain through your participation in the GLFLI. . .”

° Pre- and Post-participation surveys asked in open-ended question format, “Briefly describe your intended
fisheries-related service project (It is o.k. if your service project plans have changed from your original
statement of intent. Please provide your most current ideas, plans, and intent)”

‘ During Michigan statewide training session, participants were asked, afier discussion, to complete a
writing exercise in response to the following, “Please develop and define in writing your own idea of
what "community" means to you? Describe who you consider to be your community, the community in
which you will take on leadership roles.”

° Percent calculated based on number of responses as a proportion of total Michigan GLFLI participants
(n=22)

174

Table III-13

Participant Statements Related to Code Categories Used to Describe Aspirations for
Applying GLFLI Learning Experience with Various Types of “Communities ”

 

mhcd

Catggogy Participant Response
You individually?
“I am interested in becoming a Great Lakes fisheries leader because I think it will greatly benefit both
myself and all of the students I work with.”
“I believe that my involvement in the GLFLI program can only help add experience and information

that I can utilize in my courses."
Your specific fisheries related organization?
“I am committed to the [fisheries organization name]. . .”
“Build upon my (and my organization’s) network of experts in the conservation/environmental areas
when dealing with current and future issues.”
Many different fisheries organizations?
“I also want a better understanding of the Lake Huron fishery as background for membership in the
Lake Huron Citizens Advisory Committee. The information I would obtain from the Institute would be
communicated to other fisherman and local government through the [fisheries organization].”

“My community is natural resource user ggoups in the state of Michigan.”
Your local geographic communigy?

“My community that I serve is the local community of [city] . .
“My community is the relationship between the [city] public school, the [city] area, and its relationship
to the facility I coordinate. . .”
“In addition, we would like to partner with the community of [city] to provide leadership in improving
the habitat of [the] Lake (the local fishery)”
Your entire state?
“My community is natural resource user groups in the state of Michigan.”
“On a larger scale, my leadership role at the state—level with the Michigan [organization] is to protect

our fishegy and to help raise funds to achieve our agenda.”
A specific individual Great Lake?

 

 

 

 

 

“I will be starting a facility...this facility should ultimately have as its major emphasis the study of lake
Erie and the aquatic sciences.’
_ “I want to become a knowled eable advocate for northern Lake Huron and Lake Huron 1n eneral. ”

 

{Q “Work with GLFT, State Legislature, NRC and DNR to effectively manage Great Lakes fishery ”'7
“To protect the Great Lakes from pollution and misuse.” - _’ . -,
. "’ to a. regional conference that brings together. fisheries

   
 

 

 

Application open-ended questions used include: (1)‘ ‘Why are you interested 1n becoming a Great Lakes

Fisheries Leader?”; and (2) “Please include a brief statement describing potential service project(s) in
which you would be interested.”

" Pre-participation Survey question asked in open-ended question format, “Please list or describe what you
hope to learn or gain through your participation in the GLFLI. . .”

° Pre- and Post-participation surveys asked in open-ended question format, “Briefly describe your intended
fisheries-related service project (It is o.k. if your service project plans have changed from your original
statement of intent. Please provide your most current ideas, plans, and intent)”

d During Michigan statewide training session, participants were asked, afier discussion, to complete a

writing exercise in response to the following, “Please develop and define in writing your own idea of what

"community" means to you? Describe who you consider to be your community, the community in which

you will take on leadership roles.”

175

Table III-14

Summary of Michigan GLFLI Participants ’ Service Projects, Categorized by Types of

Environmental Stewardship Action

 

 

8
1: 1.. t:
- ab e g o:‘ .2 E j a! 3.
Response Categories ’ ’ § 5 I- V E" ‘8 ’8
m ~° "‘ 3' ° E
:5 in 9‘:D a
1:.
f f # %°_ 4 %F # %c # V%° # %“
Ed???” °’ Paws”? 6 75.0 3 37.5 3 100.0 1 33.3 13 59.1
Act1v1t1es .
Harri °‘ E°°nmg°m°m 8 100.0 2 25.0 1 33.3 0 0.0 11 50.0
Actrvrtres
Political or Public '
Participation Activities 1 12.5 6 75.0 1 33.3 0 0.0 8 36.4 :
Consumerism Activities 0 . 0.0, 0 0.0 g 0 _ 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4
Legal Action, 0 0.0 p 0 0.0 0 g 0.0 0 0.0 ‘ ‘ 0 0.0 -
Other 1 12.5 0 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0 l 4.5
Undecided . 0 0.0 1 12.5 ,0 0.0 p 2 66.7 _ 3 13.6
Total # Participants 8 100.0 8 100.0 3 100.0 3 100.0 22 100.0

 

‘ Application asked open-ended question, “Please include a brief statement describing potential service

project(s) in which you would be interested.”

b Pre- and Post-participation surveys asked in open-ended question format, “Briefly describe your intended
fisheries-related service project (It is o.k. if your service project plans have changed from your original

statement of intent. Please provide your most current ideas, plans, and intent)”

° Percent calculated based on number of responses as a proportion of the total number of participants in
each respective lake group (Lake Huron - n=8; Lake Michigan — n=8; Lake Erie n=3; Lake Superior n=3)
d Percent calculated based on number of responses as a proportion of total Michigan GLF LI participants

(n=22)
‘ Action typology based on Hungerford and Peyton (1980)

176

Table III-15

Examples of Participant Service Project Descriptions as Coded and Categorized to
Describe Difl'erent Types of Stewardship Actions

 

Category c Participant Response " b

 

Education or Persuasion Activities
“An education project to inform students about Lake Erie and become better stewards of the Lake.”
“Integrating this information into the high school curriculum through project based learning.”
“Statewide K-12 fisheries education program.”
“Writing popular articles to help the general public and anglers better understand Great Lakes
fisheries, issues, and management.”

Habitat or Ecomanagement Activities
“People and fishery habitat improvement on [Lake] in [city]”

“Wetland mitigation project in [city]. . .”

“. . .a potential service project is to lead an assessment of the [river] from the mouth at Lake Huron
upstream to the dam The assessment or survey would be to identify what species of fish are
currently naturally reproducing in that section of the river. The survey would also identify any
habitat issues that could be corrected to improve or restore natural reproduction.”

Political or Public participation Activities
“Participation in state, regional, local fisheries related meetings to represent the recreational

sportsman point of view. Protect the North Pier in Grand Have for fishing.”

“Policy work on Great Lakes systems (pre-survey). Working with Great Lakes Fisheries Trust
(GLFT), State Legislature, Natural Resources Commission (NRC) and Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) to effectively manage Great Lakes fishery (post-survey)”

Consumerism Activities
[No participant responses fit into this category]

Legal Action
[No participant responses fit into this category]

‘ Application asked open-ended question, “Please include a brief statement describing potential service
project(s) in which you would be interested.”

Pre- and Post-participation surveys asked in open-ended question format, “Briefly describe your intended
fisheries-related service project (It is o.k. if your service project plans have changed from your original
statement of intent. Please provide your most current ideas, plans, and intent)”

° Action typology based on Hungerford and Peyton (1980)

177

Table II- 1 6

Summary of Service Project Types Identified by Michigan Participants Before and After
their GLFLI Experience

 

Participants
Indication of
Response
Categories
through
Application ', Pre-
and Post-Institute
b Service Project
Descriptions

Education or

3’ Persuasion
Habitat or
Ecomanagement
Political or Public
Participation
Consumerism
Legal Action
Other
Undecided ‘

 

Pre Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

 

T°‘?1#.Pa‘”°ipams # 12 9 9 6 7 3
Indicating

Response Category

throughService % 50.0 40.9 40.9 27.3 31.8 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 13.6 31.8

Projects

#PaTfiGiPams #884433------------33
Indicating same

Response Category

inBOTH Pre

ANDPost- % 36.4 36.4 18.2 18.2 13.6 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 13.6

Institute Service
Project descrjations

# Participants # 4
Indicating a

Response Category

in Pre-Institute

BUT NOT Post- % 18.2 0.0 22.7 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O..0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Institute Service

Project descriptions ‘

# Participants
Indicating a
Response Category
in Post-Institute
BUT NOT Pre- % 0.0 4.5 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O 18.2
Institute Service

Project descriptions

' Application asked open-ended question, “Please include a brief statement describing potential service
project(s) in which you would be interested.”

" Pre- and Post-participation surveys asked in open-ended question format, “Briefly describe your intended
fisheries-related service project (It is o.k. if your service project plans have changed from your original
statement of intent. Please provide your most current ideas, plans, andvintent.)”

° Participants responding to survey, but not providing a service project response were categorized as
“undecided”

178

Table III-1 7

Likelihood of Michigan GLFLI Participants Carrying Out Various Types of Stewardship
Actions

 

 

 

 

u I in 5' g ”3
i' i 1;, E g “r 5
U E5 U o 3 E» E
i 5: i a. Q an E-1 :1
Item 11.1: . .. 8 an
1 Item D to
Category 1:.
9 v: u v: a
s 5 s -:; s g g., e.
0 o o o 0
E 2 E E E E
Persuasion or Education Activities ~
’ Iamlikelytoprovxde information . 4.48., 5 44s 5 . . of. o ..5011 1).-.617
.andreSmircesonfisheriestopeople _ . W I ' ‘ f?
mmycommum‘ty . .
Iamlikely toprovideleadershipin 4.43 , 5’ 4.38 -- -5-' ‘-0.05- '-_0 -:.124 0.902 I

providing educational opportunities
for my fisheries organization or club . g _ - . .
I amlikely to provide leadership in ‘ 4.38' 5 4.57 .5 0.19 0 '-l.604 0.109: '
youth education programs , ' . f
I am likely to provide leadership m 4.24 4 4.38 ' 5 0.14 1 4.006 ' 0.3.14 8
_ projects to persuade others on . .
" " v fisheries related issues

 

Consumer Behaviors

I am likely to help others understand 4.33 4 4.52 5 0.19
how their fishing related

expenditures relate to fisheries

management programs and

activities.

Political or Public Participation

, . I am likely to provide leadership for 3.95 ’ 4 4.14 _ . ,4: 0.19
_ {raising funds for fisheries related, .

efi'orts or program , g
.I am likely to promote opportunities 3.76 ~ 4’ . 3.95 ' . 4_ ' 0.19 '
‘ for my fisheries organization or club ' . -
,jmexirberstomeetortaikwith .
-. logislators to discuss fisheries issues » _ 7
Ian; likely to initiate a group 3.57. - 4‘ . 4.05 4 0.48
meeting 01' discussion with a state - ~ > » .
.- agency to discuss potential changes ~
in fiShe‘iies management or ‘

i_-

-l.098 0.272

 

  
   
  
   
  
   
 

O

4.098 5'Ofi‘27i‘?

0

-.1118031 0.5238?

O

-1795 10.0732"

 

-- continued, next page --

179

Table III-17, continued

 

Habitat Work

I am likely to coordinate a fisheries 3.52 4 4 4 0.48 0 -1.899 0.058
habitat improvement project ,

Legal Work

I am likely to provide leadership in 3.19 3 3.38 3 0.19 0 -1.387 0.166
legal actions or court processes as a

mechanism of resolving fisheries

issues '

 

 

‘ Prior to GLFLI participation participants were asked “We are interested your current leadership intentions
and how you view your involvement and leadership toward the Great Lakes fishery in your community
and organizations.”

b Following GLFLI participation participants were asked, “As a result of your GLFLI experience, how do
you now view your involvement and leadership toward the Great Lakes fishery in your community and
organizations?”

° Mean response on 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as l and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5.

d Median response on 5-point scale with “Strongly Disagree” coded as l and “Strongly Agree” coded as 5.

° Based on negative ranks.

f Classification of items based on Hungerford and Peyton (1980) stewardship action typology.

‘ Significance determined using Wilcoxon signed-ranks statistical test (p < .05)

180

CHAPTER IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EVALUATION OF THE

GREAT LAKES FISHERIES LEADERSHIP
INSTITUTE’S (GLFLI) IMPACTS

INTRODUCTION

Background

In the Fall of 2003 through Spring of 2004, the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network
piloted the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (GLFLI), an adult fisheries
Extension education program. This initiative represented the coordinated efforts and
resources of eight Great Lakes’ state Sea Grant programs and partners, with funding
support from National Sea Grant College Program. The purpose of the program was to
provide adult fisheries education programming targeted for Great Lakes stakeholders
considered to be future leaders in each state and covering the five Great Lakes (Lakes
Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie, and Superior), as well as Lake Champlain.

This evaluation investigates Michigan components of the GLFLI program. This
study examines various levels of intended and actual program outcomes, considering the
perspectives of both regional GLFLI program planners, as well as the Michigan

participants targeted by this initiative (Bennett 1978, Robinson 1994, Shadish et al. 1995,

Miller et al. 2001).

181

GLFLI: A Pilot-Model for providing Fisheries Leadership Training

The GLFLI was developed around a core curriculum and a format of intensive
statewide and lakewide training sessions. These were designed to increase knowledge of
Great Lakes fisheries and their management, as well as to develop networking and
leadership skills among future citizen fishery leaders. Specific expected program
outcomes were identified and described by Great Lakes Sea Grant program staff after
consulting with program partner agencies (Sturtevant et al. 2002a). The vision for the
Institute program was:

We envision a Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute operating on a

regional, lake and state level capable of providing emerging citizen

fishery leaders with the knowledge and skills to effectively interact wit/2

Great Lakes fishery management organizations for the benefit of the

fishery and its stakeholders. (Sturtevant et a1. 2002, p. 4a) "

As an adult fisheries education program, the GLFLI was designed to
encourage greater citizen involvement and action in Great Lakes fisheries related
issues. In developing, implementing, and evaluating the GLFLI program, it was
important to understand theory and research describing aspects of environmental
education programming as they contribute to fostering stewardship behaviors
among learners. Adult Ieaming theory and research contribute to understanding
GLFLI programming in the context of the target program audience — citizen adult
learners. Community-based conservation literature generates understanding of

how participant learners can be expected to apply their Ieaming experience and in

what contexts the GLFLI program may have the greatest impacts.

182

Environmental Education Programming to Foster Stewardship Behaviors

A primary desired outcome of the GLFLI is that participants gain the awareness,
knowledge and understanding, comfort, skills, and resources by which they can then
participate, contribute, or otherwise act in relation to Great Lakes fisheries (Sturtevant et
al. 2002a). Empowerment of people, individually and collectively, to address
environmental issues locally and in their communities, is consistent with the often-cited
goals for environmental education programs (TICEE 1977, MEECAC 1992, NAAEE
1996, F edler 2001). Environmental education programming to achieve changes in
learner stewardship behaviors is not a simple, linear process. Successful programming
will include multiple levels of essential pre-cursor variables that contribute to increased
environmental action or stewardship behaviors among learners, including: entry level
variables (e. g., awareness and basic knowledge), ownership variables (e.g., in-depth
understanding and personal investment in issues), and empowerment variables (e. g.,

comfort, skills and resources necessary to carry out actions) (Hungerford and Volk 1990).

Understanding Adult Learners to Enhance Program Design

Adults are typically self-motivated learners, participating in an education program
to seek information or resources that relate to specific issues, personal learning needs, or
challenges that are current and foremost in the minds of the individual learners (Levine
2001). Increased understanding, values toward a purpose or cause, personal
enhancement, career advancement, and social purposes are among some of the
motivations for adult volunteers who choose to participate in specialized adult Extension

education training programs (Schrock et al. 2000a). Regardless, it was anticipated that

183

adult learners would enter into their GLFLI Ieaming experience with individual
expectations (Robinson 1994).

Learning can be described as a cyclical process where learners can (1) experience
or participate in an activity; (2) reflect on their actions or learning activity; (3) theorize,
conceptualize or interpret what they have participated in, learned, and consider how it
may apply to other situations; and (4) apply or translate their Ieaming to other actions,
activities or settings (Kolb 1984). Kolb (1984) describes different Ieaming styles defined
by preferred ways of perceiving and processing infomiation. These types of learners
include: (1) active learners (those who prefer to learn through hands-on activities in
which they try or do something, then learn through experience); (2) reflective learners
(those who watch or do, then learn through concrete reflection); (3) theorizing learners
(those who watch and think, then learn through abstract reflection); or (4) pragmatic

learners (those who learn by thinking and doing) (Kolb 1984).

Value of Citizen Leaders to C ommunity-based Conservation

Education programming to foster environmentally responsible behavior is related
to leamers’ personal connections with familiar, local community natural resources
(Matthews 1997, Vaske and Kobrin 2001, F edler 2001). Effectiveness of regional and
statewide GLF LI programming to foster positive Great Lakes actions and impacts
through citizen leaders relates to involvement of these citizen leaders within the contexts
of their communities — whether the leamers’ community is
geographic, social or organizational (Hillery 1955, Flora 1992). Conservation efforts can

be most effective where they involve individuals working collectively at the community

184

level to conserve natural resources of the community, through the community, and for the
benefit of the community (Western and Wright 1994).

Individually, learners are likely to consider a variety of different types of
environmental stewardship actions including: consumer related behaviors, persuasion or
education activities, eco-management or habitat work, political or public participation,
and legal types of actions (Hungerford and Peyton 1980). These types of actions of
individual learners can also be considered in the context of interrelationships with others

within leamers’ communities (Kleymeyer 1994, Monroe 1999).

STUDY PURPOSE

The National Sea Grant Program requires that Sea Grant initiatives be thoroughly
evaluated through on data collection and analysis of the specific standards, goals, and
objectives of the program (Spranger and Wilkins 2001). To this end, GLFLI program
planning proposals state the need to evaluate this program in order to, “assess the
effectiveness of delivery (i.e. workshop evaluations) (Sturtevant et al. 2002a, p. 9).”

Sea Grant programs are often evaluated at various levels of program effectiveness
hierarchical pyramid of program impacts (Bennett 1978 , Miller et al. 2001). These
seven levels of evaluation include consideration of: (1) resources, (2) activities, (3)
participation, (4) participant reactions, (5) knowledge. attitudes, skills, and aspirations
(KASA), ( 6) practices, and ultimatelv, (7) social, economic, and environmental outcomes.
Bennett’s (1978) work serves as a foundation for this program evaluation. Stake‘s
(Shadish et al. 1995, Robinson 1994) work provides a secondary foundation by which

this evaluation can address each tier or layer of Bennett’s program evaluation approach

185

through: (1) describing intended program actions and outcomes and (2) comparing and
contrasting these program intentions against observed or actual program actions and
outcomes.

This evaluation used qualitative and quantitative methods to describe intended
and actual program activities, impacts, and values of this Extension adult fisheries
education program from the perspectives of both regional GLFLI program planners and
Michigan participants. More specifically, this evaluation focused on:

('1) Intended and actual program activities, participation, and program impacts
(changes in knowledge and skills) occurring through Michigan components of
the GLFLI;

(2) Participant program reactions, including motivations, learning expectations,

actual program outcomes, and intended applications of the GLFLI experience
by 22 Michigan participants.

METHODS

This evaluation followed a protocol approved by the MSU University Committee
on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). I collected qualitative and
quantitative data collected through two sources: regional program planning documents
and responses of the 22 Michigan participants to programming.

First, regional Sea Grant program planning and promotional documents were
examined to describe program expectations and desired. This study focused on fourteen
standardized curriculum components and agendas from six different training sessions to
which Michigan GLFLI participants were exposed.

Second, participants’ motivations, program expectations, values, and intended

fisheries leadership actions were investigated. Participant application packages, pre- and

186

post—institute participation survey evaluations, and participant writing activities were
components used in this portion of the evaluation (Dillman 1978, 2000).

Quantitative analysis of pre- and post-Institute survey data was conducted
utilizing SPSS 10.0.7 for Windows (SPSS 2000). Univariate analysis was used to
determine frequencies, means, and medians. Bivariate analysis compared pre— and post-
Institute responses using non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-ranks significance tests.

Qualitative examination of participant responses included coding, categorization,
and analysis for similarities, patterns, and examples of experiences (Punch 1998, Ary et
al. 2002). Coding was determined based on literature review, corresponding survey

questions, and open coding processes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This evaluation found that GLFLI programming for Michigan participants was
generally carried out as intended by regional program planners. Michigan participants
received programming coverage for nearly all GLFLI regionally identified Ieaming
outcomes through training curriculum modules, as well as lakewide and/or statewide

training sessions. Key findings included the following:

Program Resources and Activities
'2' Multiple and Diverse GLFLI Program Objectives: Regionally developed GLFLI
program objectives were numerous, broad ranging, and with inconsistencies
across multiple planning documents. Regardless, multiple, wide-ranging

objectives for the program were important in providing value and benefits for

187

participants given their diverse needs. When categorized into broad topics,
anticipated learning outcomes included:

(1) Fisheries Science (fish and habitats) (10 Learning
Outcomes): fisheries management principles and
history, fish biology, Great Lakes ecology, habitat, and
related issues.

(2) Leadership (human dimensions aspects of fisheries) (1 6
Learning Outcomes): networking, institutional
arrangements, leadership skills, action/involvement
skills, economics, and related issues.

03° Michigan GLFLI Program Delivery:

0 Curriculum: 8 core program modules plus “The Life of the
Lakes” and various session-specific supplemental materials
delivered to Michigan participants

0 Trainings: 1 Statewide, 5 Lakewide sessions with a full
program ranging (state plus lake session) from 23 to 60
contact hours.

0 Experiential Opportunities: Rated by participants as mpg
valuable were networking and discussions (18.2%), field
trips (e. g., commercial fishery) (13.6%), and research and
monitoring opportunities (9.1%), with 1 additional
participant noting that “all” experiences were beneficial.
Indicated as 1ea_st valuable were lectures by a particular
speaker (9.1%) and leadership exercises (4.5%). Four
participants indicated “none” of their experiences lacked in
value, with one participant indicating a need for additional
opportunities (4.5%).

0 Instructional Stafif: 20 different Sea Grant program staff
(drawn from 5 state Sea Grant programs); at least 36
additional (non-Sea Grant) instructors (representing 22
unique agencies, organizations or institutions)

0 Participation: 22 Michigan participants completing full
GLFLI process (of 28 targeted participants); representing 4
Great Lakes (8 Lake Huron, 8 Lake Michigan, 3 Lake
Superior, and 3 Lake Erie) with affiliation to 43 unique
fisheries stakeholder organizations or groups

188

02° Program Delivery: All GLFLI Ieaming outcome areas received coverage through

GLFLI curriculum. Nearly all Ieaming outcome areas received coverage during
Michigan training sessions, with only the contaminants and fish consumption
advisories outcome areas lacking coverage in training sessions (though both were
covered in curriculum). Program content as covered with Michigan participants
during training sessions included:
0 Both Lake and Statewide Meeting Coverage: networking,
institutional arrangements, decision making processes, and
fisheries issues
0 Only Lakewide Meeting(s) Coverage: Fish biology, Great
Lakes ecology, fish production, food webs, aquatic
nuisance species, fish habitats, and fish species
0 Only Statewide Meeting(s) Coverage: Leadership skills,
influencing political/legislative decisions, sharing
information, increasing public participation
Complete Program Content: Curriculum, program training session fomrats, and
networking among a diverse set of participants and instructional staff were all
aspects of the Michigan GLFLI program that were generally carried out as
originally intended by regional GLFLI planners (Sturtevant et al. 2002). Program
topics which received emphasis through multiple overlapping modes of delivery,
were areas in which participates reported gains in knowledge and rated as
providing high value. These results are consistent with learning theory that
describes Ieaming as a multi-step and circular process, understanding that

individuals have different styles ofleaming (Kolb 1984, Hungerford and Volk

1990).

189

Participation in the Michigan GLFLI Program

 

.0

.0 Michigan Participant Diversity: Michigan GLF LI participants

represented a diverse group of adult fishery stakeholders.

Gender: 86.4% Males : 13.6% Females
Age: Mean: 44.5 years (Median = 46.5 years)

Ethnicity: 90.9% White :
4.5% Hispanic :
9.1% Native American

Education: 9% High school degree or less :
22.7% Vocational/trade school or some
college :
68.2% College graduate (BS, MS, Ph.D, etc.)

Geographic community types:
36.3% Rural/farm :
22.7% Sub-urban/Small town ( $5,000) :
40.9% Urban/Metropolitan (>25,001)

Occupations: 18 different occupations represented,
including fisheries related prOfessions
(commercial fishing, natural resources
professionals, etc.)

Fisheries related organizational affiliations:
Participants were associated with 43
organizations, including: sportfishing,
commercial fishing, fish habitat,
watershed, natural resources professionals,
and outdoor writing (> 50% of participants
associated with more than one
organization)

02° Diverse Stakeholders Generate Diverse Programming Needs —Motivatiorzs for
GLFLI Participation: Success in attracting diverse stakeholders resulted in a

Michigan participant group with equally diverse motivations, Ieaming

190

expectations, and intended applications of their GLFLI learning experience.
Michigan participant motivations related primarily to (l) participant values
(toward carrying out education, advocacy, etc.) and (2) understanding (gaining
knowledge). Secondary program motivations related'to social factors

(networking).

°3° Quality versus Quantity — Recruiting Diverse Stakeholders as a Priority over
Participant Numbers: The total number of participants (n=22) completing the full
GLFLI experience was slightly lower than expected (n=28) for Michigan
programming. However, the Michigan GLFLI programming successfully
attracted a diverse set of participants, representing the targeted diversity of
stakeholder groups. Furthermore, stakeholder groups not represented as
participants were identified and incorporated as guest instructors. For Michigan
participants, learning and networking among a diversity of stakeholders was

identified as the most valued outcome of their GLFLI Ieaming experience.

Michigan Participant Reactions to Program
'3' Participants indicated the GLFLI to be a Beneficial Experience: The overall
GLFLI experience was generally valued as a beneficial experience by
participants. Coverage of intended Ieaming outcomes, and overlapping modes of
delivery (e. g., curriculum, training session agenda items, experiential
opportunities, etc.) related to the program outcomes indicated as most important
and valuable by participants. Specific participant reactions to the GLFLI

program, included:

191

. Learning Expectations:

r 72.7% agreed they had learned or gained what they
had originally hoped from their GLFLI experience.

‘i 81 .8% learned or gained something new or
unanticipated, beyond what they had originally
hoped.

' Programming Expectations:

)‘r 77.3% agreed curriculum or lessons met their
expectations;

‘r 54.5% agreed experiential opportunities met their
expectations;

”r 54.5% agreed they had enough opportunities to
practice knowledge/skills.

' Overall, 81.8% believed their GLFLI experience to be beneficial.

03° Program Outcomes identified by Participant Differed from Initial Motivations
and Program Expectations of Participants: Program values most recognized by
participants differed from motivations and original participant expectations. As
expected according to adult Ieaming theory, the GLFLI served a role in providing
a learning experience and providing resources sought by participants (Levine
2000), and additionally served as an opportunity to introduce participants to new
and different Ieaming experiences above and beyond their expectations.
Moreover, participants identified some of these “unanticipated” Ieaming
opportunities as most valuable or beneficial aspects of their GLFLI experience.
Key findings included the following: Program outcomes identified by

Participants, included:

192

O

0 Most Frequentlvlndicated Outcomes related to “social” motivations:

I Networking (among agencies, institutions, and
stakeholder groups)

I Learning about diverse stakeholders (e. g., sport,
charter, commercial, tribal fisheries)

o Other frequently Indicated Outcomes related to motivations related to
better “understanding”:

 

I Knowledge related to fisheries history and
biology/ecology, management and policies,

I Awareness/ understanding of Great Lakes issues,
and

I Access to additional resources.

3° Programming Opportzmities identified by Michigan Participants: Program

outcomes related to participant “values” motivations (i.e., gaining skills related to
carrying out education, advocacy, etc.) were not identified by participants as
program outcomes. However, these “values” motivations, particularly related to
education, were highly rated reasons why participants sought to learn through the
GLFLI. This also reflected participant intended actions, and the skills they
believed necessary to carry out these actions. The GLFLI developed a strong
foundation of participants who indicated they were adequately equipped with
knowledge, understanding, and networks during their GLFLI eXperience, but that
they lacked experiential opportunities to practice skills. Additional programming
should seek to provide continued, possibly advanced training for GLFLI alumni —
though continued contact, support and “mentorship” from Sea Grant staff could

also enhance the likelihood that GLFLI graduates attain these additional skill sets.

193

Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills, and Aspirations (KASA)

0:0 High Entry-level Knowledge, Skills, and Background Experiences of Participants:
Pre-institute evaluations indicated that Michigan participants entered into the
GLFLI Ieaming process with significant background knowledge and experiences
related to Great Lakes fisheries. This is consistent with Adult Learning theory
that suggests adult education should anticipate diverse and significant participant

background knowledge and experiences.

O

" Significant Increases in Participant Knowledge and Understanding: Participants’
indicated statistically significant gains for nearly all knowledge and skills related
Ieaming outcomes (25 of 26), except the fish consumption advisories related
outcome. Through open-ended response, participants indicated that increased
knowledge and understanding relating to Great Lakes fisheries was one of the
most important things gained through their GLFLI experience, second only to
their opportunities to network and gain understanding of diverse user groups.
Knowledge and understanding are important foundational steps toward fostering

stewardship behaviors among learners (Hungerford and Volk 1990).

0: Opportunities for F urther Development of “Empowerment " Variables: Prior to
their GLFLI experience, participants indicated that they placed an importance on
gaining action-related skill sets related to education, habitat work, or
public/political involvement. While indicating statistically significant increases

for these outcome areas, no participants identified through open-ended response

194

that these skill sets were gains from their GLFLI experience. These results may
indicate that (l) the GLFLI did not provide participants enough exposure to and
opportunities to practice these skill sets; or (2) participants received these skill
sets as a part of their training, but in the end believed other aspects of their GLFLI
Ieaming experiences (i.e. networking) were more important. Regardless, these
skills are important empowerment variables necessary in fostering stewardship or
fisheries leadership behaviors among learners (Hungerford and Volk 1990),
therefore opportunities exist to further develop or expand GLFLI programming to
include more elements of such skill development and empowerment variables

necessary for fostering participant stewardship actions.

Practices (Intended Stewardship Actions by Michigan GLFLI Participants)

0°.

0

The GLFLI Program May Influence, but Not Significantly Change, Participants '
Intended Service Projects/Leadership Actions. Participants held diverse intentions
about how they would apply their Ieaming experience, including: (a) varying
types of stewardship actions, and (b) conducting their leadership work at various
levels of “community.” The GLFLI may have influenced, but did not result in
significant changes in participants intended stewardship actions or participants’

sense of the community in which these actions would be carried out.

Types of Service Projects or Stewardship Actions Intended by Pt‘rrticipants:
Participants indicated a variety of environmental stewardship actions as their
intended service projects and stewardship actions to be carried out through their

leadership activities. Generally, participants’ service project descriptions

195

 

identified that they were most likely to carry out actions including: (a) educational
activities (59. 1%), (b) fisheries habitat work (50%), and/or (c) policy or

legislative work (36.4%) (Hungerford and Peyton 1980).

”Communities ” of Work Ranged Widely, but with Localized Emphasis: Michigan
participants indicated a likelihood of working on multiple levels of community
ranging from local geographic communities to state-, lake-, and/or Great Lakes
basin-wide activity. However, participants indicated local geographic areas and
specific fisheries organizations as the most likely community contexts of their
work. Regional programming that enhances these community-based conservation
efforts can generate significant conservation impacts, in this case through
fisheries leadership activities carried out by program participants within their

individual community contexts (Western and Wright 1994).

196

CONCLUSIONS AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
)9 C larifv intended learning objectives, indicating specific standards by which
to measure achievement of these objectives; use consistency in describing

program objectives across various planning and promotional documents.

P Investment of significant programming or contact time, diverse training
formats, and multiple modes of delivery may be necessary to fully achieve
multiple and diverse program objectives, particularly objectives related to
changing learner behavior (e. g., awareness, knowledge and understanding,
and empowerment skills). The current investment of 40 — 60 hours of
contact time is an appropriate and realistic initial investment to build a base
of awareness and knowledge among fisheries leaders. However, education
toward environmental action should be viewed as a life-long Ieaming
experience, and organizers could consider additional follow-up support for
participants, such as through advanced programs or additional experiential

training.

”r Overlap in coverage for program priorities identified as most important.
Multiple modes of delivery including curriculum, classroom Ieaming, and
experiential opportunities occurring during both lakewide and statewide
training sessions are conceptually included in the GLFLI model and relate to
prOgram values recognized by Michigan participants. The Michigan GLFLI
programming, as carried out, provided multiple, overlapping coverage in

many program topic areas, but was not able to cover in-depth all program

197

t0pie areas indicated for the GLFLI in the amount of time provided for
programming. Future GLFLI programming should consider increasing
programming contact time in providing more overlapping, multi-mode
delivery in content, or consider a better prioritization of learning objectives
to be covered in-depth versus Ieaming outcomes of lesser importance.
Participant needs should be considered if developing priorities for coverage

toward program objectives.

Investment in training and coordinating GLFLI instructors and resources
may help increase overlap of important Ieaming experiences related to key
learning outcomes. Delivery of the Michigan GLFLI required intensive
coordination of multiple training resources and instructors. Investing in
coordinating instructors and resources may also help to improve the

specificity and consistency of intended program Ieaming objectives.

Maintain and perhaps expand the roles of local Sea Grant staff and
stakeholder advisors. Delivery of the GLFLI program relied on local Sea
Grant staff and stakeholders as advisors. Participants reported that they
highly valued this local expertise for developing networks, information and
resources, and contacts most relevant to their communities and local fishery

FESOUI'C68.

Maintaining aspects of programming that promote (l) networking of diverse

stakeholders and (2) understanding of basic ecology and Great Lakes

198

fisheries issues. These were Ieaming outcomes identified frequently by both

regional GLFLI program organizers, as well as by Michigan participants.

‘5' Allow for flexible programming designs that take advantage of Ieaming
opportunities related to the knowledge bases and learning needs of a diverse
stakeholder audience. Such flexibility was reflected in Michigan aspects of
GLFLI programming, where the GLFLI experiences differed for participants
based on lake groups they represented. This variation in programming
mainly reflected only inputs from program planners and guest instructors.
Opportunities exist to enhance GLFLI programming through flexibility that
is more reflective of participant inputs (e.g., applications, pre-institute

surveys, introductory discussions).

ii Add focus on specific “action " or “empowerment"skills. Opportunities
exist for additional programming to increase opportunities for learners to
gain and practice specific skills necessary to carry out specific leadership
actions. This possibly could be done through advanced trainings, additional

contact, supplemental resources, and/or continuing support.

> Incorporate participant service projects into the Ieaming process. Diversify
types of knowledge and skill sets provided in trainings to accommodate
specific values and needs of GLFLI participants, given their diverse

intended stewardship service projects.

199

S» Place an emphasis on community-based program/rung, by incorporating
multiple levels of “community” action. Although some programming
should continue to address Great Lakes basin-wide institutional
arrangements and decision-making processes, other aspects of programming
should focus on leadership skills that can be utilized at local geographic

community levels or within specific fisheries interest organizations.

”r Strengthen learner-relevant learning experiences: The influence of the
GLFLI is likely to be greatest where learning is most relevant to the
participants. Opportunities for increasing program impacts exist where the
GLFLI can serve to guide participants’ intended actions by providing
knowledge, skills, resources and contacts as tools. The GLFLI program
requires a participant application process. This process, as well as pre-
institute surveys and introductory discussions among participants, can be
better utilized to gain input regarding programming that is relevant to

GLFLI learners.

200

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS

Non-random sample (purposive sample of Michigan participants), thus cannot
generalize evaluation results beyond Michigan GLFLI learners.

Small sample size (n=22), limiting statistical analysis tools.

Variability in content and order of GLFLI training exposure for Michigan
participants.

Evaluation considers short-term program impacts only, and other than anticipated
“impacts” does not consider actual long-term program impacts.

Internal program evaluation may present certain research biases.

FURTHER EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS

Replicate this evaluation with other states’ participants and future year classes of
GLFLI.

Generate standardized tests as evaluation instruments to gauge actual knowledge
and skills of participants, rather than self-ratings of knowledge.

Conduct evaluation of program values and impacts based on perspectives of
indirect program stakeholders (e. g., state, federal, or bi-national

agencies/ institutions).

Conduct long-term evaluation of program impacts, including longitudinal studies

of participants’ values and use of their GLFLI experience in their fisheries

leadership activities.

201

LITERATURE CITED — CHAPTER IV

Ary, D., L. C. Jacobs, and A. Razavieh. 2002. Introduction to research in education
(sixth edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Bennett, C. F. 1978. Analyzing impacts of Extension programs. U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Extension Service, Washington, D. C. Report No. ECS-575.

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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

F edler, A. J. 2001. Defining best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship
education. In Defining best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship
education, eds. A. J. F edler and B. E. Matthews, pp. 1-17. Arlington, VA:
Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation.

Flora, C. B. 1992. Rural communities: Legacy and change. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.

Hillery, G. A. 1955. Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology
55(June): 111-123.

Hungerford, H. R. and R. B. Peyton. 1980. A paradigm for citizen responsibility:
environmental action. In Current issues IV: The yearbook of environmental
education and environmental studies, eds. A. B. Sacks, L. L. Burrus-Bammel, C.
B. Davis, and L. A. Iozzi, pp. 146-154. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

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

Kleymeyer, C. D. 1994. Cultural traditions and community-based conservation. In
Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based conservation, eds. D.
Western and R. M. Wright, pp. 403-427. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential Ieaming: Experience as the source of Ieaming and
development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Levine, J. S. 2000. The challenge of helping adults learn: Characteristics of adult
learners & implications for teaching technical information. In Proceedings,
International Master Gardener Coordinators’ Conference, September 13, 2000,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

202

Matthews, B. 1997. Building connections: Remarks at the tenth annual conference of the
Michigan association for environmental and outdoor eduction. Taproot Journal,
11(1): 6-8.

[MEECAC] Michigan Environmental Education Citizens Advisory Committee. 1992.
Report of the environmental education citizens’ advisory committee to the
Michigan state board of education and the Michigan natural resources
commission. State of Michigan, Lansing, MI.

Miller, B. K., B. T. Wilkins and M. Spranger. 2001. Planning the Extension program:
How do we decide what to do? in Fundamentals of a Sea Grant Extension
Program, pp. 19-26. Ithaca, NY: Media and Technology Services, Cornell
University.

Monroe, M. 1999. What works: A guide to environmental education and
communication programs for practitioners and donors. Gabriela Island, BC:
New Society Publishers.

[NAAEE] North American Association of Environmental Educators. 1996.
Environmental education materials: Guidelines for excellence. Troy, OH: North
American Association of Environmental Educators.

Punch, K. F. 1998. Introduction to social research: quantitative & qualitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Robinson, R. D. 1994. An introduction to helping adults learn and change (revised
edition). West Bend, WI: Omnibook Co.

Schrock, D. S., M. Meyer, P. Ascher, and M. Snyder. 2000a. Reasons for becoming
involved as a master gardener. HortTechnology, 10(3): 626-630.

Shadish, Jr., R. W., T. D. Cook, and L. C. Leviton. 1995. Foundations of program
evaluation: Theories of practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Spranger, M. and B. T. Wilkins. 2001. Evaluation: Why bother? In Fundamentals of a
Sea Grant Extension Program, pp. 27-31. Ithaca, NY: Media and Technology
Services, Cornell University.

SPSS, Inc. 2000. SPSS for Windows, Release 10.0.7, standard version. Chicago, IL:
SPSS, Inc.

203

Sturtevant, R., J. Gunderson, P. Moy, B. Miller, J. Schwartz, J. Read, F. Lichtkoppler, F.
Snyder, E. Obert, D. White, D. Baker, M. Malchoff, and J. Homziak. 2002a.
Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (proposal). Great Lakes Sea Grant

Network, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, US. Department of Commerce, <http://www.
glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/GLFLI/Notebook/Planning/Proposals/InstituteProposal.

pdf>. Accessed 2004 April.

US. Census. 2000. Table DP-l. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics for
Michigan: 2000. US. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce,
<http://www.census.gov/censusZOOO/states/mi.html>. Accessed 2004 Feb 8.

Vaske, J. J. and K. C. Kobrin. 2001. Place attachment and environmentally responsible
behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4): 16-21.

Western, D. and R. M. Wright. 1994. The background to community-based
conservation. In Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based
conservation, eds. D. Western and R. M. Wright, pp. 1-12. Washington, DC:

Island Press.

204

COMPLETE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Athman, J. A. and M. C. Monroe. 2001. Elements of effective environmental education
programs. In Defining best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship
education, eds. A. J. Fedler and B. E. Matthews, pp. 37-48. Arlington, VA:
Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation.

Ary, D., L. C. Jacobs, and A. Razavieh. 2002. Introduction to research in education
(sixth edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Babbie, E. 1990. Survey research methods (second edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Co.

Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial application (third edition). New York, NY: Free Press.

Bennett, C. F. 1978. Analyzing impacts of Extension programs. U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Extension Service, Washington, D. C. Report No. ECS-575.

Bethel, M. 2002. Vision for the Future (paper). Presented at Michigan State University

Fall Extension Conference, Michigan State University, East Lansing, M I:
October 16, 2002.

Bethel, M. 2004. Extension on the leading edge: A case for optimism and adaptability
(pers. comm.) Presented at Michigan State University Fall Extension
Conference, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI: October 12, 2004.

Bobbitt, V. 1997. The Washington State University Master Gardener Prograam:

Cultivating Plants, People, and Communities for 25 Years. HortTechnology,
7(4): 345-347.

Bobbitt, V. 1997. The Washington State University Master Gardener program:
Cultivating plants, people, and communities for 25 years. HortTechnology, 7(4):
345-347.

Chrislip, D. D. and C. E. Larson. 1994. Collaborative leadership: How citizens and
civic leaders can make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Clary, E. G., M. Snyder, R. D. ridge, J. C0peland, A. A. Studkas, J. Haugen, and P.
Miene. 1998. Understanding and assessing the motivation of volunteers: A
functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6): 1516-
1530.

Cornwall, A. and J. Gaventa. 2000. From users to choosers to makers and shapers:
Reposrtronrng participation in social policy. IDS Bulletin, 31(4): 50-62.

205

Crawford, C. B., C. L. Brungardt, and M. Maughan. 2000. Understanding leadership:
Theories and concepts. Longmont, CO: Rocky Mountain Press.

Dann, S. L. 1993. Youth Recruitment into Fishing: the influence of familial, social, and
environmental factors and implications for education intervention strategies to
develop aquatic stewardship. Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI.

Dann, S. L. 2004. Analysis of Michigan angler license sales (SHOR Initiative):
demographics and trends (unpublished). Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Dann, S. L. and B. C. Schroeder. 2003. The life of the lakes: a guide to the Great Lakes
fishery. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Extension Bulletin E-2440
(Michigan Sea Grant MICHU #03-400)

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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

Drath, W. H. and C. J. Palus. 1994. Making common sense: Leadership as a meaning-
making in a community of practice. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
Leadership.

Fear, F. A., C. L. Rosaen, P. Foster-Fishman and R. J. Bawden. 2001. Outreach as
scholarly expression: A faculty perspective. Journal 'of Higher Education and
Engagement, 6(2): 21-34.

Fear, F. A., M. Adamek, and G. lmig. 2002. Connecting philosophic and scholarly
traditions with changes in higher education. The Journal of Leadership Studies,
8(3): 42-51.

F edler, A. J. 2001. Defining best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship
education. In Defining best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship
education, eds. A. J. Fedler and B. E. Matthews, pp. 1—17. Arlington, VA:
Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation.

Flora, C. B. 1992. Rural communities: Legacy and change. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.

Geer, J. G. 1991. Do open-ended questions measure “salient” issues? Public Opinion
Quarterly, 55(3): 360-370.

206

Greenleaf, R. K. 1977. Servant leadership. New York, NY: Paulist Books.

Hillery, G. A. 1955. Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology
55(June): 111-123.

Hungerford, H. R. and R. B. Peyton. 1980. A paradigm for citizen responsibility:
environmental action. In Current issues IV: The yearbook of environmental
education and environmental studies, eds. A. B. Sacks, L. L. Burrus-Bammel, C.
B. Davis, and L. A. Iozzi, pp. 146-154. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

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

Jacobson, S. K. 1999. Communication skills for conservation professionals. Washington
D.C./Covelo, CA: Island Press.

Kleymeyer, C. D. 1994. Cultural traditions and community-based conservation. In
Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based conservation, eds. D.
Western and R. M. Wright, pp. 403-427. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential Ieaming: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kollmuss, A. and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally
and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental
Education Research, 8(3): 239-260.

Levine, J. S. 2000. The challenge of helping adults learn: Characteristics of adult
learners & implications for teaching technical information. In Proceedings,
International Master Gardener Coordinators’ Conference, September 13, 2000,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Master Gardener. 2003. Master Gardener, Michigan State University Extension
homepage. <http://www.msue.msu.edu/mastergardener/
michigan_master_gardener_program.htm> Accessed 2003 April.

Matthews, B. 1997. Building connections: Remarks at the tenth annual conference of the
Michigan association for environmental and outdoor eduction. Taproot Journal,
1 1(1): 6-8.

Mertig, A. 2003. Personal communication. Survey Research Principles Course,
Department of Sociology, Michigan State Unversity, East Lansing, MI.

207

[MEECAC] Michigan Environmental Education Citizens Advisory Committee. 1992.
Report of the environmental education citizens’ advisory committee to the
Michigan state board of education and the Michigan natural resources
commission. State of Michigan, Lansing, MI.

[MSUE] Michigan State University Extension. 2004. MSUE homepage.
<http://www.msue.msu.edu/home/>. Accessed 2004 April 17.

Miller, B. K., B. T. Wilkins and M. Spranger. 2001. Planning the Extension program:
How do we decide what to do? i_n F undarnentals of a Sea Grant Extension
Program, pp. 19-26. Ithaca, NY: Media and Technology Services, Cornell
University.

Monroe, M. 1999. What works: A guide to environmental education and
commmrication programs for practitioners and donors. Gabriela Island, BC:
New Society Publishers.

[NAAEE] North American Association of Environmental Educators. 1996.
Environmental education materials: Guidelines for excellence. Troy, OH: North
American Association of Environmental Educators.

Northouse, P. G. 2001. Leadership: Theory and practice (second edition). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Punch, K. F. 1998. Introduction to social research: quantitative & qualitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Robinson, R. D. 1994. An introduction to helping adults learn and change (revised
edition). West Bend, WI: Omnibook Co.

Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations (fourth edition). New York, NY: Simon
and Shuster, Inc.

Sandmann, L. R. 1993. Why programs aren t implemented as planned. Journal of
Extension, 31(4).

Samuel, H. R. 1993. Impediments to implementing environmental education. Journal of
Environmental Education, 25(1): 26-29.

Schrock, D. S., M. Meyer, P. Ascher, and M. Snyder. 2000a. Reasons for becoming
involved as a master gardener. HortTechnology, 10(3): 626-630.

Schrock, D. S., M. Meyer, P. Ascher, and M. Snyder. 2000b. Benefits and values of the

master gardener program. Journal of Extension, 38(1).
<www.joe.org/joe/2000february/rb2.html>. Accessed 2003 April 24.

208

Scholl, J. 1989. Influences on program planning. Journal of Extension, 27(4): _.

Shadish, Jr., R. W., T. D. Cook, and L. C. Leviton. 1995. Foundations of program
evaluation: Theories of practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sheatsley, P. B. 1993. Questionnaire construction and item writing. In Handbook of
Survey Research, eds. P. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright, and A. B. Anderson. New York,
NY: Academic Press.

Siemer, W. F. 2001. Best practices for curriculum, teaching, and evaluation components
of aquatic stewardship education. In Defining best practices in boating, fishing,
and stewardship education, eds. A. J. Fedler and B. E. Matthews, pp. 18-36.
Arlington, VA: Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation.

Simonson, D. L. and D. A. Pals. 1990. Master gardeners: Views from the cabbage
patch. Journal of Extension, 28(2). <www.joe.org/joe/199OSummer/rb3.html>.

Accessed 2003 April 24.

Spears, L. C. 1995. Reflections on leadership: How Robert'K. Greenleaf’ s theory of
servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. New York, NY:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Spranger, M. and B. T. Wilkins. 2001. Evaluation: Why bother? In Fundamentals of a
Sea Grant Extension Program, pp. 27-31. Ithaca, NY: Media and Technology
Services, Cornell University.

SPSS, Inc. 2000. SPSS for Windows, Release 10.0.7, standard version. Chicago, IL:
SPSS, Inc.

Sturtevant, R. 2003. Recruitment cover letter template (nomination package). Great
Lakes Sea Grant Network, National Sea Grant College Program, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US. Department of Commerce,
<http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/GLFLI/Notebook/Recruitment/Nomination.

pdf>. Accessed 2004 April.

Sturtevant, R., J. Gunderson, P. Moy, B. Miller, J. Schwartz, J. Read, F. Lichtkoppler, F.
Snyder, E. Obert, D. White, D. Baker, M. Malchoff, and J. Homziak. 20023.
Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (proposal). Great Lakes Sea Grant
Network, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, US. Department of Commerce, <http://www.
glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/GLFLI/Notebook/Planning/Proposals/InstituteProposal.
pdf>. Accessed 2004 April.

209

Sturtevant, R., J. Gunderson, P. Moy, B. Miller, J. Schwartz, J. Read, F. Lichtkoppler, F.
Snyder, E. Obert, D. White, D. Baker, M. Malchoff, and J. Homziak. 2002b.
Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership curriculum development (proposal). Great
Lakes Sea Grant Network, National Sea Grant College Program, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US. Department of Commerce,
<http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/GLFLI/Notebook/Planning/Proposals/
FinalRegionalProposal.pdf>. Accessed 2004 April.

[TICEE] Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference of Environmental Education. 1977. The
Tbilisi Declaration (abridged): Intergovernmental conference on environmental
education, In eds. H. R. Hungerford, W. J. Bluhm, T. L. Volk, and J. M. Ramsey,
1998, Essential readings in environmental education, pp.13-16. Champaign, IL:
Stipes Publishing.

US. Census. 2000. Table DP-l. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics for
Michigan: 2000. US. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce,
<http://www.census.gov/censusZOOO/states/mi.html>. Accessed 2004 Feb 8.

Vaske, J. J. and K. C. Kobrin. 2001. Place attachment and environmentally responsible
behavior. Journal of Enviromnental Education, 32(4): 16-21.

Waterburton, D. 1998. A passionate dialog: Community and sustainable development.
In Community and sustainable development: Participation in the future, ed. D.
Waterburton, pp. 14-19. London, England: Earthscan Press.

Western, D. and R. M. Wright. 1994. The background to community-based
conservation. In Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based
conservation, eds. D. Western and R. M. Wright, pp. 1-12. Washington, DC:
Island Press. -

Wiesing, J. J. 2004. Personal communication. Grand Traverse County MSU Extension
Director, Michigan State University Extension, Traverse City, MI.

Williamson, A. 1996. The Great Lakes education program: an in—depth evaluation of
program impacts on fourth grade students. M. S. thesis, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

Zint, M. 2001. Guidelines for aquatic, fisheries & environmental education. In Defining
best practices in boating, fishing, and stewardship education, eds. A. J. Fedler and
B. E. Matthews, pp. 61-68. Arlington, VA: Recreational Boating and Fishing
Foundation.

210

APPENDICES

211

APPENDIX A: UCRIHS APPROVAL LETTERS

212

APPENDIX A-l: UCRIHS APPROVAL LETTER

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

July 15, 2003

TO: Shari DANN
13 Natural Resources Bldg.
MSU

RE: IRB# 03-538 CATEGORY: EXPEDITED 2-7

APPROVAL DATE: July 15, 2003
EXPIRATION DATEzJune 15. 2004

TITLE: THE GREAT LAKES FISHERIES LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE: EVALUATING A
FISHERIES EXTENSION EDUCATION PROGRAM'S ABILITY TO SERVE
CONSTITUENT AND COMMUNITY NEEDS WHILE DEVELOPING FUTURE
FISHERIES LEADERS

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 until the expiration date listed above. Projects
continuing beyond this date must be renewed with the renewal form. A maximum of four such
expedited renewals are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time
need to submit a 5-year application 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 include a revision form
with the renewal. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your
written request with an attached revision cover sheet to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in your request a description of
the change and any revised instruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

 

OFFICEOF PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work,
RESEARCH notify UCRIHS promptly. 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving
Enflcs AND human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
STANDARDS greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
a oved.
maintain-nu ppr
”%m'mm 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:
M'ch'ga" Sigiizudiiifsngi http://www.msu.edu/user/ucrihs
Em mix; Sincerely.
517/355-2180 ,
FAX; 517/432-1503
Web' mmsuedu/ussr/ucrihs '
, , sh Kumar MD.
E-M l: h @m . d ' .
3' ”°" ’ ”e” UCRIHS Chair
AK: jm
w,,,,,,,,,mm_aa,m cc: Brandon Schroeder
uni—opportunity institution. 13 Natural Resources

213

APPENDIX A-2: UCRIHS REVISIONS APPROVAL LETTER

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
ETHICS AND
STANDARDS

University Committee on
Research Involving
Human Subjects

Michigan State University
202 Olds Hall

East Lansmq, MI

48824

517/355-2180
FAX. 517/432-4503

Web: wvrw msu edu/user/ucnhs
E—Mail. ucnhs®msu edu

MSU is an alumna-scrum,
ewe/- 0000mm!) IIISIIIUIKXI

MICHIGAN STATE

 

U N I V E R S I T Y
September 26, 2003
TO; Shari DANN
13 Natural Resources Bldg.
MSU
RE: lRBif 03-538 CATEGORY: 2-7 EXPEDITED
APPROVAL DATE: July 15, 2003
EXPIRATION DATE:
TITLE: THE GREAT LAKES FISHERIES LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE: EVALUATING A FISHERIES

EXTENSION EDUCATION PROGRAM'S ABILITY TO SERVE CONSTITUENT AND
COMMUNITY NEEDS WHILE DEVELOPING FUTURE FISHERIES LEADERS

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.

REVISION REQUESTED: September 15, 2003
REVISION APPROVAL DATE: September 24, 2003

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 IRB# and title. Include in
your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or
advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: 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.

Sincerely,

WW2?—

Peter Vasilenko III, PhD.
UCRIHS Chair

PV: jm

Brandon Schroeder

CC: 13 Natural Resources

214

APPENDIX B: REVIEW OF RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROTOCOL

215

APPENDIX B-l: GLFLI SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
PRE- AND POST-PARTICIPATION SURVEYS FOR MICHIGAN GLFLI

 

PARTICIPANTS
Time Frame / Meeting Total MI Participants
Late September 2003 -
Lake Huron #1 - Alpena, MI - September 26-27, 2003 Total = 6
(6 Lake Huron MI participants get PRE-Survey)
October 2003 -
Lake Michigan #1 - Manitowoc, WI October 3-5, 2003 Total = 8

(8 Lake Michigan MI participants get PRE-Survey)

Lake Erie #1 - Erie, PA - October 3-4, 2003 Total = 3
(3 Lake Erie MI participants get PRE-Survey)

Michigan State Mtng, Lansing, MI - October 21-22, 2003 Total = 17
”NOTE: This meeting includes ALL MI Participants
( 1 Lake Superior participants gets PRE-Test;
1 Lake Huron participant gets PRE-Test
6 Lake Michigan participants will need POST-Test
3 Lake Erie participants will need POST-Test
+ additional 6 Lake Huron participants that get NO survey)

November 2003-

Lake Huron #2 - Port Huron, MI - November 7-8, 2003 Total = 9
(7 Lake Huron MI participants will need POST-Test)

January 2004-

Lake Superior #1 - Ashland, WI - January 11-12, 2004 Total = 3

(7 Lake Superior MI participants will need POST-Test)
TOTAL UNIQUE PARTICIPANTS = 22
Participants completing FULL Program = 15

Participants completing 1/2 to 2/3 of Program = 6
Participants attending less than 1/2 of Program = 1

216

APPENDIX B-2: SUGGESTED PROTOCOL FOR IMPLEMENTING PRE- AND

POST-PARTICIPATION SURVEYS

The Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute: Evaluating a fisheries Extension education program’s ability to

Introduction:

Pu rpose:

Process:

Conclusion:

serve constituent and community needs while developing future fisheries leaders.

Script for Pre-l Post-participation Survey Implementation

Good morning (or afternoon), I would like to thank you for taking time to complete the following survey
intended to evaluate the effectiveness ofthe Great Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute program. I realize that
your time is valuable and therefore, I expect the survey to last no longer than 30 minutes. While 1 am also
providing a written introduction ofthis project to you. please also let me introduce myselfand briefly explain
the purpose of this survey.

[Sea Grant staff implementing survey introduces themselvcsl

...We are here as a neutral party to gather your input on evaluating your experience with the Great Lakes
Fishery leadership Institute.

The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the Great Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute. as it relates to your
involvement in fisheries. both personally and in within your community.

This survey is intended to gather your opinions and input regarding your experience with the GLFLI. As
a GLFLI Participant. your participation is key in analyzing the impacts ofthe first GLFLI. and enhancing the
development and programming of the GLFLI in the future to better meet the needs of yourself as a participant.
as well as the communities you represent.

Before we begin our discussion, there are a few things to explain. First. after collecting your survey responses,
we will be writing a report summarizing what you and others tell us about your GLFLI experience. The report
will aid in improving strategies for more effective planning and program development toward future GLFLI
efforts.

First. we lrrrpe you will feel comfortable enough to share your experiences. knowledge, thoughts. opinions.
questions and concerns as you fill out your survey. It’s important that you are heard because of your vested
interest in Great Lakes fisheries, and even more important because of your experience as a participant in the
GLFLI.

Your input will remain absolutely confidential. In the report, we will not use your name. or associate your
name with your organizations’ name or your geographic location. You may notice that we ask you to write
your name on the survey forms. This is strictly for matching your pro-survey with your post-survey. and after
these surveys are matched. your name will be removed from all documents. So we will be keeping track
surveys as they are returned. however names will be removed and replaced with number codes during the data
entry process. The Great Lakes Sea Grant and researchers from the Michigan State University Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife will be the only ones analyzing and writing any reports. therefore. your information will
only be seen by us.

Once again, the goal is that we complete this survey in 30 minutes or less.

It is important that you answer as accurately as you can. Take your time. Ask me to clarify if you have any
questions about what is needed.

Please let me remind you that your participation in this evaluation survey is completely voluntary. At
any point in time and for any reason you may choose to not answer any particular question.
Furthermore. you may withdraw at any point in time from Interview and this study for any reason.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

SURVEY QUESTIONS

We are now done with completing the survey. Do you have any other comments or questions for me at this
time? I would like to thank you for your time today. I have provided you contact information in case you have

questions. concems. or other input and wish to contact someone in regards to this evaluation process. Thank
you again for your time.

217

APPENDIX B—3: SAMPLE LETTER REGARDING CONSENT AND
PARTICIPATION IN PRE- AND POST—PARTICIPATION SURVEYS

‘5‘

"i".

DEPARTMENT or
FISHERIES AND
WILDLIFE

Michigan State University

13 Natural Resources BUIIdlIlQ
East Lansrng, MI

48824-1222

517355-4477

FAX: 517/432-1699

WU IS an affirmative-Jam.
mI—oapommw IflSlIIUim

 

MICHIGAN STATE
u N r v E R s I T Y

 

October 3, 2003

The Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute: Evaluating a fisheries Extension
education program’s ability to serve constituent and community needs while
developing future fisheries leaders.

To: Great Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute Participant (Michigan Lake Michigan Participants)

From: Brandon Schroeder, Graduate Assistant, MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Dr. Shari L. Dann, Associate Professor, MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Dr. Rochelle Sturtevant, Regional GLFLI Program Coordinator, Sea Grant Extension

Regarding: Informed Consent for participation in the Great Lakes Fishery Leadership
Institute (GLFLI) Evaluation

Greetings! The Great Lakes Sea Grant Programs received funding to conduct a Great Lakes
Fisheries Leadership Institute (GLF LI) and you are among a chosen few to participate in the
Institute. The project is operating on a regional, lake and state level to provide emerging citizen
fishery leaders with the knowledge and skills to effectively interact with Great Lakes fishery
management organizations for the benefit of the fishery and its stakeholders. Your participation
in this evaluation exercise may help us: 1) measure the impact of the institute, and 2) improve
the quality of the institute during and after this first year of Operation. Because of your
participation in the Great Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute, we are writing to ask your
cooperation in completing an evaluation of the GLFLI program as it relates to you and your
community. Your participation in this project, and completing a survey before your initial
GLFLI experience and after each of your GLFLI workshop experiences, will help in developing
recommendations to improve the GLFLI for the future.

Your participation in this evaluation is voluntary, and you will be working with your project
investigator(s) and/or your state’s Sea Grant program staff in completing a pre-survey prior to
beginning your GLFLI experience and completing a post-survey upon completion of each
GLFLI training session. The evaluation itself will utilize your completed GLFLI candidate
application form and your responses collected through pre- and post-surveys. Your
participation in this research project will not involve any additional costs to you as a GLFLI
participant. Each survey should take only 30 minutes or less, and we are requesting that you
complete one PRE-GLFLI WorkshOp survey and one additional POST-GLFLI Workshop
survey upon completing your GLFLI experience. Your opinions and information that you
provide are important to us and will contribute toward enhancing and improving future GLFLI
efforts. YOU INDICATE YOUR VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS
EVALUATION PROJECT BY COMPLETING AND RETURNING THIS PRE- AND POST-
WORKSHOP SURVEY; HOWEVER, YOU MAY CHOOSE TO NOTIFY US AT ANY TIME
AND FOR ANY REASON AND WITHOUT PENALTY IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO
PARTICIPATE OR CHOOSE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THIS SURVEY OR THIS
EVALUATION STUDY.

218

The confidentiality of your information is probably a concern for you. You may notice that we
ask you to write your name on the survey forms. This is strictly for matching your prosurvey
with your post-survey, and after these surveys are matched, your name will be physically
removed from all documents. We and other Sea Grant staff responsible for the GLFLI program
will be the only ones who see survey results, analyze and write any reports, and after any reports
have been written, all documents related to this research with your name or address will be
destroyed. For the purposes of this evaluation, your responses will remain unassociated
with your name and confidential as we prepare summaries or write-ups of all responses.
Lastly, your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Again, this survey deals with evaluating your experience with the Great Lakes Fishery
Leadership Institute, and we expect that there are no foreseeable risks to you related to your
participation. We are simply interested in Ieaming more about your knowledge, opinions, and
attitudes in relation to your experience as a GLFLI participant. Please remember that your
participation in this evaluation is completely voluntary, but please know that your opinions and
the information that you provide are important to us and will contribute toward enhancing and
improving future GLFLI efforts.

We look forward to this opportunity to gain insights from the information and opinions that you
provide. Your honest and frank feedback will be beneficial to efforts to assist in developing
strategies for more effective GLFLI planning and programming.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. If you have any particular questions about this
evaluation of the GLFLI please contact:
Brandon Schroeder, Graduate Student
MSU Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife
13 Natural Resources Bldg
East Lansing, MI 48824
Email: Mewéflmsmedu
Phone: (517)432-5037

Dr. Shari Dann, Associate Professor
MSU Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife
13 Natural Resources Bldg
East Lansing, MI 48824

Email: sldann@msu.edu
Phone: (517) 353-0675

Dr. Rochelle Sturtevant, Regional GLFLI Coordinator
Great Lakes Sea Grant Extension Network
Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab
2205 Commonwealth Blvd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Email: R0chelle.Sturtevant@noaa.gov
Phone: (734) 741-2287

If you have questions regarding your role and rights in this evaluation, you may contact:
Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Chair
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824
Phone: (517) 355-2180 - Fax: (517)432-4503

Email: ucrihstaJmsuedu

Cc: Mark Malchoff, Program Leader, Lake Champlain Sea Grant Program
2

219

APPENDIX B-4: INFORMED CONSENT LETTER REGARDING USE OF WRITING
ACTIVITIES, PHOTOGRAPHS, ETC.

Participant Learning during the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute
INFORMED CONSENT

October 21, 2003

Dear Michigan Great Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute Participant.

In an effort to evaluate and improve future fishery leadership programs, we would like to document and
analyze Michigan participant experiences throughout the Great Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute
(GLFLI). We would like to invite your assistance in this evaluation by volunteering to participate in this
study. By doing so, we hope that you will allow us to use materials you generate throughout the Institute
program.

We will be compiling and analyzing this information as part of a larger evaluative study project, and when
complete we would share our results with Great Lakes Sea Grant GLFLI organizers. We may also present
this information in scientific papers and conferences in order to share what we learn in the evaluation
process. Your participation in this portion of the program evaluation does not require any additional effort
or time on your part beyond what is already required for normal participation in this Institute.

As a subject, you may choose to simply agree that the evaluators may collect and use samples of your work
or writings that you complete throughout your normal participation within this Institute training. Your
participation in releasing this information to us will aid in evaluating the GLFLI and may help us: 1)
measure the impact of the institute, and 2) improve the quality of the institute during and after this first year
of operation. Your participation in this project will help in developing recommendations to improve the
GLFLI for the future.

For the purposes of this evaluation, your responses will remain confidential and unassociated with your
name as we prepare any summaries or write-ups of all responses. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law. To protect your privacy, we are taking several steps:

I) No individuals will be directly identified in any final research products, nor will any individuals
be directly related to any quotes or paraphrase statements. In other words, if you are the only
participant from Saginaw, we will make no statements such as, “a participant from Saginaw
stated. . .” as readers might be able to deduce which participant made that statement because there
was only one participant from Saginaw.

2) We will be physically removing any names from documents we receive, replacing your names
with codes that will allow us to match your documents with other data you provide for this
evaluation.

3) We and other Sea Grant staff responsible for the GLFLI program will be the only ones who see
survey results, analyze and write any reports, and after any reports have been written, all
documents related to this research with your name or address will be destroyed.

4) Finally, you have the right to review the final manuscript(s) that we prepare for publication and to
request any changes that you feel may compromise your confidentiality.

220

We perceive that the risks associated with participating in this project are low. We are simply interested in
learning more about your experience as a GLFLI participant. We feel that the evaluation may serve some
benefit to current GLFLI participants, however, we expect that this evaluation will provide benefits
primarily related to: 1) accountability toward program impacts and value, and 2) enhancing future Institute
planning and programming. Again, your participation in this research is strictly voluntary, does not require
any additional time or effort on your end, and will not negatively or positively impact your participation in
the GLFLI.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the plans for data use, your role as a subject, or any other
matter related to this project, please contact Brandon Schroeder at schroe45@msu.edu or 517-432-5037, or
also Dr. Shari Dann at sldann((ilmsu.edu 517-353-0675. If you have questions regarding your role and
rights as a subject of research, you may contact Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Chair or the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects at (517) 355-2180.

 

Please remember that your participation in this evaluation is completely voluntary, but please know that the
information that you provide are important to us and will contribute toward enhancing and improving
future GLFLI efforts. However, you are under no pressure to comply and you may choose to withdraw at
any time and for any reason and without penalty if you do not wish to participate (or choose to be
excluded) from this evaluation project.

If you agree to the terms of participation outlined above please sign below and initial the appropriate items.
Your initials indicate your willingness to provide the following to this project:

Institute writing assignments (i.e. leadership writings) I

Photographs of Institute activities

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate.

 

Print Name

 

 

Signature Date

221

APPENDIX C: GLF LI PLANNING DOCUMENTS

222

 

APPENDIX C-l: GLFLI VISION DOCUMENT

Great Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute Vision

“We envision a Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute operating on a regional, lake and state level
capable of providing emerging citizen fishery leaders with the knowledge and skills to effectively interact
with Great Lakes fishery management organizations for the benefit of the fishery and its stakeholders. We
envision this Institute as an on-going certificate program whose graduates will be widely respected and
sought after as advisors on Great Lakes fishery related issues.”

Curriculum Development Goal

“The goal of the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network Fisheries Extension Enhancement Program is to develop a
consistent curriculum for training fisheries stakeholders throughout the Great Lakes basin.”

Audience — Great Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute Participants

“The concept behind the Great Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute is to provide in-depth training to the
‘next generation‘ of leaders — those who are new leaders to their fisheries related organizations, those likely
to become leaders of their organizations within the next few years, and those likely to be serving as
advisors to Great Lakes fishery related institutions (e.g. Lake Committees)”

“Participants will be nominated and selected by a steering committee which will be composed of partner
agencies (e.g., Great Lakes Fishery Commission, US. Fish and Wildlife Service) and current Great Lakes
fishery leadership (including private sector representation from the sport fishing community). Participants
will be selected to represent a variety of organization ‘types’ — environmental NGOs, commercial
fishermen, charter captains, tribes, sportfishing associations, visitor bureaus, science writers, legislators,
legislative aides, etc. This mix of participants will help participants in the Institute to deepen their
understanding of the multiple perspectives and stakeholders involved in any Great Lakes fishery
management decision.”

Objectives of the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute

The goal of the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute is to provide the next generation of fisheries
leaders for the Great Lakes region with the skills which they will need to effectively interact with fisheries
management agencies and provide leadership to the region as well as to their organizations.

Objectives include:

1. Develop stakeholders from each Great Lakes state as Great Lakes Fishery Leaders - a cohort of
leaders with the knowledge and skills necessary to provide effective leadership on fisheries
management issues,

2. Create a network of Great Lakes leaders from the broadest possible variety of backgrounds and
organizations who are able to call upon each other to effectively address and/or advocate regional
needs

3. Empower these fishery leaders to influence policy decisions and legislative initiatives

P

Maximize the effective life of citizen volunteers by condensing the Ieaming curve,

5. Minimize frustration of both Great Lakes fisheries management agencies and those citizen leaders
and who do not understand the complexities of Great Lakes fishery-related institutional
arrangements, history and science.

6. Expose leadership from one end of the Great Lakes region to the issues and concerns of the other
parts of the region.
7. Multiply the ability of Great Lakes Sea Grant Extension to reach constituent audiences using a

‘teach-the-teacher’ model.

223

APPENDIX C-2: ADDITIONAL SKILLS LIST INCLUDED IN GLFLI GRANT

PROPOSAL (STURTEVANT ET AL 2002)

 

“Skills that GLFLI participants should gain through their GLFLI training,
including:”

 

Ui-bbJN

10
11
12
13

14
15
16

17
18

19
20

21

a network of peers drawn from a variety of stakeholder groups

a network of expert contacts (scientists, managers, legislators, etc.)
enhanced ability to see multiple sides of any issue

a basic understanding of fish biology

the tools necessary to identify Great lakes fish species

a basic understanding of Great Lakes food webs - including the effects of lower
trophic level changes on fish (physiology and species composition)

* a basic understanding of the effects and potential effects of aquatic nuisance
species on Great Lakes fish

a basic understanding of the direct and indirect effects of contaminants on Great
Lakes fish

a thorough understanding of Great Lakes fish consumption advisories
a basic understanding of Great Lakes fish habitat needs

knowledge of Great Lakes fish habitat restoration successes

a basic understanding of the impacts of land use on fish habitat

a basic knowledge of the history of Great Lakes fishery management
a basic understanding of the processes which feed into fisheries management
decisions

a basic knowledge of Great Lakes fishery management institutions

familiarity with key federal and state fisheries managers and institutions
basic understanding of Great Lakes institutional arrangements relevant to the
fishery

basic leadership skills
a basic understanding of opportunities for public participation in the Great Lakes
fisheries

localized understanding of current issues relevant to the Great Lakes fishery
an awareness of the economic importance that Great Lakes fisheries have on
regional, statewide and coastal community scales.

 

224

APPENDIX C-3: GLFLI PROMOTIONAL BROCHURE

 

the Great Lakes Sea Grant IISllfilks Leadership lnstirute will operate on a
regional. lake and state level to urtwine emerging tillzen fishery teacrirs with
the knowledge and skills to effet lively interact with Grrat Lakes fisherr
management organizations let the benefit (it the fishery and its stakeliclrlers‘.

lire Institute will be an on qoirq tertitirate program whose giaduatr-s Will be
widely respected and souqht after as advisors on Great Lakes fishery related
issues.

. New leaders or" fisheries-related organizations

2. Those likely to bewme leaders of their orgariiut-ors within the next
few ears.

w

. Ihose likely to bl' serving as advisors to Great Lakes iisl my related
institutions (e.g., take Committees,

1. Skills and knowledge fnr effective leadership on fisheries management issues.

2. A network of expe’ts from a variety of bark-grounds to call upon to after
lively address and/ct advotatc regional needs.

3. [lie aliility to influence policy derisinns and legislative initiatives.

4. Explanations of rho (umtilexities of Great Lakes fisheryvrela'ed institutional
arrangements, h’stury and srience to minimize your frustrations.

5. Exposure to Great Lakes issues and C0"l.9'll‘\.

6. A bask uiitrrstariiliiiq at fish biology. hind webs, aquatir 'iuisarite speries,
and the citrus ol contaminants on Great takes fish.

I A thorough understanding nf fist: ronsurwriori advtsoJes.

8. An awarnnriss of the erririoriiit rrnurirtarite that Great lakes fisheries have rm
regional, statemde. and coastal commuri ty sales.

9. A rerlilirate oi program (IJllllIIt'iIOVI.

Mclnll Soloctlun

Vanitiparits will be noii‘inated try a Steering mmrniltee which wilt he composed
of paill't‘r aqewes (e.g., tireat laws lisheiy Comrrrissrort. US. Fish and Wildlife
Somme. state natural resuurre departments) and those In current Great Lakes
fisilely leadership pnsithms.

Partiripants will tit» selei ted by the slt‘t‘llnq rcrnrnilti'c to vet-resent a variety of
organization ‘zyues envrrunnierital NuOs (nonprofit quvernmental nrnariiza
lions), tornnielt tat tishe'rnen, charter rapt-nits, tribes, Sportfisrrirrg assoriatrtms,
vis'tor bureaus. stir-rice writers, legislators. leqislalivn aides, and others, IhP
variety of partiripants will help institute leadr‘n to deepen their understandinq
or the multiple porspertives and stakeholders involved in any (meal lakes fistrrv
ritariaqerrrerit derision.

.....- u. n. A —

.. ... . ..
..-— - ...-

Fuiidriiq for the Institute was provided by the Great takes Se.) Grant Network,
the National Sea Grant College Program. the National Ul’t‘dll‘t and Atmospherrt
Adrrirmstration and the n.5, Depaitrrerit of tcmmerre.

include the Great takes fishery Crrririiission. Us Fish and Wil ll e

Geological Survey, Great takes Environmental kesearrh Laboratory, state
departments of natural resourres and eiiv-irrinrrit-ntu! protertiun ngl'lflPS, and
other key indiwiuaLs. These partners with the Great Lakes Sea Grant programs
will Ilt’lL plan and teath the Institute, selett pallit'tiallls. provrdr: written
materials and IdL‘ilIIiCS, and review the course turmnlum

”out the amt [Ills SCI Inn! lotion

The Great Lakes Sea Grant network is a network at Sea Grant rolliiqes MIG
proqranis working in partnership with qllvellllllenl and the ,irrvate sector to
meet the changing needs of Americans living in the Great lakes region.

the Institute was developed with the rriutieiatinn ol multiple partners they
fie ' . US

for more information about the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network, see the Wet) site
at http://m.greatlakesseagrantorg

“Wm

225

APPENDIX C-4: COMPILED GLFLI PROGRAM OBJECTIVES IDENTIFIED
THROUGH VARIOUS DOCUMENTS

 

Specific GLFLI Program Goals:

 

Grant Proposal (also included in one page Vision Document)a

1. Develop stakeholders from each Great Lakes state as Great Lakes Fishery Leaders
- a cohort of leaders with the knowledge and skills necessary to provide effective
leadership on fisheries management issues,

2. Create a network of Great Lakes leaders from the broadest possible variety of
backgrounds and organizations who are able to call upon each other to effectively
address and/or advocate regional needs

3. Empower these fishery leaders to influence policy decisions and legislative
initiatives

4. Maximize the effective life of citizen volunteers by condensing the Ieaming curve,

5. Minimize frustration of both Great Lakes fisheries management agencies and
those citizen leaders and who do not understand the complexities of Great Lakes
fishery-related institutional arrangements, history and science.

6. Expose leadership from one end of the Great Lakes region to the issues and
concerns of the other parts of the region.

7. Multiply the ability of Great Lakes Sea Grant Extension to reach constituent
audiences using a ‘teach-thc-teacher’ model.

 

Grant Proposal only (in addition to vision statements) "

. a network of peers drawn from a variety of stakeholder groups

. a network of expert contacts (scientists, managers, legislators, etc.)

. enhanced ability to see multiple sides of any issue

. a basic understanding of fish biology

. the tools necessary to identify Great lakes fish species

. a basic understanding of Great Lakes food webs — including the effects of lower

trophic level changes on fish (physiology and species composition)

7. a basic understanding of the effects and potential effects of aquatic nuisance
species on Great Lakes fish

8. a basic understanding of the direct and indirect effects of contaminants on Great
Lakes fish

9. a thorough understanding of Great Lakes fish consumption advisories

10. a basic understanding of Great Lakes fish habitat needs

11. knowledge of Great Lakes fish habitat restoration successes

12. a basic understanding of the impacts of land use on fish habitat

13. a basic knowledge of the history of Great Lakes fishery management

14. a basic understanding of the processes which feed into fisheries management
decisions

15. a basic knowledge of Great Lakes fishery management institutions

16. familiarity with key federal and state fisheries managers and institutions

C‘Lli-hWNv—t

-- CONTINUED, NEXT PAGE --

226

APPENDIX C-4, CONTINUED

17. basic understanding of Great Lakes institutional arrangements relevant to the
fishery

18. basic leadership skills .

19. a basic understanding of opportunities for public participation in the Great Lakes
fisheries

20. localized understanding of current issues relevant to the Great Lakes fishery

21. an awareness of the economic importance that Great Lakes fisheries have on
regional, statewide and coastal community scales.

 

Promotional Brochureb

1. Skills and knowledge for effective leadership on fisheries management issues.

2. A network of experts from a variety of backgrounds to call upon to effectively
address and/or advocate regional needs.

3. The ability to influence policy decisions and legislative initiatives.

4. Explanations of the complexities of Great Lakes fishery-related institutional
arrangements, history and science to minimize your frustrations.

5. Exposure to Great Lakes issues and concerns.

6. A basic understanding of fish biology, food webs, aquatic nuisance species and
the effects of contaminants on Great Lakes fish.

7. A thorough understanding of fish consumption advisories.

8. An awareness of the economic importance that Great lakes fisheries have on
regional, statewide, and coastal community scales.

9. A certificate of program completion.

 

Application Package (cover letter)c

1. the biological basis for fish production in the natural waters of the Great Lakes,

2. the effects aquatic nuisance species have had on the carrying capacity of the Great
Lakes and how this will affect the abundance and sustainability of their fisheries in
the future,

3. the basic science of what composes essential fish habitat,

4. the basics of how toxicchemical contaminants affect sustainability of the fishery
(habitat and reproduction) as well as public safety (consumption),

5. the ecological, economic, political, and socio-cultural environment within which
Great Lakes fishery management operates and the fisheries management
techniques applied to achieve fishery management objectives,

6. to understand Great Lakes institutional arrangements and funding authorities,

7. the needs of key public sectors and mechanisms for enhancing public participation
in Great Lakes fisheries,

8. basic leadership skills.

 

3' Sturtevant et al. 2002a (Appendices F-l and F-2)
bSturtevant et al. 2003 (Appendix F-3)
‘ Sturtevant 2003 (Appendix C-1)

227

APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF GLFLI INSTRUCTORS AND CURRICULUM
COMPONENTS

228

r

APPENDIX D-I: SUMMARY OF GLF LI ORGANIZERS AND INSTRUCTORS

 

Total Sea Grant Organizers and Instructors:

 

20 Total Sea Grant Staff, representing:

5 State Sea Grant Programs

 

Total Non-Sea Grant Organizers and Instructors

 

36 Total NON-Sea Grant Instructors, broken down as follows:
11 - Lake Huron Meeting(s)
4 - Lake Michigan Meeting
3 - Lake Erie Meeting
6 - Lake Superior Meeting
12 - Michigan Statewide Meeting

 

Agencies and Institutions Represented:

 

22 agencies, organizations and institutions represented*

 

*agencies with representatives from different offices or departments (e. g. USFWS staff
representing 3 different offices) were counted as only one agency or institution.

229

APPENDIX D-2: REVIEW OF GLFLI CURRICULUM COMPONENTS

Summary of GLF LI Curriculum Components Developed for use in the GLFLI Program

 

 

Curriculum Summary of Component Contents
Code Component
A The Life ofthe - a regionally-based Extension publication providing an overview to basic biology and ecology. the
Lakes: A Guide to history. cun'cnt status, and future challenges related to the Great lakes fishery;
the Great lakes - 54 page Sea Grant Extension publication
Fishery - Michigan participants received prior to their GLFLI participation
B Fisheries Habitat - Covers: 1) types of habitats. 2) fisheries habitat uses, 3.) degradation of habitat. 4) impacts of
Module pollution. exotics. climate change. water level fluctuations. and stocking on fisheries habitats
- 44 page curriculumg component; + l2 page resource list; PowerPoint presentation
- covered during lakewide meetings for Michigan participants
C Aquatic Nuisance - Covers: l) ANS pathways. 2) interactions ofANS with fishery. 3) examples of ANS
Species (ANS) - 14 page curriculum component
Effects on - covered during lakewide meetings for Michigan participants; supplemented by ANS materials
Sustainability presented and provided through various agencies and program partners.
Module
D Fish ID CD - basic identification and status ofGreat Lakes fish families and species
ROM‘ - (‘D-ROM
"' not completed in time to be available to Michigan participants, therefore this component was
supplemented by a “Fishes of Michigan" PowerPoint presentation completed and provided through
the MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Michigan Natural Features Inventory
E Fisheries - Covers fisheries management background and principles. including: basic fish biology (survival.
Management growth. reproduction. etc). stock assessment and management strategies, and human interactions
Module - 36 page curriculum component; PowerPoint presentation
- covered during lakewide meetings. supplemented by fisheries management lessons and discussions
presented and provided through various agencies and program partners.
F Aquatic Science - Covers basic Chemistry. physical. and biological components of aquatic ecosystems. including water
Module chemistry, biotic and abiotic components of aquatic ecosystems. effects of nutrients and
temperature. food chains/webs. etc.
- PowerPoint presentation with supplement discussion outline
- covered primarily during various lakewide meetings
G Great lakes - Covers structure. responsibilities. and contacts for Bi-national. Federal. regional. state. tribal and
Fisheries Agencies non-govemmcntal agencies and organizations.
and Institutional - 7‘) page curriculum component; PowerPoint presentation
Arrangements - covered during Ml statewide meeting by Ml Sea Grant staff and other program partners
Module
H Public - covers regional participation and economic value in relation to Great lakes fisheries
Participation (in - 15. page curriculum component
fishing) Module - minimal coverage at statewide meeting. and various coverage levels during various lakewide
sessions. supplemented by other resources
I Community Guide - covers planning and organizing of fisheries related programs and activities (e.g., education,
to Increasing marketing, community service. etc.)
Fishing - [5 page curriculum component
Participation - minimal coverage at statewide meeting. and various coverage levels during various lakewide
sessions
J Genetic - Covers: l ) how fish management. 2) stocking. 3) harvest management. habitat. and genetic
Guidelines for engineering all effect genetic stocks of fisheries
Fisheries - l0 page Sea Grant Extension publication
Management - minimal coverage during some lakewide meetings. supplemented by discussions provided through
various program partners
K Contaminants - Covers types ofcontaminants. effects on fisheries. and human health issues (cg. fish consumption)
Module - 43 page curriculum component; Powerpoint presentation
- minimal coverage during statewide and most lakewide training sessions
L Great Lakes - Summarizes numbers. trips. and value ofGreat Lakes charter fisheries by region and by state
Charter Fishing - One summary article for region and each Great Lakes state (approx 9-l0 pages each)
Survey - covered primarily during lakewide meetings. with some minimal coverage during statewide meeting
M Commercial - Summarizes types. numbers. regulations. and harvest of Great Lakes commercial fisheries
Fishing Public - 17 page curriculum component; PowerPoint presentation
Participation - primary coverage during lakewide meetings
N Coaster Brook - ‘?‘.";"Z"'
- 1’71"."

Trout Case Study“

* not completed in time to be available to Michigan participants. therefore this component was
supplemented during some lakewide meetings through lessons and discussions presented and
Jrovided through various agencies and program partners.

 

230

APPENDIX E: REVIEW OF GLFLI SESSION AGENDAS

231

APPENDIX E-l: MICHIGAN GLFLI STATEWIDE TRAINING SESSION AGENDA

Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute
Michigan’s State Meeting (All MI participants attend)

Dates: October - Tuesday 21‘h / Wednesday 22‘“
Location: Lansing Center (near the Capitol). Rooms 201-202. Lansing. Michigan

Lodging: Radisson Hotel (across the street from the Lansing Center)

Agenda:

Tuesday, October 2 I st

 

7-8:00 a.m. Arrival ./ Check-in — Donuts and Coffee (1 hr)

[Evaluations — Pre-evaluations for those who are at first GLFLI meeting]

9:00 am. Welcome / Introductions (1/2 hour)

9:30 Leadership — Instructor: Lela Vandenberg, MSU Extension (2-3 hrs)
- Approaches to Leadership

- Leadership in the Community
- Roles and Responsibilities of Fisheries Leaders

Noon LUNCH (1 hr)
1:00 pm. Institutional Arrangements — Instructor: Jennifer Read, Sea Grant (I '/2 hrs)
2:30 pm. BREAK (15 min)
2:45 pm. Fisheries Research Panel — including: (1 hr)

- GLERL (Steve Pothoven)

- MSU FW Department/PERM (Dr. Bill Taylor)
3:45 p m BREAK (15 min)

4:00 pm. Agency / “Decision Maker" Panel — including: (1 hr + leading into reception)
- MI DNR (MDNR Fisheries Division)
- NRC (Dr. Paul Eisele, Natural Resources
Commission)
- MI DEQ (Ken DeBeaussaert. Director of the
Office of the Great Lakes)

5—9 pm. Dinner and Reception (ALL SPEAKERS INVITED TO STAY AND MEET
WITH GLFLI PARTICIPANTS)

232

MICHIGAN GLFLI STATEWIDE TRAINING SESSION AGENDA, CONT.

Tentative Agenda, cont.
W ednesday, October 22nd

8:30 am. Breakfast - Meeting Your Fisheries Community and Resources (1 hr)
- NGO’s (MCTU, MSSFA, MCBA, MUCC, etc.)
- Information & Resources (Sea Grant, Agencies)
- Youth Programs (Project F ish, Sea Grant, etc.)

9:30 am. Identifying Issues and Public Participation — Instructor: Beth Moore (l hr)
State and Legislative Processes

10:30 am. Legislative Process — Instructor: Dana Debel. Advisor to Governor ( I/2 — 1 hr)
Dennis Knapp, MDNR Legislative

Liaison

1 1:30 am. Wrap-up / Homework Specifics of Next Lake Meeting (1/2 hr)

Noon Lunch

[Post Evaluation for those which this is last GLFLI meeting]
p.m. - Meetings with Legislators as arranged

- Informal tour of Capitol Building / downtown Lansing
- Visiting House of Representatives in Action!

233

APPENDIX E-2: LAKE ERIE GLFLI TRAINING SESSION AGENDA

Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute
Lake Erie Meeting

Dates: 5:30 pm Friday, October 3, 2003 to 5:00 pm Saturday. October 4, 2003.

Location: StuIl Nature Center, Erie, PA

 

lTentativeAgenda: Times of presentations may change due to speaker availability.

 

Meeting Themes: Introduction to Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, Canadian
Fisheries, and Lakewide Issues (ANS, Habitat, Contaminants,
Botulism, and more.)
Friday, October 3rd

 

5:30pm. Arrival / Registration MHotel check-in should take place before
arriving at the nature center, or make reservations for late arrival.

6:00 pm Welcome / Introduction
Dinner Provided
7:00 pm Gavin Christie, Great Lakes Commission Overview

8:30 pm Evening snacks / social event

Saturday, October 4th

8:00 am C offee/Continental breakfast
GLFC / Fisheries management /Task Forces
Contaminant Issues

9:30 am Experiential Tours (2-3 hours)
Sampling in the Bay
Tour R/V PERCA
Electrofishing demonstration

12:30 Lunch - provided

1:30 pm Afternoon Talks:
Canadian Fishery Commercial & Sport
USFWS — Lake Erie Projects, Mike Goehle, Fisheries Biologist
Charter Boat Survey

4:30 pm Wrap—Up (Evaluations / What Next?)
What’s your role?? — Service Projects

Challenge - to get involved

5:00 pm Safe trip home

234

APPENDIX E-3: LAKE HURON GLFLI TRAINING SESSION AGENDA

Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute
Lake Huron Meeting # 1 (ONLY Lk Huron Participants)

Dates: September — Friday 26th / Saturday 27th

Meeting Location(s):

Lodging:

Alpena — MDNR Research Station / Fletcher Motel

Alpena —- Fletcher Motel

 

rFirst Meeting (Alpena). Agenda:

Meeting Themes: Intro to GLFLI, Aquatic Biology / Fisheries Overview, and

beginning Issues (ANS, Contaminants, etc.)

Friday, September 26‘“ (starting an MDNR ALPENA RESEARCH)

9-10:00 a.m.

Arrival / Check-in ( I-2 hr) - Coffee and Donuts

10:30am Welcome l Introduction to GLFLI (l '/2 hour)

Noon

1-2245 p.m.

Break

3-4:OO

Break

4:15-5:15

5:30-7:00 pm.

- Purpose of GLFLI

- Overview of agendas (for all three Lake Huron sessions)

- Pre-Survey

- Discussion of Curriculum / Resource Materials (TLOTL, Binder. etc.)

LUNCH (1 hr) — Sandwiches / subs

History and Overview of Lake Huron fishery (Jim Johnson, MDNR Fisheries)
- Introducing MDNR Fisheries Research -— who they are, what they do
- Lake Huron —past and present
- Introduction to some Fisheries Management concepts
- Management issues facing Lake Huron fisheries
- GLFC Lake Huron Fish Community Objectives

Introducing User Groups:
- Gauthier / Spaulding Commercial fishery — tour and a talk

Aquatic Biology - considering fisheries in relation to whole aquatic systems
OR take advantage of “play it by ear opportunities”. ..

(1) Another User Group: Charter Captains (Ed Retherford)

OR

(2) Research Vessel Tour: the RA/ Laurentian

Dinner / Social (1-2 hours) — fresh caught Fish Boilll
Location TBA. (and relating to how late afternoon session falls out)

235

LAKE HURON GLFLI TRAINING SESSION AGENDA, CONT.

- Back at FLETCHER MOTEL—

7:30-8:30 pm. Wrap—up/Retlect on Day
- Purpose of GLFLI
- Why issues important to G. L.
- prepare for Saturday

8:30 pm. Evening snacks social event (maybe “Life ofthe Lakes“ video?)

Saturday, September 27th

 

8:00 am. Donuts and Coffee / Overview ofday — what to expect
Fishery Issues theme: Aquatic Nuisance Species

8:45-10:15 US. Fish and Wildlife Service (Angie Bowen)
- Who they are and work they do in relation to Lake Huron
- Discussion relating to Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS)

10:30-noon US. Geological Survey/ Sea Lamprey Mgt Program (Roger Bergstedt)
- Who they are and work they do in relation to Lake Huron
- A closer look at one ANS: Sea Lamprey

Noon LUNCH (1 hour) — Pizza

1:00-3 More Experiential Tours (Alpena Docks)
(1) Another User Group: Charter Captains (Ed Retherford)
(2) Research Vessel Tour: the R/V Laurentian
OR IF THESE ARE DONE ON FRIDAY...

Aquatic Biology - considering fisheries in relation to whole aquatic
systems

3:30 Wrap-up/What‘s Next?

DEPARTURE. . .Have a safe trip HOME!!

236

 

LAKE HURON GLFLI TRAINING SESSION AGENDA, CONT.

Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute
Lake Huron Meeting # 2 (ONLY Lk Huron Participants)

Dates: November - Friday 7th / Saturday 8th
Location: Port Huron — Thomas Edison Inn
Lodging: Port Huron — Thomas Edison Inn (on the waters of Lake Huron!)

 

[ Second Meeting (Port Huron), Tentative Agenda:
Meeting Themes: Lake Huron Fisheries, User Groups, and Management

Friday, November 7th

9-10:00 a.m. Arrival / Check-in (1-2 hr)

10:00 a.m. Welcome / Review of 1M two meetings / What to Expect (1 hour)

1 1:00 a.m. Bob Haas, MDNR Fisheries Division

Noon LUNCH (1 hr)

1:00 pm. Fisheries Management, Cont. (1-2 hours) - Dr. Dan Hayes, MSU FW Dept

NOTE: this is to be a follow-up session, building on Jim Johnson‘s
base fisheries management discussion

- Break -
Habitat Issues (1 '/2 - 2 hours) — Dr. Dan Hayes, MSU FW Dept
[Integrating FISHERIES HABITAT MODULE]
5:00 pm. Dinner (1-2 hours)
7:00 pm. Institutional Arrangements (briefly) (1 hour)
...Picking up where we left off with State meeting
[Integrating G. L. Fisheries Institutional Arrangements Module]
9:00 pm. Evening snacks / social event

Saturday, November 8lh
8:00 a.m. Donuts and Coffee / Overview of day — what to expect

8:30 a.m. Introduction to User Group Diversity (2 '/2 hours total)
1) Commercial and Subsistence Fishing (20 minutes)
[Integrating COMMERCIAL FISHING MODULE]
- State Licensed
- Tribal

2) G. L. Charter Fishing Industry Survey (20 minutes)
- Janice Deaton, MCBA

237

LAKE HURON GLFLI TRAINING SESSION AGENDA, CONT.

2) Tribal Fishing and Treaty issues (20 minutes)
— Arnie Parish, Bay Mills Indian Community

3) Sport Fishing Overview (20 minutes)
- Dan Thomas, Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council

4) Increasing Participation in Fishing & fisheries related activities (30 min)
— Heather VanDenBerg, Clinton River Watershed Council

10:45 a.m. BREAK / mingle (1/2 hour)

11 pm. User Group Diversity, Continued

1) Commercial vs Sport Role Playing Activity to generate discussion

2) User conflicts and resolution — a shared resource
* Commercial —vs- Sport
* Tribal —vs— State licensed
* Special Interest Groups — species interests, fishing
preferences
* 2000 Consent Decree -—Case Study of 1836 Treaty
tribes, US, Michigan, sport, charter, commercial fishing

Noon Lunch

1:00 pm. Continuing User Group Diversity (1 Hour or time as needed)
Reflection, Discussion re: resource sharing, conflict resolution. etc.

2-2:30 pm. NOW, WHAT’S YOUR ROLE?? — Service Projects (1 — 1 '/2 hours)
- REFLECTION on GLFLI
- Service Projects
- CHALLENGE to GET INVOLVED

3-4:00 pm. Evaluation and Goodbyes / Good Iucks

DEPARTURE...Have a safe trip HOME!!

238

APPENDIX E-4: LAKE MICHIGAN GLFLI TRAINING SESSION AGENDA

Revised Schedule for Lake Michigan Segment of the GLFLI

Fr-Sa 3-4 October 2003
University of Wisconsin, Manitowoc, WI.

Friday Evening -- Cafeteria, UW-Manitowoc
6:30 — 8:30 PM Welcoming Social (Snacks and Beverages Provided)

Dinner on own. Explore Manitowoc nightlife.

Saturday -- County Board Room, UW-Manitowoc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Event Person
7:30-8:30 Registration & Continental Breakfast MI, IL-IN, WI
GLFLI Coordinators
8:30-9:00 Welcome to Wisconsin, Institute Objectives, & Goals
of Lake Michigan Module

9:00 Modules/Interactive Sessions
9:00 1) Lake Michigan Fishery Resources Chuck Pistis
9:30-10:15 2) LM Fish Community Objective Mark Holey, USFWS
10:15 Break
10:30-1 1:15 3) Lake Michigan Fishery Management Bill Horns, WDNR
l 1:15-Noon 4) Fishery Habitat: what is it. where is it, why we need Chad Dolan,

it INHS/IDNR

 

Noon-l :00 Box Lunch Provided

 

1200-1 :45 5) ANS Risks to Aquatic Communities

 

 

 

1:45-2:30 6) Yellow Perch Research John Janssen, UWM

2:30-2:45 Break — Group Picture

2:45-4:45 Facilitated Discussions — Enlivening Effective MI, IL-IN, WI
Stakeholder Participation GLFLI Coordinators

 

a) Public participation in the states
b) Coordination among states, stakeholders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4:45 Wrap-up: What’s next, where do we go from here? MI, IL—IN, WI
GLFLI Coordinators
5:00 Adjourn
6:00 — ? Informal dinner & discussions for “holdover”
participants

 

239

APPENDIX E-5: LAKE SUPERIOR GLFLI TRAINING SESSION AGENDA

Great Lakes Fishery
Leadership Institute

   

Lake Superior Meeting
Ashland, Wisconsin
January 24, 2004

Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College
Room 306 of the Conference Center

Agenda

7:47 Coffee and Rolls

8:30 Introduction to the Program and Participant Introductions — Rochelle Sturtevant
9:00 Lake Trout and Normative Salmonids — Steve Shram

10:00 Coasters and Sturgeon Rehabilitation Status and Efforts — Henry Quinlan

10:45 BREAK

11:00 Aquatic Invasive Species — Phil Moy. Gary Czypinski, Lori Evrard

12:00 LUNCH (provided)

1:00 Forage Fish, What's Going On — Owen Gorman

1:30 Treaty Issues. an Update and Description — Jim Thannum

2:00 Commercial Fishing Status in Lake Superior and other Great Lakes — Ron Kinnunen
2:30 BREAK

2:45 Facilitated Discussion among Participants

4:30 Evaluation and Adjourn

240

APPENDIX F: GLFLI APPLICATION

241

APPENDIX F-l: GLFLI PARTICIPANT APPLICATION PACKAGE

In” -., 1"» .\
. a" ' I yum, ,. , l m .aaz‘ge W711.

" -' ffl, ‘ ~ 3. ..- .v .u . ,n. -_ .".‘.- n 1"" i .. .1 .. -Aggl l ..‘c .‘O'!« a“: . -§ 1. I I I --'I~ |~.,.or in.
i’ 4 1 “,. ~- a ' '1 it '4 ' '2. ' -' l ‘ - ' .
. "f 4' ' ~ ‘l I - » ... ' . , - ‘ . - . - «4 . ._ ~ .g

‘1'; if; t. ' " l ‘1 "- ‘ LL '0' y] 3 i."-I\ ‘1. Iwii "l' an «v. no -....~ Waxy M I ~' ~‘ -0 i -w 0‘ 1‘5: .0 d |.-- p «'t 1: d“

I. 'I I . .
4% g ' i 5‘ . -;..._.. ". . n- um .4 .vq. a} I‘ 4'". t“; t 'I hi. :5. l-._- 9w .. ..Ltg " x' 2'4. .2 . 2' -. 3 "w
\‘,‘\| ' ‘ _ ‘. - . ‘ -. . 3 . ' - - . . . ., - l
[‘9‘ -' _ ,‘ .' n3 ,1] .' {1.1. II! 3' '.'.'l‘ (5.)) 1s - .‘t .1 up It =11. t :_ .':- .. .3 tr; 21“.: 12.!- 1_ r ‘I -:. we
... ‘ . ‘. g’fyp“

' . ’ - P
"qt-"...!“

NOMINEE APPLICATION PACKAGE

Dear Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute Applicant,

Thank you for your interest in becoming a Great Lakes Sea Grant Fisheries Leader. The Great
Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute (GLFLI) is designed to provide in-depth training to the ‘next
generation’ of leaders - those who are new leaders to their fisheries related organizations and
those interested in becoming leaders of their organizations within the next few years. GLFLI’s
goal is to provide the next generation of fisheries leaders for the Great Lakes region with the
skills which they will need to effectively interact with fisheries management agencies and provide
real leadership to the region as well as to their organizations. Over the course of the Institute,
participants will learn ( l) the biological basis for fish production in the natural waters of the Great
Lakes, (2) the effects aquatic nuisance species have had on the carrying capacity of the Great
Lakes and how this will affect the abundance and sustainability of their fisheries in the future, (3)
the basic science of what composes essential fish habitat, (4) the basics of how toxic chemical
contaminants affect sustainability of the fishery (habitat and reproduction) as well as public safety
(consumption), (5) the ecological, economic, political, and socio-cultural environment within
which Great Lakes fishery management operates and the fisheries management techniques
applied to achieve fishery management objectives, (6) to understand Great Lakes institutional
arrangements and finding authorities, (7) the needs of key public sectors and mechanisms for
enhancing public participation in Great Lakes fisheries, and (8) basic leadership skills.

GLFLI takes the broadest possible view of fisheries issues - participants will be selected to
represent a variety of fisheries stakeholders - commercial fishermen, charter captains, tribes,
sportfishing associations, visitor bureaus, environmental NGOs, science writers, legislators,
legislative aides, etc. This mix of viewpoints will help participants in the Institute to deepen their
understanding of the multiple perspectives and stakeholders involved in any Great Lakes fishery
management decision. Participants must be willing to openly interact and discuss issues with
fellow participants who hold widely different views from their own.

Committed participants are the cornerstone of the Great Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute
process. In addition to attending all GLFLI sessions and paying the course fees, participants are
required to commit to a ‘service project’ which will make use of the skills which they have
attained. Participants retain flexibility to design individual service projects (with the assistance of
GLFLI staff) which make maximum use of their skills and provide maximum benefit to their
local communities.

We appreciate your interest and look forward to the opportunity to work with you!

Sincerely,

Dr. Rochelle Sturtevant
GLFLI Coordinator

ENCLS. GLFLI Brochure, Dates of Institute Sessions. Application Form

242

APPLICATION FORM FOR THE GREAT LAKES FISHERIES LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE

CANDIDATE INFORMATION:

 

 

I Name:
I Address:
I Phone:

 

I E-mail (if available):
I Occupation:
I Highest completed level ofeducation:

 

 

 

GREAT LAKES AND FISHERIES EXPERIENCE (ATTACH):
I Membership in Professional, Great Lakes, and/or fishing related Organizations:
I Professional. Great Lakes and/or Fishing related Awards:
I Great Lakes and/or Fishing Related Activities:
I Sea Grant and/or Extension related Activities:
I Great Lakes and/or Fishing related Hobbies:

INTEREST (ATTACH A BRIEF STATEMENT):
I Why are you interested in becoming a Great Lakes Fisheries Leader?

POTENTIAL IDEAS FOR SERVICE PROJECT

I A service project is required of all Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute participants
upon completion of the formal course. Formulation of the service project is left entirely to
the discretion of the candidate. sponsoring organization, and GLFLI session instructors and
should be suited to the candidate’s individual background. Please include a brief statement
describing potential service project(s) in which you would be interested.

I Please include letters of support from any organization(s) whose support you need to have
in order to complete your suggested service project.

NOMINATING OR SPONSORING ORGANIZATION (OPTIONAL):
I Please attach support Ietter(s).

I understand that enrollment is contingent on the successful completion of the application process
and that the misrepresentation or omission of information requested is just cause for non-
acceptance. In applying for acceptance into the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute, I
understand that I am committing to attend all Institute sessions and pay course fees as outlined in
the attached documents and to completion of the service project described in my application.

 

Applicant Signature Date

243

 

APPENDIX G: GLFLI SURVEY INSTRUMENTS

244

APPENDIX G-l: PRE-INSTIT UTE SURVEY EVALUATION INSTRUMENT

The Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute: Evaluating a fisheries Extension
education program’s ability to serve constituent and community needs while
developing future fisheries leaders

 

   
 

  ‘3 tire at lattes Sea Grant
.4. , Fisheries leadershin Institute

   

PRE-GLFLI WORKSHOP SURVEY

 

Greetings! The Great Lakes Sea Grant Programs received funding to conduct a Great Lakes Fisheries
Leadership Institute (GLFLI) and you are among a chosen few tO parficipate in the Institute. The project
is Operating on a regional, lake and state level tO provide emerging citizen fishery leaders with the
knowledge and skills tO effectively interact with Great Lakes fishery management organizations for the
benefit of the fishery and its stakeholders. Your participation in this evaluation exercise may help us: 1)
measure the impact of the institute, and 2) improve the quality of the institute during and after this first
year of operation.

This survey deals with evaluating your experience with the Great Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute. We
are interested in learning more about your knowledge, opinions, and attitudes in relation to your
experience as a GLFLI participant. Your participation in this evaluation is completely voluntary, but
please know that your opinions and the information that you provide are important to us and will
contribute toward enhancing and improving future GLFLI efforts. Your voluntary completion Of the pre-
and post-workshop survey indicates your consent to participate in this evaluation effort, however, you may
choose to notify us at any time and for any reason if you do not wish to participate or choose to be
excluded from this survey or this evaluation study.

Thank you for taking the time to help us in the evaluation effort.

 

 

 

 

 

Participant Name: Date:
State Sea Grant Program: (i.e., Michigan, Ohio, etc.)
Great Lake Represented: (i.e., Lake Huron, Lake Erie)
Session (please circle one): State Session Lake Session

PLEASE NOTE: Your name will be strictly confidential and used only for the purpose Of
matching pre- and post- survey documents; after pre- and post surveys are matched, this cover
page including your name will be physically removed from this survey document. For the
purposes of this evaluation, your responses will remain unassociated with your name and
confidential as the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network prepares summaries of all responses.

245

 

PRE-GLFLI SURVEY

 

This portion of the survey is intended to help us understand your general knowledge and skills
relating to the Great Lakes fishery:

 

 

 

1. We would like to gain a better understanding of your knowledge related to the biological and ecological
aspects of the Great Lakes fishery prior to your participation in the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership
Institute. 1 ur o n rr nt knowle of the Great Lakes fishery based on the following
statements. For each statement, please indicate whether you are Very Unknowledgeable, Somewhat

Unknowledgeable, Neither Knowledgeable nor Unknowledgeable, Somewhat Knowledgeable, or Very

Knowledgeable. Circle only one response per statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3
1 2 Neither 4 5
Very Somewhat Knowledgeable Somewhat Very
Unknowledgeable Unknowledgeable nor Knowledgeable Knowledgeable
Unknowledgeable-
a Great Lakes issues and VU SU N SK VK
concerns
b Basic understanding of fish VU SU N SK VK
biology
Biological basis for fish
c production in Great Lakes VU SU N SK VK
waters
d Understanding of essential VU SU N SK VK
fish habitats
Fisheries management
techniques applied to
e achieve fishery VU SU N SK VK
management (such as
regulations and policies)
Effects of contaminants on
f Great Lakes fishery goals or VU SU N SK VK
objectives (such as habitat
and fish reproductiom
Effects of aquatic nuisance .
g species on the sustainability VU SU N SK VK
of the Great Lakes fishery
b Identifiing Great Lakes fish VU SU N SK VK
The role of genetics in
i fisheries management VU SU N SK VK
activities
Native species
l rehabilitation efforts (such VU SU N SK VK
as Coaster Brook Front,
Lake Trout)
Aquatic food webs
k associated with Great Lakes VU SU N SK VK
fisheries
l Plankton (zooplankton, VU SU N SK VK
phytoplankton)
m Forage fishes VU SU N SK VK
n Wetlands VU SU N SK VK
o Aquatic plants VU SU N SK VK
p Watersheds VU SU N SK VK

 

246

 

2. We would like to gain a better understanding of your knowledge and understanding of social, political, and
cultural aspects of the Great Lakes fishery prior to your participation in the_Great Lakes Fisheries

Leadership Institute. Ple§§e gate yeg; ggwn egrrent kngwleelge of the Great Lakes fishery based on the

following statements. For each statement, please indicate whether you are Very Unknowledgeable,
Somewhat Unknowledgeable, Neither Knowledgeable nor Unknowledgeable, Somewhat Knowledgeable, or

Very Knowledgeable. Circle only one tespogse per statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

humans

 

 

 

 

 

3
1 2 Neither 4 5
Very Somewhat Knowledgeable Somewhat Very
Unknowledgeable Unknowledgeable nor Knowledgeable Knowledgeable
Unlmowledgeable
The economic importance
that Great lakes fisheries
a have on regional, statewide, VU SU N SK VK
and coastal community
scales
Diversity of user groups or
b stakeholders of Great Lakes VU SU N SK VK
fisheries
c Sportfishing in the Great VU SU N SK VK
Lakes
Commercial fishing in the .
V
(1 Great Lakes VU SU N SK K
Charter fishing industry in . .
e the Great Lakes VU SU N SK VK
Native American or tribal .
f fishing in the Great Lakes VU 5U N SK VK
Political environment
8 Within which Great Lakes VU SU N SK VK
fishery management
operates
Social and cultural aspects . , , ,
le
h of the Great Lakes fishery VU 5U N 5K
i undemmqmng 0‘. 55'? vu su N SK VK
consumption adVisories
i History of the Great Lakes VU SU N SK VK
fishery
k Human influences on Great VU SU N SK VK
Lakes aquatic envrronments
Influences of Great Lakes
aquatic environments on VU SU N SK VK

 

247

 

3. Before participating in the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute, how would you

rt 11 kn wle in relation to your involvement with the Great Lakes fishery? For each of the following

statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor

Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. Qircle only one response per statement.

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 N 'th 4 5
Strongly Moderately '5 a Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree ree
Disagree

a I know how to prowde effective leadership on SD MD N MA SA
fisheries issues
I have access to a network of experts (such as
researchers, biologists) from a variety of

b backgrounds to call upon to effectively address SD MD N M SA
and/ or advocate regional needs.

c I have a good understanding of Great Lakes SD MD N MA S A
issues and concerns.
I understand fishery issues and concerns of
che; fishery stakeholders (such as other

d fishery groups or those from other Great SD MD N M SA
Lakes regions).

e I have enough-understanding of Great Lakes SD M) N MA SA
fishery institutions and their roles.

f I know about different skills needed for SD W N MA SA
fisheries leadership.

g I understand how the legislative process works SD MD N MA SA
in my state.

h I understand my state agencies’ regulatory SD MD N MA SA
processes toward fisheries

. I know about various sources of information

1 relating to the Great lakes fishery. SD MD N M SA

l I know of potential partners relating to SD MD N MA SA
fisheries work

It I know. about my state fishery management SD MD N MA SA
I know aboutreg‘ional or national fishery SD 1WD N MA SA

‘ mana ement institutions.

I know of different funding authorities relating

m to the Great Lakes fishery. SD MD N M SA

 

 

4

 

4. In the following statements please W in relation to your involvement with the
Great Lakes fishery. For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree.
.. . i 2 Neg” 4 5
WWW Strongly Moderately We, no, Moder-fly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

a I have the skills necessary to provide SD MD N MA SA
leadership on fishery issues.

b I can teach others what I know about Great SD MD N MA SA
Lakes fishery resources.
I can increase public participation in Great

c Lakes fisheries. SD MD N MA SA

d I feel I can influence policy decisions made SD MD N MA SA
by fisheries agenues.

e I feel I have the ability to influence legislation SD MD N MA SA
that relates to fishenes
I am comfortable with my ability to work

f with different fishery management agencies SD MD N MA SA
and l ' "

h I can lead a group meeting. SD MD N MA SA

i [can prowde leadership in a conflict SD MD N MA SA
situation.

. I can locate information and resources about

I my Great Lake and its watershed SD MD N M SA
I am likely to work with people or partners in

I addressing and/ or advocating fishery needs. SD m N M SA
I feel I can communicate with Great Lakes
fishery stakeholdus and leaders (such as

in sport or commercial fishing organizm'ons) SD MD N MA SA
from a variety of ' ' '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The next section of this survey is intended to help us understand why you have chosen to
participate in the Great Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute (GLFLI):

5. Please list or describe what you hope to learn or gain through your participation in the GLFLI:

 

 

 

6. It’s likely that you are seeking a great deal of information from GLFLI. For each of the following
statements, indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree not

you 583’ You are i 2 New” 4 5

for information that benefits: Strongly Moder-rely Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

SA

fisheries related SD MD MA

 

249

7. In participating in the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute you have an interest in volunteering or

serving in leadership roles within the Great Lakes fisheries. How would you rate the @leng statements
' ' re L' k E h ti
whether you strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or

Strongly Agree. Circle only one response per statement.

m

n on m tiv tions to volun e r

la erinthe

, please indicate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3
l 2 . 4 5
Reasons for participating in the GLFLI. . .. my Moderately ”a“; Moderately Swag”.
Disagree Disagree Dig'sagree Agree Agree
a Opportunity to learn more about Great Lakes SD NED N MA SA
fisheries seiences and management
b People I know share interest in community SD MD N MA SA
serVice
c Can do something for a fisheries cause SD MD N MA SA
d Way to make new friends SD MD N NIA SA
e W'ill look good on my raume SD MD N MA SA
f [S a good escape from mj own troubles SD MD N MA SA
g W'ill help me succeed in my chosen profession SD MD N MA SA
h Learn about fisheries management and issues SD MD N MA SA
through hands on experience
i Can learn how to deal with a variety of people SD MD N MA SA
j Helps me feel better about myself SD MD N MA SA
R 21:10:; close to me value commumty serVice SD lVfD N MA SA
1 Allows me to explore different career options SD MD N MA SA
m Helps me work through my own problems SD IVID N MA SA
n Allows me to gain new perspective on things SD MD N MA SA
0 Makes me feel needed SD IVID N MA SA
P Friends volunteer With fisheries related SD MD N MA SA
organizations
q é-lelps me forget about how bad I ve been SD MD N MA SA
eeling
r People I’m close to want me to volunteer SD MD N MA SA
3 Can help me get a foot in the door where I SD MD N MA SA
want to work
t Can explore my own strengths SD IVID N MA SA
u Genuinely concerned about Great Lakes SD MD N MA SA
fisheries
v Feel it is important to help others SD MD N MA SA
w Relieves guilt over being more fortunate than SD MD N MA SA
others
it Feel compassion for people in need SD MD N MA SA
y Keilpnteering is important to those I know SD MD N MA SA
2 Can make new contacts that help my career SD MD N MA SA
a Increase [ILV self-esteem SD MD N MA SA
bb Concerned about those less fortunate than SD MD N MA SA
myself
cc By volunteeringl feel less lonely SD MD N MA SA
dd Makes me feel important SD 1WD N MA SA
I enjoy the status of belonging to the Great .
°° Lakes Fishery Leadershiplnstitute SD MD N MA 5"
6

250

 

 

Before your participation in the GLFLI, we are interested in learning more about your
involvement in fisheries related activities, including your intended service project. Please answer
the following questions:

8. Briefly describe your intended fisheriesqelated service project (It is o.k. if your service project plans have
changed from your original statement of intent. Please provide your most current ideas. plans, and

intent.)

 

 

9. How comfortable are you actually carrying out your intended fisheries related service project?

(Please Check ()ne.)

1

El Very Uncomfortable
D Somewhat Uncomfortable

3 Cl Neither Comfortable not Uncomfortable
4 Cl Somewhat Comfortable
5 D Very Comfortable
10. Do you believe that you have the appropriate knowledge and skills W the service

project you have selected?

(Please Check One.)

mu...

4
5

Strongly Disagree
Cl Moderately Disagree
D Neither Agree nor Disagree
Cl Moderately Agree
Cl Strongly Agree

1 1. Do you believe that you have the appropriate knowledge and skills W your service project you

have selected?

(Please Check One.)

I
2
‘5
4
5

 

Strongly Disagree
C] Moderately Disagree
Cl Neither Agree nor Disagree
0 Moderately Agree
D Strongly Agree

Gleal lakes Sea “'3'“
Fisheries leadershin Institute

251

 

We are interested in learning more about your current ideas about fisheries leadership. The
following questions are intended to help us understand how you view leadership and your
intended involvement as a future fishery leader.

 

 

 

12. There are many aspects relating to leadership around the Great Lakes Fisheries. Please rate the
nor-rtnfr'o ‘Wll':.-.’fllfll“ r-"o t or‘ ' .4 2.01-; ' r' tki:
fisheries. Please indicate for each statement whether it is Very Unimportant, Somewhat Unimportant, Neither

Important nor Unimportant, Somewhat Important, or Veg lm ortant. gircle only one response per statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i 2 N 3m“ i s
In order to be effective as a Great Lakes _Vcry Somewhat Unim ° no, Somewhat Very
fishery leader, it is most important that . .. umwm U“"“"°"‘°‘ Important lmm‘ lw
a I am elected or appomted to key leadership VU SU N SI VI
posmons Within a group or organization.
b I generate. opportunities for shared deCiSion VU SU N SI VI
making Within grogs.
c I am part of'a leadership process involvmg VU SU N SI VI
many other lnleldualS.
d I work to achieve goals that are common VU SU N SI VI
among everyone.
e I accomplish my own goals as priority over VU SU N SI VI
achievmg goals or priorities for others.
f I must have accomplished personal VU SU N SI VI
achievements, such as a college dgree.
I work to achieve open lines of
8 communication among evegone. VU 5U N SI VI
h I must be smarter than those With whom I VU SU N SI VI
work.
i I-faCllltatc the use. of the collective skills or VU SU N SI VI
gifts of everyone involved.
I must match my behavior or style of
j leadership to each situation in order to VU SU N SI VI
achieve results I desire.
I: I take responSibility for the well being of VU SU N SI VI
those With whom I work.
I include different community players (non-
l profits, universities, agencies, business, etc.) VU SU N SI VI
in resolvingissues.
m I find ways to take charge over others in a VU SU N SI VI
group setting.
it I utilize the power that I hold over others to VU SU N SI VI
accomplish my leadership goals.
0 I involve others in prOjects or tasks as equal VU SU N SI VI
leaders.
I work to improve other individuals’ and
P groups" abilities to face fisheries challenges. VU SU N S VI
q Community’semce is the primary goal of VU SU N SI VI
my leadership dutifi.
I believe in “born leaders,” and should work
r to develop skills and abilities that I was born VU SU N SI VI
with.
I must understand my followers and change
3 my leadership styles to get them to do what I VU SU N SI VI
need of them.
t I bring people of diverse backgrounds VU SU N SI VI
together to learn from each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

252

 

12. continued

1 2 . 4 5
Somewhat 'h

In order to be effective as a Great Lakes Very
Unimportant Unimportant

Nei er
fishery leader, it is most important that Unimpomm

Somewhat Very
Important Important

generate
diverse people groups, and how they use VU SU N SI VI

ééééé

experts

<:
c:
5

am to
issues, regardless of my or elected

S

on my to
to connect
to
promote a common
express

use group process

éééééééé
sssssss

 

253

13. We are interested your current leadership intentions and how you view your involvement and
leadership toward the Great Lakes fishery in your community and organizations. For each of the
following statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree

nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. Circle only 906 response per statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 Neither ‘
Strongly Moderately Agree nor Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

I am likely to help others understand how their

a fishing related expenditures relate to fisheries SD MD N MA SA
management programs and activities.

b I am likely to provtde leadership for raising funds SD MD N MA SA
for fisheries related efforts or programs

c I am likely to prov1de leadership in prolects to SD MD N MA SA
persuade others on fisheries related issues

d I am likely to provule information and resources SD MD N MA S A
on fisheries to people in my community
I am likely to provide leadership in providing

e educational opportunities for my fisheries SD MD N MA SA
organization or club

f I am likely to proVide leadership in youth SD MD N MA SA
education programs

3 I am likely to coordinate a fishenes habitat SD MD N MA SA
improvement pro’ect
I am likely to initiate a group meeting or

b discussion With a state agency to discuss SD MD N MA S A
potential changes in fisheries management or
regulations
I am likely to promote opportunities for my

i fisheries organization or club members to meet SD MI) N MA SA
or talk with legislators to discuss fisheries issues
I am likely to provide leadership in legal actions

j or court processes as a mechanism of resolving SD MI) N MA SA
fisheries issues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background Information I

 

In order lbr us to more [idly understand people’s responses to the previous questions, we need to know a
[23W things about your background. Remember, that your responses are completely confidena'al and that
neither your name nor your organizaa'on or address will be directb' linked to your responses in any war.
14. In what state do you currently live? STATE

15. How many years have you lived in your current State of residence? YEARS

16. As a GLFLI participant, which specific Great Lake are you representing in this program?
SPECIFIC GREAT LAKE YOU REPRESENT IN GLFLI

 

10

254

 

17. What is your current occupation?

 

18. Are you male or female?

1

0

b

0 Male
0 Female

19. In what year were you born? 1‘)

20. \X/hat is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?

(Please Check One.)

1

NOMJ‘UN

0 Less than high school graduate

DHigh school graduate or GED

DVocational or Trade School

0 Some College

0 Associate’s Degree (2 year degree)

DCollege Graduate (Bachelor’s or 4 year degree)
DGraduate or Professional Degree

21. What is your race or ethnicity?

(Check ALL that apply.)

1

gout-mu

UW'hite

Cl Black or African American

DHispanic or Latino

CIAmerican Indian or Alaska Native
UAsian

DNative Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
USome Other Race

22. In what type of area do you currently live?

(Please Check one.)

UIQUJN—

Cl Rural, Farm

D Rural, Non-Farm

D Small Town (25,000 people or fewer)

0 Urban Area (From 25,001 up to 100,000 people)
0 Metropolitan Area (More than 100,000 people)

23. To what fisheries organizations do you belong? (list all that apply)

OCCUPATION

 

 

 

24. What other fisheries organizations do you work closely with but do not belong to? (list all that apply)

 

 

255

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).

For more information regarding this survey evaluation, please contact:
Brandon Schroeder, Graduate Student
MSU Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife
13 Natural Resources Bldg
East Lansing, MI 48824
Email: schroe45@msu.edu
Phone: (517) 432-5037

12

256

 

‘iM'

APPENDIX G-2: POST-INSTITUTE SURVEY EVALUATION INSTRUMENT

The Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute: Evaluating a fisheries Extension
education program’s ability to serve constituent and community needs while
developing future fisheries leaders

 

 
   

:22; Great lattes Sea Grant
.2: :7 fisheries leadership Institute

POST-GLFLI WORKSHOP SURVEY

L l

Greetings! The Great Lakes Sea Grant Programs received funding to conduct a Great Lakes Fisheries
Leadership Institute (GLFLI) and you are among a chosen few to participate in the Institute. The project
is operating on a regional, lake and state level to provide emerging citizen fishery leaders with the
knowledge and skills to effectively interact with Great Lakes fishery management organizations for the
benefit of the fishery and its stakeholders. Your participation in this evaluation exercise may help us: 1)
measure the impact of the institute, and 2) improve the quality of the institute during and after this first
year of operation.

 

This survey deals with evaluating your experience with the Great Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute. We
are interested in learning more about your knowledge, opinions, and attitudes in relation to your
experience as a GLFLI participant. Your participation in this evaluation is completely voluntary, but
please know that your opinions and the information that you provide are irnportant to us and will
contribute toward enhancing and improving future GLFLI efforts. Your voluntary completion of the pre-
and post-workshop survey indicates your consent to participate in this evaluation effort, however, you may
choose to notify us at any time and for any reason if you do not wish to participate or choose to be
excluded from this survey or this evaluation study.

Thank you for taking the time to help us in the evaluation effort.

 

 

 

 

 

Participant Name: ‘Date:
State Sea Grant Program: (i.e., Michigan, Ohio, etc.)
Great Lake Represented: (i.e., Lake Huron, Lake Erie)
Session (please circle one): State Session Lake Session

PLEASE NOTE: Your name will be strictly confidential and used only for the purpose of
matching pre- and post- survey documents; after pre- and post surveys are matched, this cover
page including your name will be physically removed from this survey document. For the
purposes of this evaluation, your responses will remain unassociated with your name and
confidential as the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network prepares summaries of all responses.

257

POST-GLFLI WORKSHOP SURVEY

 

 

This portion of the survey is intended to help us understand your general knowledge and skills
relating to the Great Lakes fishery:

 

 

1. We would like to gain a better understanding of your knowledge related to the biological and ecological
aspects the Great Lakes fishery after your participation in the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute.
Plgge ratcyour own current kngwledge of the Great Lakes fishery based on the following statements.
For each statement, please indicate whether you are Very Unknowledgeable, Somewhat Unknowledgeable,
Neither Knowledgeable nor Unknowledgeable, Somewhat Knowledgeable, or Very Knowledgeable. Circle

only one response per statement.

 

 

 

l

2

3

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

258

Very Somewhat Neither Somewhat Very
Unknowledgeable Unknowledgeable Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Watt“:
nor
Unknowledgeable

a Great Lakes issues and VU SU SK VK
concerns

b Basic understanding of VU SU SK VK
fish biology
Biological basis for fish

c production in Great VU SU N SK VK
Lakes waters
Understanding of .

d essential fish habitats VU 5U N SK VK
Fisheries management
techniques applied to

e achieve fishery VU SU N SK VK
management (such as
regulations and policies)
Effects of contaminants
on Great Lakes fishery

f goals or objectives (such VU SU N SK VK
as habitat and fish
regroduction)
Effects of aquatic
nuisance species on the

g sustainability of the Great VU SU N SK VK
Lakes fishery

b fitment; Gm“ 1““ vu su N SK VK
The role of genetics in

i fisheries management VU SU N SK VK
activities
Native species

. rehabilitation efforts

I (such as Coaster Brook VU SU N SK VK
Trout, Lake Trout)
Aquatic food webs

k associated with Great VU SU N SK VK
Lakes fisheries

l Plankton (zooplanlrton, VU SU N SK VK
phytoplankton)

m Forage fishes VU SU N SK VK

n Wetlands VU SU N SK VK

o Aquatic plants VU SU N SK VK

p Watersheds VU SU N SK VK

2

 

2. We would like to gain a better understanding of your knowledge and understanding of social, political, and
cultural aspects of the Great Lakes fishery resulting from your participation in the Great Lakes Fisheries
Leadership Institute. Please gt; ygur own current kngwlggge of the Great Lakes fishery based on the
following statements. For each statement, please indicate whether you are Very Unknowledgeable,
Somewhat Unknowledgeable, Neither Knowledgeable nor Unknowledgeable, Somewhat Knowledgeable, or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

259

Very Knowledgeable. Qircle only one response er statement.
3
l 2 Neither 4 5
Very Somewhat Knowledgeable Somewhat Very
Unknowledgeable Unknmvledgeable nor Knowledgeable Wt:
Unknowledgeable
The economic importance
that Great lakes fisheries
have on regirmal. statewide, VU SU N SK VK
and coastal community
scales
Diversity of user groups or
stakeholders of (Fruit Lakes V'U SU N SK VK
fisheries
mnfishmg in the Great VU SU N SK VK
es

(Eommercml fishing in the VU SU N SK VK
(treat lakes
Charter fishing industry in .
the Gun: Lakes VU SU N SK VK
Native American or tribal . - r
fishing in the Great lakes VU 5U N bk VK
Political environment within
which Great [Akes fishery VU SU N SK VK
management operates
Social and cultural aspects of VU SU N SK VK
the Great lakes fishery
Understanding of fish VU SU N SK VK
Consumption advisories
l:listory of the (:reat lakes VU SU N SK VK
fishery
Human influences on Great

. . VU SU N SK VK
Lakes aquatic envrronments
Influences of Great lakes
aquatic environments on VU SU N SK VK
humans

3

 

3. After participating in the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute, how would you ta
cum knwg legdg in relation to your involvement with the Great Lakes fishery? For each of the following
statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree Neither Agree nor

Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. Circle only one response per statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Z 3 4 5
Strongly Moderately Neither Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree
Disagree
I know how to provide effective
a leadership on fisheries management SD MD N MA SA
issues.
I have access to a network of
experts (such as researchers,
biologists) from a variety of
b backgrounds to call upon to SD lva N MA SA
effectively address and/ or advocate
regional needs.
c I have a good understanding of SD MD N MA SA
Great Lakes issues and concerns.
I understand fishery issues and
concerns of other fishery
d stakeholders (such as other fishery SD MD N MA SA
groups or those from other Great
Lakes regions).
I have enough understanding of
e Great Lakes fishery institutions and SD MD N MA SA
their roles.
I know about different skills needed
f for fisheries leadership. SD MD N M SA
g I understand how the legislative SD MD N MA SA
process works in my state.
I understand my state agencies’
h regulatory processes toward SD MD N MA SA
fisheries
I know about various sources of
i information relating to the Great SD MD N MA SA
Lakes fishery.
j I know of potential partners relating SD MD N MA SA
to fisheries work.
k I know aboutmystate fishery SD MD N MA SA
1 I know about regional or national SD 1WD N MA SA
fishery manggement
I know of different funding
in authorities relating to the Great SD MD N MA SA
lakes fishery.

 

 

 

 

 

260

4. In the following statements please rate your gomfgg and skigs in relation to your involvement with the
Great Lakes fishery. For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree,
Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. Circle only one

IQSI200§C per sta [€111an

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
, Stroneg Moderately Neither Agree Moderately Strongly
ggircle gnly ONE rcsgonsc get statement. Disagree Disagree norDisagrcc Aztec Ag."
a I have the skills necessary to prOVide SD MD N MA SA
leadership on fishery management issues.
I can teach others what I know about
b Great Lakes fishery resources. SD IVfD N M SA
c I can increase public partic1pation in Great SD MD N MA SA
Lakes fisheries.
d I feel I can influence policy CICCISIODS. SD MD N MA SA
made by fisheries management agenctcs.
I feel I have the ability to influence
it legislation that relates to fisheries SD MD N MA SA
management.
I am comfortable with my ability to work
f with different fishery management SD IVID N MA SA
agencies and institutions.
h I can lead a grgup meeting. SD MD N MA SA
i Ican prOVide leadership in a conflict SD MD N MA SA
Situation.
. I can locate information and resources .
I about my Great Lake and its watershed. SD MD N MA SA
1 am likely to work with people or
1 partners in addressing and/ or SD MD N MA SA
advocating fishery needs.
I feel I can communicate with Great Lakes
m fishery stakeholders and leaders (such as SD MD N MA SA

 

 

sport or commercial fishing organizations)
from a variety of backgrounds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The next section of this survey is intended to help us understand what you have found most or
least valuable in your participation in the Great Lakes Fishery Leadership Institute (GLFLI):

 

5. After participating in the GLFLI, what do you consider the most important things that you learned

or gained?

 

 

 

6. During your participation in the GLFLI, did you learn or gain WWI—131M

from this experience?
(Please Check One.)
I Cl Strongly Disagree
Cl Moderately Disagree

0 Moderately Agree
Cl Strongly Agree

WAUN

Cl Neither Agree nor Disagree

261

 

 

7. Didyoulearnorgain m ' ne or m in th' udid o n'i i from
the GLFLI? (Please Check One.)

I

2
3
4
5

CI Strongly Disagree

CI Moderately Disagree

CI Neither Agree nor Disagree
CI Moderately Agree

0 Strongly Agree

8. Do you consider your GLFLI learning gxmrigngg t9 be bgngfigia P (Please Check One.)

I

2
3
4
5

CI Strongly Disagree

Cl Moderately Disagree

CI Neither Agree nor Disagree
CI Moderately Agree

0 Strongly Agree

9. Did the gurrigsgum Qr le§sons meet your expectations? (Please Check One.)

2
3
4
5

D Strongly Disagree

0 Moderately Disagree

CI Neither Agree nor Disagree
CI Moderately Agree

D Strongly Agree

10. Did the gmrientigl Qr hangLs-Qn opportunities meet your expectations? (Please Check One.)

I
2
3
4
S

D Strongly Disagree

0 Moderately Disagree

0 Neither Agree nor Disagree
CI Moderately Agree

CI Strongly Agree

11. Did you have adequate 9pmmni§i§§ to practice kngwlggge and fikifls gained during the GLFLI?

(Please Check One.)
I D Strongly Disagree
2 CI Moderately Disagree
3 CI Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 CI Moderately Agree
5 D Strongly Agree

12. Which curriculum module or lesson (if any) was most xaluable? (Check ALL that apply)

cchmauu

u-o —- no a— I—
‘ U I0 'I‘ C

—n
M

D The Life of the Lakes

0 Aquatic Science Module

0 Fish ID CD ROM

0 Fisheries Habitat Module

CI Coaster Brook Trout Case Study

CI Fisheries Management Module

CI Genedc Guidelines for Fisheries Management

0 Aquatic Nuisance Species Effects on Sustainability Module

CI Contaminants Module

CI Great Lakes Fisheries Agencies and Institutional Arrangements Module
CI Public Participation (in fishing) Module

CI Great Lakes Charter Fishing Survey

D Community Guide to Increasing Fishing Participation

0 Commercial Fishing Public Participation

CI Other (please list):

 

6

262

13. Which curriculum module(s) or lessons (if any) were least valuable? (Check ALL that apply)

14. Please list (if any) your experiential experiences that were most valuable?

Ode‘U‘J—UN"

D The Life of the Lakes

0 Aquatic Science Module

CI Fish ID CD ROM

CI Fisheries Habitat Module

0 Coaster Brook Trout Case Study

D Fisheries Management Module

0 Genetic Guidelines for Fisheries Management

Cl Aquatic Nuisance Species Effects on Sustainability Module

CI Contaminants Module

0 Great Lakes Fisheries Agencies and Institutional Arrangements Module
CI Public Participation (in fishing) Module

CI Great Lakes Charter Fishing Survey

0 Community Guide to Increasing Fishing Participation

Cl Commercial Fishing Public Participation

C] Other (please list):

 

 

 

15. Please list (if any) your experiential experiences that were least valuable?

 

 

16. It’s likely that you are seeking a great deal of information from GLFLI. For each of the following
statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor

 

Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. (Circle only ONE response for each statement)
3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you say that you are primarily 1 2 N m 4 5
looking for information that benefits: Strongly MOfkmcly Ag; 3,, Modcmdy Smash
Disagree Disagree Dis Agree Agree

a You individuagv? SD IVID N MA SA

b Your specific fisheries related organization? SD MD N MA SA

c Many different fisheries organizations P SD MD N MA SA

d Your local geographic community? SD MD N MA SA

e Your entire state? SD MD N MA SA

f A specific individual Great Lake? SD MD ’ N MA SA

g The entire Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem? SD IVID N MA SA

 

 

 

As a result of your participation in the GLFLI, we are interested in learning more about your
involvement in fisheries related activities may change, including your intended service project.
Please answer the following questions:

 

17. Briefly describe your intended fisheries-related service project (It is o.k. if your service project plans
have changed from your original statement of intent. Please provide your most current ideas, plans, and

intent.)

 

 

18. How comfortable are you actually carrying out your intended fisheries related service project?

(Please Check one.)
i 0 Very Uncomfortable
2 0 Somewhat Uncomfortable
3 CI Neither Comfortable nor Uncomfortable
4 0 Somewhat Comfortable
S 0 Very Comfortable

263

 

1‘). Do you believe that you have the appropriate knowledge and skills to plan and organize the service
project you have selected?

(Please Check One.)

I D Strongly Disagree

0 Moderately Disagree
D Neither Agree nor Disagree
0 Moderately Agree
0 Strongly Agree

8"wa

20. Do you believe that you have the appropriate knowledge and skills {9 car_ry out your service project
you have selected?
(Please Check One.)
0 Strongly Disagree
CI Moderately Disagree
D Neither Agree nor Disagree
0 Moderately Agree
D Strongly Agree

MADON—

21. As a result of your GLFLI experience, how do you now View your involvement and leadership toward
the Great Lakes fishery in your community and organizations? For each of the following statements, please

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither, Moderately Agree, or Strongly A rree.
3
l 2 . 4 5
Sui-om Moder-My f", “,3, Moderately Sunny
Disagree Dhagree 0' Agree Agree

I am likely to help others understand how their fishing

a related expenditures relate to fisheries management SD MD N MA SA
programs and activities.

b I am likely to prov1de leadership for raistng funds for SD MD N MA SA
fisheries related efforts or prggrams

c I am likely to provtde leadership in prOjects to persuade SD IVfD N MA SA
others on fisheries related issues

d I am likely to prov1de information and resources on SD MD N MA SA
fisheries to people in mj community

e I am likely to prowde leadership in providing educational SD MD N MA SA
@portunitics for my fisheries organization or club

f I am likely to provtde leadership in youth education SD MD N MA SA

rograms

g I 2:163:er to coordinate a fisheries habitat improvement SD MD N MA SA
I am likely to initiate a group meeting or discussion with a

h state agency to discuss potential changes in fisheries SD MD N MA SA
management or regulations
I am likely to promote opportunities for my fisheries

i organization or club members to meet or talk with SD MD N MA SA
legislators to discuss fisheries issues

I I am likely to provide leadership in legal actions .or court SD MD N MA SA
processes as a mechanism of resolvmg fisheries issues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

264

 

 

Following your participation in the GLFLI, we are interested in learning more about your current
ideas about fisheries leadership. The following questions are intended to help us understand how
you view leadership and your intended involvement as a future fishery leader.

 

 

12. I'here are many aspects relating to leadership around the Great Lakes I isheries. After your participafion in

the GLFLI, please e-

 

W. Please indicate for each statement whether it is Very Unimjmrtant Somewhat
Unimportant, Neither Important nor Unimportant, Somewhat Important, or Very Important. Circle only one

respons e [281' statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3
l 2 . 4 5
In order to be effective as a Great Lakes fishery leader, Very Somewhat U . Nam“ Somewhat Very
it is most important that .. . Unimpomm Unimpomm mawm'm Important Important
I am elected or appointed to key leadership positions
a within a group or organization. VU SU N SI W
I generate opportunities for shared decision making ,
b within groups. VU SU N SI VI
I am part of a leadership process involving many
c other individuals. VU 5” N 5‘ V1
d I work to achieve goals that are common among VU SU N SI VI
everyone.
I accomplish my own goals as priority over achieving
e goals or priorities for others. VU SU N SI VI
f I must have accomplished personal achievements, VU SU N SI VI
such as a college degree.
I work to achieve open lines of communication
8 among everyone. VU SU N SI VI
h I must be smarter than those with whom I work. VU SU N SI VI
i I facrlitate. the use of the collective skills or gifts of VU SU N SI VI
everyone involved.
. I must match my behavior or style of leadership to
1 each situation in order to achieve results I desire. VU SU N 81 VI
k I take responsrbtlity for the well being of those with VU SU N SI VI
whom I work.
I include different community players (non-profits,
l universities, agencies, busmess, etc.) in resolving VU SU N SI VI
issues.
in I find ways to take charge over others in a group VU SU N SI VI
setung.
n I utilize the power that I hold over others to VU SU N SI VI
accomplish my leadership goals.
0 I involve others in projects or tasks as equal leaders. VU SU N SI VI
I work to improve other individuals' and groups' ,
P abilities to face fisheries challenges. VU SU N 51 VI
q Community semce is the primary goal of my VU SU N SI VI
leadership duties.
I believe in “born leaders,” and should work to
I develop skills and abilities that I was born with. VU SU N SI W
I must understand my followers and change my
s leadership styles to get them to do what I need of VU SU N SI VI
them.
‘ I bring people of diverse backgrounds together to VU SU N SI VI

 

 

learn from each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

265

 

 

 

12. continued

In order to be effective as a Great Lakes fishery leader, 1 z

4
. . . Somewhat
it is most important that

Neither
Ununponant not I mm

Very mewhat
Unimpomm Unimportant

generate

VU SU N 51

on my
to connect to

lo CVCXyOllt

express

use group Process

266

5
Very
Important

VI

 

 

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).

For more information regarding this survey evaluation, please contact:
Brandon Schroeder, Graduate Student
MSU Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife
13 Natural Resources Bldg
East Lansing, MI 48824
Email: schroe45@msu.edu
Phone: (517) 432-5037

 

12

267

APPENDIX H: LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY DISCUSSION AND WRITING
EXERCISES (FROM MICHIGAN STATEWIDE MEETING)

268

APPENDIX H-l: GLF LI LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY DISCUSSION AND
QUALITATIVE WRITING ACTIVITIES (MICHIGAN STATEWIDE MEETING)

Leadership Writing Activities - collected from Michigan GLFLI participants as
qualitative data as part of the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute.

The following questions were presented as discussion and writing activities during a
morning Ieaming session on October 21, 2003, regarding the topic of leadership. These
writing activities will be discussed and answered as an interactive and integrated
component of this leadership learning session. *

Leadership Writing Activity #1:

Discussion:

Leadership is sometimes discussed in the context of communities, while literature
describes that community can be described differently or to mean different groups or
networks of people (i.e. social networks, geographic region, etc.).

Participant Writing Activity (Question):

“Please develop and define in writing your own idea of what "community" means to you?
Describe who you consider to be your community, the community in which you will take
on leadership roles?”

Leadership Writing Activity #2:

Discussion:

Introduction and discussion around the history and theory behind various types of
leadership (i.e. historical/contemporary leadership, leadership styles, etc.).

Participant Writing Activity (Question):

“After discussing the many different views toward leadership, now develop your own
working definitions and/or descriptions of leadership and philosophy of how this applies
to your role within leadership activities. In other words, what does leadership mean to
you and how do you see your role or involvement as a fisheries leader?”

Leadership Writing Activity # 3:

Discussion:

Building from participants' development of their ideas and descriptions about community
and what leadership means to them, there will be discussion around roles and
responsibilities of leaders within a leadership process.

Participant Writing Activity (Question):

1) “Develop your own sense of stewardship toward working as a leader in your
community.”

2) “As you think about your role as a leader within your own community, begin to
develop your own set of personal leadership ethics, roles or responsibilities you would
hope carry out as future fisheries leaders.”

269

i

 

APPENDIX 1: SELECTED RESULTS FROM PARTICIPANT PRE- AND POST-
INSTITUTE SURVEYS

270

APPENDIX I-l: MICHIGAN PARTICIPANT RESPONSES (N=22) TO POST-
INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTIONS #14-24: PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS
AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

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. Remember that your responses are
completely confidential and that neither your name nor your organization or address will
be directly linked to your responses in any way.

14. In what state do you currently live? m MICHIGAN) STATE

15. How many years have you lived in your current State of residence?

(Mean=33.23) YEARS

 

 

 

Response Category FEES?” Percent of Total
1 l 4.5
4 l 4.5
l l l 4.5
16 1 4.5
18 1 4.5

20 l 4.5
22 1 4.5
23 l 4.5
25 2 9.1
37 l 4.5
39 1 4.5
40 2 9.1
45 2 9.1
46 l 4.5
48 l 4.5
5| 1 4.5
52 l 4.5
60 1 4.5
63 l 4.5
MEAN 33.23
MEDIAN 38

 

271

 

 

16. As a GLFLI participant, which specific Great Lake are you representing in this

 

 

 

 

 

 

program? SPECIFIC GREAT LAKE YOU REPRESENT IN GLFLI
Response Category F212;? Percent of Total
ERIE 3 13.6
HURON 8 364
MICHIGAN 8 36.4
SUPERIOR 3 13.6
TOTAL 22 PARTICIPANTS (100%)
17. What is your current occupation? OCCUPATION
Auto Tech

Business Person

College Professor
Commercial Fishennan/Chief Judge
Detroit Riverkeeper

Drafiing

Desi gn/F abricator

Educator (k-12) x 2

Engineer

Executive Director

Graduate student

Journalist

Manager/Director

Materials Purchasing Manager
Membership Director (MUCC)
Resource Policy Specialist
Psychologist (Retired)

Retired

Supervisor (Retired)

Teacher Consultant
Veterinarian

Wildlife Education Specialist

18. Are you male or female?

 

 

Response Category Fzfigggcy Percent of Total
MALE 19 86.4
FEMALE 3 13.6

 

272

19. In what year were you born? 19 (AGE IN 2003)

 

 

 

Response Category Fzzqgegcy Percent of Total
22 1 4.5
23 1 4.5
26 1 4.5
28 1 4.5
33 l 4.5
37 1 4.5
39 l 4.5
41 2 9.1
44 1 4.5
45 1 4.5
48 1 4.5
49 1 4.5
51 2 9.1
52 2 9.1
53 1 4.5
55 l 4.5
62 1 4.5
63 l 4.5
64 l 4.5

MEAN 44-5
MEDIAN 46.5

 

273

20. What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?

 

Frequency

 

 

 

 

Response Category (n=22) Percent of Total
Less than high school graduate l 4. 5
High school graduate or GED 1 4, 5
Vocational or Trade School 1 4_ 5
Some College 4 [3,2
Associate’s Degree (2 year degree) 0 0
College Graduate (Bachelor’s or 4 year
degree) 4 27.3
Graduate or Professional Degree 9 40,9

21. What is your race or ethnicity? (Check ALL that apply.)

Response Category* F223;” Percent of Total
White 20 90.9
Black or African American 0 0
Hispanic or Latino 1 4.5
American Indian or Alaska Native 2 9.1
Asian 0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 A
Some Other Race 0

 

*SOME CASES INDICATED MORE THAN ONE ETHNICITY

22. In what type of area do you currently live?

 

 

Response Category Frequency Percent of Total
(n=22)

Rural, Farm 3 13.6
Rural, Non-Farm 5 22.7
Small Town (25,000 people or fewer) 5 22.7
Urban Area (From 25,001 up to 100,000 4 18.2
peeple)

Metropolitan Area (More than 100,000 5 22.7
peonle)

 

274

23. To what fisheries organizations do you belong? (list all that apply)

 

Organization Name

 

Trout Unlimited (TU) - Clinton Valley Chapter

Trout Unlimited (TU) - Paul Young Chapter

Trout Unlimited (TU) - Paint Creek Chapter

Trout Unlimited (TU) - West MI Chapter

Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council (x2)

Sturgeon for Tomorrow (SFT)

Red Cliff Fishery Committee

Project F.I.S.H.

Outdoors Writers Association of America

National Registry of Environmental Professionals
National Environmental Training Association
Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) (x7)
Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fishennan’s Assoc. (MSSFA) (x3)
MSSFA - Flint Chapter

MSSF A - Holland Chapter

Michigan Outdoors Writers Association

Michigan Fly Fishing Club

Michigan Association of Environmental Professionals
Manistee County sport Fishing Association

Michigan Alliance Environmental and Outdoor Education (MAEOE)
Little Traverse Bay Conservancy

Lake Huron Citizens’ Fishery Advisory Committee
Keweenaw Bay Tribal Commercial Fishermen

Indian River Sportsman's club

Hammond Bay Area Anglers Association (x2)

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC)
Fly Fishing Federation

Flint River Watershed Coalition

Educational organization

Downriver Walleye Federation

Detroit Riverkeepers

Clinton River Watershed Council

Cheboygan Sportsman's Club

Cheboygan Area Sportfishing Association (CASA) (x3)
Black, Burt and Mullett Lake Associations (x3)

Black Lake Sportsman's Club

ASTM International

Association of Great Lakes Outdoors Writers

Arenac County Walleye Club

Anglers of the Au Sable

American Fisheries Society (AF S) (x2)

AF S - Michigan Chapter

Kewanee Sportsman Association

 

TOTAL UNIQUE ORGANIZATIONS = 43

275

24. What other fisheries organizations do you work closely with but do not belong to?
(list all that apply)

 

Organization Name

 

Trout Unlimited (TU) (x4)

Sea Grant

Project F.l.S.H.

Percb America

National Association of Female Executives
NABS

Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fisherman’s Assoc. (MSSFA) (x3)
Monroe Public Schools, beginning to work with other schools, governmental and non-
governmental organizations

Michigan Chamber of Commerce Executives

Lower Grand River Watershed

Grand Valley Annis Water Resources Institute

Great Lakes Fishery Trust (GLFT)

Great Lakes Commission (GLC)

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) — Fisheries Division
Coldwater River Council

Cheboygan County Leadership Forum

American Fisheries Society JAFS)

 

TOTAL UNIQUE ORGANIZATIONS a 17

 

276

Pre-Institute Survey - Question #1

APPENDIX I-2: MICHIGAN PARTICIPANT RESPONSES (N=22) TO PRE-
INSTITUTE SURVEY AND POST-INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTION #1:
KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS RELATED TO THE BIOLOGICAL AND
ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE GREAT LAKES FISHERY

1. We e would like to gain a better understanding of your knowledge related to the
biological and ecological aspects of the Great Lakes fishery prior to your participation in
the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute. Please rate your own current knowledge
of the Great Lakes fishery based on the following statements. For each statement, please
indicate whether you are Very Unknowledgeable, Somewhat Unknowledgeable, Neither
Knowledgeable nor Unknowledgeable, Somewhat Knowledgeable, or Very

Knowledgeable. Circle only one reggonse Ber statement.

 

 

("=22) 1 2 3 4 5
'2 2 0 ‘2 0 0
.D A .. A
4% 3 34 a ‘I E i i MEAN MEDIAN
Item E. 5 '3 i. 3 E *3 5‘ '3
> E E E ’5 s ' E E s > 3
° Z 9 ° 5 e o
E m E .2 =3 e s
D D 3
Great lakes issues and ' i
a concerns ~ 304.3%) 2 (9.5%) 14(66.7%) 2(9.5%) 3.71 4
b :fifggndmmdmg °m5h 2(9.5%) l(4.8%) 304.3%) 11 (52.4%) 409%) 3.67 4
Biological basis for fish , ' -
c production mom: Lakes 2 (9.5%) 2(9.5%) 409%) ' 1‘3 (613%) - 333 4
Understanding of essential 13 6|.9"/
d fish habitats 2 (9.5%) 2 (9.5%) 1 (4.8%) < 0) 304.3%) 3.62 4
Fisheries management
techniques applied to achieve 9 42.9?
e fishery mam, (mm 1 (4.8%) 4 09%) . 5 (23.8%) ( -) 2(9.5%) 3.33 4
regulations and policies) . > -. ' .
Effects of contaminants on
Great Lakes fishery goals or __ 12 57‘112/
objectives (such as habitat 2 (95%) 6 (286%) ( o) 1 (48%) 3'57 4
and fish reproduction)
Effects of aquatic nuisance
g species on the sustainability 1 (4.8%) 304.3%) 1 (4.8%) 14 (667%) 2 (9.5%) 3.62 4
of the Great Lakes fishery
h Identlfymg Great Lakes fish 1 (4.8%) l (4.8%) l (4.8%) 12 (571%) 6 (28.6%) 4 4
Theroleofgenetics in _ . . ‘ ' ,. . ‘
1' fisheries magmmt 304.3%) 608.6%) . 7 (33.3%) -4(l9%) x [(4.8%) 2.71 3
activities ‘ .
Native species rehabilitation
j efforts (such as Coaster 1 (4.8%) 3 (38.1%) 2 (9.5%) 9 (429%) 1 (4.8%) 3.05 3
Brook Trout, Lake Trout)
Aquatic food webs associated , 9 42.9%
1: Wm! Gm! um fished“ 2 (9.5%) 7 (333%) 1 (4.8%) ( ) 2 (9.5%) 3.1 4
Plankton (zooplankton, 7 33.3"/
1 phytoplankton) 304.3%) 7 (33.3%) 304.3%) ( o) 1 (4.8%) 2.81 3
rn Fm“ fish” 2 (9.5%) 2 (9.5%) 703.3%) 10(47.s%) — 3.19 3
n wetlands 2 (9.5%) 1 (4.8%) 5 (23.8%) 12 (57~1%) 1 (4.8%) 3.43 4
o Aquatic plan's 2(9.5%) 304.3%) 808.1%) 8(33-l%) -- 3.05 3
p Watemheds 2 (9.5%) 2 (9.5%) 409%) ‘3 (619%) ~- 3.33 4

 

277

Post-Institute Survey - Question #1

1. We would like to gain a better understanding of your knowledge related to the
biological and ecological aspects the Great Lakes fishery after your participation in the
Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute. Please rate your own current knowledge
of the Great Lakes fishery based on the following statements. For each statement,
please indicate whether you are Very Unknowledgeable, Somewhat Unknowledgeable,
Neither Knowledgeable nor Unknowledgeable, Somewhat Knowledgeable, or Very

 

Knowledgeable. Circle only one response per statement.

 

(n=22) 1 2 3 4 5
ID ID 0
3 z 2 3 a 2
3 E .8. 1. E i. E i I: MEAN MEDIAN
a... 8i :3 ease as“ ye
> E E 5 3 i '= E E 3 > -
e e z e i 3
=2 ‘32 3 2 a 3 5
D D :3
Great Lakes issues and ' .
a eonccms - - — 10(47.6%) 11 (52.4%) 4.52 .5
b 3.35“ “demanding ““5“ — 1 (4.8%) -- 11 (52.4%) 902.9%) 4.33 4
Moon
Biological basis for fish . - _ . .V _
c productioninGreot Lakes - 1(4.8%) , .. ‘ 501.4%) "503334) 4.14 g I .~4-'
Waters . ' . ' - . -.
u d tand' r r 1
d (I; Effigy“ “5°“ ‘3 -- 1 (4.8%) 1(4.8%) 11 (52.4%) 808.1%) 4.24 4
.Fi'sheriesnnnagmient . ; ' ' 3 " ' . _
techniques appliedtoaehieve ' " ' " ' ’
e fish” Wumhas -- 1(4.8%) — ' 12(57.1%). 808.1%) 4.29 4
regulations and policies) '
Effects of contaminants on
Great lakes fishery goals or
f objectives (such “habitat — 1(4.8%) 1(4.8%) 13(6l.9%) 608.6%) 4.14 4
and fish reproduction)
Effects of aquatic nuisance
g species on the sustainability ~- -- 1(4.8%) 8 (38.1%) 12 (57.1%) 4.52 5
of the Great Lakes fishery
h 'demfymg Gm" “k“ “Sh -- -- 1(4.8%) 10(47.6%) 10(47.o%) 4.43 4
The role of genetics in
1 fisheries management 1(4.8%) 2(9.5%) 304.3%) 13(61.9%) 2(9.5%) 3.62 , 4
activities
Native species rehabilitation
j efforts (such as (‘0 1(4.8%) -- 2 (9.5%) 10(47.6%) 808.1%) 4.14 4
Brook Trout Lake Trout)
A uatic foodwebsassocia ted > .
k $1th mummies 1(4.8%) 1(4.8%) — l6(76.2%) 3(143%) 3.9 4
Pl kt l kt .
1 phitriopjgngfghp) 3" °" 1 (4.8%) 2 (9.5%) 304.3%) 12(57.1%) 304.3%) 3.67 4
m Fm” “3"“ 1(4.8%) -. — l6(76.2%) 409%) 4.05 4
n wwands -- 2(9.5%) 1 (4.8%) 13(6|.9%) 409%) 3.95 4
o Mum 9‘3““ 2(9.5%) 1(4.8%) 2(9.5%) l3(61.9%) 304.3%) 3.67 4
p wamheds 1 (4.8%) 1(4.8%) 1(4.8%) 13 (61.9%) 504.3%) 3.95 4

 

278

Pre-Institute Survey - Question #1: Summary of Means and Medians of Michigan
Participants Responses by Lake Group
Lake

 

 

 

   

 

Lake Lake Lake
Huron Michigan Erie Superior 1:13:22?
(n=8) (n=8) (n=3) (n=3)
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median
a Great Lakes issues and concerns 3.57 4 3.63 4 4 -4 4 4 3.71 4
b 385'“ “demand” “’1‘" 3.86 4 3.25 4 3.67 4 4.33 3.67 4
biology
T "Muenmmareatukasmtera 3.57 " ‘1. ‘3. ' 3'5 ' 3'. >:-.1
Understanding of essential fish
(1 habitat; 4 4 ‘ 3.13 3.5 3.33 4
'e'f appliedtoacluevefishcry , 357. ‘2}
5 magentantbuchasregulanons-IT _‘ " V, .~ ,
" and policies) ' '
Effects of contaminants on Great
Lakes fishery goals or objectives
1' (suchashabitat and fish 3.43 3 3.5 4 3.33 4 4.33 4 3.57 4
reproduction) .
Effectsofaquancnumc
.{g .' authenispinahflityof
" f flteflrcat‘LIkelfisMrY' ..
h Identifying Great lakes fish

Them organeucsmfilhmea ' j." " '

 

Native species rehabilitation

 

j efforts (such as Coaster Brook 3.43 4 2.75 2.5 1.67 2 4.33 4 3.05 3
Trout, Lake Trout)
. Plankton (zooplankton, i
l phytoplankton) ‘ 2.57. ‘ ~ 2.67 ~ 3
m ,. ., . -. m w 3
n Wetlands . 3.29 3 _ “4
2205‘:-Aauaticahmts .2 = 3 2.615.: ''''' 3
p Watersheds 3.57 2.67 3

   

 

279

Post-Institute Survey - Question #1: Summary of Means and Medians of Michigan
Participants Responses by Lake Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lake Lake Lake Lake TOTAL
Huron Michigan Erie SuperIor (n=22)
(n=8) (n=8) (n=3) (n=3)

Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median

a Great lakes issues and concerns 4.71 5 4.25 4 4.67 5 4.67 5 4.52 5

b 335'“ "“dmmdmg ““5" 4.29 4 4.38 4 4 5 4.67 5 4.33 4
biology

. Biologieaibasisforfish »' . ‘ ' ' ' -' " V" -':"- - r '7" "C . .

c productioninoreatiakeswam ‘29 .7. 4325; 4 . 3'67 7...”. v" ‘ 4' “4- " 7». ‘

d unqmmd‘“g°fe55‘"""fi5h 4.43 4 4.25 4 3.67 4 4.33 4.647 4.24 4
habitats

' Fisheries magement techniques . » _ . . . _ ._

e mm‘mm‘m‘m . 4.14 4_ [4.5 4.5 g 3.67 ' ‘ .4.- 4.6.7 5‘ . 4.29-T
ymgementtsuchasiegulanons .- -. . ._ - _ , . -. _ . . ,._~
.mdpolicies) ., . . . . . . ..
Effects of contaminants on Great
Lakes fishery goals or objectives

f (suchashabitatand fish 4 4 4.5 4.5 3.67 4 4 4 4.14 4
reproduction)

3 Either; ofaquaticnuisanee , a - ' . 5'.

jg' wiesmthesumunbnityofy ‘. -' 4'57 _ 5

h identifyingGreatIakes fish 4.43 4 4.38

; i'mmieOfmetwsmfisimes -‘ .1 ‘ ' '2 ~ "

i {activities ‘ 3.86 4} 3.5
Native species rehabilitation

j efforts (suchasCoaster Brook 4 4 4.38 4 3 4 5 5 4.14 4
Trout, Lake Trout)

Aquacfoodmbsassociated '- ‘ ‘ 1

1.‘ wtthGreatiakeafishenes 4 -. ‘1 » 4:13 ‘ 3 .‘ 4 > "I 7
Plankton (zooplankton,

1 phytoplankton) 3.7.1 . 4 3.75. 4 , ‘ 3” 4 . 4. , 4

in Fmsflfishfl H4. * ' 44.254 3 1.54, 433-53 4

n Wetlands 4.17 4 3.87 4 . 3.67 4‘ 4 4

o.-:A®fli¢fplanis 4514.; I ; 4 " 3,381. '4 2.' '~.- -3 4 4.1-if. -:».4

p Watersheds 4.43 4 3.87 4 3 4 4 4

 

 

280

APPENDIX I-3: MICHIGAN PARTICIPANT RESPONSES (N=22) TO PRE-
INSTITUTE AND POST-INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTION #2: KNOWLEDGE AND
SKILLS RELATED TO THE SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND CULTURAL ASPECTS OF

THE GREAT LAKES F ISHERY

Pre-Institute Survey - Question #2

2. We would like to gain a better understanding of your knowledge and understanding of
social, political, and cultural aspects of the Great Lakes fishery prior to your participation
in the_Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute. Please rate your own current
knowledge of the Great Lakes fishery based on the following statements. For each
statement, please indicate whether you are Very Unknowledgeable, Somewhat
Unknowledgeable, Neither Knowledgeable nor Unknowledgeable, Somewhat

Knowledgeable, or Very Knowledgeable. Circle only one response per statement.

 

("=22) 1 2 3 4 5
2 2 2
a a .-: 6 i s
u .3 .3 .. 8 8 MEAN MEDIAN
n... 9;: :3“ £43933 is :4:
>3 E? e-=: E— >_
e °e z? e 93 3
a .5 a i .5 a
5 S S

 

The economic importance

that Great lakes fisheries have a a

on regional, statewide, and 2 (9.5 /o) 4 (19%) 13 (61.9%) 2 (9.54) 3.71 4
coastal community scales

Diversity of user groups or

B}
u
l

b stakeholders ofGreatLakes 1(4.8%) 2(9.5%) 409%) 10(47.6%) 409%) 3.67 4
fisheries

c gammy“ "“3 Gm“ 1 (4.8%) 1 (4.8%) -— 14 (66.7%) 5 (23.8%) 4 4

d 8:333:13 “Sh"‘g ‘" "‘e 1 (4.8%) 5 (23.8%) 6 (28.6%) 6 (28.6%) 304.3%) 3.24 3

e 3:331:12“ "‘d‘m’y ‘“ "“3 .- 5(23.8%) 808.1%) 6(28.6%) 2(9.5%) 3.24 3

r gx'izzgnt‘flccagggzi 1 (4.8%) 409%) 5 (23.8%) 902.9%) 2 (9.5%) 3.33 4
Political environment within » ‘

g which Great Lakes fishery 1(4.8%) 304.3%) 608.6%) 902.9%) 2 (9.5%) 3.38 . 4 _ .
management tes . .

h tshfgl;':dlz:‘e‘:‘2;::fjc‘s or 1(4.8%) 304.3%) 8(38.i%) 5(23.8%) 409%) 3.38 3

1' flmgfidfig‘“ 1(4.8%) - > ‘ 1(4.8%) 111015.796) 1(4.8%) , 3.86 V 45

j Sim °nh° Gm“ ”k“ —- 5 (23.8%) 4 (19%) 9 (42.9%) 3 (14.3%) 3.48 4

k flwéflggnf.“ Gm”; .- 409%) 503.8%) 902.9%) 304.3%) 3.52 4
influences of Great Lakes

1 aquatic environments on -- 5 (23.8%) 5 (23.8%) 9 (42.9%) 2 (9.5%) 3.38 4

humans

281

Post-Institute Survey - Question #2

2. We would like to gain a better understanding of your knowledge and understanding of
social, political, and cultural aspects of the Great Lakes fishery resulting from your
participation in the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute. Please rate your own
current knowledge of the Great Lakes fishery based on the following statements. For
each statement, please indicate whether you are Very Unknowledgeable, Somewhat
Unknowledgeable, Neither Knowledgeable nor Unknowledgeable, Somewhat

Knowledgeable, or Very Knowledgeable. Circle only one response per statement.
(n=22)

 

1 2 3 4 s
2 2 a 2 ,, 0
t = i 75 i =3, 3.
no on 1- u a MEAN MEDIAN
"em a 8 i a 2 g g a i g e 2
° 3 ° '3' 5 - = ‘3' g — §
> ° 5° z: e a: E
2 m E e 2 "’ g g:
:> :1 D
The economic importance
a yiegggfigfifiyfn?" -- —- -. 10(47.6%) 11 (52.4%) 4.52 5
coastal community scales
Diversity of user groups or
b stakeholders ofGreat lakes — -- -- 703.3%) 14(66.7%) 4.67 5
fisheries
c gfif‘Shm'" the Gm“ -- -- -- 10(47.6%) 11 (52.4%) 4.52 5
d Comrnerciai fishing in the a o 0
("makes a -- 2(9.5%) 13(61.9/0) 6(28.6/o) 4.19 4
e aflmtlngmdustrymthe — ~ 2(9.5%) 15(71.4%) 409%) 4.10 4
r figmgmtfizggtfiii — -— 2(9.5%) 15(71.4%) 409%) 4.10 4
Poiiticalenvironmentwithin _. . j . .' _ ._ , g ‘ 1_ .
8- whicth-mkafishw - *r— 1'(4-8%)Lt4f(66~?%)j612.86%) ' 424:. 4;
h 151:“: fidéigfilgm °f -- 1(4.8%) 2(9.5%) 10(47.6%) 808.1%) 4.19 4
i- mmfifidfffiifla ' - ' j—' ‘ v304.3%)f-"13.161.§%)'»315-(23.8%)-..- ,4.1’>o~' ‘ 4
j ggifrryydm" Gm‘m‘es -- 1(4.8%) 1(4.8%) 13(61.9%) 608.6%) 4.14 4
k figz‘mgflzmam'“; -- 1(4.8%) 1(4.8%) 10(47.6%) 902.9%) 4.29 4
1 222$°:£:mo‘mw::n“ -- 1(4.8%) 1(4.8%) 11 (52.4%) 808.1%) 4.24 4
humans

 

282

Pre-Institute Survey - Question #2: Summary of Means and Medians of Michigan

 

Participants Responses by Lake Group
Lake

 

 

 

Lake Lake Lake TOTAL
Huron Michigan Ene Superior (n=22)
(n=3) (n=8) (n=3) (n=3)
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median
The economic importance that
Great lakes fisheries have on
a regional, statewide, and coastal 3.71 4 3.75 4 3.33 3 4 4 3.71 4
community scales
Diversity of user groups or
b stakeholders of Great Lakes 4.14 4 3.25 4 2.67 3 4.67 5 3.67 4
fisheries
c Sportfishing in the Great Lakes 4.29 4 3.88 4 333 4 4.33 4 4 4
d gamma “5th '" '1“ GR“ 3.14 3 2.75 2.5 3.33 4 4.67 5 3.24 3
' .Cl’mtfl'fishingindusu'yinlhc . .» 3 . .
. e Great I i 3.29 3
Native American or tribal fishing
f in the Great Lakes 3'43 4
. . Political environment within , 1
g WehGreat-Iakesfishery 3.14 ' 3 _
h Social and cultural aspects of the 3 14 3
Great lakes fishery '
commander! advisories. ' - . 3
. History of the Great lakes
1 fish 3.14 3
cry
1]" Haminfll‘mm W 3.57 ‘- 3'21.
l influences of Great Lakes aquatic 3 29 3
' humans '

 

283

Post-Institute Survey - Question #2: Summary of Means and Medians of Michigan
Participants Responses by Lake Group

 

 

 

 

 

Lake Lake Lake Lake TOTAL
Huron Michrgan Erie Superior (n=22)
(n=8) (n=8) (n=3) (n=3)
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median
The economic importance that
Great lakes fisheries have on
a regional. statewide, and coastal 4.57 5 4.63 5 4 4 4.67 5 4.52 5
community scales
Diversity of user groups or
b stakeholders of Great Lakes 4.57 5 4.75 5 4.67 5 4.67 5 4.67 5
fisheries
c Sportfishing in the Great Lakes 4.57 5 4.63 5 4.33 ' 4 4.33 4 4.52 5
d “gem“ “5'““8 '" ‘h" Gm“ 4.29 4 4 4 4 4 4.67 5 4.19 4
Charter fishing industry in the
e Great Lakes 4.14 4 4 4 4.33 4 4 4 4.10 4
Native American or tribal fishing
f in the Great Lakes 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.67 5 4.l0 4
Political environnmt within , . » . - ’ _ f' _‘ 'I ‘
g which Great lakes fishery 3.86 4 ‘ 4.5 - 4.5 4.67 I' I 5 Y ’ 4 . . .4 ‘ 4.24 ~ 4- f
management operates ' , y .»
Social and cultural aspects of the
h Great Lakes fishery 4.29 4 4.25 4.5 3.67 4 4.33 4 4.19 4
. Understam‘iingoffish' I »» ' . 7» . . if- ;‘ ‘ i '
iI _ consinnptiou'advisories 4 4 413 . I .4 . 3.67. .. - . 5
j Hrstory of the Great lakes 4.14 4 3.88 4 4 4 5 5
fishery
Harm influences on'Gieat ' » ' » . 3. ‘
k Lakes aquatic “mm“ 4.14 4 4.25 4.5 4.67 5 I , 4.33 4 I . 4.29 II 4; .
1 ”“9““ “Gm“ ”k“ aqua“ 4.14 4 4.13 4 4.67 5 4.33 4 4.24 4

on humans

284

APPENDIX 14: MICHIGAN PARTICIPANT RESPONSES (N=22) TO PRE—
INSTITUTE AND POST-INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTION #3: KNOWLEDGE AND
SKILLS RELATED TO PARTICIPANTS’ INVOLVEMENT WITH THE GREAT
LAKES F ISHERY

Pre-Institute Survey - Question #3

3. Before participating in the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute, how would you
rate your own current knowledge in relation to your involvement with the Great Lakes
fishery? For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you Strongly
Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or

Strongly Agee. Circle only one response per statement.

 

(n=22) 1 z 3 4 5
3'3 fi 5 i 2 2
8 :8 8 a": ‘5
as g as s. 8 u g 8 0 MEAN MEDIAN
item F3 53 éfigg 5'? E"?
>5 5% 2s e as >s
=3 “=3 3 E "’5 E
D D D

 

I know how to provide
effective leadership on -- 4 (i9%) 9 (42.9%) 7 (33.3%) i (4.8%) 3.24 3
fisheries management issues.
i have access to a network of
experts (such as researchers,
biologists) from a variety of
backgrounds to call upon to
effectively address and/or
advocate regional needs.
Ihaveagoodundmtsnding _ . . . . j .
ofGreatLakflissues and - ' ~ 2 (9.5%) - 7 (33.3%) .' . 9 (42.9%) 3 (14.3%) 3.62 g» 4
‘ concerns. . . ~ ’ . '
i understand fishery issues
and concerns of 9M fishery
stakeholders (such as other 1 (4.8%) 3 (14.3%) 9 (42.9%) 7 (33.3%) i (4.8%) 3.19 3
fishery groups or those from
other Great Lakes regions). I
[haveenoughimderstanding ' >- . .» . - ' - - ". . F " .
ofGreat Lakes fishery 4 (19%) 8 (38.1%) - 4 (i9%) ,5 (23.8%) .-‘ i ’ 2.48 “' ’ '- 2'.
institutions and their roles. ~ .
i know about different skills
needed for fisheries i (4.8%) 4 (i9%) 8 (38.1%) 5 (23.8%) 3 (14.3%) 3.24 3
leadership.
i understand how the
legislative process works in —- 4 (i9%) 3 (14.3%) 9 (42.9%) 5 (23.8%) 3.71 4
my state.
i understand my state
agencies’ regulatory
processes toward fisheries
management.
I know about various sources V ' »
of infmfim relating to the l (4.8%) — 6 (28.6%) 13 (61.9%) ' i (4.8%) 3.62 4
Great Lakes fishery. ~ .
i know of potential partners
relating to fisheries work.
it mm‘immfifi’m -. 304.3%) 6 (28.6%) 8 (38.1%) 409%) 3.62 4
i know about regional or
national fishery management 1 (4.8%) 4 (i9%) 7 (33.3%) 7 (33.3%) 2 (9.5%) 3.24 3
institutions.
1 know of different funding
authorities relating to the i (4.8%) 6 (28.6%) 6 (28.6%) 6 (28.6%) 2 (9.5%) 3.1 3
Great lakes fishery.

fl

0"
1
1

l (4.8%) 8 (38.1%) 6 (28.6%) 608.6%) 3.81 4

O

O.

O .

-s

m

3‘

l (4.8%) 3 (14.3%) 5 (23.8%) 9 (42.9%) 3 04.3%) 3.48 4

u.

l (4.8%) -- 7 (33.3%) 8 (38.1%) 5 (23.8%) 3.76 4

t...

3

285

Post-Institute Survey - Question #3

3. After participating in the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute, how would you
rate your own current knowledge in relation to your involvement with the Great Lakes
fishery? For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you Strongly
Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or

Strongly Agee. Circle only one regonse Ber statement.

(n=22)

Item

I-I

Very
Unknowledgeable

N

Somewhat
Unknowledgeable

U

Nerther
Knowledgeable
nor
Unknowledgeable

 

‘

Somewhat
Knowledgeable

UI

Very
Knowledgeable

MEAN MEDIAN

 

m

0‘

O

Q.

G

"'3

an

:r

u.

r...

E

I know how to provide
effective leadership on
fisheries management issues.
1 have access to a network of
experts (such as researchers,
biologists) from a variety of
backgrounds to call upon to
effectively address and/or
advocate regional needs.

1 have a good understanding
of Great lakes issues and
concerns.

I understand fishery issues
and concerns of ribs; fishery
stakeholders (such as other
fishery groups or those from
other Great Lakes regions).

1 have enough understandin
of Great Lakes fishery
institutions and their roles.

I know about different skills
needed for fisheries
leadership.

I understand how the
legislative process works in
my state.

I understand my state
agencies‘ regulatory
processes toward fisheries
management.

1 know about various sources

of information relating to the ‘

Great Lakes fishery.

1 know of potential partners
relating to fisheries work.

1 know about my state fishery
rmnagcment institutions.

1 know about regional or
national fishery management
institutions.

1 know of different funding
authorities relating to the
Great lakes fishery.

1 (4.8%)

4 (19%)

l (4.8%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.8%)

l (4.8%)

l (4.8%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.8%)

3 (14.3%)

3 (14.3%)

286

14 (66.7%)

5 (23.8%)

6 (28.6%)

8 (38.1%)

10 (47.6%)

8 (38.1%)

12(57.1%)

11 (52.4%)

9(42.9%)

8 (38.1%)

6 (28.6%) i

6 (28.6%)

11 (52.4%)

6 (28.6%)

16 (76.2%)

14 (66.7%)

13 (61.9%)

5 (23.8%)

12 (57.1%)

8 (38.1%)

9 (42 9%)

12(57.1%)

13 (61.9%)

15 (71.4%).

12 (57.1%)

6 (28.6%)

4.24 4

4.05 4

Pre-Institute Survey - Question #3: Summary of Means and Medians of Michigan
Participants Responses by Lake Group
Lake
Huron

(n=8)

 

Mean

Median

Lake
Michigan
(n=8)

Mean

Median

Lake
Erie
(n=3)

Mean

Median

Lake
Superior
(n=3)

Mean

Median

TOTAL
(n=22)

Mean

Median

 

h}

0 0'

O-

(D

...,

g 1.3. 3.

I...

‘1 know how to provide effective
leadership on fisheries

t 1
1 have access to a network of
experts (such as researchers,
biologists) from a variety of
backgrounds to call upon to
effectively address and/or
advocate regional needs.
I haves good understanding of
Great Lakes issues and concerns.
I understand fishery issues and
concerns of m fishery
stakeholders (such as other
fishery groups or those fi'orn
other Great Lakes regions).
I have enough understanding of
Great Lakes fishery institutions
and their roles.
1 know about different skills
needed for fisheries leadership.

.Vlunderstand howthelegislative

mics: works in my state.

i understand my state agencies’
regulatory processes toward
fisheries management.

'yrlmowaboutvmoussourcesor‘ j
g infonrrationrelatingtotheGreat
'. 'Lakesfi

1 know of potential partners
relating to fisheries work

about rtrystatefishery

'mmr institutions

1 know about regional or national
fishery management institutions.

' lkaov'rof different funding

:53

authorities relating to the Great
Lakes fi__shery.-

3.29

2.86

3

287

2.33

3.33

3.19

 

 

Pre-Institute Survey - Question #3: Summary 01' Means and Medians of Michigan
Participants Responses by Lake Group

 

Lake

Lake Lake Lake

 

 

  

 

 

Huron Michigan Erie Superior 33:22:“
(n=8) (n=8) (n=3) (n=3)
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median
i know how to provide effective
a leadership on fisheries 4.14 4 4 25 4 4 33 4 4 33 4 4 24 4
management issues.
I have access to a network of
experts (such as researchers,
biologists) from a variety of
b backgrounds to call upon to 4.86 5 4 88 5 4 33 4 4.67 5 4 76 5
effectively address and/or
advocate regional needs.
‘lhaveagoodimderstandingof ' ' ‘ ‘ ' ,_ - '
c Great Lakes issues and concerns. 4'86 5 5'38 4‘5' 1 . '43; -_ ‘= , ‘5 _ 5 .. -' 1462 .
i understand fishery tssues and
concerns of m fishery
d stakeholders (such as other 4.71 5 4.5 4.5 4.33 4 5 5 4.62 5
fishery groups or those from
other Great Lakes regions).
1 have enough understanding of
e ‘ Great Lakes fishery institutions ‘4'
f [know about different skills 4 57
needed for fisheries leadership. . '
' ' iunderstandhowthelegmlanve ”‘9
3 process works In my state. “
I understand my state agencies’
h regulatory processes toward 4.43
fisheries management. >
.5 tknowahoutvarious source: or . f
5. mfdmtahourelatmgtothecireat “ " 4.86 >
was -fi -
. i know of potential partners 4 86
, J relating to fisheries work. '
l i know about regional or national 4 7|
fishery management institutions.‘
" ,sumontiesrelaungwmeamt ,3 4:29-
. i i' . 1 . ,

 

 

288

APPENDIX I-5: MICHIGAN PARTICIPANT RESPONSES (N=22) TO PRE-
INSTITUTE AND POST-INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTION #4: KNOWLEDGE AND
SKILLS RELATED TO PARTICIPANTS’ INVOLVEMENT WITH THE GREAT
LAKES FISHERY

Pre-Institute Survey - Question #4

4. In the following statements please rate your comfort and skills in relation to your
involvement with the Great Lakes fishery. For each of the following statements, please
indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor
Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree.

 

(n=22) I 2 3 4 5
i «i =3 i .E g
' “3 M 23 5 MEAN
Item 9: E? 3%3‘3 5%. 9%. MEDIAN
>5 E: £3“: E'; >-;
=3 “=3 5 =2 "‘5 a
D :) D

 

l have the skills necessary to -

provide leadership on fishery -- - 4 (19%) 6 (28.6%) 9 (42.9%) 2 (9.5%) 3.43 4
management issues.

I can teach others what l

know about Great Lakes — 1 (4.8%) 7 (33.3%) 8 (38.1%) 5 (23.8%) 3.81 4
fishery resources.

leanincreasepublic l “ ' ' > . F
participation in Great Lakes - l (4.8%) 6 (28.6%) .10 (47.6%) » 4.09%) . 3.81 ' _ 4 ‘
fisheries. ‘ -’ ' . '

l feel lcan influence policy

decisions made by fisheries -- 5 (23.8%) 6 (28.6%) 7 (33.3%) 3 (14.3%) 3.38 3
management agencies.

I feel I have the ability to

mflmm‘ml‘mm —. 304.3%) 753.3%) 9932.935) 2(9.5%) 3.48 1' 4 f

U

0‘

n

D.

0

relates to fisheries
mmgement.

l am comfortable with my
ability to work with different
fishery management agencies
and institutions.

I can lead a group meeting. -- -- 4 (19%) 7 (33.3%) 10 (47.6%) 4.29 4
ESE-EXESEJSTM" '" a -- ~ 5 (23.8%) 10 (47.6%) 6 (28.6%) 4.05 4
l can locate information and
resources about my Great -- l (4.8%) 3 (14.3%) [2 (57.1%) 5 (23.8%) 4 4
Lake and its watershed.

I am likely to work with

people or partners in

addressing and/or advocating “ " 3 (143%) 12 (571%) 6 (236%) 4-14 4
fishery needs.

...,
l

2 (9.5%) 8 (38.1%) 5 (23.8%) 6 (28.6%) 3.7l 4

5"

u.

I feel I can communicate with
Great Lakes fishery
stakeholders and leaders
(such as sport or commercial
fishing organimtions) from a
variety of ‘ ' '

-- 2(9.5%) 304.3%) 1l(52.4%)5(23.8%) 3.90 4

289

Post-Institute Survey - Question #4

4. In the following statements please rate your comfort and skills in relation to your
involvement with the Great Lakes fishery. For each of the following statements, please
indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor
Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. Circle only one response per statement.

 

 

 

 
    

(n=22) r 2 3 4 5
U 0 0
3 E .2: 3 2 "
E0 = i :- i so 7" '3 a MEAN MEDIAN
.E I
Item b .3 t '8 g in 3 .3 3 %n b in
9 E a? a = E a s
e e e z E e e E E
j m i Q 5 U2 6 6
. = E = E :2
D :9 :9
l have the skills necessary to
a provide leadership on fishery —— -- 2 (9.5%) 7 (33.3%) 12 (57.1%) 4.48 5
management issues.
I can teach others what I
b know about Great Lakes -- -— l (4.8%) 7 (33.3%) 13(61.9%) 4.57 5
fishery resources.
iii: fipmicrlflhoanreatIakes - = - " I ”~- 1 '55». :'—- -. 7 (33>.~3%)t‘1‘l4(5§~m3 ’ I ‘
lfeel lean influence policy '1 I i I i i V-
d decisions made by fisheries — ~ 2 (9.5%) 11 (52.4%) 8 (38.1%) 4.29 4
management agencies ‘ _ .. _ _
.lfeelihvethesbihtyto ‘ . , l ' .. g
influeneclegislat‘ionthat " » ' “‘ ‘
1e mmfiShmes . 1., -— .. _ - ; ‘2 [(4.8%) . 9(429%. ,_
I am comfortable with my
ability to work with different
1' fishery management agencies — l (4.8%) I (4.8%) 4 (19%) 15 (71.4%) 4.57 5
and institutions.
h lean leada group meeting. - - l (4.8%) 5 (23.8%) 15 (71.4%) 4.67 5
. I can provide leadership in a
I conflict situation. -- l (4.8%) -— 6 (28.6%) 14 (66.7%) 4.57 5
I can locate inforrmtion and
j resources aboutmyGreat —- -- -- 6(28.6%) 15(7l.4%) 4.71 S
Lake and its watershed.
I am likely to work with
people or partners in
1 addressing and/or advocating -- - — 5 (23.8%) 16 (76.2%) 4.76 5
fishery needs.
I feel lean communicate with
Great Lakes fishery
m sak‘hddm and "ad“ . — -- l (4.8%) 4 (19%) 16(76.2%) 4.71 s

(such as sport or eommercral
fishing organizations) from a
varietyo of ‘

290

Pre-Institute Survey - Question #4: Summary of Means and Medians of Michigan
Participants Responses by Lake Group

 

Mean

Median

Lake
Michigan
(n=8)

Mean

Median

Lake
Erie
(n=3)

Mean Median

Lake
Superior
(n=3)

Mean

Median

TOTAL
(n=22)

Mean

Median

 

Uo‘ o‘ m

G.

...,

:1

5.. ...

3

l have the skills necessary to
provide leadership on fishery
management issues

I can teach others what 1 know
about Great Lakes fishery
resources.

leaninm ‘publie'patneipau' ‘ 'm

' inG-‘eat lakes fisheries.

i feel lean influence policy
decisions made by fisheries
management agencies.

I feel I have-melbility to

j influence legislation Mrelates .

to fisheries managamnt.

1 am comfortable with my ability
to work with different fishery
management agencies and
institutions.

i can lead a group meeting.

i can provide leadership in a
conflict situation.

i can locate information and
resources about my Great Lake
and its watershed.

i am likely to work with people
or partners in addressing and/or
advocating fishery needs.

i feel I can communicate with
Great Lakes fishery stakeholders
and leaders (such as sport or
commercial fishing
organizations) from a variety of

3.57

4J4
3.86

3.86

4

3.5

4

4.67 5

3 .67

4

4.29
4.05

4

 

 

 

291

Post-Institute Survey - Question #4: Summary of Means and Medians of Michigan
Participants Responses by Lake Group
L

 

ake Lake Lake Lake
Huron Mkhigin Erie Superior 33:22:
(n=8) (n=8) (n=3) (n=3)

 

Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median

 

l have the skills necessary to

provide leadership on fishery 4.7] 5 4.5 S 4.33 4 4 4 4.48 S
rrianagement issues.

I can teach others what I know

u

b about Great Lakes fishery 4.86 5 4.5 5 4.33 4 4.33 4 4.57 5
resources.
I can increase public participation

e in S t Lakes fisheries 4.86 5 4.75 5 4.33 4 4.33 4 4.67 5
i feel I can influence policy

d decisions made by fisheries 4.43 4 4.38 4.5 3.67 4 4.33 4 4.29 4

management agencies.

i feel I have the ability to
influence legislation that relates 4.57 5 4.63 5 4 4 4.33 4 4.48 5
to fisheries management

i am comfortable with my ability
to work with different fishery

(D

f . 4 86 5 4 25 5 4.33 4 5 5 4 57 5
management agencres and
institutions.
it lcan leaday'oupmeeting. 4.86 .5 4.5 5 5 i '5 . 4.33 ’ 4 "4.67 , 5
i i can provide leadership in a

conflict situation.
lcanloeateinfomtationand g .- . - . ... - ~» " ‘
resources aboutm‘yGreat Lake' ' 4.86 5 4.5 4.5 5 " . . '5' ' 4.67 5 . '5' _ -4.7l : .
and its watershed. ~ ' ' ' .

I am likely to work with people

or Pam?“ m “dms'ns and/0r 4.86 5 4.75 5 4.67 5 4.67 5 4.76 5
advocating fishery needs.

4.86 5 4.25 4.5 5 5 4.33 4 4.57 5

a...

 

i feel i can communicate with
Great lakes fishery stakeholders
and leaders (such as sport or
commercial fishing
organiutions) from a variety of

3

 

292

APPENDIX I-6: PRE- AND POST-INSTITUTE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS
SURVEY ITEMS (QUESTIONS #1-4) AND SUMMARIZED RESPONSES OF
MICHIGAN PARTICIPANTS (N=22) ORGANIZED BY EACH GLFLI BIOLOGY,
ECOLOGY, OR F ISHERY SCIENCE RELATED LEARNNG OUTCOME AREAS
REPRESENTED BY EACH ITEM

 

 

Difference Significance
All Cases All Cases bwtn based on
Wilcoxon Sum
- PRE - - POST - POST - PR!) of Ranks
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Z' P

 

A basic knowledge of the history of Great
Lakes fishery and fishery management
Fisheries management techniques
1e applied to achieve fishery management 3.33 4 4.29 4 0.96 0 -3.270 0.001
(such as regulations and policies)
The role of genetics in fisheries

1i . . . 2.71 3 3.62 4 0.91 1 -2.992 0.003
management actmttes
Native species rehabilitation efforts

1 j (such as Coaster Brook Trout, Lake 3.05 3 4.14 4 1.09 1 -3.056 0.002
Trout)

2j History of the Great Lakes fishery 3.48 4 4.14 4 0.66 0 ~2.3S9 0.018

21 ”mm °f Gm" 13““ aquam 3.33 4 4.24 4 0.86 o -2754 0.006

environments on humans

 

A basic understanding of fish ecology,
biology, or science

lb Basic understanding of fish biology 3.67 4 4.33 4 0.66 0 -2.807 0.005
The role of genetics in fisheries

 

 

 

1i . . . 2.71 3 3.62 4 0.91 1 -2.992 0.003
management activrties
Native species rehabilitation efforts
1 j (such as Coaster Brook Trout, Lake 3.05 3 4.14 4 1.09 i -3.056 0.002
Trout)
Biological basis for fish production in
lo Great Lakes waters 3.33 4 4.14 4 0.81 0 -3.213 0.001
Aquatic food webs associated with
1k Great Lakes fisheries 3.10 4 3.9 4 0.8 0 -2.527 0.011
The biological basis for fish production in the
natural waters of the Great Lakes
Biological basis for fish production in
1c Great Lakes waters 3.33 4 4.14 4 0.81 0 -3.213 0.001
1i 11“ ”1° “We???” “Shem“ 2.71 3 3.62 4 0.91 1 -2992 0.003
management activmes
Native species rehabilitation efforts
1 j (such as Coaster Brook Trout, Lake 3.05 3 4.14 4 1.09 1 -3.056 0.002
Trout)
A basic understanding of Great Lakes food
webs — including the effects of lower trophic
level changes on fish (physiology and species
composition)
Aquatic food webs associated with
1k Great Lakes fisheries 3.10 4 3.9 4 0.8 0 -2.527 0.011
11 Plankton (zooplankton, phytoplankton) 2.81 3 3.67 4 0.86 1 -2.941 0.003
1m Forage fishes 3.19 3 4.05 4 0.86 1 -3.211 0.001
10 Aquatic plants 3.05 3 3.67 4 0.62 1 -2.389 0.017
Effects of aquatic nuisance species on
1 g the sustainability of the Great Lakes 3.62 4 4.52 5 0.9 1 -3.082 0.002
fishery
-- Table Continued ~-

293

 

Significance

 

 

 

 

 

 

All Cases All Cases Difference bwtn based on
Wilcoxon Sum
- PRE — - POST - POST - PRE of Ranks
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Za P

A basic understanding of the effects and

potential etTects of aquatic nuisance species on

Great Lakes fish
Effects of aquatic nuisance species on

lg the sustainability of the Great Lakes 3.62 4 4.52 5 0.9 1 -3.082 0.002
fishery
Native species rehabilitation efforts

lj (such as Coaster Brook Trout. Lake 3.05 3 4.14 4 1.09 1 -3.056~ 0.002
Trout)

A basic understanding of the direct and

indirect effects of contaminants on Great

Lakes fish and sustainable Great Lakes fishery

(habitat and reproduction)
Effects of contaminants on Great Lakes

1f fishery goals or objectives (such as 3.57 4 4.14 4 0.57 0 -2.668 0.008
habitat and fish reproduction)

A basic understanding of Great Lakes fish

habitat needs or what composes essential fish

habitat

1d Understanding of essential fish habitats 3.62 4 4.24 4 0.62 ~2.489 0.013

1n Wetlands 3.43 4 3.95 4 0.52 -2.157 0.031

1p Watersheds 3.33 4 3.95 4 0.62 0 -2.360 0.018

A basic understanding of the impacts of land

use on fish habitat

1d Understanding of essential fish habitats 3.62 4 4.24 0.62 -2.489 0.013

1p Watersheds 3.33 4 3.95 0.62 -2.360 0.018
Hum?" mfli’mfl’ °“ Gm“ ”Res 3.52 4 4.29 4 0.77 0 —2.556 0.011
aquatic envrronments

Knowledge of Great Lakes fish habitat

restoration successes

1d Understanding of essential fish habitats 3.62 4 4.24 4 0.62 0 -2.489 0.013
Native species rehabilitation efforts

1 j (such as Coaster Brook Trout, Lake 3.05 3 4.14 4 1.09 1 -3.056 0.002
Trout)

1p Watersheds 3.33 4 3.95 4 0.62 0 -2.360 0.018

2k Hum?" '"fli‘cms °“ Great ”k“ 3.52 4 4.29 4 0.77 0 -2.556 0.011
aquatic envrronments

The tools necessary to identify Great lakes fish

species

1h identifying Great Lakes fish 4.00 4 4.43 4 0.43 O -2.060 0.039

 

‘ Based on negative ranks.

294

 

 

 

APPENDIX I-7: PRE- AND POST-INSTITUTE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS
SURVEY ITEMS (QUESTIONS #1-4) AND SUMMARIZED RESPONSES OF
MICHIGAN PARTICIPANTS (N=22) ORGANIZED BY EACH GLFLI LEADERSHIP
(NETWORKING, INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS, ISSUES, POLITICAL AND
SOCIAL-CULTURAL PROCESSES, ETC.) RELATED LEARNING OUTCOME
AREAS REPRESENTED BY EACH ITEM

 

 

 

Difference Significance
All Cases All Cases bwtn based on
Wilcoxon Sum
- PRE - - POST - POST - PRE of Ranks
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Mean 2' P
Basic leadership skills
I know how to provide effective
3a leadership on fisheries management 3.24 3 4.24 4 1 1 -3.402 0.001

issues.
3r ' "m‘?’ “hm" diff?“ ‘kms “ed“ f‘” 3.24 3 4.52 5 1.28 2 -3.462 0.001
fisheries leadership.
1 know about various sources of
3i information relating to the Great Lakes 3.62 4 4.57 5 0.95 1 -3.275 0.001
fishery.
l have the skills necessary to provide
leadership on fishery management issues.
1 can teach others what I know about
4b Great Lakes fishery resources. 3.81 4 4.57 5 0.76 1 -3.092 0.002

1 can increase public participation in

4a 3.43 4 4.48 5 1.05 i -3.275 0.001

 

4c Great Lakes fisheries. 3.81 4 4.67 5 0.86 1 -3.448 0.001

4d ' {cc' 1 ca" ““93"“ ”my ““5““? 3.38 3 4.29 4 0.91 1 -3094 0.002
made by fisheries management agenmes.
l feel I have the ability to influence

4e legislation that relates to fisheries 3.48 4 4.48 5 1 1 ~3.220 0.001
management.
1 am comfortable with my ability to work

4f with different fishery management 3.71 4 4.57 5 0.86 1 -2.970 0.003
agencies and institutions.

4h 1 can lead a group meeting. 4.29 4 4.67 5 0.38 1 -2.126 0.033

41 I?“ mede 'eadmhip ‘“ 3 “mm“ 4.05 4 4.57 5 0.52 1 -2.653 0.003
s1tuat1on.

. I can locate information and resources

4] about my Great Lake and its watershed. 4.00 4 4.71 5 0.71 1 -2.803 0.005
1 am likely to work with people or

41 partners in addressing and/or advocating 4.14 4 4.76 5 0.62 1 -3.127 0.002
fishery needs.
1 feel i can communicate with Great
Lakes fishery stakeholders and leaders

4m (such as sport or commercial fishing 3.90 4 4.71 5 0.81 1 -3.082 0.002
organizations) from a variety of
backgrounds.

-- Table Continued --

295

 

 

Difference Significance

 

All Cases All Cases bwtn based on
Wilcoxon Suni
- PRE - - POST - POST - PRE of Ranks
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Mean 2' P

 

A network of exm contacts (scientists,

managers, legislatog, etc.) from a variety of
backgrounds to call upon to effectively address

and/or advocate regional needs.
1 have access to a network of experts
(such as researchers, biologists) from a
3b variety of backgrounds to call upon to 3.81 4 4.76 5 0.95 1 -3.256 0.001
effectively address and/or advocate
regional needs.
1 know about various sources of

31 information relating to the Great Lakes 3.62 4 4.57 5 0.95 1 -3.275 0.001
fishery.

3j I kw." °f W'ent‘a' Dame’s “3'8""3 ‘° 3.76 4 4.62 5 0.86 1 -2.887 0.004
fisheries work.

3k ‘ km“ “’0” my “a“ may 3.62 4 4.71 5 1.09 1 -3.236 0.001

management institutions.
31 ‘ "mw ab°”‘.'eg‘.°"‘." °’ "a“m‘a' “Sher-V 3.24 3 4.43 5 1.19 2 -3477 0.001
management Institutions.
1 know of different funding authorities
relating to the Great Lakes fishery.
1 am comfortable with my ability to work
4f with different fishery management 3.7] 4 4.57 5 0.86 1 -2.970 0.003
agencies and institutions.
1 am likely to work with people or
41 partners in addressing and/or advocating 4.14 4 4.76 5 0.62 1 -3.127 0.002
fishery needs.
I feel I can communicate with Great
Lakes fishery stakeholders and leaders
4m (such as sport or commercial fishing 3.90 4 4.71 5 0.81 1 -3.082 0.002
organizations) from a variety of
backgrounds.

3m 3.10 3 4.05 4 0.95 1 -3.216 0.001

 

Create a network of Great Lakes leaders or peers
from the broadest possible varieg of

backgroundsprganizationsI or stakeholder
wwho are able to call upon each other to

effectively address and/or advocate regional

 

needs
Diversity of user groups or stakeholders
2b of Great Lakes fisheries 3.67 4 4.67 5 1 1 -3.038 0.002
2c Sportfishing in the Great Lakes 4.00 4 4.52 5 0.52 1 -2.456 0.014
2d Commercial fishing in the Great Lakes 3.24 3 4.19 4 0.95 1 -3.115 0.002
2e 3:? “5th "“1““ "‘ me Great 3.24 3 4.10 4 0.86 1 -2970 0.003
Native American or tribal fishing in the
2f Great Lakes 3.33 4 4.10 4 0.77 0 -2.859 0.004
3j Egggfifnml ”amm ”lam“; ‘° 3.76 4 4.62 5 0.86 1 -2.887 0.004
1 am likely to work with people or
41 partners in addressing and/or advocating 4.14 4 4.76 5 0.62 1 -3.127 0.002
fishery needs.
I feel 1 can communicate with Great
Lakes fishery stakeholders and leaders
4m (such as sport or commercial fishing 3.90 4 4.7] 5 0.81 1 -3.082 0.002
organizations) from a variety of
backgrounds.
-- Table Continued --

296

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Difference Significance
All Cases All Cases bwtn based on
Wilcoxon Sum
- PRE - - POST - POST - PRE of Ranks
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Mean 2' P

Basic understanding of Great Lakes institutional

arrangements relevant to the fishery
l have enough understanding of Great

3e Lakes fishery institutions and their roles. 2'48 2 3'67 4 1'19 2 '3'328 0'00]

3k ”"0“" ab°°‘."'y.s‘a.“ “She” 3.62 4 4.71 5 1.09 1 -3.236 0.001
management institutions.

31 ' "mw am“‘.’°g‘.°"‘." °’ “amm“ “She” 3.24 3 4.43 5 1.19 2 -3477 0.001
management institutions.
1 know of different funding authorities

3m relating to the Great Lakes fishery. 3.10 3 4.05 4 0.95 1 -3.216 0.001

To understand Great Lakes institutional

arrangements and funding authorities.
1 have enough understanding of Great

3° Lakes fishery institutions and their roles. 2'48 2 3'67 4 "'9 2 '3'328 000‘
1 know of different funding authorities

3m relating to the Great Lakes fishery. 3.10 3 4.05 4 0.95 1 -3.216 0.001

Familiarity and basic knowledge with key

federal agd state fisheries managers and

management institutions
1 have enough understanding of Great

3e Lakes fishery institutions and their roles. 2'48 2 3'67 4 1'19 2 '3'328 0'00]
I understand my state agencies'

3h regulatory processes toward fisheries 3.48 4 4.33 4 0.85 0 -2.924 0.003
management.

3k ‘ k"°“’ “WWW.” “Shay 3.62 4 4.71 5 1.09 1 -3.236 0.001
management institutions.

31 “mm” ab°"‘."3‘.°"‘i" °' "at'ma' “She” 3.24 3 4.43 5 1.19 2 -3477 0.001
management institutions.
1 know of different funding authorities

3m relating to the Great Lakes fishery. 3.10 3 4.05 4 0.95 1 -3.216 0.001

Develop stakeholders from each Great Lakes

state as Great Lakes Fishery Leaders - a cohort

of leaders with the knowledge and skills

necessary to provide effective leadership on

fisheries management issues.

2k ”“9““ '"fluenccs 0" Great ”“5 “"3"“: 3.52 4 4.29 4 0.77 o -2.556 0.011
envrronments
1 know how to provide effective

3a leadership on fisheries management 3.24 3 4.24 4 1 1 -3.402 0.001
issues.

3r 1 km‘." “bow d'ffm Skms "ceded f‘” 3.24 3 4.52 5 1.28 2 -3.462 0.001
fisheries leadership.
1 know about various sources of

3i information relating to the Great Lakes 3.62 4 4.57 5 0.95 1 -3.275 0.001
fishery.

. 1 know of potential partners relating to

31 fisheries work. 3.76 4 4.62 5 0.86 1 -2.887 0.004

4a 1 “a“ "1" 5“"5 necessary ‘° ”“4" 3.43 4 4.48 5 1.05 l -3275 0.001
leadership on fishery management issues.
1 feel 1 can influence policy decisions

4d made by fisheries management agencies. 3.38 3 4.29 4 0.91 1 -3.094 0.002
1 feel I have the ability to influence

4e legislation that relates to fisheries 3.48 4 4.48 5 1 1 -3.220 0.001
management.

-- Table Continued --

297

 

 

 

 

 

 

Difference Significance
All Cases All Cases bwtn based on
Wilcoxon Suin
- PRE - - POST - POST - PRE of Ranks
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Mean 2' P
A basic understanding of the processes which
feed into fisheries management decisions
Fisheries management techniques applied
1e to achieve fishery management (such as 3.33 4 4.29 4 0.96 0 -3.270 0.001
regulations and policies)
Political environment within which Great
Zg Lakes fishery management operates 3.38 4 4.24 4 0.86 0 -2.884 0.004
1 know how to provide effective
3a leadership on fisheries management 3.24 3 4.24 4 1 1 -3.402 0.001
issues.
3g I ““63““ hm” the 'Cg‘SIat‘Vc 9’0““ 3.71 4 4.29 4 0.58 o -2.652 0.008
works in my state.
I understand my state agencies’
3h regulatory processes toward fisheries 3.48 4 4.33 4 0.85 0 -2.924 0.003
management.
Empower these fishery leaders with the ability
to influence policy decisions and legislative
initiatives
28 Political envrronment Within which Great 3.38 4 4.24 4 0.86 0 ~2.884 0.004
Lakes fishery management operates
3g ‘ “"dai’md hm" the 'cg's'at‘vc ”“55 3.71 4 4.29 4 0.58 o -2.652 0.008
works in my state.
I understand my state agencies’
3h regulatory processes toward fisheries 3.48 4 4.33 4 0.85 0 -2.924 0.003
management.
4a 1 “a” "‘9 “ms ““65“” ‘° pm“? 3.43 4 4.48 5 1.05 l -3275 0.001
leadership on fishery management issues.
4d I feel I “m "mm“ ”my dcc‘s'm‘s. 3.38 3 4.29 4 0.91 1 -3094 0.002
made by fisheries management agencres.
I feel I have the ability to influence
4e legislation that relates to fisheries 3.48 4 4.48 5 1 1 -3.220 0.001
management.
Exposure to and understanding of current issues
and concerns relevant to the Great Lakes fishery
1a Great Lakes issues and concerns 3.71 4 4.52 0.81 1 -3.002 0.003
. Native species rehabilitation efforts (such
1] as Coaster Brook Trout, Lake Trout) 3.05 3 4.14 4 1.09 1 -3.056 0.002
Effects of aquatic nuisance species on the
‘3 sustainability of the Great Lakes fishery 3'62 4 4'52 5 0'9 I '3'082 0°02
Effects of contaminants on Great Lakes
lf fishery goals or objectives (such as 3.57 4 4.14 4 0.57 0 -2.668 0.008
habitat and fish reproduction)
21 "‘fli’m“ °f Gm“ Lakes “m“ 3.38 4 4.24 4 0.86 0 —2.754 0.006
envrronrnents on humans
3c 1 have a good understanding of Great 3. 62 4 4. 62 5 1 1 {.3535 O
Lakes issues and concerns.
Expose leadership from one end of the Great
Lakes region to the issues and concerns of the
other parts of the region.
1a Great Lakes issues and concerns 3.71 4 4.52 5 0.81 1 -3.002 0.003
Diversity of user groups or stakeholders
2b of Great Lakes fisheries 3.67 4 4.67 5 l 1 -3.038 0.002
2c Sportfishing in the Great Lakes 4.00 4 4.52 5 0.52 1 -2.456 0.014
2d Commercial fishing in the Great lakes 3.24 3 4.19 4 0.95 1 -3.115 0.002
2e 33;“ ””3 "‘dusm/ "' ”“3 Gm“ 3.24 3 4.10 4 0.86 1 -2970 0.003
2f Native American or tribal fishing in the 3.33 4 4,10 4 0.77 0 -2.859 0004
Great Lakes
I understand fishery issues and concerns
3d of other fishery stakeholders (such as 3.19 3 4.62 5 1.43 2 3.945 0

 

other fishery groups or those from other
Great Lakes regions).

 

298

 

Difference Significance

 

 

 

 

 

 

All Cases All Cases bwtn based on
Wilcoxon Suin
- PRE - - POST - POST - PRE of Ranks
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Mean 2' P

A enhanced ability to see multiple sides of any

issue

1a Great Lakes issues and concerns 3.71 4 4.52 5 0.81 1 -3.002 0.003
Diversity of user groups or stakeholders

2b of Great Lakes fisheries 3.67 4 4.67 5 l 1 -3.038 0.002

2c Sportfishing in the Great Lakes 4.00 4 4.52 5 0.52 1 -2.456 0.014

2d Commercial fishing in the Great Lakes 3.24 3 4.19 4 0.95 1 -3.115 0.002

2e 3:2" “Sh"‘g "mus“ "‘ the Gm“ 3.24 3 4.10 4 0.86 i -2970 0.003

2f Native Amencan or tribal fishing in the 3.33 4 4.10 4 0.77 0 -2.859 0004
Great Lakes
1 understand fishery issues and concerns

3d of other fishery stakeholders (such as 3.19 3 4.62 5 1.43 2 {£945 0
other fishery groups or those from other
Great Lakes regions).

A thorough understanding of fish consumption

advisories or how contaminants affect public

safety (consumption)

2i ”"4"“?de °f 55" “msump‘m” 3.86 4 4.10 4 0.24 o -.905 0.366
advrsones

Multiply the ability of Great Lakes Sea Grant

Extension to reach constituent audiences using a

‘teach-the-teacher’ model.
1 can teach others what 1 know about

4b Great Lakes fishery resources. 3.81 4 4.57 5 0.76 1 -3.092 0.002
1 can increase public participation in

4c Great Lakes fisheries. 3.81 4 4.67 5 0.86 1 -3.448 0.001

A basic understanding of needs, opportunities

and mechanisms for enhancing public

participation in the Great Lakes fisheries

2h 3°C”! and “""m' ”pee“ “the Gm“ 3.38 3 4.19 4 0.81 1 -2.803 0.005
Lakes fishery

2k "“9“" '"flu‘mm °" Gm" 13"“ aquat'“ 3.52 4 4.29 4 0.77 0 -2.556 0.01 i
envrronments
1 can teach others what I know about

4b Great Lakes fishery resources. 3.8] 4 4.57 5 0.76 1 -3.092 0.002
1 can increase public participation in

4c Great Lakes fisheries. 3.81 4 4.67 5 0.86 1 -3.448 0.001

 

An awareness of the economic importance that

Great Lakes fisheries have on regional,

statewide and coastal community scales.
The economic importance that Great _

2a lakes fisheries have on regional, 3.71 4 4.52 5 0.81 1 -3.169 0.002
statewide, and coastal community scales

 

‘ Based on negative ranks.

299

APPENDIX I-8: MICHIGAN PARTICIPANT RESPONSES (N=22) TO PRE-
INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTION #7: MOTIVATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION

7. In participating in the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute you have an interest
in volunteering or serving in leadership roles within the Great Lakes fisheries. How
would you rate the following statements in relation to your motivations to volunteer as a
leader in the Great Lakes fisheries please indicate whether you strongly Disagree,
Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree.

Circle only one response per statement.

 

 

   

 

(n=22) 1 2 3 4 5
>s 0 % 3 " g %' >:
i. 0
Eng ‘5 :3 g g g. ‘53; 2% MEAN MEDIAN
e .z a .2 a . .2 a 3: e 3
Reasons for participating in the GLFLI.... a 9 Si 9 z 5:” D g a
’17 "Opponmtytoieamnmaboutorear 172' ,5 (2558
' Lakes fisheries sciences and management 7' g ' '
b People I know share interest in community _ 4 l 3 5 405
servrce
c _ Cando something for a fisheries cause. ‘ - —- 1 13 - 8 4.32
11 Way to make new friends ~ -- 3 10 . _7 2 . 3.36 .
e" Williookgoodonmyresunie ‘- ' 611315-71 ' ll .i-i': :‘ f_.--.. 1.21;;-
f [S a good escape from my own troubles 11 5 6 ~- —- 1.77
Willhelpmesueceedinrnych osen - " '
8. profession 6 ' 1 8 4 3 2‘86
h Learn about fisheries management and

 

issues through hands on experience
(‘ 4L '

 

- ' ¢ . . . . W"- ‘
Helps me feel better about myself
Those close to me value commity
service hi ighiy .
Allows me to explore different career
options
m Helps me work through my own problems
Allows me to gain new perspective on
things
Makes me feel needed
Friends volunteer with fisheries related
organizations . g .. _
I Wmmflabomhowbad l'vebeen f. 1' I: if": I: 3 I 11" : '.-V " I "
. feeling , _
People 1' in close to want me to volunteer
I C... ...}, .. I _, .
want to mrk . , ’
Can explore my own strengths
'11 _ .Geniii'nelyconcernjz concerned about Oreai latices
‘ ..vfi'sheiies
Feel it is important to help. others

i...

 

—*

O
Orb-Nd;
...

LII
...
O
A
w
Ur
\O
wuanw

A.:_ "u

. -s

<

 

   

x Feel compassion for people in need-
_ 1;”;Voliniteeringtc
Can make new contacts that help my
2 career 6 3 5 7 1 2.73 3
as increase my self-esteem 10 2 9 1 - 2.05 2
Concemed about those less fortunate than
bb myself 7 3 5 6 1 2.59 3
cc By volunteering 1 feel less lonely 14 3 5 -- ~ 1.59 1
dd Makes me feel important 13 2 7 —- -- 1.73 1
I enjoy the status of belonging to the Great
°° Lakes Fishery Leadership institute ' " 15 5 1 3'23 3

 

 

300

Michigan Participant Responses (n=22) to Pre-Institute Survey Question #7: Summary
of Means and Medians by Lake Group

7. In participating in the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute you have an interest in
volunteering or serving in leadership roles within the Great Lakes fisheries. How would
you rate the following statements in relation to your motivations to volunteer as a leader
in the Great Lakes fisheries:

 

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

 

 

Reasons for Ptrfldpflinc in the Huron Michigan Erie Superior 33:3?
GLFLI. . .. Q=8) (n=8) (n=3) (“=31
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median
Opportunity to learn more about
a Great Lakes fisheries sciences and 4.75 5 4.5 4.5 4.67 5 5 5 4.68 5
management .
b Pwp‘e ‘ l‘mw Share were“ ‘“ 4 4 3.87 4 4 4 4.67 5 4.05 4
community scmce
c $353" ”math” f“ “ “mm 4.38 4 4.38 4 3.67 4 4.67 5 4.32 4
d Way to make new friends 3.5 3.5 3.25 3 2.67 3 4 4 3.36 3
e Will look good on my resume 2 2 2.5 3 1.33 l 3 3 2.23 2.5
f 15 a 3°°d escape fm’" my °“’" 1.5 1 1.88 2 1 1 3 1.77 1.5
troubles
3 w'“ help m“ mm“ m my chm“ 2.38 2.5 3.38 3.5 1.67 1 4 4 2.86 3
profess1on
Learn about fisheries management
h and issues through hands on 4.63 5 4.38 4 4 4 4.33 4 4.41 4
experience .
i can "am h°w ‘° dc“! “m“ a "new 3.38 3.5 3.62 3.5 2.33 3 3.33 3 3.32 3
of people
j Helps me feel better about myself 2.38 2.5 2.5 2.5 2 2 3 3 2.45 3
k “mi” “'9“ ‘° m “‘“c °°mm“""y 3.63 4 2.75 3 3 3 3.33 3 3.18 3
scrvrce highly
1 “'9“ "‘° ‘° “PM“ d'm’rem we" 2.38 2 2.38 2.5 2.33 3 3 3 2.45 3
options
in “‘1‘” m “m“ ““9““ my °“’“ 2 2 2.25 2.5 1.67 1 3 3 2.18 2
problems
11 ”0".“ me ‘0 33‘“ "cw perspectwe 3.63 4 3.63 4 2.33 4.67 5 3.59 4
on things
0 Makes me feel needed 2.38 2.5 2.38 2.5 2 2 3 3 2.41
p “ends ““9“? “’“h “Shem" 2.75 2.5 2.75 2.5 1.67 3.33 3 2.68 3
related organizations
Helps me forget about how bad I’ve
q been feeling 1.38 1 1.88 1.5 l 1 1.67 1 1.55 l
r PM“ 1 m °'°S° ‘° “’8‘" me ‘° 1.75 1 2 1.5 1.33 1 1.67 1 1.77 1
volunteer
s C” ““9 me 3'" " f°°‘ "‘ ““3 d°°' 1.38 1 2.25 2.5 1 1 1.67 1 1.68 1
where 1 want to work
t Can explore my own strengths 3 3 3.38 3.5 2 2 3 4 3 3
Genuinely concerned about Great '
u Lakes fisheries 4.75 5 p 4.75 S 5 5 4.67 5 4.77 5
v Feel it is important to help others 4.25 4 4 4 4 4 4.33 4 4.14 4
' Relieves guilt over being more
w fortunate than others . 1.5 1 1.88 1.5 1 1 1.67 l 1.59 1
x Feel compassion for people in need 3.25 3 3 3 3 3.33 3 3.14 3
y ‘éfx‘gng ‘3 “Wm“ ‘° “m" I 2.88 3 2.75 3 2.33 2 2.67 3 2.73 3
2 5:33“ "CW ”“3““ "u“ help my 2 2 3.38 3.5 2 1 3.67 4 2.73 3
an Increase my self-esteem 2.13 2 2.25 3 1.67 1 1.67 l 2.05 2
bb “mm“ “W" “w“ “’55 “mm“ 2.25 2 2.63 2.5 2.67 3 3.33 3 2.59 3
. than myself
‘cc By volunteering I feel less lonely 1.5 l 1.63 l 1.67 - 1 1.67 1 1.59 1
dd Makes me feel important 1.75 1.5 2 2 l l 1.67 1 1.73 1
i enjoy the status of belonging to the
es Great Lakes Fishery Leadership 3.63 3.5 3.25 3 2.33 3 3 3 3.23 3
institute

 

301

APPENDIX I-9: MICHIGAN PARTICIPANT RESPONSES (N=22) TO POST-
INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTIONS #6-8

6. During your participation in the GLFLI, did you learn or gain what you had
originally hoped fi'om this experience? (Please Check one.)

 

 

 

Response Category Fr(en 1:623”, . Percent of Total
Strongly Disagree 5 22.7
Moderately Disagree 1 4.5
Neither Agree nor Disagree -- ~-
Moderately Agree 7 31.8
Strongly Agree 9 40.9

MEAN 3.64
MEDIAN 4

 

7. Did you learn or gain something new or something that you did not anticipate
learning from the GLFLI? (Please Check One.)

 

Frequency

 

 

Response Category (n=22) Percent of Total
Strongly Disagree 4 18.2
Moderately Disagree -- . --
Neither Agree nor Disagree -- --
Moderately Agree 5 22.7
Stronjly Agree 13 59.1

MEAN 4.05
MEDIAN . 5

 

8. Do you consider your GLFLI learning experience to be beneficial? (Please Check
One.)

 

 

 

Response Category “(232623” Percent of Total
Strongly Disagree 4 18.2
Moderately Disagree -- --
Neither Agree nor Disagree -- -_
Moderately Agree 2 9.1
Strongly Age 16 72.7

MEAN 4.18
MEDIAN 5

 

302

 

APPENDIX I-lO: MICHIGAN PARTICIPANT RESPONSES (N=22) TO POST-
INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTIONS #9-11:

 

9. Did the curriculum or lessons meet your expectations? (Please Check One.)

 

 

 

Response Category “533;” Percent of Total
Strongly Disagree 4 18.2
Moderately Disagree 1 4.5
Neither Agree nor Disagree -- --
Moderately Agree 7 31.8
Strongly Agree 10 45.5

MEAN 3.82
MEDIAN 4

 

10. Did the experiential or hands-on opportunities meet your expectations? (Please
Check One.)

 

 

 

Response Category “335:” Percent of Total
Strongly Disagree 4 18.2
Moderately Disagree 2 9.1
Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 18.2
Moderately Agree 5 22.7
Strongly Agree 7 31.8

MEAN 3.41
MEDIAN 4

 

 

11. Did you have adequate opportunities to practice knowledge and skills gained during
the GLFLI? (Please Check One.)

 

 

 

Response Category F233;” Percent of Total
Strongly Disagree 3 13.6
Moderately Disagree 1 4.5
Neither Agree nor Disagree 6 27.3
Moderately Agree 6 27.3
Strongly Agree 6 27.3

MEAN 3.5
MEDIAN 4

 

303

APPENDIX LI 1: MICHIGAN PARTICIPANT OPEN—ENDED RESPONSES (N=21)

TO PRE-INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTION #5 AND POST-INSTITUTE SURVEY
QUESTION #5: WHAT PARTICIPANTS HOPED TO LEARN OR GAIN, AND

WHAT PARTICIPANTS BELIEVE THEY HAD LEARNED OR GAINED

 

 

2]
Pre-Institute Survey Question #5: Please list or describe Post-Institute Survey Question #5: After participating
what you hope to learn or gain through your in the GLFLI, what do you consider the most important
participation in the GLFLI: things that you learned or gained?
l. understanding of fisheries issues Better understanding of all of the processes, regulation, and
environmental factors that effect the Great Lakes fisheries
2. General knowledge of Great Lakes History and how the Fishery Management Practices, Fishery Management
different stakeholders work together Institutions
3. More confidence and info - Legislative issues, big picture The most important thing were overviews of current
issues. What we CAN Q - how to do it. legislation and policy. There is still so much of this i do
NOT know.
4. i hope to learn all i can about the Great Lakes and the I learned a tremendous amount of information about the
different user or consumer groups stocking efforts of various species and how those efforts are
having an effect or not
5. A much better understanding of issues and the biology of Exposure to diversity of issues
Lake Eric
6. Funding sources, how to better the relationship between How lake committees, basin teams, the fisheries commission
organizations/users with district fish biologist/management, and multi-agency, university, and stakeholders need to
be on a list of people who can facilitate meetings, seminars, cooperate and communicate and work together verse being a
or presentations power thing
7. Better understanding of our Great Lakes fishery and to help Political issues; background information on species and lake
protect our sportfishery and to continue to protect our rights Michigan history
to fish. To help grow the fishing publics' awareness of our
resources. To protect the Lakes from pollution and misuse.
8. Gain Knowledge to Pass to readership perspective of all user groups
9. Understanding of Lake Erie and Great Lakes issues that k-12 greater information, from the perspective of many different
students should learn about, and might help address stakeholders
10. Additional Leadership skills; networks with others; resources, personal contacts, fisheries ”refresher" course!
resources for information
1 1. increase my knowledge to explain to my peers and fellow Relationships and contacts and fishery values for all users of
Steelheaders the needs to be educated in policy-making the resource
through good management of our fisheries
12. knowledge, and an understanding of how it all works, from a i) all of the issues in Lake Huron and their impacts, and 2) a
biological & social perspective. vast wealth of resoruces is available to me
13. knowledge of fisheries in Lake Michigan & Lake Huron and Lines of communication and different viewpoints
better networking skills
l4. lnforrnation on funding & partnerships to educate youth & The identification of agencies and resources available to me
families on fishery management & stewardship in addition to the knowledge basis I have gained by
attending the sessions
15. Broaden my understanding of G.L. fishery management Learning about the various issues in the Great Lakes and the
issues and stakeholder groups involved in the Lake Michigan Stakeholders that represent them.
fishery
16. I want to become a knowledgeable advocate for northern The information presented and resources for more
Lake uron and Lake Huron in general. lam interested in information
great lakes fishing (sportfishing).
17. A greater awareness of fisheries related programs and An understanding of the fisheries community
management practices
18. More information about the Great lakes fishery resource infomtation and contact information
19. More enhanced knowledge of research & policies
concerning G.L. Fishery ecosyststems.
20. Greater understanding of Great Lakes fisheries and an The diversity of fisheries stakholders and issues of each
opportunity to work with dynamic individuals
21. A greater understanding of the role of groups outside the Networking

Michigan in managinithe Great Lakes

 

304

APPENDIX I-12: MICHIGAN PARTICIPANT RESPONSES (N=22) TO POST-
INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTIONS #12: CURRICULUM COMPONENTS
CONSIDERED MOST AND LEAST VALUABLE

12. Which curriculum module or lesson (if any) was most or least valuable?
(Check ALL that apply)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(n=22)
Most cy Least 0/
CURRICULUM MODULE Valuable ° Valuable °
The Life of the Lakes 19 86.4 - -
Fisheries Habitat Module 9 40.9 i 4.5
Aquatic Nuisance Species Effects on Sustainability
9 40.9 - -
Module
Fish ID CD ROM 8 36.4 -- -
Fisheries Management Module 7 31.8 i 4.5
Aquatic Science Module 5 22.7 3 13.6
G. L. Fisheries Agencies & Institutional Arrangements
5 22.7 .- ..
Module
Public Participation (in fishing) Module 5 22.7 - -
Community Guide to Increasing Fishing Participation 5 22.7 - -
Genetic Guidelines for Fisheries Management 2 9.1 l 4.5
Contaminants Module 2 9.1 I 4.5
Great Lakes Charter Fishing Survey 2 9.1 2 9.1
Commercial Fishing Public Participation 2 9.1 l 4.5
Coaster Brook Trout Case Study‘ 1 4.5 3 13.6

 

 

 

305

APPENDIX I-l3: MICHIGAN PARTICIPANT RESPONSES (N=12) TO POST-
INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTIONS #12: EXPERIENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES
CONSIDERED MOST AND LEAST VALUABLE

14. Please list (if any) your experiential experiences that were most valuable?

15. Please list (if any) your experiential experiences that were least valuable?

 

Most valuable?

Least valuable?

 

hands on experience with research and
monitoring

The legislative range of opinions experience
(Agree-Disagree)

networking with fellow participants and
presenters - building an alliance

meeting and speaking with the "players and
decision makers" in Michigan

the experiential time in Erie, PA, in spite of the
rain and cold -- especially the Aquanaut

Canada Trip

The commercial fishing visits

visiting the commercial fishing boat & seeing the
catch

the discussions resulting from the presentations
all

habitat lecture

Networking

more ??

The Lake session had some speakers who gave
us gry, often outdated info in a lecture format.
n/a

[no response]

none

[no response]

[no response]

none

some of the "leadership excercises

none

[no response]

"Top Hat"

 

total responding n=12

 

306

APPENDIX I-l3: MICHIGAN PARTICIPANT RESPONSES (N=22) TO PRE-
INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTION #6 AND POST-INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTION
#16: DESCRIPTION OF WHOM OR WHAT BENEFIT PARTICIPANTS SEEK
INFORMATION

Pre-Institute Survey Question #6

6. It’s likely that you are seeking a great deal of information from GLFLI. For each of
the following statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately
Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. (Circle only
one response for each statement)

 

 

(n=22) 1 2 3 4 5
>4 5 Q

Would you say that you are fig § § 3 2 § E 8 '3 8
primarily looking for g g a a“ :5. g .3" 0 a, g 5. MEAN MEDIAN
information that benefits: a 5 E E z :05 E 4 a

a You individually? - 30.1%) 608.2%) 900.9%) 408.2%) 3.64

b Y°urip°9‘fi§"5he“°"e'ated -- 20.1%) 408.2%) 1005.5%) 6(27.3%) 3.91
organization .

c Many.d‘f.fm"‘fi5h°“°s 10.5%) -- 7(31.8%) 900.9%) 502.7%) 3.77 4
organizatlons?
Your local geographic

d commumty? -- - 607.3%) 1309.1%) 30.1%) 3.86

e Your entire state? - -- 408.2%) 11 (50%) 7(31.8%) 4.14
93:12?“ ‘nd'v‘dua' Gm“ - 20.1%) 900.9%) 804.5%) 30.1%) 3.55 3.5
““3 “mama“ “51“” -. 10.5%) 900.9%) 12 (54.5%) 4.5 5

g and ecosystem?

 

Post-Institute Survey Question #16

16. It’s likely that you are seeking a great deal of information from GLFLI. For each of
the following statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately
Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. (Circle only
ONE response for each statement)

 

 

(n=22) 1 2 3 4 5
'5’ " 6'
Would you say that you are a E E § g S E E 3 a g
primarily looking for E a“ o g 3;. ‘8; a” o s. S 5. MEAN MEDIAN
information that benefits: a E g E z #5 g a
a You individually? -- 10.5%) 7(31.8%) 005.5%) 408.2%) 3.77
b Y°“’ ipcf‘fic “5m“ “13‘6" -- 30.1%) 10.5%) 804.5%) 1005.5%) 4.14
organizatlon?
c “89?.“ng fiShmes -- 20.1%) 20.1%) 1005.5%) 806.4%) 4.09 4
organizations .
Your local eo hic
d communityfi 8”" -- 20.1%) 20.1%) 004.5%) 607.3%) 4 4
‘ e Your entire state? -- 10.5%) 20.1%) 7(31.8%) 004.5%) 4.36 5
r afic‘fic'mmmam'w 10.5%) .- 408.2%) 804.5%) 900.9%) 4.09 4
The “m" G'eatm‘es “5“” 10.5%) -- 20.1%) 408.2%) 15(68.2%) 4.45 5

g and ecosystem?

 

307

Pre-Institute Survey Question #6 and Post-Institute Survey Question #16:
Summary of Means and Medians of Michigan Participants Responses
by Lake Group

Pre-Institute Survey Question #6

6. It’s likely that you are seeking a great deal of information from GLFLI. For each of
the following statements, please indicate whether you 1=Strongiy Disagree,
2=Moderateiy Disagree, 3=Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4=Moderately Agree, or
5=Strongly Agree. (Circle only one response for each statement)

 

(n=22)
W Lake Lake Lake Lake TOTAL
ould YOU say that you are Huron Michigan Erie Superior (n=22)
primarily looking for (n=8) (n=8) (n=3) (n=3)

information that benefits:

 

Mean Median Mean Medlan Mean Median Mean Median Mean Medlan

 

You individually? 3.5 3.5 4. i 3 4 3 3 3.33 3 3.64 4
Y°"" ipef‘fic “Shem “med 3.75 4 4.25 4 3.67 4 3.67 4 3.91 4
organization?

Many differ“ “Sheri“ 3.75 4 3.88 4 3 3 4.33 4 3.77 4

c organizations ?

d Y°“' “’9' 860mm“: 4 4 3.38 3 4.33 4 4.33 4 3.86
commumty?

e Your entire state? 4.38 4.5 4.i3 4 3.67 3 4 4 4.14

r $12?“ "‘d'mua' Great 3.25 3 3.5 3.5 4 4 4 4 3.55 3.5

g T1“ “m ow“ was “She” 4.25 4 4.75 5 4.33 4 4.67 5 4.5 5

and ecosystem?

 

Post-Institute Survey Question #16

16. It’s likely that you are seeking a great deal of information from GLFLI. For each of
the following statements, please indicate whether you i=Strongly Disagree,
2=Moderately Disagree, 3=Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4=Moderately Agree, or
5=Strongly Agree. (Circle only ONE response for each statement)

 

(n=22)
w Lake Lake Lake Lake TOTAL
ould you say that you are Huron Michigan Erie Superior n=22
primarily looking for (n=3) (n=3) (n=3) (n=3) ( )

information that benefits:

 

Mean Medlan Mean Medlan Mean Medlan Mean Median Mean Median

 

You individually? 3.63 4 4 4 3.33 3 4 4 3.77 4
b Y°‘" ipcf‘fic “5mm“ mated 3.88 4 4.38 4.5 4 5 4.33 4 4.14 4
organization?

MW d‘ff‘m“ “Shem 3.75 4 4.63 5 3.33 3 4.33 4 4.09 4

organizations ?

d Y0” '“f' “wrap“ 4.13 4 4 4 3.33 4 4.33 4 4 4
commumty?

e Your entire state? 4.13 4.5 4.63 5 4.33 5 4.33 4 4.36

r 231:?“ '“d'v‘dua‘ Gm" 3.75 4 4.13 4 4.67 5 4.33 5 4.09 4
The entire Great Lakes fishery

g and ecosystem? 4 4.5 4.88 5 4.67 5 4.33 5 4.45 5

 

308

APPENDIX I-l4: MICHIGAN PARTICIPANT OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES TO PRE-
INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTION #8 AND POST-INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTION
#17: DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPANT SERVICE PROJECTS

 

Pre-Institute Survey Question # 8. describe your
Intended fisheries-related service project

Post-institute Survey Question # 17. describe your
intended fisheries-related service project

 

u-d

Git/tab

10

ll

l3

l4
15

16

20
21

22

contaminated sediments and fish toxicology

Thread Lake (Flint, MI) Shoreline clean-up to help promote
youth sportfishing and a basic understanding in aquatic
environments

student and adult fisheries conservation

1 do not yet have a service project
School Related
see application

Participation in state, regional, local fisheries related

meetings to represent the recreational sportsman point of

view. Protect the North Pier in Grand Have for fishing.
[No Response]

An education project to inform students about Lake Erie

and become better stewards of the Lake

DOW Dioxin improvements on the Saginaw Bay

Watershed

[No Response]

Survey Cheboygan River from mouth to the darn or provide
a youth fishing pond for the community

President Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fisherman
Association (MSSFA)

[No Response]

My service project will introduce high school students to
the responsibility of stewardship for the Great Lakes. I am
going to develop teaching units and field trips to Lake
Huron. The high school of Ypsilanti would like to adopt a
Great Lake & work to improve the understanding of good
stewardship and responsible fishing habits to youth. In '
addition, we would like to partner with the community of
Ypsilanti to provide leadership in improving the habitat of
Ford Lake (the local fishery).

Identify from Lake Michigan stakeholder groups, their
experiences with public participation programs related to
fishery management, and how well these programs met the
stakeholder needs.

I would like a measure of the impact of fish planting in the
area I live. The initial salmon plant was the spring of 2003.
One idea: there is no fall salmon fishery in my area
currently, will the fall fishery develop when the current
plantings begin to return?

Interface Management practice and special intelst
organizations

undecided at this time

Fisheries Education (1-12)!

Difficult to say, possibly a toxicology study based on
sampling of commercial and/or game fish

Working with GLFT, State Legislature, NRC and DRN to
effectively manage Great Lakes fishery

contaminated sediments and the impact on our fisheries
People and Fishery habitat improvement on Thread Lake in
Flint

Student Education/Action on Fisheries conservation AND
Action

1 do not yet have a service project

k-IZ related

sturgeon for cablea's in Dundee, youth education and
fisheries leadership, Michigan Lake sturgeon brochure PR
campaign - basin-wide, organize task groups for habitat
improvement project

Near shore lake trout plantings

[No Response]
k-12 education

Dioxin issue in Tittabawassee river or maybe little forks land
conservancy project with Chippewa river
[No Response]

1) assess the spawning habitat for the lower Cheboygan or 2)
purchase a wetland area and convert it to a natural area
[No Response]

[No Response]
integrating this information into the high school cuniculum
through project based ieaming

same as listed on pre-survey

Act as a resource to our sportfishing association, the
community, and school programs

[No Response]

80 many things, so little time, I think fishing in the
classroom!
statewide K-12 fisheries education program

work in progress

Policy work on Great lakes systems

 

309

APPENDIX I-15: MICHIGAN PARTICIPANT RESPONSES (N=22) TO PRE-
INSTITUTE SURVEY QUESTION #13 AND POST-INSTITUTE SURVEY
QUESTION #21: ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION TYPOLOGIES

Pre-Institute Survey Question #13

13. We are interested your current leadership intentions and how you view your involvement and
leadership toward the Great Lakes fishery in your community and organizations. For each of the following
statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor
Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. Circle only one response per statement.

 

(n=22)

Item

.—
N
U
A

Agree

Neither
Agree nor

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Moderately

Disagree

Moderately

Strongly
Agree

MEAN MEDIAN

 

I am likely to help others understand how their
a fishing related expenditures relate to fisheries
management programs and activities.

I am likely to provide leadership for raising
funds for fisheries related efforts or programs

1 am likely to provide leadership in projects to
persuade others on fisheries related issues

I am likely to provide information and
d resources on fisheries to people in my
community
I am likely to provide leadership in providing
e educational opportunities for my fisheries
organization or club

1 am likely to provide leadership in youth
education programs

I am likely to coordinate a fisheries habitat
improvement project

I am likely to initiate a group meeting or

discussion with a state agency to discuss

potential changes in fisheries management or

regulations

1 am likely to promote opportunities for my

fisheries organization or club members to meet

or talk with legislators to discuss fisheries

issues

i am likely to provide leadership in legal

j actions or court processes as a mechanism of
resolving fisheries issues

.. -- 304.3%) 12 (57.1%)

2 (9.5%) 4 (19%) 8 (38.1%)

.. -- 2 0.5%) 12 07.1%)

-- -- l (4.8%) 9 (42.9%)

10.8%) -- 20.5%) 409%)

1 (4.8%) 1 (4.8%) 7 (33.3%)

i (4.8%) 3 (l4.3%) 5 (23.8%) 8 (38.1%)

2 (9.5%) -- 6 (28.6%) 10 (47.6%)

1(4.8%) 1(4.8%) 503.8%) 902.9%)

2 (9.5%) -- ll (52.4%) 8 (38.1%)

310

5 (23.8%)

7 (33.3%)

7 (33.3%)

“(52.4%)

14 (66.7%)

12 (57.1%)

4(l9°/o)

304.3%)

5 (23.8%)

4.33 4

3.95 4

74.24 4

4.48 5

4.43 5

4.38 5

3.52 4

3.57 4

3.76 4

3.19 3

Post-Institute Survey Question #21

21. As a result of your GLFLI experience, how do you now view your involvement and leadership toward
the Great Lakes fishery in your community and organizations? For each of the following statements, please
indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither, Moderately Agree, or Strongly
Agree.

 

 

resolving fisheries issues

311

("=22) 1 2 3 4 5
>. '3. h 3 ‘3‘ >.
a h 9
Item 5?. 2?. 433:1 2! E”! MEAN MEDIAN
6 I 0 C Q 0
e 2 v 2 “3 *- .= =1 3:" 3 2°
m a g a Z 2: g m
I am likely to help others understand how their
fishing related expenditures relate to fisheries l (4.8%) -- -- 6 (28.6%) 14 (66.7%) 4.52 5
management programs and activities.
I am likely to provide leadership for raising
funds for fisheries related efforts or programs I (4.8%) l (4.8%) 2 (9.5%) 7 (33.3%) 10 (47.6%) 4.l4 4
I am likely to provide leadership in projects to o
persuade others on fisheries related issues I (4.8 A) -- 9 (42.9%) “(52.4%) 4.38 5
I am likely to provide information and
resources on fisheries to people in my 1 (4.8%) -- l (4.8%) 5 (23.8%) 14 (66.7% 4.48 5
community
I am likely to provide leadership in providing
educational opportunities for my fisheries l (4.8%) - 2 (9.5%) 5 (23.8%) i3 (61.9%) 4.38 5
organization or club
1 am likely to provide leadership in youth
education programs 1 (4.8%) l (4.8%) - 2 (9.5%) l7 (81%) 4.57 5
I am likely to coordinate a fisheries habitat
improv ”"0ij l (4.8%) i (4.8%) 4 (19%) 6 (28.6%) 9 (42.9%) 4 4
I am likely to initiate a group meeting or
discussion with a state agency to discuss __ 3 (i4 313/) 2 (9 5°/) 7 (33 3V) 9 (42 90” 4 05 4
potential changes in fisheries management or ' ° ' ° ' ° ' ° '
regulations
I am likely to promote opportunities for my
fisheries organization or club members to meet .
or talk with legislators to discuss fisheries l (4.8%) l (4.8%) 6 (28.6%) 3 (14.3%) 10(47.6%) 3.95 4
issues
1 am likely to provide leadership in legal
actions or court processes as a mechanism of i (4.8%) 2 (9.5%) 8 (38.1%) 8 (38.1%) 2 (9.5%) 3.38 3

Michigan Participant Responses (n=22) to Pre-Institute Survey Question #13 and
Post-Institute Survey Question #21: Summary of Means and Medians of Michigan
Participants Responses by Lake Group

Pre-Institute Survey Question #13

13. We are interested your current leadership intentions and how you view your involvement and
leadership toward the Great Lakes fishery in your community and organizations. For each of the following
statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither Agree nor
Disagree, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree. Circle only one response per statement.

 

Reasons for Lake Lake Lake Lake TOTAL
participating in the Huron Michigan Erie S“PM" =22
GLFLI.... (n=8) (n=8) (n=3) (n=3) "' ’

 

Mean Medlan Mean Medlan Mean Median Mean Median Mean Medlan

 

I am likely to help others

understand how their fishing
a related expenditures relate to 4.75 4 4.25 4 3.3 3 4.33 4 4.33 4
fisheries management programs
and activities.
I am likely to provide
leadership for raising funds for
fisheries related efforts or
programs
I am likely to provide
leadership in projects to
persuade others on fisheries
related issues
1 am likely to provide
d 'ff‘fmimm‘ 3"" “”9““ °" 4.5 4.5 4.38 4 4.33 5 4.67 5 4.48 5

lsherles to people 1n my

community

I am likely to provide

leadership in providing
c educational opportunities for 4.63 5 4 4.5 5 5 4.33 5 4.43 5

my fisheries organization or

club

I am likely to provide
f leadership in youth education 4.63 5 4 4 4.67 5 4.33 5 4.38 5

programs

1 am likely to coordinate a ,
g fisheries habitat improvement 4 4 2.88 3 3.33 3 4 S 3.52 4

project

i am likely to initiate a group

meeting or discussion with a
h state agency to discuss potential 3.63 3.5 3.75 4 2.67 3 4 4 3.57 4

changes in fisheries

management or regulations

1 am likely to promote

opportunities for my fisheries
i organization or club members 4 4 4 4 3 3 3.33 3 3.76 4
to meet or talk with legislators
to discuss fisheries issues
1 am likely to provide
leadership in legal actions or
court processes as a mechanism
of resolving fisheries issues

4.l3 4 3.38 3.5 4 4 4.67 5 3.95 4

4.25 4 4.25 4 4 4 4.33 4 74.24 4

3.13 3 3.75 4 2 1 3 3 3.19 3

 

312

Post-Institute Survey Question #21

21. As a result of your GLFLI experience, how do you now view your involvement and leadership toward the
Great Lakes fishery in your community and organizations? For each of the following statements, please
indicate whether you Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Neither, Moderately Agree, or Strongly Agree.

 

Reasons for Lake Lake Lake Lake TOTAL
participating in the Huron Michigan Erie Superior =22
GLFLI.... (n=8) (n=8) (n=3) (n=3) 0' )

 

Mean Medlan Mean Median Mean Medlan Mean Medlan Mean Median

 

I am likely to help others

understand how their fishing
a related expenditures relate to 4.38 5 4.63 5 4.67 5 4.33 4 4.52 5
fisheries management programs
and activities.
I am likely to provide
leadership for raising funds for
fisheries related efforts or
programs
1 am likely to provide
leadership in projects to
persuade others on fisheries
related issues
I am likely to provide
d :I‘f0m‘i0“ and ”Tums 0" 4.38 5 4.5 5 4.33 4 4.33 5 4.48 5

isherles to people in my

community

I am likely to provide

leadership in providing
e educational opportunities for 4.38 5 4.25 4 5 5 4.67 4 4.38 5

my fisheries organization or

club

I am likely to provide
f leadership in youth education 4.25 5 4.63 5 5 5 4 4 4.57 5

programs

I am likely to coordinate a -
g fisheries habitat improvement 4.13 5 4.13 4 3.33 3 4.33 3 4 4

project

I am likely to initiate a group

meeting or discussion with a
h state agency to discuss potential 4 4 4.5 4.5 3 2 3.67 3 4.05 4

changes in fisheries

management or regulations

1 am likely to promote

opportunities for my fisheries
1 organization or club members 3.88 4 4.25 5 3.67 4 3.67 3 3.95 4
to meet or talk with legislators
to discuss fisheries issues
i am likely to provide
leadership in legal actions or
court processes as a mechanism
of resolving fisheries issues

4.25 5 3.75 4 4.67 5 4.33 4 4.14 4

4.25 5 4.38 4 4.67 5 4.33 4 4.38 5

3.13 3 3.88 4 3 2 3.67 3 3.38 3

 

313

Ill/illllllllllllill/ll