An Overview of Three Aquatic Education Programs in Missouri Janice Schnake Greene Southwest Missouri State University.

An Overview of Three Aquatic Education Programs in Missouri

Janice Schnake Greene

Southwest Missouri State University

Missouri Conservation Survey: Sixthand Twelfth Graders’ Knowledge and

Attitudes

Colleen Merrigan, Ginger Gray, Brian Roddiger, Tim Wilson, Li’anne Drysdale, Gregg Krumme

Questionnaire Development

• Capps 1940 study of Missouri High SchoolStudents

• Musser and Malkus, 1994

• MDC Conservation Education Guidelines

• Meeting with MDC staff

• Pre-test in two Springfield Public Schools

Factual Knowledge

• Multiple choice

• 9 questions

Conceptual Knowledge

• True/False

• 13 questions

Attitudes

• Five-point Likert Scale from StronglyAgree to Strongly Disagree

• Most environmentally positive choice wasgiven a 5

• 12 questions

Action/Belief

• Choice of opposite statements– Some people like to collect butterflies but

some people do not like to collect butterflies.

• Chose how strongly agreed or disagreedwith statement.

• Most environmentally positive choice wasgiven a 4

• 9 questions

Behaviors

• Hunting, Fishing, Camping

• Nature Centers

• Zoos

• Reading nature-related books

• Belonging to a conservation-relatedorganization

Number of Survey Responses

6th 12th

1995 1596 1146

1996 2117 1256

1997 1320 694

1998 913 499

Gender

1995 1996 1997 1998

Male 48.7% 51.9% 51.5% 50.3%

Female 51.3% 48.1% 48.5% 49.7%

Male 49.1% 50.4% 51.0% 44.7%

Female 50.9% 49.6% 49.0% 55.3%

A Lake, stream, or wetland is• Not affected by the condition of the land around it

1995 1996 1997 1998 1995 1996 1997 1998

16% 15% 18% 15% 6% 7% 8% 11%

• *Only as healthy as the land around it

52% 52% 54% 54% 71% 70% 73% 69%

• Healthier than the land around it

16% 17% 16% 18% 15% 14% 12% 14%

• Less healthy than the land around it

17% 15% 15% 10% 7% 9% 7% 6%

Trees help in the control of floods by

• *decreasing the amount of soil that is worn away.1995 1996 1997 1998 1995 1996 1997 1998

69% 66% 67% 69% 84% 82% 85% 72%

• decreasing the amount of rain.

19% 23% 23% 19% 9% 8% 10% 15%

• lowering the air temperature.

10% 10% 9% 10% 6% 7% 4% 11%

• increasing snowfall.

2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2%

Soil erosion affects fish

• by clogging the pores in their skin and their gills with mud.

1995 1996 1997 1998 1995 1996 1997 1998

31% 37% 35% 33% 18% 19% 21% 13%

• *By blocking sunlight and stopping the growth of plants thatprovide them with food.

41% 32% 37% 31% 60% 54% 56% 67%

• Protecting them from too much sunlight.

6% 5% 4% 5% 5% 7% 3% 3%

• Soil erosion does not affect fish.

21% 26% 24% 31% 17% 20% 20% 17%

Killing the insects in a stream is agood way to help fish grow.

1995 1996 1997 1998

True 11% 11% 10% 10%

*False 89% 89% 90% 90%

True 10% 8% 8% 8%

*False 90% 92% 92% 92%

Water in the ground will not carrypollution more than one mile.

1995 1996 1997 1998

True 22% 24% 21% 22%

*False 78% 76% 79% 78%

True 13% 15% 14% 14%

*False 87% 85% 86% 86%

One way to make water cleaner is torun it through a wetland or marshy

area.

1995 1996 1997 1998

*True 18% 19% 21% 23%

False 82% 81% 79% 77%

*True 31% 31% 28% 29%

False 69% 69% 72% 71%

Removing trees and stumps from astream bank gives fish better room to

live.

1995 1996 1997 1998

True 38% 37% 38% 37%

*False 62% 63% 62% 63%

True 20% 24% 20% 26%

*False 80% 76% 80% 74%

Humans have a responsibility toprotect natural environments like

forests and lakes.

1995 1996 1997 1998

4.38 4.36 4.37 4.38

4.43 4.30 4.34 4.32

The remaining prairies, gladesand wetlands in Missouri should

be protected at all costs.

1995 1996 1997 1998

3.87 3.85 3.94 3.86

3.73 3.67 3.68 3.65

Building houses on marshes thatducks and other non-endangeredwildlife use is a good idea if themarshes are needed for housing.

1995 1996 1997 1998

3.76 3.90 3.87 3.81*

3.64 3.54 3.61 3.61

*Reverse coded.

Repairing wetlands and treesalong river banks is important.

1995 1996 1997 1998

4.02 3.99 4.03 4.03

4.04 3.93 3.96 4.01

Outdoor recreation such as hiking,fishing and hunting is an

increasingly important part ofMissouri’s culture and economy.

1995 1996 1997 1998

3.51 3.51 3.58 3.62

3.89 3.75 3.83 3.79

Some people think dams on rivers are badbecause they think they hurt plants and fish

but

Other people think dams on rivers are goodbecause they think they prevent floods.

1995 1996 1997 1998

2.35 2.32 2.27 2.73*

2.17 2.14 2.11 2.13*Reverse coded.

Some people think wetlands should bedrained for other uses.

but

Other people think wetlands shouldremain unchanged.

1995 1996 1997 1998

3.28 3.30 3.23 3.21

3.16 3.14 3.22 3.00

Do you fish?

Yes1995 1996 1997 1998

87% 86% 90% 90%

76% 68% 75% 62%

No 13% 14% 10% 10%

24% 32% 25% 38%

Missouri Stream Teams: Environmental Knowledge

and Attitudes

Brian H. Roddiger

Introduction• This type of program can be beneficial for

curriculum development, outreach programs, outdoor skills improvement, special events, or interpretational programs.

• The program provides education about stream ecology, stewardship responsibility through a particular stream adoption, and advocacy to speak out and protect a stream in a public forum.

Study Purpose

• This study, conducted during Fall 1997 and Spring 1998, has assessed the effectiveness of the Stream Team Program in conveying positive environmental knowledge and attitudes to Missouri Public School

students.

Instrument• The survey used in this study modeled a

portion of the Missouri Conservation Survey (Greene et al., 1997) and contained questions developed from the Stream Team training course.

• The 25 questions in the survey were grouped into environmental knowledge and environmental attitudes.

Methods• Fifteen schools with Stream Teams in

the state of Missouri were surveyed.

• Non-experienced individuals were compared to experienced individuals. Rural and urban schools and different schools were compared.

Methods (cont.)• The total correct knowledge scores and total

mean attitude scores were analyzed by ANOVA to determine the overall effects of the program.

• Each analysis was a univariate ANOVA with school nested under rural/urban, and both were crossed factors with non-experienced/experienced.

• The effects of rural versus urban and non-experienced versus experienced on the responses to individual questions were analyzed by logistic regression.

Demographic and experience background of the participants

92

135114

118

Non./Rural Non./Urban Ex./Rural Ex./Urban

Grade level distribution of non-experienced and experienced participants

4350

35 36

9

46

8

81

66

20

6

35

168

0102030405060708090

12th 11th 10th 9th 8th 7th 6th

Grade

# of

Indi

vidu

als

Non-experienced Experienced

Percent of correct knowledge questions

0102030405060708090

100

Topic (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.10)

% C

orre

ct

Non. Ex.

Percent of correct knowledge questions

0102030405060708090

100

Topic

% C

orre

ct

Non. Ex.

Percent of correct knowledge questions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Topic (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.10)

% C

orre

ct

Non. Ex.

Percent of correct knowledge questions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Topic (* p < 0.05)

% C

orre

ct

Non. Ex.

Analysis of variance for the total knowledge

scores______________________________________________________________________________Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F-statistic p-valueRur./Urb. 1 6.713 89.907 89.907 10.46 0.001School(Rur./Urb.) 13 1669.303 1679.323 129.179 15.03 0.000 Non./Ex. 1 209.344 145.355 145.355 16.91 0.000Rur./Urb. x Non./Ex. 1 0.221 0.750 0.750 0.09 0.768School x Non./Ex. 13 250.723 250.723 19.286 2.24 0.008Error 429 3688.049 3688.049 8.597Total 458 5824.353______________________________________________________________________________

Summary: Environmental Knowledge

• Five questions were significantly different (p < 0.05) between experienced and non-experienced students.

• The total knowledge scores for non-experienced and experienced individuals were significantly different (p < 0.00).

Mean attitude scores

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Topic (* p < 0.05)

Mea

n (1

=Low

, 5=H

igh)

Non. Ex.

Analysis of variance for the total attitude means

______________________________________________________________________________Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F-statistic P-valueRur./Urb. 1 0.5118 0.0089 0.0089 0.02 0.880 School 13 16.2472 16.9651 1.3050 3.36 0.000 Non./Ex. 1 3.0749 1.6667 1.6667 4.30 0.039 Rur./Urb. x Non./Ex. 1 0.2342 0.1556 0.1556 0.40 0.527 School x Non./Ex. 13 4.5178 4.5178 0.3475 0.90 0.558 Error 429 166.4674 166.4674 0.3880Total 458 191.0532______________________________________________________________________________

Summary: Environmental Attitudes

• Experienced individuals showed a more positive environmental attitude on all five questions.

• One of the five attitude questions were significantly different between experienced and non-experienced individuals (p < 0.05).

• The difference between the total mean attitude scores for non-experienced and experienced groups was significant (p = 0.039).

Conclusions• Students exposed to Stream Teams

curricula scored higher on sixteen out of twenty questions and the total knowledge scores were significantly different.

• Environmental attitude means were positive for both groups in this study ( > 3.5 on 5 point scale).

• The Missouri Stream Team Program is a successful program which has had a positive effect on its participants.

Evaluation of Educational Displays and Programs at the Roaring River Fish Hatchery

Gregg Krumme

Roaring River Fish Hatchery

• Barry County, Missouri, within the RR State Park• Fed by Roaring River Spring• One of state’s oldest hatcheries• Has been under the Missouri Department of

Conservation direction since 1937• Produces between 165,000 and 210,000 pounds of

rainbow trout along with several thousand brown trout

• Supported entirely by daily trout tags, no-creel permits, and fish food

Educational Focus

• Aquaculture and the role of fish hatcheries

• Fishing Skills

• Development of a Land Ethic

• Habitat Conservation

Daily Educational Opportunities

• Egg incubation building

• Educational signs

• Guided tours

• Evening nature programs

• Special programs

Goals of Study

• 1) Determine the amount of previous outdoor experiences of visitors

• 2) Evaluate use of educational materials, programs, and displays by the general public

• 3) Evaluate differences in environmental knowledge and attitudes of those who attended hatchery tours vs. those who did not attend tours

• 4) Make recommendations for future education efforts

Survey Methods

• As visitors left the hatchery area, they were asked to complete a questionnaire

• Visitors were randomly given one of two questionnaires– Hatchery Survey – Educational Survey

Questionnaire Development

• Hatchery Survey (10 multiple choice and 10 true/false)– Aquaculture/hatchery knowledge– Fish/fishing skills knowledge– General environmental knowledge – Environmental attitudes (5 Likert-scale questions)– Prior experiences– Demographics

• Educational Survey– Use of facilities – signage, tours, programs, educational

material– Demographics

Results

• 218 Hatchery and 250 Educational Surveys were completed

• Approximate 1/3 participated in the hatchery tour

Results – Hatchery Survey

• Mean knowledge score was 11.8 correct responses of 20 possible

• Tour respondents knowledge was significantly higher (13.1) than non-tour respondents (11.2; p < 0.001)

• Mean knowledge score was 4.0 of 5.0 possible• There was no significant difference between tour

and non-tour respondents (p = 0.652)

Hatchery Survey Results Continued

• Males scored significantly higher than females on knowledge (p = 0.006)

• No significant differences between gender on attitude (p = 0.600)

• 30% had a high school diploma and 33% had a college degree

Results – Educational Survey

• 68% visited the park for a family outing; 40% to see the hatchery

• 36% were staying for less than 3 hours

• Most common use of educational resources– Pamphlets (72%)– Reading signs (53%)– Hatchery tour (43%)

Educational Survey Continued

• 31% preferred an education program of 15-30 minutes

• 19% preferred 30-45 minutes• Suggested education programs

– Underwater fish viewing (77%)– Hands-on/interactive displays (43%)

• Topics– Native animals (64%); How to fish (52%)

Acknowledgements

• 6th and 12th grade study – Missouri Department of Conservation, Southwest Missouri State University (SMSU), cooperating schools

• Stream Team study – SMSU, Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, cooperating schools

• Roaring River Study – SMSU, Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri Department of Natural Resources