«1.!
u. 3..
L. .

. 3.2:...

1...: V

1... 2‘
...

3.1:
3:1: 1. . ~
I I.

m3???”

3‘.

.72.
‘ ... . .1...

 

J...
2.2.. .
35:65.»...
. i... 3.;
“$.17...
51.x}: dz" :1
cairn: ;

u 4)....
.
3“,"...

it
3‘ V1.55...

1

. .2. 1oz‘3i

viii 5 k 7. El! |

a in... “with , s t... .2...
3:3... x .

5.
.(JA 9.. .
. - m... .., K wig}
: fm. $3.
.
il..trd.l.11

:

1..
\ 3.....fluwuuufirms
31.4.1 il

a: 4.. a... .. ..

54".. “r: i...

n... ..
.11" I!
{fififie
3...».4 5...

09!: ,
9:...”

3..

x

.11.»:
«$1.420 .
muw
s
2215..."?
.391. I.

‘ 1...... .

x. Eliny. Von

:v . u . .
.a. f . s)».

.v..: in”

 

 

2007

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF A DISTANCE LEARNING
“VIRTUAL” PROGRAM AND A TRADITIONAL ON-SITE
PROGRAM AT POTTER PARK ZOO IN LANSING, Ml

presented by

TRACY LEIGH MCMULLEN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Zoo and Aquarium
Science Management

 

 

1:“ 44/ //

' M v’ Professor’s Signature

.4; .41 4 44 /5’ ”I
Date

MSU is an Afi‘irmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

. LIBRARY
M'Chlgan State
nlversity

 

 

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

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/ClRC/DaleDue.indd-p.1

 

 

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF A DISTANCE LEARNING “VIRTUAL”
PROGRAM AND A TRADITIONAL ON-SITE PROGRAM AT
POTTER PARK zoo IN LANSING, MI
By

Tracy Leigh McMuIlen

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
PROFESSIONAL MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Zoology

2006

ABSTRACT

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF A DISTANCE LEARNING “VIRTUAL”
PROGRAM AND A TRADITIONAL ON-SITE PROGRAM AT
POTTER PARK 200 IN LANSING, Ml
By
Tracy Leigh McMuIlen

Distance learning programs are becoming increasingly common in
informal Ieaming facilities such as zoos, aquaria and museums. While evaluation
of informal education programs with respect to customer satisfaction and other
qualitative measures have been gaining recognition, quantitative evaluations are
not as common. This study addressed the lack of empirical evidence by
comparing children’s knowledge gain from traditional on-site programming with
that of “virtual” distance Ieaming programs.

Study results have supported the use of distance Ieaming tools in informal
education. On-site and virtual groups showed a comparable increase in
knowledge gain. Traditional programs can be successfully adapted to be virtual
programs. No differences were found between groups, indicating that, in the right

circumstances, virtual and on-site programming can be used interchangeably

with no loss of educational effectiveness.

Copyright by
TRACY LEIGH MCMULLEN
2006

To the people that understood why I did this
&

what it took to accomplish

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my advisor, Dr. Richard Snider. I would also like to
thank the other members of my committee, Dr. Gail Vanderstoep and Dr. James

Smith.

Thank you to the teachers, students and principals of St. Johns Middle School
and Perry Middle School. I would also like to thank the Potter Park Zoo and the
Zoological Society. Without your participation and assistance none of this

research could have been conducted.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 2
Study Purpose 3
Alternative Hypothesis 4
Null Hypothesis 4
Delimitations 5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Literature Review ___________ 7
Need for Research 11
Study Environment ..... 11
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
Study Context & Exhibit Development _____ 14
Program Development 15
Curriculum 15
Educational Objectives 18
Staff Training 18
Initial Instrument Development 18
Initial Instrument Development and Testing 18
Pilot Test 20
Results of Pilot Test 21
Study Methods __.24
Target Population & Sample Selection 24
Sample 24
Research Design 25
Administration of Programs and Tests 26
Data Analysis 29
Test Grading 29
Data Entry 30
Discrimination, Difficulty and Reliability Analysis 31
Program Delivery 29
Test Grading 30
Data Entry 30
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Results 34
Teacher Questionnaire Responses 36
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 8: DISCUSSION
Study Results 39
Research Implications 41

 

Implications for Informal Learning Institutions

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions 44
Limitations 45
Recommendations for Future Research 46
LITERATURE CITED 50
APPENDIX A: MICHIGAN STATE CURRICULUM BENCHMARKS 54
APPENDIX B: PROGRAM OUTLINE 56
APPENDIX C: EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 63
APPENDIX D: PILOT PRETEST 65
APPENDIX E: PILOT TEST QUESTION MODIFICATIONS 70
APPENDIX F: OFFICIAL PRETEST 72
APPENDIX G: OFFICIAL POSTI'EST 78
APPENDIX H: TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 84
APPENDIX I: CONSENT AND ASSENT FORMS 91
IRB APPROVAL LETTER 98

 

vii

TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4

TABLE 5
TABLE 6

TABLE 7
TABLE 8

LIST OF TABLES
Discrimination values for pilot study questions
Test Administration timeline

Number of students participating

Average discrimination values for pretest questions for Perry, St.

Johns and overall averages

22
27
30

31

 

Mean knowledge gain by program type

 

Paired sample t-tests for knowledge gain between pretest and
posttest for all subjects

Two-way ANOVA for program type and school

35
35

 

Average rank of statements on 5-point Likert scale

viii

37

Figure 1

Figure 2

LIST OF FIGURES

Quasi-experimental design model

 

Study sample divided into control, virtual and on-site program

groups by school

ix

25

26

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The Ieaming environment in formal and informal settings has been
changing. School districts are under pressures from taxpayers to make the most
of the money they receive. School districts such as Perry Public Schools and St.
Johns Public Schools in Michigan have restricted field trip funding and, in many
cases, students must pay for their own transportation in addition to field trip
costs. With increasing fuel prices, this becomes a heavy financial burden.
Although scheduled visits to informal Ieaming facilities have become accepted, or
even expected, parts of the school program (Melton et al. 1996), funding
restrictions have caused many teachers to cease offering field trips as a
curriculum option. In addition to monetary issues, schools choosing to offer field
trips now must also consider stricter district policies on increased security and
the increased need for chaperones.

Distance Ieaming (or education) tools are becoming increasingly important
to education in public school and informal Ieaming environments such as zoos
and aquaria. Three-fourths of public school districts in the United States plan to
offer or expand distance education programs (eSchool News 2005). Distance
Ieaming provides a method to deliver information through satellite
communication, teleconferencing, and the Internet. These “virtual” programs
provide a powerful and cost effective tool for program delivery to large numbers
of people, especially when the students are dispersed across large geographic
areas (Madhavan & Ray 2001).

Many school districts, not only in Michigan, but throughout the country,

lack the funding for student field trips to zoos and aquaria (Zophy 1998).

Therefore, the potential cost effectiveness of virtual programs attracts schools to
consider this new approach to message delivery. Many zoos and aquaria are
developing virtual programs that take advantage of distance education
technology to provide lower-cost student experiences (COSI 2004). As the use
of distance Ieaming within informal education institutions increases, its potential
advantages over on-site education have come under scrutiny and are being
evaluated more closely (Mohan-Mehrotra et al. 2001). Because distance
Ieaming virtual programming is continuing to expand without undergoing much

evaluation, program weaknesses must be identified and addressed.

Study Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare effectiveness of distance virtual
education to that of on-site education for the “Clownfish, Corals and
Conservation” exhibit at the Potter Park Zoo, in Lansing, MI.
Within this goal, more specific objectives were:
- to identify teacher needs and preferences with respect to field trips and
informal education programming;
- to determine if traditional on-site educational programming is effective
for knowledge gain;
- to determine if an on-site education program can be adapted to be
delivered effectively, with respect to knowledge gain, using distance

Ieaming technology;

- to assess the relative effectiveness of the two types of programming
with respect to knowledge gain; and
- to complete a qualitative evaluation of teachers’ opinions about the

value and ease of use of both types of educational programs.

Alternative Hypothesis: Evaluation of the “Clownfish, Corals and
Conservation” educational programming will show that distance Ieaming “virtual”
programs are more effective than on-site programs in increasing knowledge gain

scores.

Null Hypothesis: Evaluation of the “Clownfish, Corals and Conservation”
educational programming will show that distance Ieaming “virtual” programs are

no different in educational effectiveness than on-site programs.

Criteria for rejection: The hypothesis null will be rejected if either or both the
following result:

- results show a significant difference between pre- and posttest
knowledge gain scores for students participating in virtual and on-site
programs.

- results show significantly higher or lower knowledge gain for virtual

programs than those participating in on-site programs.

Delimitations

This study was restricted to a tele—videoconferencing distance Ieaming
program within a zoo’s aquarium exhibit. Primary participants of the study were
limited to upper elementary and middle school students. The study participants
came from small school districts outside of the immediate zoo area and were of
comparable economic and social characteristics. Only school districts with

distance Ieaming technology were approached to participate in the study.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature Review

New technology used in education can have both advantages and
disadvantages: students may be reluctant to engage in activities, refuse to
participate, or may not have adequate knowledge to use distance Ieaming
equipment. There is debate within the informal Ieaming community that distance
Ieaming would decrease numbers of schools that participate in traditional field
trips because they find that distance Ieaming is an effective replacement.
Distance Ieaming program effectiveness then comes into question. Relatively
little information is available about whether or not educational exhibits and
programs actually result in measurable Ieaming (Ayers 1998).

Before virtual programming can be evaluated, programs must be
developed that take into account learner needs, Ieaming environment, and
teacher needs (Hany et al. 1993). Programs must be developed around central
educational objectives and goals; if these are met, as evidenced by objective
evaluation methods, a program can be deemed effective (Calder 1994).

Such programs have been said to lack the richness of traditional Ieaming
environments, as well as one-on-one teacher support and resources that
students need (Mohan-Mehrotra et al. 2001), but thoughtful program design
could eliminate these issues. The most prevalent concern for schools is the initial
monetary investment for technological setup, which includes extra staff and
equipment (Mohan-Mehrotra et al. 2001; Litwak 1991). Financial burdens would
be justified if “virtual” programs surpass on-site programs in terms of educational

benefits. However, the relative value of the two approaches to student progress

has not been assessed. Seven criteria can be used to measure educational
effectiveness: knowledge gain, level of engagement of students, post-experience
exploration, critical thinking skills, scientific method skills, emotional connection,
and satisfaction (Belanger and Jordan 2000; Calder 1994).

Using virtual programming, zoos and aquaria can go to where the
customers are, increase participant numbers, and lower program costs for
schools by utilizing more technology and less zoo staff time (Zophy 1998). The
importance of science education that uses real-world examples has in recent
years been a major factor in taking field trips to informal education facilities
(Rennie & McCIafferty 1995; and Jones 1997). As the political, economical and
pedagogical environments of school districts are changing, so must informal
education facilities vying for their business. Zoos, aquaria, museums, and nature
centers must all adapt to the new environment. Many zoos and aquaria
throughout the country have initiated distance Ieaming programs focused on
exhibit themes. Many programs meet state curriculum standards. Some, such as
those at the Alaska SeaLife Center in Seward, are aligned not only with state but
also national standards to widen their audience base, even attracting
international classes. While primarily relying on videoconferencing, some
programs also include hands-on activities tailored to individual grade levels, such
as those offered by the Columbus Zoo in Ohio.

Virtual programs provide a unique opportunity for students to interact with
an environment and interact with the program specialist in a novel way, all

without leaving their school. Distance learning technology provides for learning

that caters to the tastes and preferences of a greater number of individual
students (Ayers 1998). Because these programs are unique and interactive, they
have been shown to be especially good for students who lack Ieaming motivation
(Ba and Keisch 2004). Benefits of these programs are potentially significant, but
have not been measured through quantitative evaluation. Testing of informal
education experiences is limited because the traditional model employed in
regular classroom research is inadequate to measure the effectiveness of
programs outside the classroom (Hyman 1976; and Ramey-Gassert, et AI. 1990).
Educational potential of informal education facilities is well recognized (Boyd
1990; Semper 1990; and Rennie & McClafferty 1995), but, as many reviewers
point out, a majority of the literature that promotes informal Ieaming programs is
based on little more than anecdotal evidence (Ramey-Gassert, et al. 1990).
lnfonnal education facilities will more often divert funds to creation of programs
and facilities than to evaluation (Chen 1994). To date, what is lacking is a
comparison between educational effectiveness of “virtual” programs and that of
on—site programs, particularly in the context of children’s science education
provided by zoos and aquaria. Documenting program effectiveness provides a
vital tool for design and development of future distance Ieaming programs and
techniques. There are seven ways to measure educational effectiveness. Yet
little empirical evidence comparing different types of educational programming in
terms of children’s knowledge exists (T arlton & Ward 2006).

Previous studies have not found a significant difference between

traditional and distance learning program effects. Allen et al. (2004) used meta-

analysis to assess distance learning impact and found little distinction between
teaching methods in regard to performance on tests; with distance Ieaming,
students performed only slightly better. However, the authors reviewed only
literature dealing specifically with college level courses; their conclusions cannot
be validly applied to informal youth education. Similarly, Pool (1996) found no
significant difference between the two method’s efficacy, but the comparison
study focused primarily on non-traditional college students and used satisfaction
levels as its basis for conclusions, which, again, cannot be applied to school
children. The Seatrek program at Mote Marine Laboratory of Florida conducted a
distance Ieaming program evaluation that included observations of students and
teachers during programs as well as exit surveys for teachers (Ba and Keisch
2004). That study relied primarily on teachers’ opinions of program impacts on
students’ knowledge and behaviors. Without actually obtaining student opinions
or testing for increased knowledge after the programs, the study failed to assess
adequately the educational impact of Seatrek's programs.

One study has measured the effectiveness of distance Ieaming programs
on middle school children. The Jason Project, which was one of the first to use
distance Ieaming technology to help teachers provide real-world, interactive
examples and lessons in science, was evaluated by the Center for Children and
Technology. Ba et al. (2001) used a pre- and posttest design to measure change
in inquiry-based science skills, and found that 66% of students made gains after

program participation. Although the authors did not test content knowledge, they

10

showed that, through distance Ieaming and virtual tours, significant educational

gains could be achieved.

Need for Research

A comprehensive evaluation comparing the two methods for children at an
informal education facility, taking into account effectiveness, content, and
delivery method, is not available to date. Evaluating the educational benefits of
virtual programming could potentially become an important decision-making tool
for initiating or continuing these programs at many facilities. Comprehensive
studies outlining the educational benefits of these virtual programs could show
facility managers that they can increase children’s knowledge effectively (T arlton
& Ward 2006). Studies could also show that these educational programs are not
worth continued funding and could potentially lead to the demise of virtual field

trips.

Study Environment

Within the informal Ieaming environment, efforts have been made
to determine participant happiness, visitor interest, visitor behaviors and behavior
change. Although it is accepted that aquarium, zoo and museum experiences
can play an important role in stimulating interest in scientific processes and
phenomenon (Messenger 2000), very few studies have looked at knowledge
gained through educational programming. To fulfill mission statements that

increasingly include evaluation as a component, it was necessary to have

11

methods that could measure content knowledge derived from informal education
programs. Distance Ieaming programs are new and relatively untested, and past
studies did not use quantitative methods or pre- and posttests based on content
knowledge in the informal environment.

Content knowledge is frequently overlooked as a criterion for
informal educational program evaluation. Qualitative methods to measure criteria
such as satisfaction and attitudes have become relatively common in the zoo and
aquarium industry (Pool 1996; Ba and Keisch 2004). To supplement these
measures and to improve program evaluation, knowledge gain should also be
measured. Independent facility visitors are difficult to classify as study
participants because they are independent of one another and are free to leave
at any point, so they may not take the time to complete pre- and posttests. In
these cases, exit surveys have been commonly used. Educational program
participants are a captive audience, so a constant grouping can be maintained;
knowledge gain can be measured through pre- and posttests. Under certain
circumstances, it may be possible to monitor this group over an extended period
of time. Studies on program effectiveness could be exceedingly valuable to
institutions for modifying programming and obtaining funding, as well as fulfilling

their mission statements.

12

CHAPTER 3
METHODS

13

Study Context 8: Exhibit Development

The Potter Park Zoo is a small inland facility located in Lansing, Michigan.
In the fall of 2003, a committee was formed to discuss design options for a coral
reef exhibit to replace a temporary “Lake \fictoria” exhibit in the 200’s education
facility. Initial participants of the committee were the zoo education curator, the
owner and three employees of a local pet store, two Michigan State University
professors, three graduate students, the 200’s veterinarian, and three
zookeepers. Committee meetings were planned to outline possibilities for the
exhibit, animal selection, design and construction. The recent certification of
Preuss Animal House of Lansing, Michigan by the Marine Aquarium Council
prompted the committee to decide on a conservation-based coral reef exhibit.
The zoo desired an exhibit that would be a large-scale simulation of an entire
coral reef habitat (Doordan 1995). Three main message components of the
exhibit were identified: clownfish rearing, coral reef ecology and conservation.
Based on these elements, a rough concept design and content outline for the
exhibit were developed and a local muralist was hired to paint and construct the
exhibit.

Construction of the exhibit began in summer 2004, with design and
construction continuing for the next year. Throughout exhibit planning and
construction, central educational themes were outlined and incorporated into
animal selection, wall murals, and educational signage. Zoo staff wished this
exhibit to follow in the footsteps of other facilities, to be a mutlilayered exhibit

catering to different audiences and to be a community resource leading to rich

14

experiences for visitors (Coe 1991). In August 2005, the exhibit opened for public
preview. Public opinion was overwhelmingly positive. The exhibit created a highly
memorable setting that incorporated sight, sound, smell, and touch within an
ambience that affected visitors and their perceptions of the marine environment.
Along with educational themes, consideration also was given to
incorporating distance Ieaming technology. A section of the wall mural was
selected as a filming backdrop, and Internet protocol (IP) and integrated services
digital network (ISDN) ports were made accessible. A PolycomT" video—
conferencing unit was donated to the zoo, and a distance Ieaming cart with the
necessary equipment to run distance Ieaming programs was built. Equipment
included a television, microphone, switchboxes, hub, auxiliary camera, and extra

long wires and cables.

Program Development
Curriculum
With the exhibit infrastructure and signage in place, curriculum
corresponding to the exhibit was planned. Educational exhibit goals were
reviewed and curriculum development began. To meet these goals, the main
content outline consisted of the following:

What is a coral reef?

How are coral reefs related to Michigan?

What is coral, and how does it live?

What is symbiosis?

15

0 Definition

0 Symbiosis examples in the coral reef.
. What are the values of coral reefs?

0 Natural

0 Environmental

0 Economic
. Why do reefs need protection?

0 Natural impacts

0 Human impacts
0 How are we trying to protect coral reefs?

. What can you do to help?

The content outline was then elaborated into a 45-minute educational
program aimed at upper elementary and middle school students. Program
development took into consideration the learner’s need to make quick
connections between what they already knew and something novel. (Bitgood et
al. 1994). During development, the program was designed to meet Michigan
State Curriculum Standards, which guide the educational content for public
schools. The 45-minute educational program corresponded with, and provided
real world examples for, five Michigan Educational Content Standard
Benchmarks (Appendix A). The resulting educational program (Appendix B) was
information-packed and interactive, and combined teaching methods to

accommodate upper elementary and middle school students. It was also

16

designed so that, as new exhibit portions opened and more funding became
available, interactive materials and program related manipulatives could be
incorporated.

For this study, school groups were able to participate in traditional
programs for the exhibit as well as comparable distance Ieaming virtual
programs. The virtual programming delivered the same content as the on-site
program, using interactive, mobile video-conferencing equipment. It featured a
staff educator who interacted with the class, utilized live aquariums and the
exhibit, murals and provided tank—by-tank tours that incorporated behind-the-
scenes areas. The program, in both delivery methods, was approximately 45
minutes in duration, designed to provide both an entertaining and a meaningful

experience.

Educational Objectives
To assess the impact of individual program content sections, educational
objectives were outlined in order to provide measurable milestones for
accomplishment. Objectives (Appendix C) covered total knowledge gain, amount
of knowledge gain to be expected, and outlined the number of students that
Ieamed the content deemed most important. The objectives could then be used

in the future to make program and test modifications.

17

Stafl' Training

Finally, the 200’s educational staff had to be trained for program delivery.
Training sessions were held for volunteer education staff (docents) and the
education curator. Sessions were designed to help zoo docents become more
comfortable with educating visitors about the coral reef environment. Docents
also were trained in the use of distance Ieaming equipment. Training sessions
were designed to create a four-person team to conduct distance Ieaming
programs, not only in the coral reef exhibit, but also throughout the zoo. The
team consisted of an on-camera presenter, remote operator, auxiliary camera
operator and a fourth person to obtain materials, contact schools should there be

a problem, and to perform other miscellaneous duties.

Instrument Development
Initial Instrument Development and Testing

Pre- and posttests were designed following the main program outline
covering five Michigan State Curriculum Standards for 5‘“ through 7th grade
students. This was the 200’s primary target audience. As students progress into
middle school, there is a void in zoo education programs offered to this age
group. The upper elementary and middle school students are on a similar
“continuum of Learning” and a test was constructed to measure the knowledge
gained by the students at their Ieaming level (Nitko 8 Brookhart 2007).

Research indicates that a test of 20 to 30 questions is appropriate for

upper elementary and middle school students (Melton et al. 1996). For this study,

18

twenty multiple—choice questions were originally written to measure all
educational program objectives. Multiple-choice questions were composed of the
traditional elements: stem (introductory sentence), distractors (incorrect answer
choices), and the keyed alternative (correct answer) (Nitko, 8 Brookhart 2007).
The tests used a combination of direct and indirect assessment questions. Some
measured only information recognition; others made students use new
information to make decisions and select importance for information they could
recall (Nitko & Brookhart 2007). The pilot version of the pretest can be found in
Appendix D. Five student groups then participated in the program on a trial basis
to assess the test instrument and program delivery. Based on results, both the
program and instrument could be revised.

The Big Zoo Lesson provided an instrument and program test group.
Many teachers of the weeklong in-residence program for elementary classes
wanted to incorporate the new coral reef exhibit, and asked to participate in the
new education program. Three 5th grade classes volunteered to participate in
educational programs and take pre- and posttests as part of their Potter Park
Zoo, Big Zoo Lesson experience. The three 5th grade groups took the test and
commented on design and content. Recommended changes were made to
correct of typographical errors and confusion based on poor word choice. Six
teachers also were consulted about test appropriateness, difficulty, content and
wording to ensure that the test was relevant to user groups.

Following the program and instrument testing period, several test

modifications were made (Appendix E). During test modification it was

19

determined that, according to state curriculum standards, the program would be
best suited for 7th grade students. One component of modifying the test for 7th
graders was expanding the number of items from 20 to 25. The completed 7th
grade pretest (Appendix F) includes seven questions that were not in the original
test. The questions added are numbers 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, and 19. Each
question was derived from an educational objective and evaluated by teachers
for appropriateness and relevancy.

The resulting pretest was then reviewed by several teachers individually
and determined to be complete and appropriate for the 7th grade audience.
Pretest questions were then rearranged in random order to produce a posttest

having identical questions. The official posttest can be found in Appendix G.

Pilot Test

A pilot test was scheduled for early spring semester 2006. Seventh grade
teachers from Shiawassee, lngham, Clinton and Eaton Counties were invited to
participate at no cost. Only one teacher responded with genuine interest, but,
due to budget constraints and logistics, was unable to participate in the pilot
study. This reaffirrned the need for distance education programs, to provide a
cost- and time-effective option for teachers. Because the student groups for this
study were already in place, and their dates approaching, it was decided that a
pilot test using 5th graders would be used as a replacement.

One 5th grade class from Laingsburg Elementary School in Laingsburg,

Michigan participated in the Big Zoo Lesson and in the coral reef educational

20

program. The class took the pretest the day before the on-site educational
program and the posttest the day following the program. Five teachers and their

students agreed that test length and content were appropriate.

Results of Pilot Test
The pilot test was used to calculate question discrimination indices to
determine if any questions should be removed. A discrimination index measures
how well each item of the test discriminates between high and low scoring
students. Calculations are based on two sub-groups, high-scorers (six top
scoring students) and low-scorers (6 lowest scoring students), using the following

equation (Bloom 1981):

# of students # of students
Discrimination Index = getting item right ' getting item right
in high-scorers in Iow- scorers

 

it of students in

each group (6)

Any instrument item with a discrimination index less than 0.2 was excluded
because it lacked the ability to discriminate between high and low scoring
students. Up to three items could be excluded, leaving a test with 22 items that
were considered valid.

No questions scored a discrimination index of less than 0.2 on the posttest

(Table 1). Thus, all questions were satisfactory and would remain in the final test

21

versions. Question six had a perfect discrimination score of 1.0. Four other
questions had a discrimination index of 0.8, while nine more had an index of 0.7.
Overall, the average discrimination for the test was 0.6, which is sufficiently
above the 0.2 cut-off. Only five questions scored below the 0.5 discrimination

level, but all were 0.2 or above (Table 1).

Table 1: Discrimination values for pilot study pretest questions.

 

 

Discrlmlnation
Question Index
1 0.3
2 0.8
3 0.7
4 0.7
5 0.7
6 1.0
7 0.7
8 0.5
9 0.8
10 0.7
11 0.7
12 0.3
13 0.8
14 0.8
15 0.5
16 0.7
17 0.3
18 0.5
19 0.5
20 0.7
21 0.5
22 0.5
23 0.3
24 0.7
25 0.2
Average Dlscr'lmlnatlon 0.6

Content validity was determined by having teachers and zoo education
staff scrutinize the test instrument. Several criteria for validity were included: “Did

the instrument emphasize what you taught?” “Does the instrument represent

22

school curriculum content?” “Does the instrument represent current content
within the field?” and “Does the instrument contain content worth learning?”
(Nitko, & Brookhart 2007). For all of these measures, it was found that the test
was valid for a 7th grade audience.

With a finalized test in place, one more component of the study was
designed. To ensure that the program and test were appropriate for 5th through
8th grade students, a qualitative teacher assessment was developed. Utilizing
both quantitative and qualitative data could provide information that can possibly
be used for major decisions in the future (Nitko, & Brookhart 2007). Knowledge
gain scores alone provide data on the effectiveness of a program, while teacher
feedback provides information about satisfaction, demographics, difficulties, and
strengths of the program that could be important to future program and test
adjustments. Therefore, qualitative data about teachers’ opinions about the
program and test were collected with a lengthy four-page questionnaire
(Appendix H). Teachers were asked about student demographics, their personal
teaching experience, technology use (both personal and in their classes),
program materials and logistics, test content, length and administration, program
effectiveness and student attitudes. They also were asked to rate their level of
agreement and disagreement with several statements about program
appropriateness, willingness to participate again, and comfort with the program
format.

To comply with Michigan State University Institute Review Board

standards, consent and assent forms (Appendix I) were developed. Teachers

23

and principals signed consent forms for their classes to participate and for the
teachers to complete the questionnaire. Students signed an assent form showing
their willingness and commitment to the study. The parents/guardians of the

students also completed consent forms for their children to participate.

Study Methods
Target Population & Sample Selection

To measure relative effectiveness of two informal education programs,
several factors were taken into account. The target study population was
identified as 5th — 8th grade science classes, and through Michigan State
Curriculum Standards it was determined that the 7th grade audience would be
best suited for the coral reef program content. The primary target of distance
Ieaming programs were schools just outside the usual county-wide travel limits of
zoo visitors, so participants were selected from schools within a three-county

radius of the zoo that had distance Ieaming capabilities.

Sample
Perry Middle School in Perry, Michigan was the first to register. Statistical
analysis to determine appropriate sample size showed that a sample size of 300
students was needed to get significance with a power of 0.8, p<0.05. Peny
Middle School had a 7th grade class of approximately 170 students, which fell

short of the 300 needed, so solicitation of more schools to participate began.

24

Through Michigan county regional education service districts (R.E.S.D.s) a
list was compiled of all school districts within a four-county radius of the zoo that
had distance learning capabilities. Eaton, Shiawassee, Clinton and lngham
Counties each had school districts having distance Ieaming facilities within
middle school walking distance. An email address list was compiled of all
seventh grade science teachers from school websites. An email was sent to all
teachers, inviting them to participate in the study at no cost. Three responses
were received, but none represented schools that were viable candidates due to
logistical issues. A second email was sent out with a mailing. A program
marketing flyer was designed and mailed with a letter of invitation to each of the
remaining teachers and their principals. Two schools responded to the fiyers,
Laingsburg Middle School and St. Johns Middle School. Logistical issues
prevented Laingsburg from committing; therefore, St. Johns middle school 7th

grade students were accepted.

Research Design
A quasi-experimental method was selected for this study (Figure 1). One
reason was to control as many extraneous variables as possible. Using a two-
block sampling helped to reduce random error (Langbein 1980). Two schools
were used, and each was split between control, virtual and on-site groups. Using
a quasi-experimental method to compare two treatments for two different blocks

was used to compare the relative effectiveness of virtual and on-site programs.

Figure 1: Quasi-experimental design model

 

O 0
0X10
0X20

is

 

 

 

Administration of Programs and Tests

Each school’s teachers and students were then divided to participate in
the virtual and on-site programs. Each school also had a control group to
measure the “test effect”, to determine whether or not students were Ieaming
from the pretest itself. Both schools have two science teachers. After randomly
assigning class hours into the control group, one teacher from each school was
randomly assigned to have their students participate in the virtual program (the
virtual group), and the other was assigned to participate in the on—site programs
(the on-site group) (Figure 2). Because of non-equivalent student numbers in
Perry classrooms, a combination of classes was used for the virtual programs to
create evenly-sized study groups. After the students were divided into
appropriate groups, teachers explained the study according to the researchers

specifications, and consent forms for the parents to sign and assent forms for the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

students were distributed.
Figure 2: Study sample, divided into control, virtual and on-site programs groups by school.
26 Control
Perry
Middle
School ’ 150 Students * 62 Virtual
2 Teachers
62 On-site
Population
Sample
50 Control
St. Johns 250 Students .

Middle N 2 Teachers 100 Virtual

School
100 On-site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26

Four teachers participated in the study, and each completed the teacher
questionnaire, following the posttest, to provide qualitative data to explain some
of the quantitative results.

To be consistent between the two schools, as well as accommodate
school schedules and exhibit programming schedules, a five-day time line was
established for students to take the pretest (T able 2), attend their educational

program (either virtual or on-site) and take the posttest.

Table 2: Test administration timeline.

Week 1

 

Monday Control pretest administered
Friday Control posttest administered
Virtual pretest administered
On-site pretest administered

 

 

 

Week 2

 

Monday Virtual programs conducted
Tuesday On-site programs conducted
Wednesday Virtual posttest administered
On-site posttest administered

 

 

 

 

 

The Perry classes adhered to the timeline, while St. Johns had to modify due to a
holiday. For St. Johns, the control posttest, virtual and on-site pretests were
given on Thursday instead of Friday. Control groups followed a timeline that
would not allow the possibility of students mistakenly attending a program. This
helped to ensure that the control pre- and posttests were measuring test effect.
Tests were administered during the students’ regular science class period.

Teachers administered pre- and posttests with the following guidelines:

27

- students put their assigned student number on the test paper as the

test identifier, along with class hour, teacher’s name and program type;

- students’ names were not written on the test;

- students tried their best to answer every question;

- students took all the time they needed to complete the test;

- during the week timeframe students were instructed not to seek out

answers to test questions.
Pretests and posttests were then compiled by class period and placed in
envelopes for collection by the researcher.

Virtual programs were conducted for each school on the Monday following
pretest administration. Due to room size constraints, programs were done by
class hour. Perry had three class hours participate in each type of program at
separate times. St. Johns had four class hours participate in each program.
Teachers were on hand during programs for classroom maintenance, and to
repeat questions if necessary during programs.

For the Peny programs, the Shiawassee County RESD connected to the
zoo with Integrated Services Digital Network or ISDN (a high speed intemet
connection over multiple traditional phone lines), and then to the Peny distance
Ieaming classroom through a bridge (a digital platform that allows multiple sites
to connect at high intemet speeds, and also allows ISDN to connect with intemet
protocol sites). For the St. Johns groups, the zoo dialed into the school’s distance

Ieaming classroom using lntemet Protocol (lP). Connections were left running

28

between classes to ensure a stable connection throughout the programs. No
dropped lntemet signals occurred during any educational programs.
Connections, packet rate (the level at which video and audio information
was being transferred between sites), and sound quality remained constant
throughout programs and were comparable for both school groups. The
researcher functioned as both the on-site and virtual program presenter. The
same program outline, timeframe, manipulatives (interactive visuals, examples
and objects), camera work, and cameraperson were used for all virtual programs,

for both Perry and St. Johns classes to reduce latent variables.

Data Analysis
Test Grading

Tests were administered and collected by the teachers, who then placed
them in labeled envelopes for collection by the investigator. A test key and
grading procedures were developed. A team of five undergraduate volunteer
research assistants helped the investigator grade all exams from both schools.
All assistants followed the same grading guidelines. Following grading, the
investigator randomly spot-checked four tests per class to ensure grading

accuracy and consistency.

Data Entry

Each test was coded by school, teacher, class hour, student number and

prelposttest. Each question response was entered by letter choice (1 =a, 2=b,

29

=c, 4=d, 5=e) and was also entered by conversion as correct or incorrect

(1=correct, 0=incorrect). The correct/incorrect columns were summed by student,
to create the pre- and posttest totals. The totals were then subtracted to create a
knowledge gain column (posttest total — pretest total) representing the knowledge
gained by each student.

After checking for outliers and errors, the final test population consisted of
376 students, with 77 in the control group, 133 in the virtual group, and 166 in the
on-site groups (Table 3). Overall, 146 students participated from Peny, with 50 in
the virtual programs, 69 in the on-site programs, and 27 in the control group.
From St. Johns, 83 participated in the virtual program, 97 participated in the on-

site program, and 50 in the control group, for a total of 230 students.

Table 3: Number of students participating.

 

 

Pmm Type Peny St. Johns Total
Virtual 50 83 133
On-site 69 97 166
Control 27 50 77

Total 146 230 376

 

 

 

Some students within all groups took only one test due to absences.
These data points were included in analyses that were relevant; such as in mean
scores for pretest knowledge gain, all pretests were considered, even if the
student had not completed the posttest. Overall there were 353 valid pretests,
349 posttests, and 326 knowledge gain scores. A total of 50 students did not

complete both tests to create a valid knowledge gain score.

30

Discrimination, Difficulty and Reliability Analysis
Discrimination values for test items were analyzed using all respondents in
the final study. All questions had a discrimination index of 0.2 or higher when
rounded (Table 4). Discrimination values were averaged for each school and
then for all respondents combined.

Table 4: Average discrimination values for pretest questions for Perry, St. Johns

and overall averages,

 

Question! Perry St. Johns Average_
1 0.33 0.17 0.25
2 0.22 0.33 0.28
3 0.17 0.17 0.17
4 0.42 0.23 0.32
5 0.28 0.29 0.28
6 0.42 0.31 0.36
7 0.39 0.21 0.30
8 0.39 0.54 0.47
9 0.36 0.44 0.40
10 0.53 0.33 0.43
11 0.33 0.58 0.46
12 0.28 0.48 0.38
13 0.25 0.33 0.29
14 0.39 0.29 0.34
15 0.39 0.19 0.29
16 0.28 0.27 0.27
17 0.44 0.23 0.34
18 0.36 0.46 0.41
19 0.31 0.17 0.24
20 0.61 0.58 0.60
21 0.22 0.17 0.19
22 0.53 0.40 0.46
23 0.22 0.44 0.33
24 0.17 0.33 0.25
25 0.36 0.50 0.43

 

 

Average Discrimination 0.3
Difficulty values for all questions combined averaged 78.3. While this

value was slightly higher than the traditionally accepted value of 70, in the

context of this test instrument, it was deemed acceptable. The test had a slightly

31

higher difficulty value for 7th graders, indicating that the questions were slightly
easier for this group than for 5th graders. It is expected that values would be
lower for 7th grade groups because they are at a higher Ieaming level. At lower
grade levels, a discrimination index would more accurately show the difference
between low and high scoring students than it would with 7th grade students. In
the context of the test instrument and the scope of the program, a range of
discrimination should be seen, as in this case, to accommodate the entire age
range.

To test the degree to which students’ results remained consistent over
repeated test administrations (Nitko, Brookhart 2007), reliability was assessed by
Cronbach’s.Alpha. For the test instruments, a reliability of 0.599 was found.
While this is below 0.7, the traditionally accepted value, in this case the 0.599
value was accepted as reliable because each item had a five item scale, and the

test had only 25 questions (CSTAT, 2006). No one question had a reliability

score that significantly lowered the Cronbach’s Alpha enough to be excluded.

32

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

33

Based on the Kolmogorov-Smimov statistic to assess normality (how well
data approximates a normal bell-shaped distribution of scores), it was found that
all pretest, posttest and knowledge gain score distributions violated the
assumption of normality. All subsequent tests were selected on this premise and
appropriate post hoc tests were conducted to accommodate the non-nonnal
data. No extreme outliers were found in the data sample, and all cases were

included in further analysis.

Table 5: Mean knowledge gain by program type

Kno Gain
Program Type Mean N

 

 

 

 

 

Control -1.11 66
Virtual 7.27 115
On-site 7.22 145

Total 326

Means for all program types were analyzed and determined to be
appropriate and accurate (Table 5). A one-way analysis of variance was used to
evaluate differences in knowledge gain scores between the control, virtual, and
on-site groups. Both virtual and on-site groups differed significantly in their
knowledge scores compared with the control group [F(2, 323) = 157.588,
p<0.01]. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that both
virtual and on-site groups had a significantly higher increase in knowledge than
the control groups.

A paired t-test was used to determine significant differences between pre-

and posttest scores for all groups. A significance value of p< 0.001 was found for

34

all groups, indicating a significant difference in test scores for all program types

(Table 6).

Table 6: Paired Sample t-test for knowledge gain Between Pretest and Posttest for all Subjects

    

Pretest Posttest Knowledge
Gain Mean Std. Dev.

 

df'tip

4.170
3.414 114 22.835 <0.001
3.006 144 28.928 <0.001

Control (n=66)

Vlrtual (n=115)

On-site (n=145)

An independent t-test was used to determine if there was a significant
difference between knowledge gain scores of the virtual and on-site groups. A
probability of 0.903 was found, indicating there is no significant difference
between groups in knowledge gain.
A two—way between-groups ANOVA was conducted to explore the impact

of school and program type on knowledge gain scores (Table 7). There was a
significant main effect for program type with a large effect size (partial eta
squared= 0.472). Post Hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test confirmed
that the control group was significantly different from both the virtual and on-site

groups (Table 6). The main effect for school and the interaction effect were not

 

significant.
Table 7: Two-way ANOVA for program type and school.
Source I Df I
School 1
Program Type 2
Interaction 2
Within subject error 320

 

35

Teacher Questionnaire Responses

Four teachers completed the teacher questionnaire. All teachers had
similar teaching, technology and ethnic backgrounds. All four teachers prepared
their students in the same way, introducing the project and tests, but using no
pre- or post-activities about coral reefs. Teachers agreed that preparations and
materials provided by the zoo staff were helpful in conducting the program
experience for their students. All teachers also agreed that the test was
appropriate in length and difficulty for their students, and that the test itself
provided a pre-activity that helped direct the students’ attention so “they knew
what to listen for,” and “gave them a chance to hear the terms before they were
put in context.”

Teachers were asked to rate their experience as well as their perceptions
of their students’ experiences on a five-point Likert scale (Likert 1932), with
1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strongly Agree. They were also given the option of
“Not Applicable". All teachers similarly ranked each item, as can be seen in
Table 8. Teachers were relatively neutral about statements regarding interaction
and hands-on components. One teacher, participating in the virtual programs,
indicated a strong need for more interactive components. Responses on content,
entertainment value, program innovation and effectiveness were ranked similarly.
None of the responses indicates that any elements of either program needed

modification.

36

9.00:0:
no

400.0 m. ><06u0 6:: 0: 066336 0: 0.003: :6: 60.0. An m:..08.< 0.0860. nnw030£:0: 0.0860.

muzo 00.:.0:. 6630.52 860. 06:38:. 860.

90830::

 

 

 

 

 

:00: 0: ::0 086:6 603. 02.8.3 ::0 2863

< .80. o :0:.
02.2 .0... 00:0 003: 9. 00:50
:uA :nA :n :3
m m m m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NA ._.:0 2.863 500 0 ::.n:0 603.8 0x00...0:00 m m m A
N» ._.:0 3662.6 0030836 :0.03 3:. 086:6 :0 00 .3023 m m u A
NA 200. .2020 0630.00 .66 0.003: 0600::3 m m m m
nu M8630 6: .3023 .: 00303.8 30030:: 050.6 ::0 0.000303 m w m A
.3 4:0 08:36. 6: ::0 28630 :00 0 :6: 3:00:06. 680 m w m A
NV ._.:0 0:863 30:.<0:3 086:6 :0 000: 0:: 306 .::0..30:.0: n A A 0
nm 2:. 086:6 02.8.3 ::0 0030:: 0: ::0 04863 n m m A
B A.:0 0:863 200 0:00:20 :0: .000 32.660 086::0 A A m m
we 2:: 086:6 .0033 000:: ::0 006. 60: 0:<._.0:30:: m m m A
«A .5 086:6 .0033 000:: 0.. ::0 060:.030 ::0: _.<0 .: 0 006. 60: A A A A
an .205: _.:0 :0 0030.006 .: 306 N00 048630 .: ::0 886 A m m A
3 63333 .: £00 :03 :0 :002 ::0 00006.. A u A A
uA 4:0 306:0. <60 :00 :03 :0: 086:6 :0 5666:: A m A A
00 ._.:06 :030 :0 :0 306 .::060:.0: 6:8 ::0 0:863 A A A A
6 4:06 :030 :0 :0 306 630.0: 00:.<.:.00 n w m A
3 9336 6: ::06 £00 :00 3:0: .::0230:.0: 006:3 A N A A
an m86:6 6: ::0: ::0 04863 .200 36:03.8 0:: :3 _.::.0 3:00:06. 680 A u A M
an 02:. 3< <02. 030.: 086:6 0033 06:58:? :63 ::0 0:863 A n A N
A: _ 03 :0: 00:<.:03 ::0: 3:: 086:6 i... 50:: :0 .003 306 000:: ::.0 80.0 n N A n
AA A.:0 02863 .200 :0: :05 0: .::0<0:.<0 A w A n
A» _ 03 06.: ::0: 3:. 0.0.20: 086:6 0.0 :0: 6:0: ::0 0.863 A m A n
Au . 56:5 :6 :0 0030.033 .: 0304 886 08630 0: ::.0 200 A A A n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS 8: DISCUSSION

38

Study Results

Three primary conclusions were drawn from this study. First, participation
in the educational programming increased knowledge from pretest to posttest for
both the virtual and on-site groups. Second, there was no significant difference in
the knowledge gain from the virtual and on-site programs. Third, there was no
difference between schools in terms of the mean knowledge gain.

This study rejected the alternative hypothesis that “evaluation of the
“Clownfish, Corals and Conservation" educational programming will show that
distance Ieaming “virtual” programs are more effective than on-site programs in
increasing knowledge scores” In addition, the specific goals of the study were
met. The program was effective in increasing knowledge of participants similarly
between delivery methods, indicating the program could be effectively adapted to
virtual program delivery. No significant difference in knowledge gain scores
between program types indicates that virtual and on-site delivery methods are
equally effective for this program.

Teacher perceptions reaffinned knowledge gain results. Teachers agreed
with statements that their students enjoyed and gained valuable knowledge from
the programs. Teachers were satisfied and had no suggestions about the
program and their on-site or virtual field trip experience. Statements about the
interactivity and hands-on components of the program were rated neutrally or
affirmatively by the teachers, possibly indicating that more of these elements

should be incorporated into the program.

39

 

mi

 

Some results indicated that students had pre-existing content
misconceptions. On pretest questions 4, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 25, the majority of
students chose distractors (incorrect answers) rather than the keyed alternative
(correct answers). This shows that the content tested by these questions was
either unknown to the students, randomly guessed, or had at some point Ieamed
misinformation. These six questions were highly specific to material on coral
reefs as presented in the program. Why students would have misconceptions
about content is worth considering.

Although potential misconceptions were shown for six pretest questions,
only one posttest question indicated that the program had not removed all
misconceptions. On pretest question number 8, a larger percent of students
choose a distractor over the keyed alternative. This question asks students to
recall the reasons why coral reefs are important. The correct answer was “all of
the above”, but more students selected “coral reefs are a home for many
species“. This limited understanding could be due to an oversight in the program
content, lack of reinforcement, or students' selection of an answer before reading
all of the options. Further study about the distractors chosen could give
diagnostic insight to student misconception as well as test weaknesses (Nitko &
Brookhart, 2007). Question 8 is a higher-level thinking question. Students were
asked not only to recognize the information, but also to synthesize and select

more than one correct alternative.

40

Research Implications

This study provides a model that informal education facilities can follow to
complete a quantitative evaluation of their educational program. Using a quasi-
experimental design, and a sample size of only 300, a facility could assess
relative program effectiveness. Careful thought must be given to program design
to make content comparable, and consideration should be given to research
design to minimize outside influences and to get a representative sample of the
target population.

This evaluation assessed students’ recognition of information, relying on
them to identify material covered in the program. Recognition questions can yield
significant results if Ieaming is targeted at the recognition level. When testing for
application of knowledge, recognition questions would need to be combined with
recall and application questions to yield significant results in most cases (Loman
and Mayer, 1983). In this study, Ieaming was measured primarily by recognition.
Based on recognition results regarding knowledge gain adequately show
significant program effectiveness. Program design must be developed around
educational themes, and tests must measure Ieaming for each individual
program objective.

Recognition gains could be used as a baseline for future research.
Understanding what and how students are Ieaming can begin to show what
material they relate to and how connections can be made to change attitudes

and conservation behavior in future studies.

41

Implications for lnfonnal Learning Institutions

Measuring the effectiveness of distance Ieaming programs can be a
valuable tool for zoos, aquaria and museums. Facilities that market their
programs need to demonstrate to schools and teachers the program’s
importance, its relation to state curriculum standards, and educational
effectiveness. With the continuation and proliferation of virtual and on-site
programs, schools could then select the program(s) that fit their financial
resources and curriculum goals.

Promoting distance Ieaming programs is difficult. They must be shown to
be equally as effective as on-site programs. Until this study, no one has shown
that distance Ieaming virtual programs for children can be as educationally
effective as traditional programs in the informal Ieaming environment. With three-
fourths of United States school districts planning to offer or expand their distance
Ieaming programs (eSchool News 2005), effective programs can, after mutual
initial investment, be a cost effective tool to provide Ieaming across great
distances.

Virtual programs also can provide a new method to generate revenue for a
facility from groups that normally would not visit. Initial financial burdens of virtual
programs can be justified if that program performs educationally as well as on-
site programs. Potter Park Zoo used this evaluation as a means to support grant
proposals to continue future funding of the distance Ieaming program. These
programs may not completely fund themselves until there is a large enough

program base. By showing the programs are just as effective as on-site, the

42

decisions regarding continuing funding become easier for the facility, and they
also can support proposals for grant funding.

Funds for field trips are decreasing in many school districts. Virtual
programs provide a viable alternative that can be cost effective. At the same
time, for zoos and aquariums, the income from virtual programs could replace
revenue lost due to decreased field trips while also providing the educational
experience for those groups through technology. Results of this study show that
comparable distance Ieaming and on-site programs can be created that
educationally will show no difference in knowledge gain. The choice of program
type then becomes one based on the type of experience teachers want their
students to receive and that would be more cost-effective in their situation.

Field trip funding may not always be the limiting factor. In the future more
funding may become available, and the reasons for use of distance Ieaming
virtual programs may need to shift. In this instance, programs could be used as
advanced organizers for teachers to prepare students for their on-site field trips.
Virtual programs also can be used as pre- and post-activities. This would expand
the field trip experience from one session to multiple, thereby increasing the “real
world” Ieaming experience and providing ample opportunities to increase student
Ieaming through multiple learning and teaching styles. Virtual programs also can
be used as a teacher preparation tool. Classes could be held to prepare teachers
to conduct pie-activities and to provide an effective field trip experience. Virtual
programs could also be used as part of teacher development days to provide

new and relevant examples that they could then use in their classrooms

43

throughout the year. Opportunities to use this equipment to provide Ieaming
experiences for many groups throughout large geographic areas are limitless.
Showing that virtual programs are equally effective in transmitting
knowledge as on-site programs could create an unintended consequence. If
different program formats have comparable educational inputs, why should
school groups ever come to the zoo again? Distance Ieaming programs should
never be considered the same as the real thing. Knowledge gain is only one
program outcome. Getting students out in the zoo, interacting with their 5 senses,
cannot be duplicated through tele-videoconferencing. Marketing programs to
completely replace on-site trips would be a mistake. The niche for virtual
programs is that they would provide an opportunity for students who would never
have a field trip opportunity to visit the zoo. Virtual programs provide at least the
educational portion of the field trip and a portion of the full experience. A virtual
experience could provide lasting connections for children who would normally
never interact with a zoo or aquarium educator. Programs could also provide
inspiration for students to become first time, on-site visitors, thereby increasing
zoo and aquarium visitor numbers. In these situations, virtual programs could be

invaluable.

Conclusions
In the zoo and aquarium industry, long gone are the days of square,
characterless cages and limited signage. Since the 19703, facilities have moved

away from using glass barriers, wires and painted exhibits in favor of more

realistic settings for the animals (T urkowski 1972). At that time, filmstrips and
public lectures were commonly used for the limited education programs available
(T urkowski 1972). Facilities now make exhibits more interesting, realistic and
participatory, engaging all the senses to increase Ieaming (Ayers 1998).

Education departments and programs have followed suit. They used to be
neglected due to insufficient funds and lack of interest by zoo stakeholders
(T urkowski 1972), but are now greatly expanded. Professional organizations
such as the Association of Zoos and Aquariums now have strict requirements
about the minimum size of the education staff and the programs offered, for
accreditation by the organization. This has encouraged many facilities to expand
their education departments, sometimes to include distance Ieaming.

Distance Ieaming technology has engendered concerns. Many people
involved in this study raised questions about cost, effectiveness, and a possible
trend of school groups abandoning the traditional field trip model. These are all
valid concerns. Distance Ieaming should not be viewed as a replacement, but as
a new opportunity to reach audiences that would never be able to participate in
an educational program at the facility otherwise. This study has shown that, with
proper planning and design, virtual programs can be as educationally effective as

traditional on-site programs.

Limitations
This study has limitations. Results apply only to seventh grade participants

of the two schools involved, as well as to one educational program. Not all

45

programs will be as readily adaptable to the distance Ieaming format. Some
require more movement or highly interactive methods that can not be
accommodated by video-teleconferencing. Not all student groups will be able to
achieve the high level of Ieaming seen in this study. Volunteer docents that are
not experts in the field may have trouble answering questions as well as trained
educators. Special education groups as well as emotionally impaired groups will
have to be given modified programs to achieve similar results. Technology is not
consistent among schools and facilities, which can make virtual programming
impossible. Compatible systems must be in place to implement virtual programs,

to avoid technological problems.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research must be developed with consideration for stakeholders’
needs, assumptions, and expectations. Consideration must also be given to
district, state and national curriculum standards to ensure the project design will
produce its intended effects. This can be done through pilot testing. A needs
assessment could be used before exhibit and program development to achieve
an adequate understanding of the target audience. This will create a knowledge
base that will ensure the design and development effort will match the facilities’
as well as the users’ goals (Crane 1994).
Future studies could compare programs about different topics to determine which
formats and topics are best suited to virtual programming. To develop this study

further, higher thinking skills could be measured, taking into account not just

46

recognition, but also recall and synthesis skills, which become increasingly
important at higher grade levels. The effects of pre- and post-activities could also
be measured in conjunction with program effectiveness. This study provides a
stepping-stone for the industry to expand the distance Ieaming field as well as
the evaluation of its programs. Follow-up studies of virtual participants could
determine the increase and/or decrease of on-site visitations.

The ability to use this technology in many ways provides a new field for
educational research. If programs were to be used on outdoor nature trails,
rather than indoor exhibits, the effectiveness may differ. Using programs for
teacher development and pre- and post-activities would also create a need for
research on impacts of these applications. Not only would new uses need to be
evaluated, but they could also provide stepping-stones for research on changes

in participant’s attitudes and behaviors.

47

LITERATURE CITED

48

Literature Cited

Allen, M., Mabry, E., Mattrey, M., Bourhis, J., Titsworth, S., Burrell, N. 2004.
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Distance Learning: A comparison using
meta-analysis. Journal of Communication 54: 402-420.

Ayres, R. 1998. Increased Learning of a Physical Science Concept, Simple
Machines, Via an Interactive Multimedia Exhibit Compared to a Hands-on
Exhibit in a Science Museum Setting. Unpublished research. The
University of Tennessee Knoxville.

Ba, H., D. Keisch. 2004. Bridging the gap between formal and informal Ieaming:
Evaluating the Seatrek distance Ieaming project. Center for Children and
Technology. Education Development Center, Inc.

Ba, H., W. Martin, O. Diaz. 2001. The Jason Project’s Multi-media Science
Curriculum Impact of Student Learning: Final evaluation report, year one.
Center for Children and Technology. Educational Development Center,
Inc.

Belanger, F ., D. Jordan. 2000. Evaluation and Implementation of Distance
Learning: Technologies, tools and techniques. Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Idea Group Publishing.

Bitgood, S., B. Serrell, D. Thompson. 1994. The Impact of lnforrnal Education on
Visitors to Museums. In: Informal Science Learning: What the research
says about television, science museums, and community-based projects.
Pennsylvania: Science Press.

Black, T., 1999. Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Science: An
integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics.
California: Sage Publications.

Bloom, 3, G.F. Madaus, J.T. Hastings. 1981. Evaluation to Improve Learning.
McGraw Hill, New York.

Boyd, W.L. 1990. Museums as Centers of Learning. Teachers College Record
97: 761-770.

Calder, J.. 1994. Program Evaluation and Quality: A comprehensive guide to
setting up an evaluation system. United Kingdom: Kogan Page.

Chen, M. 1994. Television and lnforrnal Science Education: Assessing the Past,

49

Present, and Future Research. In: lnforrnal Science Learning: What the
research says about television, science museums, and community-based
projects. Pennsylvania: Science Press.

Coe, J.C. 1991. An Integrative Process for Exhibit Design. In: Jackson—Gould,
J.S. 1991. Current Approaches to Interpretation in Zoos. Journal of
Museum Education 16: 8 -13. In: Patterns in Practice: Selections from the
Journal of Museum Education. Washington, DC: Museum Education
Roundtable.

COSI Toledo: Educators Interactive Distance Learning.
(6 May 2004; www.cositoledo.orgle_idl.htm).

Crane, V. 1994. An Introduction to lnforrnal Science Learning and Research. In:
lnforrnal Science Learning: What the research says about television,
science museums, and community-based projects. Pennsylvania: Science
Press.

CSTAT. 2006. Statistical consulting. Dr. Sandra Herman.

Diamond, J. 1999. Practical Evaluation Guide: Tools for museums and other
informal educational settings. Walnut Creek, (CA): A Ha Mira Press.

Doordan, D., 1995. Simulated Seas: Exhibition Design in Contemporary
Aquariums. Design Issues 11: 3-10.

Harry, K., J. Magnus, K. Desmond. 1993. Distance Learning: New Perspectives.
London, (NY): Routledge.

Hyman, MB. 1976. Adult Education Survey. Washington, DC: Association of
Science-Technology Centers (Ed)

Jones, LS. 1997. Opening Doors with Informal Science: Exposure and access
for our underserved students. Science Education 81: 663-677.

Langbein, L.. 1980. Discovering Whether Programs Work: A guide to statistical
methods for program evaluation. California: Goodyear Publishing
Company.

Loman, N.L., R.E. Mayer. 1983. Signaling techniques that increase the
understanding of expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology: 75:
402-412.

Likert, R. 1932. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of
Psychology 140: 55.

50

 

In

20

Litwak, H. 1991. High Tech Interactive Exhibits. In: Jackson-Gould, J.S. 1991.
Current Approaches to Interpretation in Zoos. Journal of Museum
Education: 16: 8 - 13. In: Patterns in Practice: Selections from the Journal
of Museum Education. Washington, DC: Museum Education Roundtable.

Madhavan, K., M. Ray. 2001. Role of Distance Education in Developing
Countries. India: Indian Publications.

Melton, A.W., N. Goldberg Feldman, C.W. Mason. 1996. Measuring Museum
Based Learning: Experimental studies of the education of children in a
museum of science. Washington, DC: American Association of
Museums.

Messenger, S.L. 2000. A Model System Linking Formal and lnforrnal Education:
Field trips, curriculum standards and the 4-H Children’s Garden at Masters
Thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Mohan-Mehrotra, C., C. D. Hollister, L. McGahey. 2001. Distance Learning:
Principles for effective design, delivery and evaluation. California: Sage
Publishing.

Nitko, A.J., S.M. Brookhart. 2007. Educational Assessment of Students. Fifth
Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

Pool, P. 1996. Teaching via Interactive Television: An examination of teaching
effectiveness and student satisfaction. Journal of Education for Business:
1 72: 78-81 .

Ramey—Gassert, L., H.J. Walberg, III, H.J. Walberg. 1990. Reexamining
connections: Museums as science Ieaming environments. Science
Education 78: 345-363.

Rennie, L.J., T. McClafferty. 1995. Using visits to interactive science and
technology centers, museums, aquaria and zoos to promote Ieaming in
science. Journal of Science Teacher Education 6: 175-185.

Semper, R.J., 1990. Science Museums as environments for Ieaming. Physics
Today: 28

Tarlton, J.L., C.J. Ward. 2006. The Effect of Thematic Interpretation on a Child’s
Knowledge of an Interpretive Program. The Journal of Interpretation
Research 11: 7-33.

Zophy, J. Lost in Cyberspace: Some concerns about televised instruction. The
History Teacher 31: 265-275.

51

APPENDICES

52

APPENDIX
A

53

Appendix A

Michigan State Curriculum Benchmarks included in Program

Science Strand Ill, Content Standard 5 (Ecosystems), Benchmark 1
0 Describe common patterns of relationships among populations.
- Mutualism, parasitism, predator, prey, competition
Science Strand Ill, Content Standard 5 (Ecosystems), Benchmark 2
0 Describe how organisms acquire energy directly or indirectly from
sunlight.
- Producers, consumers, photosynthesis, sunlight, plants, food
web
Science Strand III, Content Standard 5 (Ecosystems), Benchmark 6
0 Describe ways in which humans alter the environment
- Resource use, solid waste, toxic waste, biodiversity
Science Strand V, Content Standard 1 (The Geosphere), Benchmark 4
0 Explain how rocks and fossils are used to understand the age and
geologic history of earth
- Fossils, rock layers, timelines
Science Strand V, Content Standard 1(T he Geosphere), Benchmark 3
0 Explain how rocks are broken down, how soil is formed and how
surface features change.

- Erosion by glaciers.

54

APPENDIX
B

55

Appendix B
“Clownfish, Corals and Conservation” Program Outline

 

 

What is a coral reef?
Plant an. _d_Anima.Icommtflit_ie§_mm - Video Clig
Tank
Coral reefs are the “rainforests” of the ocean. overview

 

 

 

They are the most biologically diverse ecosystems of the sea.
Location — Coral reefs are located worldwide in tropical seas. In the US

they are found in Hawaii and the Florida Keys.

 

. . . _ o
m Coral reefs make up only 1 A: of the Maui ulative
ocean, but have 25% of the species. If the whole ”Inga?“

 

 

 

ocean was a gallon milk jug, coral reefs would fit
into a teaspoon. Coral reefs have an amazing array of plants,
corals, invertebrates, fish and many other species. Fish are the
most widely varying group on the planet, and just one fish family
has over 1600 species (gobies).

Habitat Rguirements - Coral reefs can grow only in water that is warm,
salty and shallow. They require lots of sunlight and nutrients.

What does coral have to do with Michigan?

 

Manipulative
Our state stone is actually a fossilized coral. Petoskey Coral and
. Petoskey
Stones are what remain of coral reefs that covered parts picture

 

 

 

56

of nine states around Michigan, 350 million years ago (Ml, IL, IN, PA, OH,
KY, NY, WV, MD). Michigan used to be near the equator and covered in a
warm, tropical sea. Through plate tectonics, we shifted to our current

position, where glaciers carved up the reefs, creating the Petoskey stones

 

we find today.
What is coral?
Characteristics — Coral is actually a tiny animal called Video Clip
. . . Polyps and
a polyp. Hundreds of identical polyps live tentacles

 

 

 

together in what is called a colony (or coral head).

- Corals have tentacles that they use to get food - plankton, and
even tiny fish. (Have students stick arms up in the air. They are
each a coral polyp with their 2 tentacles). At the end of each
tentacle is a stinging cell called a nematocyst. It is like a tiny

harpoon that can stun prey. They will also use it for protection.

 

- Corals have symbiotic algae that live inside Mani “lame
. . Zooxanthellae
their tissue called Zooxanthellae. The corals; picture

 

 

give the algae protection, carbon dioxide and
wastes so they can cany out photosynthesis. The algae in
return provide the coral with its color (a kind of sunscreen), food

and oxygen.

57

 

Hard corals — Create a skeleton made out of Video Clii

Hard vs soft

calcium carbonate (chalk). When they are corals

 

 

threatened, they will retract into their skeletons
for protection. Hard corals build the structure of coral reefs.

Soft corals — Do not create a skeleton, but do have spicules that give
them some support and protection. (They are not fun for fish to eat,

kind of like fiberglass.)

 

 

Relatives — Corals are cousins with anemones and sea Video Cli
jellies (not jelly fish. . .they are not fish). They all A"°"'°“°

 

 

have very similar structures, they just live differently, with jellies
drifting, anemones attaching to the bottom, and corals attaching to

the bottom but having skeletons and living in a colony.

 

Symbiosis
There are many species on a coral reef that are symbiotic.
Coral I s and zooxanthellae M
gobylshrimp
Watchman Gobz and Pistol Shrim — cleanershrimp

 

 

 

 

Live together in a tunnel that the blind shrimp digs. The Goby acts

as a lookout.

Cleaner shrimg and fish — Cleaner shrimp eat the dead scales and

parasites off of fish.

58

Clownfish

 

Smbiosis — Clownfish have a symbiotic relationship Video Clin

. Clownfish in
with anemones. They constantly rub against the the anemone

 

 

 

anemone to coat themselves in slime, so the

anemone will not sting them. The clownfish bring food back to the
anemone and will clean up scraps and eat dead tentacles. The
anemone provides protection (with its nematocysts), and gives the

clownfish a home.

 

Progagation - PPZ is raising baby clownfish so that feweé Video Clig
UW lab and
are taken from coral reefs. This helps protect coral; babies

 

 

reefs without stopping the sale of reef fish in pet stores.

Value of reefs

Natural value — Coral reefs are beautiful and rare ecosystems. Tons of
organisms live in a tiny space.

Environmental value — Reefs protect shorelines from storm and wave
damage as well as erosion.

Economic value — Reefs provide the only income to many people in island
nations. They provide food, medicine, products helpful to humans,
animals for the aquarium trade, recreation and tourism money.
Those, along with the money saved by their coastal protection, are

worth about $375 billion dollars per year.

59

Why do reefs need protection?
30% of reefs worldwide are already damaged. By 2050, over 60% could
be damaged beyond repair.
Natural impacts - Global warming is changing ocean temperatures.
Warmer waters cause coral bleaching, in which the coral will
actually expel their zooxanthellae. Hurricanes and storms also

break up the reef and can kill some reef species.

 

Human imgacts — Anchor damage, boat groundings, , ,
Manigulatlve
Debrislnets

 

 

propeller damage, and divers and snorkelers

 

kicking or taking coral. Water quality also is impacted by runoff of
fertilizers, pesticides and sewage, and by discharge from cruise
ships. Marine debris also has an effect on many reef organisms.
Nets tangle and strangle corals, and dolphins and turtles eat plastic
bags after mistaking them for sea jellies. Traditional Chinese
medicine, shark finning, oil spills and bombing ranges are also very

destructive human impacts.

 

. - _ ' ' . . . o
Destructive fishing Dynamite fishing IS used in many Video Ch!

Diver mural

 

 

parts of the world. Sticks of dynamite are thrown

 

overboard and fish are stunned or killed and float to the surface for
easy collection. Cyanide fishing is a common way to collect fish for
the aquarium trade. Divers squirt cyanide into hiding places and
fish are stunned for easy collection. Almost 80% of the fish die from

this method.

60

What is being done?

 

Marine protected areas restrict recreational and fishing Video Clip
Artificial
activities to harm reefs less. Education programs target wreck

 

 

 

fishermen, snorkelers and divers. Artificial reefs provide new habitat for
many species. MAC (Marine Aquarium Council) certifies fishermen,
wholesalers and pet stores in sustainable methods of fish collection.

Preuss Animal House was the first ever MAC-certified store.

What can you do?
Be careful when diving and snorkeling.
Conserve energy and water.
Reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
Compost and recycle.
Save gas.

Be an informed consumer- buy only MAC-certified coral reef animals.

61

APPENDIX
C

62

Appendix C

Educational Objectives

75% of students will be able to correctly answer 20 of 25 posttest questions
following the program.

75% of students will increase their test score by 2 or more following the
program.

35% of students will increase their scores by 5 or more. (Questions: 2,4)

Following the program, 60% of students will be able to clearly define what
coral is and how it lives. (Questions: 8-12, 14)

Following the program, 60% of students will be able to define symbiosis and
give two examples in the coral reef. (Questions: 5, 7, 13)

Following the program, 75% of students will be able to rule out factors not
affecting coral reefs. (Question: 21)

Following the program, 75% of students will be able to choose actions that

they can do to help coral reefs. (Question: 25).

63

APPENDIX
D

Appendix D
Pilot Pretest

 

Cloichlgish, Corals ”am“
’“p...“§.‘ii‘;2.'°“ Pretest

Circle the best answer

\

 

1. Coral reefs have many different animals and plants in a small area. They
are like the of the ocean.

Deserts
Oceans
Rainforests
Mountains

page

2. Coral reefs need this type of water in order to grow.
a. Warm, shallow, salty
b. Cold, dark, deep
c. Any kind
d. Freshwater, lots of nutrients

3. There are 3 main kinds of reefs: fringing, atolls and
a. Spectacular
b. Barrier
c. Spotted

d. Outlying

4. Coral reefs...
a. Are a very large portion of the ocean
b. Are not important to the ocean
0. Have very few animals and plants
d. Are a tiny part of the ocean with lots of animals

5. Coral reefs require sunlight because
a. Corals have a symbiotic algae that need sunlight
b. They are afraid of the dark
c. The animals need sunlight to grow
d. It makes fish brightly colored

65

6. Corals used to grow in Michigan, today we find them as...
a. Jewelry
b. Plants
c. Extinct
d. Petoskey stones

N

. Corals have been around
a. Only ten years
b. Over 350 million years
c. Since the ice age
d. Since the civil war

8. Coral is
a. An animal
b. Aplant
c. Arock
d. Amineral

CO

. Symbiosis is...
a. When a cell splits
b. When two organisms live together
0. A kind of plant
(I. Making a clone

10. Corals can reproduce by...
a. Having live young
b. Having spores
c. Rooting themselves
d. Breaking off chunks of themselves

11.Corals are related to anemones and...
a. Sea jellies
b. Fish
c. Hermit crabs
d. Plants

12. When clownfish lay eggs...
a. They drift in the ocean until they hatch
b. The male takes care of them
c. The mother carries them in her mouth
d. They hatch right away

66

13. Clownfish are symbiotic with
a. Hermit crabs
b. Algae
c. Anemones
d. Shrimp

14.The lawnmower blenny is a herbivore that is camouflaged to look like...
a. A poisonous fish
b. A snail
c. Kelp
d. Algae

15. Reefs are important because?
a. They are just a tiny part of the ocean
b. They are beautiful
c. They provide food and medicine
d. All above are correct

16. Reefs are not threatened by...
a. Salmon fishing
b. Harvesting for aquariums
c. Pollution
d. Divers and snorkelers

17.To help protect reefs, we could educate...
a. Fishermen
b. Scuba divers
0. People with aquariums
d. All of the above

18.The marine aquarium council (MAC)...
a. Wants aquariums in every home
b. Protects reefs by collecting fish carefully
c. Causes the most damage to reefs
d. Sets up “artificial reefs”

19. Marine protected areas...
a. Don’t let anyone in
b. Set up aquariums to protect fish
o. Are bases guarded by Marines
d. Have strict rules on fishing and diving to protect reefs

67

20.What is one thing that you can do to help save coral reefs?
a. Recycle, reduce, reuse
b. Only buy reef fish from a MAC certified store
c. Do not collect sea shells or step on coral while snorkeling
d. All of the above

68

APPENDIX
E

69

Appendix E

Pilot Test Question Modifications

Several simple typos and spacing issues were identified and corrected.
All questions and answers were reworded to be complete sentences for
consistency.

“All of the above” was added as letter “e” to all questions.

Question 3 — was removed due to extra content that would not fit in the
program time constraints.

Question 4 — “d” was reworded from “Are a tiny part of the ocean with lots
of animals” to “have many animals in a small area of the ocean”.
Question 6 - “a” was changed from “jewelry” to “Greenstone” and “c” was
changed from “extinct” to “geodes”.

Question 9 - All answers were lengthened to be consistent with the
correct answer.

Question 14 - was removed because it was too specific and did not
measure an educational objective of the program.

Question 15 - the question was reworded for clarity.

Question 19 - “b” was reworded for clarity

Question 20 — “c” was split into, to “c” and “d”.

70

APPENDIX
F

71

Appendix F

 

 

 

   

Official Pretest
Student Number Teacher flour Virtual_ On-site
" (Clownjish, Corals
as"; and Conservation

 

PotterParkZoo PFCI ggt

Circle the best answer

1

. Coral reefs have many different animals and plants in a small area.
They are like the of the ocean.

deserts

oceans

rainforests

mountains

All of the above

599-99!”

2. Coral reefs need which type of water in order to grow?
a. Warm, shallow, salty
b. Cold, dark, deep
c. Any kind
(I. Freshwater, lots of nutrients
e. All of the above.

3. Coral reefs...
a. are found in a very large portion of the ocean.
b. are not important to the ocean.
e. have very few animals and plants.
d. have many animals in a small area of the ocean.
e. All of the above.

4. In the United States, coral reefs are located in the ocean around Hawaii
and...
a. California.
b. North Carolina.
c. Florida.
d. Maine.
e. All of the above.

72

5. Coral reefs require sunlight because

corals have symbiotic algae that need sunlight.
they are afraid of the dark.

the animals need sunlight to grow.

it makes fish brightly colored.

All of the above.

FDR-PPS”

6. Corals used to grow in Michigan; today we find them in their natural form
as...
a. greenstone.
b. plants.
c. geodes.
d. Petoskey stones.
e. All of the above.

7. Corals have been living in oceans...
only ten years.

over 350 million years.

since the ice age.

since the Civil War.

All of the above.

9999?

8. Coral is...

an animal.
aphm.

a rock.

a mineral.

All of the above.

EDP-99'!”

9. An individual coral organism is called a...
a. polyp.
b. coralline.
c. bud.
d. florial.
e. All of the above.

10.When hundreds of identical coral individuals live together, it is called...
symbiosis.

b. a colony.

c. a cluster.

d. a family.

e. All of the above.

73

11.Corals have that sway in the currents, and can sting

 

predators.

arms

tentacles
branches

flags

All of the above.

9999:»

12.What provides corals with a kind of sunscreen?
a. Protective oils.
b. Fish providing shade.
c. Mucus.
d. Their symbiotic algae.
e. All of the above.

13. Symbiosis is...
. when a cell splits into two separate organisms.

. when two organisms live together and help each other.

a

b

c. a kind of plant that grows in a rainforest.
d. making a clone out of a cell from the ocean.
e. All of the above.

14.Corals can reproduce by...

having live young.

having spores.

rooting themselves.

breaking off chunks of themselves.

All of the above.

9.0.0.0!”

15.Corals are related to anemones and...

a. sea jellies.

b. fish.

c. hermit crabs.
d. plants.
e. All of the above.

16. When clownfish lay eggs...

they drift in the ocean until they hatch.
the male takes care of them.

the mother carries them in her mouth.
they hatch right away.

All of the above.

EDP-99'!”

74

17. Clownfish are symbiotic with
hermit crabs.

algae.

anemones.

shrimp.

All of the above.

9999'!”

18. Hard corals...
a. are rocks.
b. build reefs with their skeletons.
e. do not have tentacles.
d. have bones that keep them strong.
e. All of the above.

19. Corals protect themselves with...

their teeth.

ink they can squirt.

their poisonous tissues.
exoskeletons and stinging cells.
All of the above.

9999'!”

20.Why are coral reefs important?
a. They are just a tiny part of the ocean.
b. They are beautiful.
c. They provide food and medicine.
d. They provide homes for many ocean species.
e. All above are correct.

21. Reefs are not threatened by...
salmon fishing.
harvesting for aquariums.
pollution.

divers and snorkelers.

All of the above.

99.0.5!”

22.To help protect reefs, we could educate...
fishermen.

scuba divers.

peOpIe with aquariums.

pet stores

All of the above.

@9999

7S

23.The Marine Aquarium Council (MAC)...

@9999

wants aquariums in every home.
protects reefs by collecting fish carefully.
causes the most damage to reefs.

build “artificial reefs”.

All of the above.

24. Marine protected areas...

99999

don’t let anyone inside their boundaries.

Build aquariums to protect fish.

are bases guarded by Marines.

have rules on fishing and diving to protect reefs.
All of the above.

25.What is one thing that you can do to help save coral reefs?

weave

Recycle, reduce, reuse.

Only buy reef fish from a MAC. certified store.
Do not collect sea shells at the beach

Do not step on coral while snorkeling.

All of the above.

76

APPENDIX
G

77

Appendix G

 

    
  

Official Posttest
Student Number Teacher flour Virtual_ On-site
Clownfish, Corals
and Conservation

P°““P:"‘i°° Posttest

Circle the best answer

1

. Corals have been living in oceans...
only ten years.

over 350 million years.

since the ice age.

since the Civil War.

All of the above.

weave

2. Coral reefs...
a. are found in a very large portion of the ocean.
b. are not important to the ocean.
e. have very few animals and plants.
d. have many animals in a small area of the ocean.
e. All of the above.

9°

Coral reefs require sunlight because

corals have symbiotic algae that need sunlight.
they are afraid of the dark.

the animals need sunlight to grow.

it makes fish brightly colored.

All of the above.

weave

4. Marine protected areas...

don’t let anyone inside their boundaries.

Build aquariums to protect fish.

are bases guarded by Marines.

have rules on fishing and diving to protect reefs.
All of the above.

9.9-9.5!”

78

5. Coral reefs have many different animals and plants in a small area.
They are like the of the ocean.
a. deserts
b. oceans
c. rainforests
d. mountains
e. All of the above

6. When hundreds of identical coral individuals live together, it is called...
symbiosis.

a colony.

a cluster.

a family.

All of the above.

sense

7. Corals protect themselves with...
a. their teeth.
b. ink they can squirt.
c. their poisonous tissues.
d. exoskeletons and stinging cells.
e. All of the above.

8. Why are coral reefs important?
a. They are just a tiny part of the ocean.
b. They are beautiful.
c. They provide food and medicine.
d. They provide homes for many ocean species.
e. All above are correct.

9. To help protect reefs, we could educate...
a. fishermen.
b. scuba divers.
c. people with aquariums.
d. pet stores
e. All of the above.

10.Coral is...
a. an animal.
b. a plant.
c. a rock.
d. a mineral.
e. All of the above.

79

11.What is one thing that you can do to help save coral reefs?
a. Recycle, reduce, reuse.
b. Only buy reef fish from a MAC. certified store.
c. Do not collect sea shells at the beach
d. Do not step on coral while snorkeling.
e. All of the above.

12. Clownfish are symbiotic with
hermit crabs.

algae.

anemones.

shrimp.

All of the above.

@9999

13.What provides corals with a kind of sunscreen?
a. Protective oils.
b. Fish providing shade.
c. Mucus.
d. Their symbiotic algae.
e. All of the above.

14. Symbiosis is...

when a cell splits into two separate organisms.

when two organisms live together and help each other.
a kind of plant that grows in a rainforest.

making a clone out of a cell from the ocean.

All of the above.

9999'.”

15. Corals used to grow in Michigan; today we find them in their natural form
as...
a. greenstone.
b. plants.
c. geodes.
d. Petoskey stones.
e. All of the above.

16. Coral reefs need which type of water in order to grow?
Warm, shallow, salty

Cold, dark, deep

Any kind

Freshwater, lots of nutrients

All of the above.

sense

80

17.Corals can reproduce by...

having live young.

having spores.

rooting themselves.

breaking off chunks of themselves.
All of the above.

9.0-9.5.”

18. Reefs are not threatened by...
a. salmon fishing.
b. harvesting for aquariums.
c. pollution.
d. divers and snorkelers.
e. All of the above.

19. In the United States, coral reefs are located in the ocean around Hawaii
and...
a. California.
b. North Carolina.
c. Florida.
d. Maine.
e. All of the above.

20.An individual coral organism is called a...
a. polyp.
b. coralline.
c. bud.
d. florial.
e. All of the above.

21 . Corals have that sway in the currents, and can sting
predators.

arms

tentacles

branches

flags

All of the above.

@9999

22. Corals are related to anemones and...
sea jellies.

b. fish.

0. hermit crabs.
d. plants.
e. All of the above.

81

23.The Marine Aquarium Council (MAC)...
a. wants aquariums in every home.
b. protects reefs by collecting fish carefully.
0. causes the most damage to reefs.
d. build “artificial reefs”.
e. All of the above.

24. When clownfish lay eggs...
f. they drift in the ocean until they hatch.
g. the male takes care of them.
h. the mother carries them in her mouth.
i. they hatch right away.
j. All of the above.

25. Hard corals...
k. are rocks.
I. build reefs with their skeletons.
m. do not have tentacles.
n. have bones that keep them strong.
0. All of the above.

82

APPENDIX
H

83

Appendix H

Teacher Questionnaire

Clownfish, Corals and Conservation Program
Teacher Questionnaire

1. My class participated in a...
D Distance learning “virtual” program
E] On-site traditional program

Teacher Background
2. Full name Date

3. Male_ Female—
4. Years of teaching experience

 

Contact Information
5. School Name
6. School Address

 

7. Contact email or phone number

8. Do you describe yourself as. ..?
African-American
Asian-American
White

Latino/Hispanic American

Native American

Other

9. Indicate the ethnic backgrounds, by percent for your class, for the students in
your class.
African-American
Asian American
White
Latino/Hispanic American
Native American
Other

84

10. What is the academic placement level of most of your students by percent?
(May be over 100%)
Honor students
Achieving academically at and/or above average
Achieving academically below average
Labeled as “at-risk” academically
Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
Special Education Students

 

11. Did you use activities or lessons about coral reefs/oceans prior to the
program?
Yes No
If yes, please describe

 

 

 

12. Were the program materials sent to you prior to the program helpful in
preparing your class?
Yes No

13. In what ways was correspondence with the zoo staff helpful...
a. I] What to expect of the program
b. D Logistics of carrying out program
c. D Instructions for students
d. C] Instructions for parents/guardians and permission slips
e. [I Other
f. I] Not Applicable

14. Was the pretest/posttest easy to use? Yes No
15. The test length was...
__Too long
About right
Too short

16. Were the test questions appropriate for the education level of your students?
Yes
No, they were above the students’ heads
No, they were too easy

17. Did the pretest focus your students’ attention while participating in the
program?

No

Yes (If yes, how so?)

 

 

85

18. Was the coral reef program a valuable Ieaming experience for your students?

Yes No

19. Did the program provide real-world examples that tied into your curriculum?
Yes No

Please rate elements of the program:
1 — Strongly disagree
2 — Somewhat disagree
3 — No opinion
4 - Somewhat agree
5 - Strongly agree
6 — Not Applicable

20. Most of the students really enjoyed the program 1 2 3 4 5
21. The program was a unique Ieaming experience 1 2 3 4 5
22. The interactive components helped my students to be involved

1 2 3 4 5
23. Real world examples were clearly presented 1 2 3 4 5
25. Students felt involved in something important outside the classroom

1 2 3 4 5
26. The students felt the programs had a high educational value

1 2 3 4 5
27. The program motivated students to seek out more information

1 2 3 4 5
28. My students enjoyed the content of the program 1 2 3 4 5
29. The program was effective for less motivated students 1 2 3 4 5
30. My students Ieamed about the coral reef environment 1 2 3 4 5
31. My students Ieamed about all the organisms that 1 2 3 4 5

live in a coral reef

32. I would like to participate in more zoo programs in the future

1 2 3 4 5
33. Sometimes it was hard to hear the speaker 1 2 3 4 5
34. The material was too hard for students to understand 1 2 3 4 5
35. There needs to be more interaction during the program 1 2 3 4 5
36. There needs to be more hands-on activities 1 2 3 4 5
37. Students felt there was too much information covered 1 2 3 4 5
38. Students felt that the program was entertaining but had little

educational value 1 2 3 4 5

39. Only my very smart students gained significantly from the program

1 2 3 4 5

40. I am not convinced that my students will want to learn more
about this topic 1 2 3 4 5
41. The program was not new or innovative 1 2 3 4 5

42. I am afraid that my slower students did not follow the program

86

12345

43. I would not like to participate in other future programs of this type
1 2 3 4 5

If your class participated in the distance Ieaming “virtual” program,
please continue on to the next page.
If your class participated in the on-site program, please write any comments or
concerns in the box below.

 

 

 

 

VIRTUAL PROGRAM PORTION
Experience with technology

44. l have access to a computer: Check all that apply
At home

In my classroom

In the school library

In the school computer lab/media center

Other (please specify)

I do not have access to a computer

 

45. Do you have lntemet access? Yes No
46. Do you presently use the lntemet in your classroom?
If yes, how often?

47. How often do you engage your students in computer activities for your
classes?

Several times a week

Once per week minimum

Once a month

Once every few months

Never

87

48. Do you have any experience with video-conferencing-based distance
education besides the “Clownfish, Corals and Conservation” program?
Yes No (If no please skip to question 50.)

49. Does your class have any prior experience with video-conferencing?
Yes No
If yes, please explain

50. Does your lnforrnation Technology Person (ITP) provide you with enough
support to conduct video-based distance Ieaming sessions with ease?
Yes No

Please describe why or why not, and how we could help.

 

 

 

 

51. Do you believe the distance-Ieaming program was as educationally effective
as a on-site program would have been?
Yes No
If no please explain why

52. Did your students seem to enjoy the distance-Ieaming format as opposed to
a on-site
program? Yes No

53. How did the distance-Ieaming program affect you/your students...(You can
select more than one)

It made my job harder (Why? )

It confused students, and detracted from their Ieaming

It worked well, but a traditional on—site program would have been

better
I prefer this format to a traditional field trip
Other

54. Was the distance-Ieaming program less expensive than a traditional field trip
to the exhibit? Yes No

55. What was the biggest drawback to the distance-Ieaming program virtual field
trip?

 

 

88

E
5

AA..5mr....

 

56. What was the best part of the distance Ieaming program/experience?

 

 

 

57. Please share suggestions or other comments that you have about the
program.

 

 

 

 

89

APPENDIX

90

Appendix I

Consent and Assent Forms

Clownflsh, Corals
and Conservation
Potter Park Zoo
Re: Research smdy — “Comparative Evaluation of Distance Learning “Virtual” programs and Traditional
On-site Programs in Zoos and Aquaria”. 12/27/05

Dear Teacher,

Your students have an opportunity to participate in the newly designed, “Clownfish,
Corals and Conservation” education program with the Potter Park Zoo. In our effort to make the
program as good as possible, we are conducting a program evaluation as a research study. Your
class will be instrumental for helping us understand what portions of the program are working,
and what portions are not. This will help us to fine tune the program in the future.

Tracy McMuIlen, a graduate student at Michigan State University, will be conducting a
pre- and posttest to measure the knowledge that your students gain from the program as her
graduate research. The results will be used for her graduate thesis, comparing the effectiveness of
on-site programs with that of “virtual” programs. The tests will be given just prior to and just
afier the program, and will take about 5 minutes each. You may use test scores as a grade if you
so choose, but test originals must be submitted to the evaluator.

The identity of your students will be kept strictly confidential, (after test administration, it
will not even be known by the evaluator), and individual scores will never be discussed.
Participation is completely voluntary. The tests can be discussed in class, and used as a learning
tool for the students. The tests will help to focus your students during the program, helping them
to be more interested, attentive and to have fun. With your permission, research could be
conducted in your classroom, and your students will provide valuable data for making the
“Clownfish, Corals and Conservation” program the best it can be. Student and teacher consent
forms should all be collected by you, and returned to Tracy McMuIlen at the Potter Park Zoo.

Thank you,

Tracy McMuIlen

Zoo and Aquarium Management, ProMSc candidate
Michigan State University
Potter Park Zoo Education Intern

For questions regarding the research project, please contact Tracy McMuIlen at mcmu1122 u.edu or
(517) 256-7173 1208 W Rundle Lansing, MI 48910
Or the project supervisor, Dr. Richard Snider, 517-355-8473 snider@rnsu.edu
235 Nat. Sci. East Lansing, MI 48824
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any
time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D.,
Director of Hinnan Research Protections, (517)355-2180, fax (517)432-4503, e—mail irb@msu.edu, mail
202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047

91

Please return all consent forms to Tracy McMuIlen at the Potter Park Zoo
"Please fill out a separate form for each class participating”

I give permission a research study to be conducted in my class regarding the “Clownfish,
Corals and Conservation” educational program at Potter Park Zoo.

 

 

 

Teacher Signature Date
Teacher Name (PRINT)
School Grade Class

 

 

 

92

Clownflsh, Corals

and Conservation
Potter Park Zoo
Re: Research study - “Comparative Evaluation of Distance Learning “Virtual” programs and Traditional
On-site Programs in Zoos and Aquaria”. 12/27/05
Dear Teacher,

As part of the research study, you will be asked to fill out a short questionnaire
regarding your experiences with the “Clownfish, Corals and Conservation” educational
program. This is completely voluntary, but would help to make a connection between the
students’ test score outcomes and the teachers’ perceived outcomes. You may choose to
participate, or discontinue at any point without consequence. There are no foreseeable
risks involved with this study. Your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum
extent allowable by law.

Please fill out the portion below if consent to completing this survey for the
research study.

Thank you,

Tracy McMuIlen

Zoo and Aquarium Management, ProMSc candidate
Michigan State University

Potter Park Zoo Education Intern

For questions regarding the research project, please contact Tracy McMuIlen at mcmu1122 u.edu or
(517)256-7173 1208 W Rundle Lansing, MI 48910
Or the project supervisor, Dr. Richard Snider, 517-355-8473 snider@rnsu.edu
235 Nat. Sci. East Lansing, MI 48824
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any
time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D.,
Director of Human Research Protections, (517)355-2180, fax (517)432-4503, e-mail irb@msu.edu, mail
202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047

Please return all consent forms to Tracy McMuIlen at the Potter Park Zoo

I consent to completing a teacher questionnaire regarding the “Clownfish, Corals and
Conservation” educational program at Potter Park Zoo.

 

 

 

Teacher Signature Date
Teacher Name (PRINT)
School Grade Class

 

 

93

Clownjish, Corals

and Conservation
Potter Park Zoo
Re: Research study — “Comparative Evaluation of Distance Learning “Virtual” programs
and Traditional On-site Programs in Zoos and Aquaria”. 1/24/05
Dear student,

You have a chance to participate in the new, “Clownfish, Corals and Conservation”
lesson with the Potter Park Zoo. In trying to make the lesson as good as possible, we are doing a
research study to see how well we can teach the material. You have an opportunity to help us
understand how we are doing.

Before the program you will take a 5-minute pretest. You will then have the coral reef
program, and following it, you will take a 5-minute posttest. You are not being graded. We are
using these tests to measure how much you have learned fiom our program. This will help us do a
better job next time.

You do not have to participate is you do not want to. You can refuse to answer questions
if you choose. The tests will help to focus your attention during the program, helping you to be
more interested, to ask great questions, and to have fun. With your help, you will provide
valuable data for making the “Clownfish, Corals and Conservation” program the best it can be. If
you have questions, please speak with your parents, or ask your teacher to contact the researcher

with your questions.

Thank you,

Tracy McMuIlen
Potter Park Zoo Education Intern

94

 

Clownfish, Corals

and Conservation
Potter park ZOO
Re: Research study — “Comparative Evaluation of Distance Learning “Virtual” programs
and Traditional On-site Programs in Zoos and Aquaria”. 12/27/05

Dear Parent,

Your child has an opportunity to participate in the newly designed, “Clownfish, Corals
and Conservation” education program with the Potter Park Zoo. In our effort to make the program
as good as possible, we are conducting a program evaluation as part of a research study. Your
child has an opportunity to help us understand what portions of the program are working, and
what portions are not, so we can fine tune the program for future students.

Tracy McMuIlen, a graduate student at Michigan State University will be conducting a
pre- and posttest to measure the knowledge that your child gains from the program as her research
project. The results will be used for her graduate thesis, comparing the effectiveness of on-site
programs with that of “virtual” programs. The tests will be given just prior to and just after the
program, and will take about 5-10 minutes each.

The identity of your child will be kept strictly confidential, (after test administration, it
will not even be known by the evaluator), and individual scores will never be discussed. Your
child’s confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Participation is
completely voluntary. Your child may choose to participate, or not, at any point without any
consequences. There are no known risks associated with participation in this study. The tests can
be discussed in class, and used as a Ieaming tool for the students. The tests will help to focus your
child’s attention during the program, helping them to be more interested, to ask great questions,
and to have fun. With your permission, your child will provide valuable data for making the
“Clownfish, Corals and Conservation” program the best it can be.

Thank you,

Tracy McMuIlen

Zoo and Aquarium Management, ProMSc candidate
Michigan State University

Potter Park Zoo Education Intern

For questions regarding the research project, please contact Tracy McMuIlen at mcmul122 msuedu or
(517)256-7173 1208 W Rtmdlc Lansing, MI 48910
Or the project supervisor, Dr. Richard Snider, 517-355-8473 snider@msuedu
235 Net. Sci. East Lansing, MI 48824
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any
time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D.,
Director of Human Research Protections, (517)355-2180, fax (517)432-4503, e-mail irb@rnsu.edu, mail
202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047

Please return the bottom portion to your child’s teacher
(The teacher will submit all forms to Tracy McMuIlen at the Potter Park Zoo)

000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00000000000000000000000.000.0I.COO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO009......OOOOOOOOOOOOO

I give permission for my child to participate in the pre- and posttest of the
“Clownfish, Corals and Conservation” educational program at Potter Park
Zoo.

Parent Signature Date

 

95

 

Parent Name (PRINT)

If your child wishes to participate please have them fill out the section below.
Student Name

Teacher School Class

 

 

96

IRB APPROVAL LETTER

97

IRB Approval Letters
» - MICHIGAN STATE

 

 

 

 

UNIVERSITY 'nitiallRB
. Application
February13. 2006 Approval

To: Richard SNIDER
219 Natual Science

Re: IRB I 05-982 Category EXPEDITED 1-2. 2-7
Approvd Data: February 10, 2006
Expiration Data: , February 0. 2007

Title: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF DISTANCE LEARNING 'VIRTUAL' PROGRAMS VERSUS
TRADITIONAL ON-SITE PROGRAMS IN 2008 AM) AQUARIA

flielnatiuMRewewBocdhaaeompletedMWofyouproject lampleasedtoedvlsayouthat
yoirprojacthaabaanapprcvad.

WWWMWNMWMMMW‘MMWWI
mummmmmmmmm.mmm-mmmman
Moimowummmuemmmmmmwhymm

Discommlueehasfmmduuyourreseaichprojectlsappmpriateindeslgn,protedstherlghtsmdwal‘md
Mmmm.ammmmmmdm0srmwmmmmrmom

T (450FR46and21CFRPar150). flieprotactiondhunansszdahreseerchlsaparuiushbbstweenm
lRBandthelnvestigators. Welookforwardtowoikhgwlthywaswebothfulfiiourrsaponsblllea.
OFFICEOF Renewals: IRBapprovaIlsvalldmtiltheexplratlondatallsteddrova. IfyouareconthrhoyoupMyou
REGULATORY mummwmlamawlcedondmmmfli'bdaeem. Iftiiaprnlectla
AFFAIRS cormlated. pleasesuixnltanApplicatlonIorParmanant Closure
W‘mfl. Revisions: ThelRBmustmviavmyWhfiumpmrtoMaflonotmem Plaaaaaibnrltan
Wm Applicadonlbrkavlslontohavayourchengearevlewed. fidmeamnudeatthaflmeofrsnawal.”
BOARDIIRB) lncludeanAppllcatlonforRavlslothh'therenewdappllcetlon.
Mammal Problems: ummmmmmdmm.mawmm
Wm m.umeMaymaaseuanmhmmm,muIyMIRBdficemnpuy. Forms
MIC!!!) araavellablatoreporttheselasuea _
socmscerrcer MmmlRBmeMmmmammmemmmwmw
MW! EDUCA'I'DII wnespondence with the IRB office.
mm
mm Goodhlcklnyourresearch. "wombaofhiruiarawmmaseoomusatSfl-aGs-Ztaodvleemau
81mm. Mkyoutormcoomtlon-
2020ldsI-Ial
Eflum,udmm
48824-1048 smm'
517-355-2180
Faxz5l7-432-4503

 

Peter Vasilenko, PhD.

SIRB Chdr
CI Tracy McMuIlen
1208 W Rundle Ave

Lansing. MI 48910

98

 

HIE

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

QUE

 

 

TF—I‘E

 

OFFICE OF
REGULATORY
AFFAIRS

Human Research
Protection Programs

BIOMEDICAL 0 HEALTH
NS'ITI'UTIONAL REV EW
BOARD (8188)

COMMUIITY RESEARCH
NSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
BOARD (CRIRB)

SOCIAL SCENCEI
acumen I EDUCATION
msrrruriolut REVIEW
some (SIRB)

202 ores Han

East Lansing. Michiga‘l
48824-1046
517-355-2180

Fax 5174324500

mhunanresearchmsucdu
SIRB r. BIRBr IRBfimsuecti
CBIFIB: airbOmsuem

 

MSU Li an aflirmarfvearrmn
eqml-opporrilnio' wrlrurlon.

Revision
Application
Approval

April 21, 2006

To: Richard SNIDER
219 Natural Scrence

Category: EXPEDITED 1-2, 2-7
April 21. 2006
February 9, 2007

Re: IRB 8 05-982
Revision Approval Date:
Project Expiration Date:

Title: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF DISTANCE LEARNING’VIRTUAL" PROGRAMS VERSUS
TRADITIONAL ON-SITE PROGRAMS IN 2008 AND AQUARIA

The Institutional Review Board has completed their review of your project. I am pleased to advise you thahe
revision has been approved

Revision to Include changes to the duration dates of the project, additional research site (St. Johns)
and also use of existing data from Laingsburg Middle School. This letter acknowledges that Jodie
Fisher and Jolene Wells of St. Johns Middle School has been approved to conduct the research
activities described for thls specific project. Please notify the SIRB office of any other teachers who will
be "engaged“ In the research activities.

The review by the committee has found that your revision is consistent with the continued protection of the
rights and welfare of human subjects. and meets the requirements of MSU’s Federal Wide Assurance and the
Federal Guidelines (45 CFR 46 and 21 CF R Part 50). The protection of human Subjects in research is a
partnership between the IRB and the investigators. We look forward to working with you as we both fulfill our
responsibilities.

Renewals: IRB approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. If you are continuing your project, you
must submit an Application for Renewalapplication at least one month before expiration. If the project is
completed, please submit anApplIcation for Permanent Closure

Revisions: The IRB must review any changes In the project. prior to initiation of the change. Please submit an
Application for RevIsionto have your changes reviewed. It changes are made at the time of renewal. please
include an Application for Revlsionwith the renewal application.

Problems: If issues should arise during the conduct of the research, such as unanticipated problems, adverse
events, or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects, notify the IRB office promptly. Forms
are available to report these issues.

Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project. or on any
correspondence with the IRB office.

Good luck in your research. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517-355-2180 or via email
at lRB@msu.edj,L Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

#0172...

Peter Vasilenko, PhD.
SIRB Chair

CI Tracy McMuIlen

99

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

ililijjliiIijljijiiijliii