See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283709620

Comparison of field- and classroom-based forms of environmental education to

motivate adult learner involvement in citizen-based monitoring of Odonata

Thesis · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 78

1 author:

Robert B. DuBois
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
46 PUBLICATIONS 332 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Odonata taxonomic research View project

Odonata research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert B. DuBois on 11 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 i

Comparison of Field- and Classroom-Based Forms of Environmental Education to Motivate

Adult Learner Involvement in Citizen-Based Monitoring of Odonata

A Research Project Proposal

Presented to

The Graduate Faculty at the

University of Wisconsin – Superior

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Education – Instruction

May, 2011

by

Robert B. DuBois
 ii

Comparison of Field- and Classroom-based Forms of Environmental Education to Motivate

Adult Learner Involvement in Citizen-based Monitoring of Odonata

Robert B. DuBois

A Research Project Report

Presented to the Graduate Faculty

Of the University of Wisconsin – Superior

In Partial Fulfillment for the Degree

Master of Science in Education – Instruction

May 2011

Approved:

____________________________________________ __________________________
Research Project Advisor Date

____________________________________________ __________________________
MSE-I Coordinator Date
 iii

Acknowledgments

This graduate project would not have been possible without the love, patience, and full

support of my wife, Linda. Special thanks also to my mother and father, Malvina and Robert,

who have supported me unconditionally in every task I have ever undertaken. I thank L. Ayers, J.

Haack, E. Nelson, J. Petchenik, S. Snowbank, and K. Stepenuck for suggestions on construction

of the questionnaires.
 iv

List of Tables

Table # Page #

Table 1: Site locations, site codes, and dates of the education outreaches in this study………....26

Table 2: Number of attendees and volunteer participants at education outreaches in this study......

........................................................................................................................................................35

Table 3: Likert scale response averages for the Dragonfly Presentation Survey (first survey)….....

........................................................................................................................................................37

Table 4: Likert scale response averages for the Dragonfly Presentation Survey Follow-up

(second survey)……..…………………………………………………………………………....41
 v

Table of Contents

Item Page #

Title Page.........................................................................................................................................1

Abstract............................................................................................................................................2

Chapter 1 – Introduction .................................................................................................................3

Research Problem and Questions.........................................................................................4

Background and Significance..............................................................................................5

Rationale for the Research Procedures................................................................................7

Definitions of Terms............................................................................................................8

Limitations.........................................................................................................................10

Summary............................................................................................................................11

Chapter 2 – Literature Review ......................................................................................................12

Citizen Science and Citizen-Based Monitoring.................................................................13

Environmental Education as it Pertains to Citizen-Based Monitoring..............................14

Value of Outdoor Forms of Environmental Education......................................................19

Interactive Lecturing and Guided Discovery Instruction...................................................21

Summary............................................................................................................................22

Chapter 3 – Methodology .............................................................................................................23

General Experimental Design............................................................................................23

Selection and Description of Subjects and Locations........................................................25

Procedure of Classroom-Based Interactive Lecturing.......................................................27

Procedure of Field-Based Guided Discovery Teaching.....................................................29

Collection of the Study Data..............................................................................................30

 vi

Design of the Questionnaires.............................................................................................30

Scoring and Interpreting the Questionnaire Responses.....................................................31

Piloting the Teaching Procedures and Questionnaires.......................................................32

Summary............................................................................................................................33

Chapter 4 – Results of the Study ...................................................................................................34

Attendance and Participation Rates...................................................................................34

Responses to the Dragonfly Presentation Survey (First Survey).......................................36

Responses to the Dragonfly Presentation Survey Follow-up (Second Survey).................40

Summary............................................................................................................................45

Chapter 5 – Discussion and Conclusions ......................................................................................46

Conclusions from the Study...............................................................................................46

Recommendations for Recruiting Volunteers for WOS....................................................49

Summary............................................................................................................................50

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................52

Appendices ....................................................................................................................................60

Appendix A: Dragonfly Presentation Survey (First Survey)...........................................60

Appendix B: Dragonfly Presentation Survey Follow-up (Second Survey).....................61

Appendix C: Follow-up Survey Cover Letter.................................................................63

Appendix D: First Survey Responses by Outreach Site – Question 6.............................64

Appendix E: First Survey Responses by Outreach Site – Question 7.............................65

Appendix F: First Survey Responses by Outreach Site – Question 8.............................66

Appendix G: First Survey Responses by Outreach Site – Question 9.............................68

Appendix H: First Survey Responses by Outreach Site – Question 10.......................... 70

 vii

Appendix I: Second Survey Responses by Outreach Site – Question 5........................71

Appendix J: Second Survey Responses by Outreach Site – Question 11......................73

 1

Comparison of Field- and Classroom-Based Forms of Environmental Education to Motivate

Adult Learner Involvement in Citizen-Based Monitoring of Odonata

Robert B. DuBois

University of Wisconsin-Superior
 2

Abstract

Environmental education has been one of the primary means used to recruit volunteers

for citizen-based monitoring partnerships. However, little research has been done to investigate

the forms of environmental education that are most effective in promoting these partnerships or

how to effectively motivate adult learners who will become meaningfully involved in them. This

study sought to determine the relative effectiveness of two forms of short-term environmental

education in motivating adult learners to become involved in a citizen-based monitoring activity

related to dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata), called the Wisconsin Odonata Survey (WOS).

The two forms of environmental education examined were 1) a classroom-based interactive

lecture form in which PowerPoint presentations of learning content and accompanying question

and answer periods were used in conjunction with exploration of display items and live

specimens, and 2) a field-based guided discovery form in which learning content was delivered

orally and with illustration poster boards, after which students observed odonate behavior in the

wild, captured and handled live specimens, and practiced making field identifications. Three

replications of each form of education were examined during summer of 2010, and student intent

to become involved with WOS was measured using survey questionnaires given to willing

volunteers immediately after each education event and again through the mail after six weeks.

Results were largely equivocal, but suggested the possibility of a weak advantage with the use of

field-based guided-discovery learning over classroom-based interactive lecturing when recruiting

citizen volunteers for WOS. Both forms of education had value in other areas including building

a greater understanding of the need to protect odonates and their habitats, increasing interest in

odonates, and prompting participants to learn more about them.

 3

Chapter 1

Introduction

Citizen-based monitoring, also known as citizen science, is a form of partnership by

which agencies and organizations obtain scientific data collected by citizen volunteers

(Whitelaw, Vaughan, Craig, & Atkinson, 2003 – see also definitions below and discussion of

these terms in the Review of Literature, Chapter 2). Citizen-based monitoring benefits agencies

and organizations by saving financial resources and building social capital for the environment,

and the public benefits as well by learning about and becoming actively involved in

environmental issues and land stewardship (Brewer, 2002). Citizen-based monitoring activity has

grown rapidly throughout North America over the last 25 years as interest by government natural

resource agencies and resource-focused non-government organizations (NGOs) is high

(Nerbonne & Vondracek, 2003; Overdevest, Orr, & Stepenuck, 2004; Hunsberger, Gibson, &

Wismer, 2005). However, these agencies and organizations have often struggled to attract and

maintain citizen engagement (Koehler & Koontz, 2008). Environmental education is an

important form of outreach that has been used by agencies and organizations to recruit citizen

volunteer monitors (Adams, Noonan, & Newton, 2000). Because citizen-based monitoring is a

relatively new concept, more research is needed on environmental education techniques that

agencies and organizations can use to recruit and train volunteers most effectively. In this study,

citizen science and citizen-based monitoring are considered to be forms of what is often broadly

referred to as “pro-environmental behavior or action.” Many kinds of outreaches or promotional

activities could be considered as means to recruit citizen volunteers for pro-environmental

action. This study focuses only on environmental education because of its demonstrated

importance in recruiting volunteers for citizen-based monitoring programs (Adams et al., 2000).
 4

Research Problem and Questions

Resource agencies, organizations, and citizen groups have cited numerous case histories

as evidence of the success of citizen science partnerships (e.g. Tudor & Dvornich, 2001; Savan,

Morgan, & Gore, 2003; Leslie, Velez, & Bonar, 2004; Overdevest et al., 2004; Abbott &

Broglie, 2005; LaSage, Jones, & Edwards, 2006; Sharpe & Conrad, 2006; Oscarson & Calhoun,

2007; Sullivan et al., 2009). However, questions about what forms of environmental education

are most effective in promoting opportunities for citizen-based monitoring, and how to

efficiently train and motivate adult learners who will become meaningfully involved, have

received scant attention in the primary literature (Darner, 2009). The little information that is

available is typically buried in internal agency reports and other forms of literature that have not

been peer reviewed and is available from various websites. Although some successes have

clearly been achieved, it is presently difficult to assess the effectiveness of the several forms of

environmental education that can be used in volunteer recruitment.

The purpose of this study was to determine the relative motivational effectiveness of two

forms of environmental education by comparing and contrasting their outcomes in terms of adult

learner attitudes toward, and involvement in, citizen-based monitoring activities pertaining to a

specific group of insects, the Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies). The two forms of outreach

consisted of 1) a classroom-based interactive-lecture form featuring PowerPoint presentations of

learning content and accompanying question and answer periods used in conjunction with

exploration of display items and live specimens, and 2) a guided-discovery field form in which

learning content was delivered orally with aid of large, illustrated poster boards while students

observed actual odonate behavior, handled live specimens, and learned how to identify them.
 5

Background and Significance

Over the last 25 years citizen-based monitoring programs have become increasingly

popular in North America (Overdevest et al., 2004; Hunsberger et al., 2005; Krasny & Bonney,

2005; Koehler & Koontz, 2008). A major factor that led to this influx in citizen involvement was

the realization within state and federal natural resource agencies and NGOs that the help of

citizen volunteers was needed to collect the vast amounts of data, often over large geographic

areas, required to provide a sound basis for natural resource management (Krasny & Bonney,

2005). In a given amount of time, a large number of trained citizen volunteers can collect far

more data across much larger geographic areas than one or a few resource professionals would

be capable of collecting. Thus, if sufficient numbers of citizen volunteers could be recruited and

adequately trained, an increase in efficiency could be realized with at least some data collection

needs. At the same time, citizens were increasingly demanding to be involved in environmental

management decisions (Tudor & Dvornich, 2001).

Citizen science partnerships have been widely embraced both by the public and by

resource agencies and organizations (Brewer, 2002; Krasny & Bonney, 2005; Koehler & Koontz,

2008). The public has benefited by having more input into the environmental decisions that

affect them, and they have better understanding of the costs and benefits of these decisions

(Brewer 2002). Resource agencies and organizations benefit not only by obtaining data they

could not afford to collect themselves, but also from having informed and engaged public groups

they can count on for political support and financial help. However, the speed at which citizen-

based monitoring opportunities have developed has outdistanced the capabilities of researchers

to probe the details of how to form optimally efficient and effective partnerships.
 6

Few would argue with the premise that the effective conservation of our natural resources

depends largely on the education and involvement of the public (Bjorkland & Pringle, 2001;

Koehler & Koontz, 2008). Environmental education to adult learners is therefore a crucial

component of citizen-based monitoring. For example, in an informal survey of government and

organization watershed management leaders, Adams et al. (2000) found that the necessity of

citizen education was the most pervasive response to the question of how best to motivate the

public to support watershed approaches.

In 2002, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) began a statewide

Odonata survey program (the Wisconsin Odonata Survey [WOS]). WOS uses adult citizen

volunteers to collect Odonata distribution and abundance data throughout the state. WOS

includes an Odonata website (http://inventory.wiatri.net/odonata) with information on how to

become involved with WOS and an interactive reporting page where citizen volunteers can

report their findings. These records provide a wealth of data that is used by the WDNR to form a

base from which species- and habitat-related management decisions can be made. However,

there has been a fairly high drop-off rate among citizen volunteers, so new volunteer recruitment

is a continual need (author, unpublished data). Environmental education outreaches to interested

public groups have formed the principle means of recruiting citizen volunteers for WOS.

However, the effectiveness of these outreaches has been difficult to assess. The significance of

this study was in comparing the motivational effectiveness of two different forms of delivering

similar recruitment-focused educational content.

 7

Rationale for the Research Procedures

Environmental education outreaches used for WOS volunteer recruitment have included

PowerPoint presentations, identification workshops, seminars, and university classes, all often

including an associated field outing where Odonata behavior could be observed and field

identification techniques could be practiced. These outreaches have consistently contained

similar learning content, but depending on season and time of day of the event a field component

was not always feasible. According to current implications from the scientific literature,

outreaches with a field component may have positive effects on students’ pro-environmental

attitudes that are greater than those without it (Mittelstaedt, Sanker, & VanderVeer, 1999;

Cuthbertson et al., 2003; Palmer & Birch, 2005; Dillon et al., 2006). However, most of the

applicable research linking indoor versus outdoor teaching settings with learner attitudes and

behaviors has been done with children (e. g. Ryan, 1991; Nabhan & Trimble, 1994; Bognar,

1998; Mittelstaedt et al., 1999; Eaton, 2000; Palmberg & Kuru, 2000; Bell, 2001; Dillon et al.,

2006). Therefore, it has been difficult to predict the motivational effectiveness of outreaches to

adult learners that contain a field component with those that do not. This study was designed to

compare the relative merits of environmental education outreaches done in the field with those

done in the classroom for motivating adult learners toward participation in citizen-based

monitoring of Odonata.

To form a firm contrast between the two teaching styles, three replications of each were

done in isolation. The outreaches were done during spring and summer of 2010. Past experience

suggested that about 25 people were likely to attend each outreach. Three outreaches consisted

only of classroom-based interactive lecturing (PowerPoint presentation, question and answer

period, display item exploration, live specimen handling and identification practice), and three
 8

outreaches consisted only of field-based guided discovery teaching (oral content delivery aided

by illustrated poster boards, observation and identification of odonates in the wild, students

provided with questions to which they discovered answers). The researcher served as the teacher

of all outreaches. Every effort was made to deliver approximately the same learning content in

all outreaches, although the lecture segment of the guided-discovery outreaches was abbreviated.

After each outreach, students were informed of the opportunity to take part in this study. Those

who agreed to participate were given a simple questionnaire (Dragonfly Presentation Survey,

also referred to as the first survey – Appendix A) that asked about their impressions of the

outreach, including any increased interest in learning about the Odonata; and questions about

their likelihood, and perceptions of their capability, of becoming involved with WOS. Results of

this first survey provided a comparative assessment of student attitudes about involvement in

citizen-based monitoring of Odonata immediately following the two teaching styles. Volunteers

were also mailed a follow-up questionnaire (Dragonfly Presentation Survey Follow-up, also

referred to as the second survey – Appendix B) after six weeks that contained questions about

whether they had taken actions to learn more about odonates or become involved with WOS, or

if they still intended to do so (and if not, why they had not). Results of this second survey

provided an assessment of students’ extended attitudes, motivation, and actions regarding

citizen-based monitoring of Odonata following the two forms of education.

Definitions of Terms

Odonata: The biological order containing two suborders, the Anisoptera (dragonflies) and the

Zygoptera (damselflies).
 9

Citizen-based monitoring: The range of activities through which concerned citizens gather and

record systematic observations about environmental or social conditions, often in collaboration

with government, industry, academia or community institutions (Whitelaw et al., 2003). The

terms “citizen science” and “citizen-based monitoring” are often used interchangeably (see the

Citizen Science section of Chapter 2 for a fuller perspective on citizen science).

Exuviae: The cast exoskeletons left behind on emergence perches when Odonata nymphs

transform (emerge) to the adult stage. Exuviae can be identified to species and therefore are a

valuable indicator of successful breeding of species of Odonata at a sampling site.

Interactive lecturing: Interactive lecturing involves a two-way interaction between the presenter

and the students (Steinert & Snell, 1999). For the purposes of this study, interactive lecturing

means the instructor has broken the lecture into segments at least once per class to allow students

the opportunity to work directly with the material and discuss questions.

Guided discovery teaching: In guided discovery teaching, the student receives problems to solve

or concepts to discover. The teacher provides hints, asks questions, or gives other guidance about

how to solve the problems or that leads the student to discovery of the concepts (Mayer, 2004).

Pro-environmental behavior or action: Behaviors or actions done with the intention of benefiting

environmental causes. In this study, citizen science and citizen-based monitoring are considered

to be forms of pro-environmental behavior or action.

 10

Social learning: Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) focuses on learning that occurs within a

social context. It posits that people learn from one another through observation, imitation, and

modeling.

Limitations

In a comparative study such as this, it is desirable that the sample sizes of subjects be

sufficiently large to permit meaningful analyses of the results and that the subjects in both groups

to be comparable in terms of age structure, gender distribution, prior knowledge of the topic area,

and relevant experience. However, the researcher had little control over the number of people

that would attend each of the six outreach events, what their demographic profiles would be, or

how many of those who volunteered to be part of the study would choose to return the delayed-

response questionnaires. It is possible that the two education event types could have drawn

slightly different demographics in terms of proclivity to act in pro-environmental ways. Guided

discovery (outdoor) outreaches could have drawn a more environmentally oriented demographic

than the interactive lecture (indoor) outreaches because more effort and energy is required to

participate in an outdoor field trip than to simply sit and listen in a classroom. Another

potentially confounding factor is that odonate activity is optimal and most easily observed during

warm, sunny days. The researcher could not always cancel or reschedule field-based classes in

the event of inclement weather.

Although every effort was made to deliver essentially the same learning content during

each form of education, it was not realistic to expect exact similarity. The lecturing component

was shorter during the guided-discovery outreaches. Some educational tools that were used in the

classroom were not available in the field, and some learning opportunities that presented
 11

themselves in the field could not be duplicated in the classroom. These differences led to the

selection of the two different teaching styles (interactive lecture vs guided discovery) used in the

study because each style seemed to optimize the teaching opportunities present in each of the

two settings. Therefore, this study compared the effects of not only indoor versus outdoor

teaching, but also of interactive lecturing versus guided discovery teaching styles.

Summary

Citizen science partnerships have been forming with increasing frequency throughout

North America in recent decades, and environmental education has been an integral part of them.

However, little research has been done to investigate the forms of environmental education that

are most effective in promoting these partnerships or how to efficiently educate and motivate

adult learners to become involved. Therefore, this study sought to determine the relative

effectiveness of two forms of environmental education in motivating adult learners to become

involved in Odonata-related citizen-based monitoring. The two forms of education consisted of a

classroom-based interactive-lecture style in which PowerPoint presentations of learning content

and accompanying question and answer periods were used in conjunction with exploration of

display items and live specimens, and a field-based guided-discovery style in which learning

content was delivered orally with the aid of large, illustrated poster boards while students

observed odonate behavior in the wild, handled live specimens, and learned how to identify them

by receiving hints and answering questions posed by the instructor.

 12

Chapter 2

Literature Review

This study was designed to compare and contrast two forms of environmental education

with regard to their outcomes in motivating recruitment of citizen volunteers to a specific citizen-

based monitoring program in Wisconsin that focused on determining the statewide distributions

and habitats of Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies). The two forms of environmental

education were a classroom-based interactive lecturing form that used PowerPoint presentations

with question and answer periods and hands-on teaching with display items, and a field-based

guided discovery form where similar content was delivered outdoors near water bodies which

allowed wild odonates and their behaviors to be observed in their natural habitat and learning

was guided by responding to hints or answering questions posed by the instructor. The purpose

of this chapter is to review literature that is relevant to this issue.

To examine previous literature on use of environmental education outreaches to motivate

participation in citizen-based monitoring, searches were started online using Google Scholar

(http://scholar.google.com/) and other online search engines. After some relevant articles from

the primary research literature were found in this way, most resources were identified from the

reference sections of particularly relevant found articles from the primary scientific literature.

Keywords used in searches included environmental education in conjunction with citizen

science, field-based environmental education techniques, classroom-based environmental

education techniques, interactive lecturing, guided discovery teaching, motivation in pro-

environmental behavior, and volunteer recruitment in citizen science.

 13

Citizen Science and Citizen-Based Monitoring

In defining citizen science, the following quotation from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology

(2007), one of the leaders in the citizen-science movement, may be helpful:

The term “citizen science” has been used to describe a range of ideas, from philosophy

of public engagement in scientific discourse to the work of scientists driven by a social

conscience. In North America, citizen science typically refers to research collaborations

between scientists and volunteers, particularly (but not exclusively) to expand

opportunities for scientific data collection and to provide access to scientific

information for community members. As a working definition, we offer the following:

Projects in which volunteers partner with scientists to answer real-world questions.

Citizen-based monitoring programs are a popular form of partnership where concerned

citizens, government agencies, industry, academia, community groups and local institutions

collaborate to monitor, track and respond to issues of common community concern (Whitelaw et

al., 2003). Thus, the terms “citizen science” and “citizen-based monitoring” have much in

common and are often used interchangeably, although in citizen-based monitoring, scientists

may not always be involved. As used by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(WDNR), citizen-based monitoring can be thought of as a subset of citizen science which

focuses on repeated evaluation of natural resources variables (Loren Ayers, WDNR Citizen-

based Monitoring Coordinator, October 2009, personal communication). Citizen-based

monitoring programs have proven to be valuable venues not only for learning and as mechanisms

of adaptive management, but also to build social capital for the environment (Overdevest et al.,

2004). A community with high social capital is one in which members know each other, share
 14

common experiences, and form common bonds, which may make coordinated pro-environmental

action easier over time (Overdevest et al., 2004). Some examples of the many effective citizen-

based monitoring programs in North America include the Atlantic Coastal Action Program in

Nova Scotia (Sharpe & Conrad, 2006; Conrad & Daoust, 2008), Citizens’ Environment Watch in

Ontario (Savan et al., 2003), eBird (Sullivan et al., 2009), Garden Mosaics (Krasny & Bonney,

2005), the NatureMapping program (Tudor & Dvornich, 2001), Odonata Central (Abbott &

Broglie, 2005), Project FeederWatch (Krasny & Bonney, 2005), and the Water Action Volunteer

program in Wisconsin (Overdevest et al., 2004). Citizen-based partnerships provide the greatest

educational benefit if they incorporate activities that seek to produce useful, tangible results

(Hudson, 2001). In this study, citizen science and citizen-based monitoring are considered to be

forms of what is often broadly referred to as “pro-environmental behavior or action.”

Environmental Education as it Pertains to Citizen-Based Monitoring

In order to assess the value of environmental education outreaches for recruiting citizen

scientists, the many unique challenges faced by environmental educators must be considered.

The difficulties that face environmental educators as they seek to educate and engage the public

in resource issues are many and multi-faceted because the domain is extremely broad,

encompassing both ecological and sociological concerns, highly complex (Hines, Hungerford, &

Tomera, 1986-1987; Kaiser, 1998; Palmer, 1998), and often ill-defined (Kassas, 2002). In fact,

the question of what shapes pro-environmental behavior is such a complex one that it probably

cannot be visualized through one single framework (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Smyth (2006)

sees the landscape of environmental education as beginning with environmental awareness and

moving on in later stages to environmental literacy, responsibility, competence, and finally,

 15

citizenship. However, this sequence of development, upon which much of environmental

education is based, adds controversy, and therefore more complexity, to the domain. The

apparent gravity of some environmental problems makes it tempting to treat environmental

education as an advocacy program designed to recruit students to particular solutions, analyses,

and actions (Jickling, 2005; McClaren & Hammond, 2005). Critics take issue with the idea that

much of environmental education is focused on developing an environmentally literate citizenry

so that support can be gained for taking specific stances on environmental actions (McClaren &

Hammond, 2005). These critics question whether environmental education can truly be seen as

educational if it indoctrinates students to particular analyses of the state of the environment and

advocates specific solutions to the problems identified by this selective analysis (McClaren &

Hammond, 2005).

Educators agree that environmental education that leads to behavioral change must go far

beyond simply providing piecemeal ecological information by broadly demonstrating the

significance of ecological integrity and biological diversity to society. The goal of environmental

education should be to influence the students’ worldview, not just supply scattered bits of

information, so that pro-environmental behavior is motivated by internal, self-determined forces

(Axelrod & Lehman, 1993; Pelletier et al., 1998; Berkowitz, Ford, & Brewer, 2005; Darner,

2009). As an example of the relevance of this approach, Hunter and Rinner (2004) found that

individuals with ecocentric perspectives placed greater priority on species preservation than

those with only anthropocentric perspectives, regardless of species knowledge. This “gap”

between the possession of environmental knowledge and awareness and the displaying of pro-

environmental behavior (also known as symbolic environmentalism) is complex and contains a

number of internal and external factors (Axelrod & Lehman, 1993; Finger, 1994; Kollmuss &
 16

Agyeman, 2002; Darner, 2009). Among them is that building an ecocentric perspective is a long-

term process because people must understand which behaviors are pro-environmental and why

and how they should engage in them (Berkowitz et al., 2005; Darner, 2009). Further, developing

an environmental perspective that leads one to action is a long-term process because it requires

changes in attitudes, knowledge, and skills that may occur gradually. Hungerford and Volk

(1990) concluded that there are likely three major categories of variables that contribute to pro-

environmental behavior. These are “entry-level variables”, which include the development of

environmental sensitivity; “ownership variables”, which include having in-depth knowledge

about, and personal investment in, environmental issues; and “empowerment variables”, which

include having knowledge of, and skill in, using environmental action strategies as well as

having the intention to act.

It is axiomatic in environmental education that educators should facilitate affective

connections to nature (often referred to as significant life experiences) as part of the learning

process (Cuthbertson et al., 2003). Environmental education seems to be most effective when it

starts with young children and builds their sense of connection with the place where they live

(Dass, 1999; Hudson, 2001; Fisman, 2005). It is also thought that environmental education is

more likely to promote pro-environmental behavior when the learning process is active, rather

than passive (Zelezny, 1999; Darner, 2009); when it is formal, rather than informal (Zelezny,

1999; Palmer & Birch, 2005); and when it uses long-term, rather than short-term programs

(Emmons, 1997; Bognar, 1998; Zelezny, 1999; Stern et al., 2008).

Environmental issues are first and foremost people issues, so effective environmental

education programs should address that reality. Smyth (2006) called for fundamental educational

reform which stressed the importance of bringing environmental and social systems together into
 17

a single conceptual structure. Educators have long bemoaned the lack of social science courses in

many environmental education curricula (e.g. Saberwal & Kothari, 1996; Jacobson & McDuff,

1998; Mappin & Johnson, 2005). A frequently encountered sociological issue is that

environmental problems have important social and economic implications, not just scientific

ones, yet biologists, who often lack sociological or economic training, have been traditionally

expected to be leaders in solving them (Jacobson & McDuff, 1998). Another sociological issue is

that people are likely to develop a passion for environmental concerns only when they

understand them within the context of real-life experiences. Dass (1999) argued that K-12

students should learn to use knowledge from various academic disciplines in an integrated

format within the context of specific real-life issues. Such a trans-disciplinary approach holds the

promise of helping students see environmental issues in an organic rather than fragmented way

and be able to apply knowledge to deal with them in an organic manner. Clearly, educational

strategies need to be broad-based and incorporate citizen participation to be effective (Bjorkland

& Pringle, 2001). Much work remains to be done to relate environmental education to the whole

system of human-environment relationships.

Social learning perspectives employed in environmental education hold considerable

promise for motivating pro-environmental behavior generally and citizen-based monitoring

activity in particular (Maarleveld & Dangbegnon, 1999; Krasny & Lee, 2002). Social learning

theory posits that people learn from each other through observation, imitation, and modeling, and

that doing so can help develop a sense of self-efficacy for students (believing that they are

capable of accomplishing tasks). Social learning could be important in the present study,

especially in the field-based outreaches, because students would be able to observe the instructor

modeling the monitoring actions of netting specimens, examining them with a hand lens, and
 18

searching for exuviae. The students would then have opportunities to imitate these behaviors,

which could lead to a bolstered sense of self-efficacy, and thus make it more likely that they

would want to become involved with the Wisconsin Odonata Survey (WOS).

Because science has provided the greatest evidence of the damage humans are perceived

to be doing to the planet, environmental education must teach about science itself and about the

use of the scientific method (Hudson, 2001; Kolsto, 2005). This should be done as simply,

clearly and objectively as possible. The need to include science in environmental education does

not excuse educators from the obligation to communicate scientific facts and principles in an

understandable way that invites further inquiry from those who might be intimidated by

scientifically complex subjects (Hudson, 2001). This need to teach about science adds further

complexity to the challenges faced by environmental educators who may not have the

educational background to do so.

Additionally, environmental education outreach and partnership programs that call for

citizen participation can be highly effective tools for use in environmental education because

they take scientific knowledge out of the ivory tower and onto the streets (Brewer, 2002).

Agency-based environmental education outreaches for both youth and adults is being redefined,

in part because of citizen demands to be involved in environmental management decisions

(Tudor & Dvornich, 2001). Outreach programs usually connect with an audience in a

unidirectional way by transmitting knowledge from experts in the field to the public through

seminars, workshops, discussions, and outings (Brewer, 2002). Partnerships give participants

roughly equal stakes in environmental issues and everyone contributes and shares in the

decision-making, risks, and benefits (Brewer, 2002).

 19

In sum, environmental education is a broad, complex, controversial, and often poorly

defined domain. At the very least, effective environmental education that may lead to pro-

environmental behavior requires that the teacher is knowledgeable about both social and

scientific issues, that the content is delivered formally in a holistic rather than piecemeal format,

that students are active learners, and that programs are as long-term as feasible. The factors that

lead to pro-environmental behavior are complex, poorly understood and result from a process of

attitude development and intention to act that goes far beyond knowledge (Hines et al., 1986-

1987; Axelrod & Lehman, 1993; Finger, 1994; Pelletier et al., 1998; Darner, 2009). It is within

this complex, multi-faceted, and ill-informed educational framework that recruitment of

volunteers for citizen-based monitoring programs must occur.

Value of Outdoor Forms of Environmental Education

Environmental education has traditionally been done in the classroom and there is little

question that at least much of it can be effectively done there. However, a substantial body of

evidence indicates that fieldwork (properly conceived, adequately planned, well taught and

effectively followed up) allows students to develop their knowledge and skills in ways that add

value to their classroom experiences (reviewed by Dillon et al., 2006). Outdoor activities allow

personal experiences to develop students’ affective relationship to the natural environment

(Lisowski & Disinger, 1991; Cuthbertson et al., 2003), their environmental sensitivity, and their

outdoor behavior (Palmberg & Kuru, 2000). Many workers have noted the important role that

natural places can play in creating effective learning in primary and secondary schools

(summarized by Cuthbertson et al., 2003), and some studies have indicated that nontraditional

learning environments may be more effective than traditional ones (Wise and Okey, 1983). Some
 20

evidence (summarized by Dillon et al., 2006) also suggests that outdoor learning experiences

were more effective for developing some cognitive skills than classroom-based learning, so the

benefits may not be simply affective. However, Dillon et al. (2006) cautioned that such

comparative studies were rare and very difficult to carry out. Nonetheless, it remains clear that

many educational researchers agree that outdoor learning should play a prominent role in

environmental education (Palmer & Birch, 2005). In concordance with this perspective, Palmer

(1998, pp. 143-146) offered an integrated model for structuring environmental education that

included three primary components: educating about the environment; educating for the

environment, and educating in or from the environment.

As noted earlier, much of the applicable research on this topic has been done with

children. However, Palmer’s (1998) integrated model described above is intended to be used not

just for primary and secondary students, but for community involvement as well (p.149). In

applying this research to the present study design, it is further noted that the accumulated

evidence pointing to the educational benefits of outdoor learning is primarily based on multiple-

day learning experiences (or longer) and often at residential science or nature camps, not on 90

minute outreaches like those used to recruit volunteers for WOS. Although it appears evident

that a significant factor, perhaps even the main factor, that predicts pro-environmental behaviors

is experience in and with the environment (Finger, 1994), especially for people over the age of

50 years (Palmer & Suggate, 1996), there is at present no evidence to suggest a motivational

difference between field-based and classroom-based outreaches to adult learners of only several

hours duration. This lack of evidence points to the fact that comparative studies of short-term

outreaches have not yet been done, which highlights the value of the present study.
 21

Interactive Lecturing and Guided Discovery Instruction

Interactive lecturing, as applied in this study, involved a two-way interaction between the

instructor and the students, so that the students were not passive in the learning process (Steinert

& Snell, 1999). This technique was selected because it promotes active learning and heightened

attention and motivation of students (Steinert & Snell, 1999). Additionally, it is widely

understood that straight lecturing is relatively ineffective when compared with interactive

learning techniques in college-level physics and biology classrooms (Roy, 2003). In the present

study, interactive lecturing meant that the instructor had broken the lecture into segments at least

once per class to allow students the opportunity to work directly with the material and discuss

questions. These interactions included the instructor posing questions to the students at the

beginning of the presentations to simulate prior knowledge, and the students’ being given

opportunities to handle live and preserved specimens (usually adults, exuviae and nymphs),

sample gear, and browse books about Odonata during time allotted for display item exploration.

Students also were encouraged to ask questions at any time during and after the presentations

and they had ample time to interact one-on-one with the instructor during display exploration

time and after the presentation.

In guided discovery teaching, the student receives from the instructor problems to solve

or concepts to discover. Specifically, the instructor provides hints, asks questions or gives other

guidance about how to solve the problems or that lead the student to discovery of the concepts

(Mayer, 2004). Guided discovery nurtures students’ cognitive process of constructing their own

understanding of subjects and is thus more effective than pure discovery in helping students learn

and transfer (Mayer, 2004). In the present study, guided discovery techniques were used by the

instructor in giving hints to alert students to interesting odonate behaviors that were occurring in
 22

the field and in asking questions of students to keep them “on track” as they learned to use field

guides to identify odonates in the hand.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast two forms of environmental

education with regard to their outcomes in motivating recruitment of citizen volunteers to

become involved with a citizen-based monitoring program to determine the distributions and

habitats of Odonata in Wisconsin. This chapter has presented a review of pertinent literature in

the following three areas: 1) a description, comparison, and evaluation of the effectiveness of

citizen science and citizen-based monitoring; 2) an analysis and synthesis of the elements of

environmental education pertinent to citizen-based monitoring; and 3) an assessment of the

added value of outdoor forms of teaching in environmental education.

 23

Chapter 3

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast two forms of environmental

education with regard to their outcomes in motivating recruitment of citizen volunteers to

become involved with a citizen-based monitoring program to determine the distributions and

habitats of Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) in Wisconsin. The two forms of environmental

education were a classroom-based interactive lecturing form that used PowerPoint presentations

with question and answer periods and hands-on teaching with display items, and a field-based

guided discovery form where similar content was delivered outdoors near water bodies which

allowed wild odonates and their behaviors to be observed in their natural habitat. This chapter

presents information on the general experimental design of the study, the selection of the

subjects, the procedures used in both forms of teaching, two piloting efforts, and the methods

used to collect and analyze the data.

General Experimental Design

Since 2002, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) has used

environmental education outreaches to recruit volunteers for the Wisconsin Odonata Survey

(WOS). These outreaches have included PowerPoint presentations, identification workshops,

seminars, and university classes, all often including an associated field outing. The learning

content has remained relatively constant from 2002 through the present, with only subtle

refinements made based on feedback following outreaches. However, depending on season and

time of day of a particular outreach event, a field component was not always feasible. It has been

difficult to compare the motivational effectiveness of outreaches that contained field components
 24

with those that did not. This is an important point because the instructor is frequently asked to

give presentations at night or during winter when field components are not possible; if these

presentations were shown to be ineffective in a motivational sense, then time, energy, and

financial resources might be put to better use in other ways. This study examined the relative

merits of environmental education outreaches delivered in the field using guided discovery

techniques with those delivered in the classroom using interactive lecturing techniques for

motivating adult learners toward participation in citizen-based monitoring of Odonata.

To form a firm contrast between the two teaching forms, three replications of each form

were done in isolation. Three outreaches had only classroom-based interactive lecturing and

three outreaches had only a field-based form of guided-discovery instruction. The classroom-

based interactive lecturing consisted of prior knowledge stimulation, PowerPoint presentations,

exploration of display items, live and preserved specimen handling and identifications, and

question and answer time. The field-based guided discovery instruction began with similar but

abbreviated content delivered orally with the aid of large, illustrated poster boards, outdoors near

water bodies. Students then roamed the area singly or in small groups to observe odonate

behavior and used field guides to identify live specimens. This allowed wild odonates to be

identified and their behaviors to be observed in their natural habitat; learning was guided by

responding to hints or answering questions posed by the instructor. All outreach events were

done during summer of 2010. The researcher served as the instructor of all education events.

Approximately the same content was delivered during both types of outreaches with equivalent

energy and enthusiasm by the instructor (but see Limitations in Chapter 1).

After each education outreach, participants were informed of the opportunity to take part

in this study and the instructor stressed the potentially valuable knowledge that could be gained
 25

from doing so. Those who agreed to participate were given a simple questionnaire (Dragonfly

Presentation Survey, also called the first survey – Appendix A) to be completed at the event site.

The first survey contained Likert-scale and short answer questions that focused on participant

attitudes and impressions about the event and the likelihood of their becoming involved in WOS.

Volunteers were subsequently mailed a follow-up questionnaire (Dragonfly Presentation Survey

Follow-up, also called the second survey – Appendix B) after six weeks. The second survey

contained questions that also focused on participant attitudes and impressions about the outreach,

but further asked whether they had since taken actions to learn more about odonates, or become

involved with WOS, or if they still planned to do so. Volunteers were encouraged to remain

anonymous.

Responses to Likert-scale questions were tested for differences between the two groups

using t-tests, or more commonly, a non-parametric analog (Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test) when

assumptions of normality or equal variance were not met. Short answer questions were

informally examined for common themes that might show motivational differences between the

groups.

Selection and Description of Subjects and Locations

All six of the outreach events were done at nature centers or other natural resource-

related facilities at locations in Wisconsin where the hosts of the facilities invited the instructor

to give Odonata-related presentations. In some cases the instructor asked to give a presentation in

2010 at a facility where he had been invited to present in previous years. Interactive lecturing

outreaches were held on 10 July at Kettle Moraine State Forest (KMSF), on 21 July at the Lake

Nebagamon Village Auditorium (LNVA), and on 26 July at Kemp Natural Resources Station
 26

(KEMP). Guided discovery outreaches were held on 17 July at a Natural Resources Foundation

Outing near Solon Springs (NRFO), on 24 July at Beaver Creek Nature Center (BCNC), and on

7 August at Hunt Hill Audubon Sanctuary (HHAS). Exact locations of the event sites and the

names of the lecture series, if applicable, are given in Table 1. All of the facilities that hosted

guided discovery events had nearby water bodies in the form of a lake, wetland, or river.

Table 1. Site locations, site codes, and dates of the education outreaches in this study.
______________________________________________________________________________

Event Site Location Code Date

______________________________________________________________________________

Interactive Lecture (indoor outreaches)

Kettle Moraine State Forest, Summer Program, KMSF 10 July 2010

Northern Unit, Campbellsport, Fond Du Lac County, WI

Summer Guest Lecture Series, LNVA 21 July 2010

Village Auditorium, Lake Nebagamon, Douglas County, WI

Kemp Natural Resources Station, Evening Lecture Series, KEMP 26 July 2010
Woodruff, Oneida County, WI

Guided Discovery (outdoor outreaches)

Natural Resources Foundation Outing, NRFO 17 July 2010

Upper St. Croix Lake, Solon Springs, Douglas County, WI

Beaver Creek Nature Center, Summer Outing, BCNC 24 July 2010

Eau Claire River, Fall Creek, Eau Claire County, WI

Hunt Hill Audubon Sanctuary, Summer Outing, HHAS 7 August 2010

Twin Lake, Sarona, Washburn County, WI

______________________________________________________________________________
 27

It was the responsibility of the host facility to promote each event, so the instructor had

no direct involvement in the number or selection of the subjects who would choose to come.

However, the instructor accepted offers to present only at facilities where the events were

anticipated to be well-publicized and a similar participant demographic was likely to attend.

Although the demographics in the present study were not evaluated, participants were white

without exception, appeared from their survey responses to be well-educated, and were very

likely already interested in nature-related topics. Both genders were represented about equally

and ages were widely spread, with most in the range from the mid-twenties through mid-

seventies. Any event where an obvious demographic bias could be expected (e. g. an Elderhostel

group) was not included in the study. Thus, it was reasonable to expect similar audiences at the

six events in terms of age profile, gender distribution, and prior knowledge and experience (but

see Limitations). Participants in the surveys were limited to those who responded affirmatively

after hearing about the study and being invited to participate. It was desired that 25-30 people

would attend each event.

Procedure of Classroom-Based Interactive Lecturing

Instruction took place in a large room at a nature center or other natural resource-related

facility in Wisconsin. Instruction began with questions posed to students by the instructor about

their past experiences with odonates to simulate their prior knowledge. Interactive lecturing

followed that began with 30-minute PowerPoint presentations of teaching content followed by

question and answer periods. The learning content of the PowerPoint presentation included

information about the anatomy, life history, reproduction, feeding, flight, and emergence of

Odonata followed by information on research initiatives, sampling and citizen-based monitoring

 28

techniques. Students were encouraged to ask questions at any time during the PowerPoint

presentation if any confusion or uncertainty existed about any aspect of the content. Question

and answer periods averaged about 15 minutes. Students then got up to explore display items that

were usually placed on tables along the sides or back of the presentation room. Display items

included live and preserved specimens of adult Odonata, exuviae, and nymphs; books, field

guides, and other printed resources; and sampling gears such as aerial nets, dip nets, and 10X

loupes (hand-held magnification lenses). Display exploration time averaged about 20 minutes

during which the instructor was present at the display tables to explain the displays, discuss

Odonata-related topics with interested students and answer questions. Students then returned to

their seats to receive instruction about becoming involved with WOS and any questions

stimulated by the displays were answered. Students were also presented with the opportunity to

take part in the present study. Students who elected to do so were given the Dragonfly

Presentation Survey (first survey - Appendix A) and a pencil. They were instructed to complete

the questionnaire anonymously and to leave the questionnaire with the event host. Participating

students were also asked to write their name and mailing address on a 3X5 card, which they then

placed in a separate container. Therefore, the participants who filled out questionnaires were not

in any way linked with the mailing cards. All students were then dismissed. The instructor

remained in the event room until all students had departed. Therefore, students had ample time to

interact one-on-one with the instructor both during the display exploration time and after the

presentation. The total instruction time for each interactive lecture averaged about 90 minutes.
 29

Procedure of Field-Based Guided Discovery Teaching

Each group met at a nature center or other natural resource-related facility in Wisconsin.

Instruction took place outdoors along side a nearby lake, pond, or river that showed considerable

wild odonate activity. Instruction began with questions posed to students by the instructor about

their past experiences with odonates to simulate their prior knowledge. A brief lecture period

followed (average 15 minutes) when learning content was delivered orally with the aid of large,

illustrated poster boards. Content was similar to that presented in classrooms, but in an

abbreviated form. Students were encouraged to ask questions at any time during or after the

lecture if they had any confusion or uncertainty about any aspect of the content. Students were

then provided with nets, field guides, and 10X loupes, and were shown how to use them.

Students were then told to roam along the water body singly or in small groups and were

encouraged to observe odonate behavior and to net, attempt to identify, and release live

odonates. Each student was asked to bring at least one netted odonate to the instructor and to

explain how they determined its identity and to describe its pre-capture behavior. The instructor

visited the roaming students and small groups and gave them hints to alert them to interesting

odonate behaviors that were occurring in the field. He also took time to model behaviors that

would be expected of citizen-based monitors, such as netting specimens and hand picking

exuviae. The instructor also posed questions to students to keep them “on track” as they learned

to use field guides to identify odonates they were observing or had captured. Field roaming time

averaged about 45 minutes. Students then gathered at a centralized area and, with facilitation by

the instructor, summarized the species that were seen by the group and the behaviors that were

observed. They also received instruction about becoming involved with WOS and any questions

stimulated by the field observation were answered. The group then moved indoors into the
 30

facility where students were presented with the opportunity to take part in the present study.

Students who elected to do so were given the same survey materials and instructions as the

students in the classroom-based events. All students were then dismissed. The instructor

remained at the facility until all students had departed. Therefore, students had ample time to

interact one-on-one with the instructor both during the field roaming time and after the event.

The total instruction time for each guided discovery event averaged about 90 minutes.

Collection of the Study Data

After each of the six events, each group was provided information about the study and its

potential value, and all attendees were presented with the opportunity to participate. Those who

agreed to participate were given the Dragonfly Presentation Survey questionnaire (first survey)

to complete before they left the site, and were asked to fill out a 3X5 card giving their name and

the address where they would like to receive the Dragonfly Presentation Survey Follow-up

(second survey). The address cards and completed questionnaires were collected separately to

ensure the anonymity of the participants. The follow-up surveys, along with cover letters

(Appendix C) and self-addressed, stamped return envelopes, were mailed to these addresses six

weeks after the event. Participants were strongly urged to remain anonymous. All responses were

sent directly to the instructor.

Design of the Questionnaires

Five-point Likert-scale, multiple-choice selection, and short answer questions were

formulated to elicit participant responses that would indicate their attitudes and impressions of

the education event, and most importantly, their motivation level with regard to learning more
 31

about the Odonata and their likelihood of participating in WOS. Initial guidance in question

construction was taken from Dillman (1978). Drafts of the questionnaires were then reviewed by

six experts in either sociological research or citizen-based monitoring. All of the professional

reviewers were employees of either the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources or the

University of Wisconsin system. Questions on the two questionnaires had many similarities, but

differed somewhat because they occurred in different contextual settings. The first questionnaire,

which contained ten questions, was given immediately after the presentation and therefore the

key questions focused on first impressions of intent to act (learn more about odonates and

become involved with WOS). The follow-up second questionnaire, which contained eleven

questions, was given six weeks later and therefore the key questions focused on actions taken to

learn more or become involved with WOS, as well as enduring intent to act.

Scoring and Interpreting the Questionnaire Responses

Responses to the five-point Likert-scale questions were tested for significant differences

between the interactive lecture groups (responses from all three events pooled) and the guided

discovery groups (responses from all three events pooled) using Mann-Whitney Rank Sum tests

(T) because assumptions of normality or equal variance were violated in almost all cases.

Question 9 of the second survey was examined with a t-test. Statistical analyses were performed

using SigmaStat statistical software (SPSS, 1997) with alpha set at 0.05. Multiple-choice

selection and short answer questions were not examined with statistical tests; rather, they were

examined for prevalent themes, with a particular focus to discern themes that suggested

motivational differences between the groups. All written responses to short-answer questions

were transcribed and are included in Appendices D through J at the end of this report.
 32

Piloting the Teaching Procedures and Questionnaires

Learning content and field activity teaching had been piloted by the instructor during

dozens of citizen-based monitoring presentations since 2002 to recruit volunteers for WOS.

Feedback received following these presentations was generally highly positive, but many helpful

content-related suggestions were received. Through these presentations and the associated

feedback, the instructor developed a standardized block of content that seemed useful for

providing potential WOS volunteers with a base of information about the Odonata. This basic

block of content was used in the present study without substantial alteration.

The researcher conducted two pilot education outreaches in the months prior to

conducting this study to fine tune the teaching procedures, questions used, and to practice the

logistics of administering the questionnaires. On 21 October 2009, the instructor performed a

pilot outreach using interactive lecturing with an Elderhostel group in Rhinelander, Wisconsin.

Of the 80 attendees, 31 people (39%) agreed to complete an early version of the Dragonfly

Presentation Survey (first survey). The two most important questions asked were 1) whether the

presentation had motivated the participant to want to learn more about odonates, and 2) whether

the presentation had motivated the participant to desire to become involved with WOS. On a

five-point Likert scale, responses to the first question averaged 4.6, indicating a fairly strong

intention among participants to learn more about odonates. Responses to the second question on

the same Likert scale averaged 3.0, indicating that participants were undecided about desiring to

become involved with WOS. This group was not mailed a follow-up questionnaire. Results of

this first pilot presentation led to some of the questions being slightly modified to make them

clearer. Beyond that, the teaching procedures and the logistics of administering the

questionnaires appeared to be feasible and appropriate and were not changed.

 33

On 21 April 2010, the researcher performed a second pilot outreach using interactive

lecturing with an Audubon Society group in LaCrosse, Wisconsin. Of the 40 attendees, eight

people (20%) agreed to complete the now finalized version of the Dragonfly Presentation Survey

(first survey). This group was mailed the follow-up questionnaire (second survey) and five

people responded (63% of those that were mailed the second survey). As with the first pilot

group, questions asking if respondents were motivated by the presentation to learn more about

odonates received positive replies (between 4 and 5 on a 1-5 Likert scale). But again, questions

about whether the presentation had motivated them to want to become involved with WOS

received responses that averaged “unsure.” These pilot presentations had value in that the

consistency of the preliminary findings suggested adequate reliability of the survey questions.

Further, the pilot presentations helped the instructor to become more comfortable with the many

procedures involved and gave some insight into likely volunteer participation rates.

Summary

It has been the purpose of this chapter to present the general experimental design of the

study and describe in detail all of the specific methods used. Included in the chapter are

descriptions of the subjects and event locations, the procedures used in both forms of education,

voluntary questionnaire construction and collection of the data, and procedures used to analyze

and interpret the data. Results from two pilot outreaches done on 21 October 2009 and 21 April

2010 are also briefly described.

 34

Chapter 4

Results of the Study

This study compared and contrasted two forms of environmental education with regard to

their outcomes in motivating recruitment of citizen volunteers to become involved with a citizen-

based monitoring program of Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) in Wisconsin. The two

forms of environmental education were a classroom-based interactive lecturing form that used

PowerPoint presentations with question and answer periods and hands-on teaching with display

items, and a field-based guided discovery form where similar content was delivered outdoors

near water bodies which allowed wild odonates and their behaviors to be observed in their

natural habitat. Following each educational outreach, volunteer participants were given the

Dragonfly Presentation Survey (first survey – Appendix A). Six weeks later, volunteers were

mailed the Dragonfly Presentation Survey Follow-up (second survey – Appendix B) along with a

cover letter (Appendix C) and a stamped, self-addressed envelope. This chapter presents survey

participation rates of attendees at the outreaches and provides results of the data analyses and

common-theme analyses of the responses to both surveys.

Attendance and Participation Rates

Fewer people attended the outdoor, guided discovery outreaches than the indoor,

interactive lecture outreaches. The mean numbers of attendees were 15 and 32 respectively at

each outreach type. However, volunteer first survey participation rates were nearly twice as high

at guided discovery outreaches (Table 2). First survey participation of volunteers at indoor,

interactive lectures averaged 26% (range 17 – 31%; Table 2). First survey participation of

volunteers at outdoor, guided discovery outreaches averaged 47% (range 30 – 91%). Follow-up
 35

survey return rates were high for both education outreach types, with an average return of 56%

for interactive lecture outreaches and an even higher 81% return for guided discovery events

(Table 2).

Table 2. Number of attendees and volunteer participants at education outreaches in this study.
______________________________________________________________________________

Outreach Number Number Responding Number Responding

Site Code Attending to First Survey (%) to Second Survey (%)

______________________________________________________________________________

Interactive Lecture (indoor events)

KMSF 24 4 (17%) 3 (75%)

LNVA 24 6 (25%) 4 (67%)

KEMP 48 15 (31%) 7 (47%)

______________________________________________________________________________

Interactive Lecture totals 96 25 14

Interactive Lecture averages 32 8 (26%) 5 (56%)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guided Discovery (outdoor events)

NRFO 14 5 (36%) 5 (100%)

BCNC 11 10 (91%) 7 (70%)

HHAS 20 6 (30%) 5 (83%)

______________________________________________________________________________

Guided Discovery totals 45 21 17

Guided Discovery averages 15 7 (47%) 6 (81%)

______________________________________________________________________________
 36

Responses to the Dragonfly Presentation Survey (First Survey)

Questions 1 through 5 were worded in the forms of statements seeking agreement or

disagreement. These statements were provided with 5-point Likert scales with 1 meaning

strongly disagree and 5 meaning strongly agree.

Question 1: “After hearing today’s presentation, I understand the importance of

gathering information about dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) in Wisconsin in order to

better protect them and their habitats.” The 46 respondents indicated that they strongly agreed

with the statement (Table 3). There was no significant difference between the interactive lecture

and guided discovery group responses (T = 450.5, P = 0.347).

Question 2: “Today’s presentation motivated me to want to learn more about dragonflies

and damselflies (Odonata).” The 46 respondents indicated that they strongly agreed with the

statement (Table 3). There was no significant difference between the interactive lecture and

guided discovery group responses (T = 531.0, P = 0.412).

Question 3: “Today’s presentation provided information that motivated me to want to

become involved with the Wisconsin Odonata Survey (WOS).” The 46 respondents indicated that

they agreed with the statement, but less strongly than with the previous two statements (Table 3).

Again, there was no significant difference between the interactive lecture and guided discovery

group responses (T = 533.0, P = 0.389).

Question 4: “Now that I have learned about WOS, I am likely to become involved in the

future.” The 46 respondents indicated that they agreed with the statement, but with only

moderate strength, similar to Question 3 (Table 3). However, there was a significant difference

between the interactive lecture and guided discovery group responses to this statement (T =

587.0, P = 0.040), with the guided discovery group having a more positive response. Question 4
 37

was probably the most important question on the first survey because it directly asked about

intent to become involved with WOS. Therefore, this significant result was an important finding.

Question 5: “In deciding whether to become involved in WOS, it is important to me to

have a group of people that I could go surveying with, as opposed to going alone.” The 45

respondents indicated that they agreed with the statement, but as with the two previous questions,

only slightly above the “unsure” level (Table 3). There was no significant difference between the

interactive lecture and guided discovery groups in response to this question (T = 506.5, P =

0.293).

Table 3. Likert scale response averages for the Dragonfly Presentation Survey (first survey).
______________________________________________________________________________

Interactive Lecture (Indoor) Guided Discovery (Outdoor)__

Question
Number KMSF LNVA KEMP Avg. NRFO BCNC HHAS Avg.
______________________________________________________________________________

1 5.00 4.80 4.67 4.74 4.6 4.6 4.33 4.52

2 4.75 4.67 4.53 4.60 4.6 4.9 5.0 4.86

3 4.25 3.67 3.60 3.72 3.8 4.2 4.0 4.05

4 4.25 3.00 3.13 3.28 3.4 4.2 4.0 3.95

5 2.50 4.00 3.33 3.36 4.2 3.9 3.2 3.80

______________________________________________________________________________

Questions 6 through 10 were single or multiple part, short answer questions. Respondents

did not always answer all questions clearly, and some interpretive license was needed to discern

intent. Individual responses of all respondents were transcribed and are presented in Appendices

D through J.
 38

Question 6: Are you confident that you could contribute to WOS? What are your

concerns? A total of 27 meaningful responses to this question were received (some people either

did not respond or did not address the question). No major differences between the comments of

the two groups were identified (Appendix D). Sixteen respondents were clearly or cautiously

positive about their ability to contribute. Of the less than positive responses, four clearly

indicated a need for more knowledge, four referred to a lack of time to contribute and three were

uncertain. Overall, eight respondents indicated some need of additional training before they

could contribute to WOS in an optimal way.

Question 7: Would you like more training on how to contribute to WOS? Where and

when would you like training to occur? A total of 27 meaningful responses to this question were

received (some people either did not respond or did not address the question). No major

differences between the comments of the two groups were identified (Appendix E). Twenty two

respondents indicated a clear need for more training, and eleven suggested locations (usually

near where the event was held). Five respondents suggested that future training occur in the

spring or summer. Three respondents indicated a preference for self-study on the internet. Three

respondents did not want or need more training, and two were uncertain.

Question 8: Can you think of places to go to look for Odonata? How far are these places

from your home? A total of 34 responses to this question were received. No major differences

between the comments of the two groups were identified (Appendix F). All but one respondent

(who was unsure) affirmed that finding places to look for odonates was not a problem. Many

respondents named specific lakes near their home where odonates abound, and many gave

distances they would need to travel to good sites, which were usually less than 20 miles away. A
 39

few respondents gave ranges of up to 200 miles that they would be willing to travel to look for

odonates.

Question 9: What can I do to improve my presentation? What topics did you like or

dislike? A total of 34 responses to this question were received with no discernible difference

between the two groups. For the most part, people used this question as an opportunity to express

thanks and to make appreciative comments about the presentation. Most of the comments were

general and positive, but some contained useful suggestions for improvement (Appendix G).

Two respondents suggested that more information about the life cycle of odonates be presented.

Two respondents suggested more detail about identification. Two respondents would have liked

to have heard more information about WOS and why the survey is important. Other suggestions

included showing a film of dragonfly emergence and showing more specimens.

Question 10: Do you have any additional feedback for me? A total of 27 responses to this

question were received with no discernible difference between the two groups. The question

proved to be redundant, because for the most part, people used this question as they did the

previous one, which was as an opportunity to express thanks and give appreciative comments

about the presentation (Appendix H). Among the few substantive comments, one respondent

indicated the need to provide field participants with guidance ahead of time about appropriate

field clothing to bring, including boots or waders. This comment echoed several concerns that

the instructor heard expressed by participants in the field. Although the instructor did send

recommendations about appropriate field apparel to the host facilities, those recommendations

were not always passed on to people who signed up for the events.
 40

Responses to the Dragonfly Presentation Survey Follow-up (Second Survey)

Questions 1, 2, 4, and 9 were worded in the forms of statements seeking levels of

agreement, interest, activity in watching odonates, and likelihood of becoming involved with

WOS. These statements were provided with 5-point Likert scales. Question 3 asked if specific

activities were taken since the presentation (did some reading, visited some websites, went

outdoors looking), and respondents were asked to check all that applied. Questions 5, 6, and 11

were single- or multiple-part short answer questions. Respondents did not always answer all the

short answer questions clearly or completely, and some care was needed to discern their intent.

Individual responses to short answer questions of all respondents were transcribed and are

presented in Appendices I and J. Questions 7 and 8 asked about whether respondents had visited

the WOS website or contributed records to WOS. Respondents were given a choice of three

frequency categories to select from (not at all, once or twice, and three times or more). Question

10 asked for reasons why respondents had not become involved with WOS, if they had not done

so. Six choices, plus an “other” category, were offered and respondents were asked to check all

that applied.

Question 1: “Would you say that you agree or disagree that it is important to gather

information about dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) in Wisconsin in order to better protect

them and their habitats?” This question was a post-presentation follow-up equivalent to

Question 1 of the first survey. It was designed to check for any drift in attitudes about the value

of information gathering over time. The 31 respondents again indicated that they strongly agreed

with the statement (Table 4). There was no significant difference between the interactive lecture

and guided discovery group responses (T = 222.0, P = 0.952).

 41

Table 4. Likert scale response averages for the Dragonfly Presentation Survey Follow-up
(second survey).
______________________________________________________________________________

Interactive Lecture (Indoor) Guided Discovery (Outdoor)___

Question
Number KMSP LNVA KEMP Avg. NRFO BCNC HHAS Avg.
______________________________________________________________________________

1 4.67 5.00 4.86 4.86 5.00 4.86 4.6 4.82

2 4.67 4.50 4.29 4.43 4.20 4.71 4.8 4.59

4 4.67 3.75 4.00 4.07 3.60 4.43 4.2 4.12

7 1.30 0.25 0.43 0.56 0.20 0.83 0.40 0.50

8 0.33 0 0 0.07 0 0.29 0 0.12

9 3.50 2.38 3.00 2.89 3.40 3.71 3.80 3.65

______________________________________________________________________________

Question 2: “Since attending the presentation on dragonflies and damselflies, have you

become more or less interested in them than before the presentation?” The 31 respondents

indicated that they had become much more interested in odonates since the presentation (Table

4), and there was no significant difference between the interactive lecture and guided discovery

group responses (T = 204, P = 0.437).

Question 3: “Since attending the presentation on dragonflies and damselflies, what, if

anything, have you done to learn more about them (check all that apply)?” The 31 respondents

indicated that they had taken part in a total of 59 activities. Eighteen respondents indicated that

they had done some reading about odonates. Fourteen respondents indicated that they had visited

some Odonate-related websites. The most prevalent response was to have gone outdoors looking
 42

for odonates, as indicated by 27 respondents (87% of all respondents). Proportions of

respondents that were involved in these activities were similar between the two groups.

Question 4: “Since attending the presentation on dragonflies and damselflies, have you

begun to watch them more carefully than you used to?” The scale for this question was set at 1

for not at all, 3 for somewhat more, and 5 for a lot more. The 31 responses averaged slightly

above 4 for both groups (Table 4), with no significant difference between them (T = 216.5, P =

0.781).

Question 5: “If yes (to Question 4), have you found good places to look for dragonflies

and damselflies? About how far have you traveled to these places?” This question was a post-

presentation follow-up equivalent to Question 8 of the first survey. It was designed to check for

any differences between the predicted (first survey) and actual (second survey) ease of finding

suitable habitats for observing odonates. A total of 28 responses to this question were received,

and no major differences between the comments of the two groups were identified (Appendix I).

Most respondents indicated that they had found suitable nearby sites that ranged in distance from

in their back yard to within a 45-minute drive from their home. A few respondents simply wrote

considerable distances of up to 300 miles.

Question 6: “Have you gone dragonflying by yourself or with others (describe)?” The

intent of this question (along with part of Question 10) was to tease out any concerns on the part

of respondents about not having companions to go dragonflying with. The 26 responses were

nearly equally divided between going alone (14 responses) and going with others (12 responses).

Some people said they usually went alone, but sometimes with others, whereas others said they

usually went with a group, but sometimes went alone. People that reported both conditions were
 43

scored in both categories. Ten people who responded to most of the other questions on the

second survey did not respond to this question.

Question 7: “Since attending the presentation on dragonflies and damselflies, have you

visited the Wisconsin Odonata Survey website?” A total of 31 people responded to this question,

and the pattern of responses was similar between the two groups. The majority of respondents

(58%) indicated that they had not visited the website. Of the respondents who had visited the

website, 77% of them had done so once or twice and 23% had done so three times or more.

Question 8: “Since attending the presentation on dragonflies and damselflies, have you

contributed records to the Wisconsin Odonata Survey?” A total of 31 people responded to this

question, and the pattern of responses was similar between the two groups. The great majority of

respondents (94%) indicated that they had not contributed records to WOS. One respondent from

each group indicated they had contributed at least one record. The single contributing respondent

from the guided discovery group indicated having contributed three or more records.

Question 9: “If you have not yet become involved with the Wisconsin Odonata Survey,

how likely is it that you might still become involved in the future?” This question, along with

Question 4 of the first survey, was among the most important questions in the study because it

was designed to directly measure the intent to act. The 30 responses to this question indicated

that most respondents were unsure about whether or not they might become involved with WOS

in the future. Responses from the guided discovery group were slightly higher (avg = 3.65; Table

4) than those from the interactive lecture group (avg = 2.89), but the difference was not

significant (t = -1.690, df = 28, P = 0.102).

Question 10: “What are the main reasons why you have not, or might not, become

involved in the Wisconsin Odonata Survey (check all that apply)?” Six major categories were
 44

provided that could be checked, plus an “Other” category invited write-in responses (Appendix

B). Twenty eight people responded to this question, with some giving more than one response.

Therefore a total of 34 responses were received, with no discernible difference between groups.

Many respondents wrote comments in the “Other” category that were included in one of the six

major categories for scoring. For example, if someone wrote “I’m just kind of busy” in the

“Other” space, that comment was scored with those that checked “A). I don’t have enough time.”

The most prevalent reason given for not becoming involved with WOS was “not enough time”

(16 responses), followed by “not enough interest” (4 responses), and “sounds too difficult” (4

responses). The remaining response categories each received one or two responses. Two people

wrote that they would not be getting involved with WOS because they lived out of state, and two

people were uncertain.

Question 11: “What could I have done differently during my presentation that would have

made learning about dragonflies easier for you, or becoming involved in the Wisconsin Odonata

Survey more appealing?” A total of 28 responses to this question were received with no

discernible difference between the two groups (Appendix J). As with Questions 9 and 10 on the

first survey, most people used this question as an opportunity to express thanks and make

appreciative comments about the presentation. Most of the comments were general and positive,

but some contained useful suggestions for improvement. Of these, four people would have liked

more information about how to become involved with WOS, and a clearer description of its

purpose. Single responses asked for more information about the Odonata life cycle, a

demonstration of the WOS website, and to have seen more specimens. One person noted that it

would have been helpful to know they should have brought boots or waders. Similar comments

were noted on the first survey (p. 39).

 45

Summary

This study compared and contrasted two forms of environmental education with regard to

their outcomes in motivating recruitment of citizen volunteers to become involved with a citizen-

based monitoring program of Odonata in Wisconsin. Two survey questionnaires were given to

willing volunteers following each education event to measure action taken or the intent to act

with regard to WOS. The first survey was given to participants immediately after each

presentation, and the second survey was mailed to the same participants six weeks later. None of

the survey question comparisons showed statistically significant or meaningfully different

responses between the two groups, with a single exception. Question 4 of the first survey

indicated that guided discovery group respondents were significantly more positive than

interactive lecture respondents about their anticipated likelihood of becoming involved with

WOS. The primary obstacles to participant involvement with WOS were lack of time and

interest, and a need by some participants for more training. As a result of the presentations,

participants in both groups reported having a greater understanding of the need to protect

odonates and their habitats than they had previously. They also reported becoming more

interested in odonates than they previously were, and many had taken additional steps to learn

more about them (e.g. reading about them, observing them in the wild, or visiting websites).

Comments received from many participants in both groups indicated that they enjoyed the

presentations and were appreciative of the instructor’s efforts to provide this education.
 46

Chapter 5

Discussion and Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast two forms of environmental

education with regard to their outcomes in motivating recruitment of citizen volunteers to

become involved with a citizen-based monitoring program to determine the distributions and

habitats of Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) in Wisconsin (WOS). The two forms of

environmental education were a classroom-based interactive lecturing form that used PowerPoint

presentations with question and answer periods and hands-on teaching with display items, and a

field-based guided discovery form where similar content was delivered outdoors near water

bodies which allowed wild odonates and their behaviors to be observed in their natural habitat.

Two survey questionnaires were given to willing volunteers following each education event to

measure the intent to act, or action taken, with regard to involvement with WOS. The first survey

was given to participants immediately after each presentation, and the second survey was mailed

to the same participants six weeks later. This chapter discusses the conclusions of the study and

provides recommendations for future education outreaches pertaining to the Odonata.

Conclusions from the Study

It was noted previously that substantial evidence supports the idea that outdoor forms of

education can be more effective than classroom education in motivating adult learners to engage

in pro-environmental behavior. This could include behaviors like becoming involved with WOS.

Outdoor activities had been shown to allow personal experiences to develop students’ affective

relationship to the natural environment (Lisowski & Disinger, 1991; Cuthbertson et al., 2003),

their environmental sensitivity, and their outdoor behavior (Palmberg & Kuru, 2000). Outdoor
 47

education had also been shown to allow students to develop their knowledge and skills in ways

that add value to classroom experiences (reviewed by Dillon et al., 2006). These lines of

evidence led Palmer (1998, pp. 143-146) to offer an integrated model for structuring

environmental education that included three primary components: educating about the

environment; educating for the environment, and educating in or from the environment. This

integrated model of Palmer’s (1998) was intended to be used not just for primary and secondary

students, but for community involvement as well (p.149).

Despite these reasons for optimism with outdoor education, it was unknown if its

potential benefits would accrue in this study for several reasons. First, environmental education

had also been shown to be most effective when it started with young children (Dass, 1999;

Hudson, 2001), not with adults, which were the focal subjects in this study. Second,

environmental education is known to be most effective when it uses long-term rather than short-

term programs (Emmons, 1997; Bognar, 1998; Zelezny, 1999; Stern et al., 2008). The

educational benefits of outdoor learning had been primarily seen with multiple-day learning

experiences (or longer), often at residential science or nature camps, not with 90-minute

outreaches like those used to recruit volunteers for WOS in this study. But it remains true that

experience in and with the environment is clearly a key in promoting pro-environmental

behavior (Finger, 1994), especially for people over the age of 50 years (Palmer & Suggate,

1996).

Against this backdrop of uncertainty, the equivocal results of the present study were not

unexpected. Guided discovery group respondents were significantly more positive than

interactive lecture respondents about their anticipated likelihood of becoming involved with

WOS (Question 4 of the first survey). This was the single piece of evidence that showed a
 48

motivational benefit with outdoor events. However, this result was tempered by the fact that

there was no difference between the groups in actual involvement with WOS after six weeks

(Question 8 of the second survey). Further, after having a chance to reflect for six weeks about

the likelihood of participants becoming involved with WOS in the future, the difference between

the responses of the groups was not statistically different (Question 9 of the second survey),

although the guided discovery group did have a higher average value. Thus, the evidence that

outdoor education may have been superior to classroom education in motivating potential

recruits for WOS was weak at best.

The results further suggested that the educational outreaches in this study were not

effective in recruiting new volunteers for WOS. Only a single respondent from each group had

submitted records to WOS during the six weeks following the outreaches. However, it was

known to the researcher that several people who attended outreach events in both groups had

been previous contributors to WOS. Thus, it is not unlikely that the two contributing respondents

were long-time contributors to WOS. Since all respondents were anonymous it was not possible

to know who the people were that reported contributing to WOS in this study. There was nothing

about how the how Question 8 of the second survey was worded that would have dissuaded

previous contributors from responding affirmatively to the question.

The primary obstacles given by respondents to becoming involved with WOS were a

lack of time and lack of interest. These appear to be two sides of the same coin because not

having enough time for an activity likely means not having enough interest. People tend to make

time for their highest priorities. Also, the need expressed by some participants for more training

should not be taken lightly. Additional training could take the form of identification workshops

held around the state during spring and summer and could also include production of user-
 49

friendly field guides to odonates and training videos that could be made available online. The

results indicated that finding places to look for odonates was not a problem for most respondents.

In sum, short-term education outreaches, whether outdoors or in the classroom, do not

appear to have much value in recruiting volunteers for WOS. The efficacy of other recruitment

tools, such as news releases through various forms of media, should be explored. The evidence

also suggests that considerably longer events (several days in duration), are likely to have greater

motivational value than the short-term events used in this study. The outreaches in this study did

appear to have some educational value that may ultimately be manifested in other ways. People

were clearly thankful for, and appreciative of, these educational experiences. Following the

outreaches, participant understanding of the need to protect odonates and their habitats had

increased, they became more interested in odonates than they previously were, and the image of

the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources may have been enhance in the eyes of some

participants. Thus, people who attended these presentations could have been motivated to engage

in pro-environmental behaviors that do not require as much personal commitment as

involvement in WOS.

Recommendations for Recruiting Volunteers for WOS

 Make educational outreaches as long term as possible. Longer-term education events are

more likely than shorter ones to increase motivation of volunteers to act in pro-

environmental ways, such as becoming involved with WOS.

 Continue to bring people outdoors for environmental education whenever possible.

Although the results of this study were equivocal, substantial evidence exists in support

of the value of educating students about the environment in outdoor settings.

 50

 Test the efficacy of other recruitment methods for WOS. Short-term education outreaches

alone are not sufficient, although in conjunction with other methods they may have value.

 Training in Odonata identification should be offered on a regular basis to WOS

volunteers. A number of people in this study acknowledged feeling that their level of

expertise was inadequate to contribute to WOS. If some acknowledged it, others likely

felt the same way. Training could take the form of Odonata identification workshops,

user-friendly field guides to Odonata, and online training videos.

Summary

The goal of this study was to compare and contrast two forms of environmental education

with regard to their outcomes in motivating recruitment of citizen volunteers to become involved

with a citizen-based monitoring program of Odonata in Wisconsin (WOS). These forms of

environmental education included three replications each of an outdoor guided-discovery form

and an indoor interactive-lecture form. Two survey questionnaires, one given to participants

immediately following each event and one mailed out to participants six weeks later, were the

measurement tools used to evaluate actions taken or the intent to act with regard to WOS. A

single question on the first survey indicated that guided discovery group respondents were

significantly more positive than interactive lecture group respondents about their anticipated

likelihood of becoming involved with WOS. However, this result was tempered by the fact that

there was no difference between the groups in actual involvement with WOS after six weeks.

Further, after having a chance to reflect for six weeks about the likelihood of their becoming

involved with WOS in the future, responses of participants from the two groups were not

statistically different. However, the outreaches had value in other areas. Following the
 51

outreaches, participants reported having a greater understanding of the need to protect odonates

and their habitats, they had become more interested in them than previously, and many had taken

additional steps to learn more about them. Recommendations for future recruiting efforts for

WOS include 1) making environmental education outreaches as long term as possible, 2)

continuing to recognize the value of outdoor forms of environmental education, 3) testing the

efficacy of other recruitment tools for WOS, and 4) providing additional training in the form of

identification workshops, user-friendly field guides to Odonata, and online training videos.
 52

Bibliography

Abbott, J. C., & Broglie, D. (2005). OdonataCentral.com: A model for the web-based delivery of

natural history information and citizen science. American Entomologist, 51(4), 240-243.

Adams, C., Noonan, T., & Newton, B. (2000). Watershed management in the 21st Century:

National perspectives. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Proceedings,

RMRS-P-13, 21-29.

Axelrod, L. J., & D. R. Lehman. (1993). Responding to environmental concerns: What factors

guide individual action? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13(2), 149-159.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bell, A. C. (2001). Engaging spaces: On school-based habitat restoration. Canadian Journal of

Environmental Education, 6, 209-224.

Berkowitz, A. R., Ford, M. E., & Brewer, C. A. (2005). A framework for integrating ecological

literacy, civics literacy, and environmental citizenship in environmental education. In E.

A. Johnson & M. J. Mappin (Eds.), Environmental education and advocacy (pp. 227-

266). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bjorkland, R., & Pringle, C. M. (2001). Educating our communities and ourselves about

conservation of aquatic resources through environmental outreach. Bioscience, 51(4),

279-282.

Bognar, F. X. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term

variables of environmental perspective. Journal of Environmental Education, 29(4), 17-

30.

Brewer, C. (2002). Outreach and partnership programs for conservation education where

endangered species conservation and research occur. Conservation Biology, 16(1), 4-6.
 53

Conrad, C. T., & Daoust, T. (2008). Community-based monitoring frameworks: Increasing the

effectiveness of environmental stewardship. Environmental Management, 41, 358-366.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (2007). Defining Citizen Science. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from

Citizen Science Central, Web site: http://www.birds.cornell.edu/citscitoolkit/about/

definition/

Cuthbertson, B., Dyment, J., Curthoys, L. P., Potter, T. G., & O’Connell, T. (2003). Engaging

nature: A Canadian case study of learning in the outdoors. In H. Crimmel (Ed.), Teaching

in the field: Working with students in the outdoor classroom (pp. 77-98). Salt Lake City:

University of Utah Press.

Darner, R. (2009). Self-determination theory as a guide to fostering environmental motivation.

The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(2), 39-49.

Dass, M. P. (1999). Contemporary environmental issues: Creating curricular connections in K-12

education. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 19(2), 147-154.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John

Wiley and Sons.

Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P.

(2006). The value of outdoor learning: Evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere.

School Science Review, 87(320), 107-111.

Eaton, D. (2000). Cognitive and affective learning in outdoor education. Dissertation Abstracts

International – Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 60, 10-A, 3595. (Abstract not

seen: cited by Dillon et al. 2006)

Emmons, K. M. (1997). Perceptions of the environment while exploring the outdoors: A case

study in Belize. Environmental Education Research, 3(3), 327-344.

 54

Finger, M. (1994). From knowledge to action? Exploring the relationships between

environmental experiences, learning, and behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 141-

160.

Fisman, L. (2005). The effects of local learning on environmental awareness in children: An

empirical investigation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36(3), 39-50.

Hines, J., Hungerford, H., & Tomera, A. (1986-1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on

responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental

Education, 18(2), 1-8.

Hudson, S. J. (2001). Challenges for environmental education: Issues and ideas for the 21st

Century. Bioscience, 51(4), 283-288.

Hungerford, H., & Volk, T. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education.

Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.

Hunsberger, C. A., Gibson, R. B., & Wismer, S. K. (2005). Citizen involvement in sustainability-

centred environmental assessment follow-up. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,

25, 609-627.

Hunter, L. M., & Rinner, L. (2004). The association between environmental perspective and

knowledge and concern with species diversity. Society and Natural Resources, 17, 517-

532.

Jacobson, S. K., & McDuff, M. D. (1998). Training idiot savants: The lack of human dimensions

in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 12(2), 263-267.

Jickling, B. (2005). Education and advocacy: A troubling relationship. In E. A. Johnson & M. J.

Mappin (Eds.), Environmental education and advocacy (pp. 91-113). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

 55

Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 28(5), 395-422.

Kassas, M. (2002). Environmental education: Biodiversity. The Environmentalist, 22, 345-351.

Koehler, B., & Koontz, T. M. (2008). Citizen participation in collaborative watershed

partnerships. Environmental Management, 41, 143-154.

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and

what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research,

8(3), 239-260.

Kolsto, S. D. (2005). Assessing the science dimension of environmental issues through

environmental education. In E. A. Johnson & M. J. Mappin (Eds.), Environmental

education and advocacy (pp. 207-224). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Krasny, M. E., & R. Bonney. (2005). Environmental education through citizen science and

participatory action research. In E. A. Johnson & M. J. Mappin (Eds.), Environmental

education and advocacy (pp. 292-319). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Krasny, M. E., & Lee, S. (2002). Social learning as an approach to environmental education:

Lessons from a program focusing on non-indigenous, invasive species. Environmental

Education Research, 8(2), 101-119.

LaSage, D. M., Jones, A., & Edwards, T. (2006). The Muddy Creek Project: Evolution of a field-

based research and learning collaborative. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(2), 109-

115.

Leslie, L. L., Velez, C. E., & Bonar, S. A. (2004). Utilizing volunteers on fisheries projects:

Benefits, challenges, and management techniques. Fisheries, 29(10), 10-14.

 56

Lisowski, M., & Disinger, J. F. (1991). The effect of field-based instruction on student

understandings of ecological principles. Journal of Environmental Education, 23(1), 19-

23.

Maarleveld, M., & Dangbegnon, C. (1999). Managing natural resources: A social learning

perspective. Agriculture and Human Values, 16, 267-280.

Mappin, M. J., & Johnson, E. A. (2005). Changing perspectives of ecology and education in

environmental education. In E. A. Johnson & M. J. Mappin (Eds.), Environmental

education and advocacy (pp. 1-27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The

case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59 (1), 14-19.

McClaren, M., & Hammond, B. (2005). Integrating education and action in environmental

education. In E. A. Johnson & M. J. Mappin (Eds.), Environmental education and

advocacy (pp. 267-291). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mittelstaedt, R., Sanker, L., & VanderVeer, B. (1999). Impact of a week-long experiential

education program on environmental attitude and awareness. Journal of Experiential

Education, 22(3), 138-148.

Nabhan, G. P., & Trimble, S. (1994). The geography of childhood: Why children need wild

spaces. Boston: Beacon Press.

Nerbonne, J. F., & Vondracek, B. (2003). Volunteer macroinvertebrate monitoring: Assessing

training needs through examining error and bias in untrained volunteers. Journal of the

North American Benthological Society, 22(1), 152-163.

Oscarson, D. B., & Calhoon, A. J. K. (2007). Developing vernal pool conservation plans at the

local level using citizen-scientists. Wetlands, 27(1), 80-95.

 57

Overdevest, C., Orr, C. H., & Stepenuck, K. (2004). Volunteer stream monitoring and local

participation in natural resource issues. Human Ecology Review, 11(2), 177-185.

Palmberg, I. E., & Kuru, J. (2000). Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility.

The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 32-36.

Palmer, J. A. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, progress,

and promise. New York: Routledge.

Palmer, J. A. & Birch, J. C. (2005). Changing academic perspectives in environmental education

research and practice: Progress and promise. In E. A. Johnson & M. J. Mappin (Eds.),

Environmental education and advocacy (pp. 114-136). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Palmer, J. A., & Suggate, J. (1996). Influences and experiences affecting pro-environmental

behaviour of educators. Environmental Education Research, 2(1), 109-121.

Pelletier, L. C., Tuson, K. M., Green-Demers, I., Noels, K., & Beaton, A. M. (1998). Why are

you doing things for the environment? The motivation toward the environment scale

(MTES). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(5), 437-468.

Roy, H. (2003). Studio vs interactive lecture demonstration – Effects on student learning.

Bioscene, 29(1), 3-6.

Ryan, C. (1991). The effect of a conservation program on schoolchildren’s attitudes toward the

environment. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(4), 30-35.

Saberwal, V. K., & Kothari, A. (1996).The human dimension in conservation biology curricula

in developing countries. Conservation Biology, 10(5), 1328-1331.

 58

Savan, B., Morgan, A. J., & Gore, C. (2003). Volunteer environmental monitoring and the

universities: The case of Citizens’ Environmental Watch. Environmental Management,

31(5), 561-568.

Sharpe, A., & Conrad, C. (2006). Community based ecological monitoring in Nova Scotia:

Challenges and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 113, 395-409.

Smyth, J. C. (2006). Environment and education: A view of a changing scene. Environmental

Education Research, 12(3-4), 247-264.

SPSS. (1997). SigmaStat for Windows, version 2.03. SPSS, Chicago.

Steinert, Y., & Snell, L. S. (1999). Interactive lecturing: Strategies for increasing participation in

large group presentations. Medical Teacher, 21(1), 37-42.

Stern, M. J., Powell, R. B., & Ardoin, N. M. (2008). What difference does it make? Assessing

outcomes from participation in a residential environmental education program. The

Journal of Environmental Education, 39(4), 31-43.

Sullivan, B. L., Wood, C. L., Iliff, M. J., Bonney, R. E., Fink, D., & Kelling, S. (2009). eBird: A

citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biological

Conservation, 142, 2282-2292.

Tudor, M. T. & Dvornich, K. M. (2001). The NatureMapping program: Resource agency

environmental education reform. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(2), 8-14.

Whitelaw, G., Vaughan, H., Craig, B., & Atkinson, D. (2003). Establishing the Canadian

Community Monitoring Network. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 88 (1-3),

409-418.

Wise, K. C., & Oakey, J. R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching

strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 419-435.

 59

Zelezny, L. C. (1999). Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors: A meta-

analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 5-15.

 Appendix A 60

Dragonfly Presentation Survey

_______________________________ (Date and Location to Be Filled-In Beforehand)

Please take a few minutes to provide feedback on today’s presentation. Your feedback will help improve
future presentations and does not commit you to any involvement with the Wisconsin Odonata Survey
(WOS). For items 1 – 5, circle the number that most closely reflects your level of agreement or
disagreement with the statement. Provide short written responses to questions 6 – 10 (use back of sheet if
you need more room).
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Unsure Agree

1. After hearing today’s presentation, I understand the

importance of gathering information about dragonflies and
damselflies (Odonata) in Wisconsin in order to better 1 2 3 4 5
protect them and their habitats

2. Today’s presentation motivated me to want to learn more

about dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata)
1 2 3 4 5

3. Today’s presentation provided information that motivated

me to want to become involved with the Wisconsin 1 2 3 4 5
Odonata Survey (WOS)

4. Now that I have learned about WOS, I am likely to become

involved in the future
1 2 3 4 5

5. In deciding whether to become involved in WOS, it is

important to me to have a group of people that I could go 1 2 3 4 5
surveying with, as opposed to going alone

6. Are you confident that you could contribute to WOS? What are your concerns?

7. Would you like more training on how to contribute to WOS? Where and when would you like training
to occur?

8. Can you think of places to go to look for Odonata? How far are these places from your home?

9. What can I do to improve my presentation? What topics did you like or dislike?

10. Do you have any additional feedback for me? _________________________________________

Please return this form to the workshop host. Thank you!

 Appendix B 61

Dragonfly Presentation Survey Follow-up

Thank you for attending the Presentation on Dragonflies and Damselflies held on _________________

at _____ _____________________________________ and for agreeing to take part in this survey.

This survey will help us improve our presentations and workshops. Please complete the survey and

return it anonymously in the stamped and self-addressed envelope provided.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Unsure Agree

1. Would you say that you agree or disagree that it is

important to gather information about dragonflies and
1 2 3 4 5
damselflies (Odonata) in Wisconsin in order to better
protect them and their habitats?

Less More
Interested No change Interested

2. Since attending the presentation on dragonflies and

damselflies, have you become more or less interested 1 2 3 4 5
in them than before the presentation?

Did some Visited some Went outdoors

reading websites looking

3. Since attending the presentation on dragonflies and

damselflies, what, if anything, have you done to learn   
more about them? (check any that apply)

Not at Somewhat A lot

All More More

4. Since attending the presentation on dragonflies and

damselflies, have you begun to watch them more 1 2 3 4 5
carefully than you used to?

5. If yes, have you found good places to look for dragonflies and damselflies? About how far have
you traveled to these places?

- Survey continues on backside -

 62

6. Have you gone dragonflying by yourself or with others (describe)?

___________________________________________________________________________________

Not at All Once or Twice Three or more

Times

7. Since attending the presentation on dragonflies and

damselflies, have you visited the Wisconsin Odonata   
Survey website?

8. Since attending the presentation on dragonflies and

damselflies, have you contributed records to the   
Wisconsin Odonata Survey?

Very Very
Unlikely Unsure Likely

9. If you have not yet become involved with the Wisconsin

Odonata Survey, how likely is it that you might still 1 2 3 4 5
become involved in the future?

10. What are the main reasons why you have not, or might not, become involved in the Wisconsin
Odonata Survey? (check all that apply):

A). I don’t have enough time B). I don’t have enough interest

C). It sounds too expensive D). I’m not sure if my data would be used

E). It sounds too difficult F). I don’t know any other people to go with

G). Other (describe): _______________________________________________________

11. What could I have done differently during my presentation that would have made learning about
dragonflies easier for you, or becoming involved in the Wisconsin Odonata Survey more appealing?

___________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your time!

 63

Appendix C

Follow-up Survey Cover Letter

Jim Doyle, Governor Superior Service Center

Matthew J. Frank, Secretary 1401 Tower Avenue
John Gozdzialski, Regional Director Superior, Wisconsin 54880
Telephone 715-392-7988
FAX 715-392-7993

July 22, 2010

Mr. John Doe

1 Maple Street
Anytown, WI 55555

Dear Mr. Doe:

About six weeks ago you attended a presentation I gave on the ecology and identification of
dragonflies and damselflies in Wisconsin and how citizens can become involved in helping to
monitor them. Following that presentation, you filled out a card indicating that you would be
willing to complete a follow-up questionnaire. Enclosed you will find the questionnaire and a
stamped, self-addressed envelope for you to use to return it me. As with the first questionnaire
that you completed immediately after the presentation, it is valuable to my study that you not
sign your name on this questionnaire, so that you will remain anonymous along with the other
participants.

I appreciate your taking a few moments to be part of this study. I believe the results will be very
useful in planning future citizen science programs. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Robert B. DuBois
Aquatic Ecologist

dnr.wi.gov
wisconsin.gov Printed on
Recycled
Paper
 64

Appendix D

First Survey Responses by Outreach Site

Question 6: Are you confident that you can contribute to WOS? What are your concerns?

KMSP
1). Probably, but would need to stay close to home (live in Kettle Moraine area)
2). Yes, habitat saving
3). Yes
4). Yes. Number of species I could identify with confidence is limited

LNVA
1). Not very – need more knowledge
2). I live here during the summer and am interested in helping observe then
3). Not yet

KEMP
1). Yes
2). Unsure
3). We would love to, but reside in IL
4). Ability to capture specimens and ID correctly
5). Yes
6). I came tonight to learn about dragon/damsels and you did a good job of teaching me
7). No – too much on my plate already – I need more time to do everything I want to do

NRFO
1). Yes
2). Yes
3). Yes

BCNC
1). Time
2). Some help with identification
3). Time management
4). Maybe – just a beginner
5). Website
6). Not able to identify them yet
7). I believe I could contribute but am concerned about time constraints
8). No issues
9). Yes, ease of data sharing

HHAS
1). Yes
2). I am not sure I have the time
3). Yes, I’d need more practice in specific species ID though
 65

Appendix E

First Survey Responses by Outreach Site

Question 7: Would you like more training on how to contribute to WOS? Where and when
would you like training to occur?

KMSP
1). Yes, but prefer self study, such as through internet
2). Unsure
3). Ice Age (referring to Ice Age Visitor Center)
4). No, I’ll just check out the website and get help then if I need it

LNVA
1). Week day – any spring / summer month
2). Next summer

KEMP
1). Yes
2). Unsure
3). Yes, Boulder – Minocqua area
4). Yes, during summer time
5). Northwoods area
6). Yes, Kemp Station would work
7). Yes, here at Kemp – early spring
8). No
9). Not at this time
10). Perhaps in area

NRFO
1). West central WI. Late spring – early summer
2). Definitely!
3). Yes, in state

BCNC
1). Yes, near Eau Claire
2). More field trips
3). Yes, at Beaver Creek
4). Yes, Beaver Creek Reserve Citizen Science Center
5). Yes

HHAS
1). Yes, right now I’m unsure what contributing to WOS would entail
2). Perhaps in the future (2-3 years)
3). Yes, minimally an online PowerPoint or webcast is helpful. Any programs with field time,
like today, are invaluable
 66

Appendix F

First Survey Responses by Outreach Site

Question 8: Can you think of places to go to look for Odonata? How far are these places from
your home?

KMSP
1). Yes – all around, swamps and kettle ponds “in my back yard”
2). Yes, ponds and gardens on property – 500 feet
3). Ponds (another illegible word)
4). Definitely ... near & far

LNVA
1). Cabin on a lake – Eau Claire Chain - Barnes
2). Lake Nebagamon
3). My little lake

KEMP
1). Yes, one mile
2). Lakes - miles
3). 100 yards
4). Flowages, like Turtle – 15-20 miles
5). 10-15 minutes
6). Trout Lake and surrounding lakes, Escanaba or other research lakes – about ½ hour – 45 min.
7). Yes, very close
8). My dock and shoreline
9). We own property on a lake and on a river, so we get to see lots of dragon and damselflies
10). Yes – very near
11). On our lake - Mid

NRFO
1). Ponds and rivers near home
2). One to 15 miles
3). Yes, we can, about 5 miles away from our home
4). Yes, close

BCNC
1). Yes, within 5 miles
2). Yes, 5 miles
3). Yes – back yard and lake 2 miles and streams within one mile
4). Lakeshore in front of our house
5). Yes - near
6). Yes – just down the block is a small wet meadow
7). Uncertain
8). Yes, 0-200 miles
 67

HHAS
1). Rice Lake, Stump Lake, Red Cedar River – very close
2). Namekagon River / Yellow River
3). Yes, 15-20 miles
4). Any river/lake area would be good. There are several within 15 minutes from my home
 68

Appendix G

First Survey Responses by Outreach Site

Question 9: What can I do to improve my presentation? What topics did you like or dislike?

KMSP
1). Great as is! Good at getting participation
2). Awesome presentation – very knowledgeable
3). Nothing Perfect!
4). Very enjoyable ... great photos and ecology insights

LNVA
1). I thought it was excellent!
2). Detailed information about life cycle of dragonflies/damselflies. Now interested in keeping
nymphs to watch them hatch into adults.
3). Like all of it

KEMP
1). Everything was great
2). Very good as is! Possibly more specimens
3). Film of emergence
4). Really excellent as is
5). Like how you showed and explained about body structures
6). Wonderful – Perfect- Keep providing public education
7). Loved the presentation – thanks!
8). Would like a few more specifics on distinguishing but understand w/over 160 – where do you
start?
9). More pictures of identified species
10). You were very clear and I learned much
11). Not mention you feed worms to nymphs!! (a light-hearted comment as this person raises
worms)
12). Not much – it was awesome – but maybe more about habits of the critters
13). It was good – informative and not too long.

NRFO
1). Love the diagrams
2). Enjoyed all topics
3). We liked everything! We would have liked to hear more about the WOS
4). Very good
 69

BCNC
1). It was all terrific
2). Outdoor presentation is good as well as indoor PowerPoint (person had been to a PowerPoint
talk also)
3). I learned a lot
4). Best & ethical practices
5). I liked it all! Loved the posterboard diagrams
6). Very nice presentation

HHAS
1). Great use of illustrations, Odonata specimens, clear descriptions
2). Very interesting – good leveled presentation. Kept all ages interested
3). Very interesting! Loved the diagrams and pictures
4). I don’t know that we really talked about why monitoring dragonflies is important. What does
their presence mean in an area?
 70

Appendix H

First Survey Responses by Outreach Site

Question 10: Do you have any additional feedback for me?

KMSP
1). Not at this time.
2). Thanks much -
3). Thank you for your time! Appreciate you.
4). Thanks!

LNVA
1). You did a great job.
2). Super!

KEMP
1). I will pay more attention to dragonflies in my yard in Chicago
2). Speaker was clear and very informative
3). Keep up good work
4). Film!!
5). Excellent presentation and liked incorporation of question and answer session
6). Your presentation was great
7). Excellent presentation, demeanor and time
8). Just – Great Job – Thank you
9). Keep on spreading the knowledge. We appreciate it!
10). Great job! Truly enjoyed it

NRFO
1). More about using guides
2). A little more physical instruction at sites -
3). Thank you!

BCNC
1). Good presentation with field ID
2). Thank you -
3). No
4). Keep up the great work!
5). No
6). I’d like to see a better description of appropriate attire for field work. Otherwise, Good Job!!

HHAS
1). Thanks so much!
2). I’m not sure if your last name was mentioned.
 71

Appendix I

Second Survey Responses by Outreach Site

Question 5: If yes, have you found good places to look for dragonflies and damselflies? About
how far have you traveled to these places?

KMSP
1). ~ 50 miles.
2). Mauthe Lake – 5 miles; Manitowoc School Forest – 1.5 hours; my own marsh – 900 feet.
3). Best place is my own back yard!

LNVA
1). Yes. Just to my lake shoreline!
2). Lake waterfront – 4 city blocks.
3). Back yard.
4). Right in front of my cabin on the shore of Lake Dowling!

KEMP
1). Just observed more closely.
2). Back yard pond and nearby woods.
3). Just became more aware on my own dock and gardens.
4). 25 miles – Clinton Lake, Clinton, IL. 50 miles – Streator, IL, next to a cornfield with a pool
nearby.
5). 80 miles.
6). American State Forest (close)
7). My yard.

NRFO
1). North woods around lakes, etc., in my yard, garden. Trying to make garden a habitat.
2). Observations are incidental – walking along edges of corn field – dormant fields – out on
water while fishing.
3). We have been watching much more on outings/family trips; we even were watching them at
Madison, Wisconsin’s all city swim meet! We now keep a butterfly/dragonfly net and specimen
bags in our vehicle when going on our family outdoor trips.
4). Actually I am surprised at how many places they have been.

BCNC
1). 10 miles.
2). 300 miles.
3). 100 miles.
4). 40 miles.
5). Yes – approximately 2 miles.
6). Back yard and area ponds.
 72

HHAS
1). 30 mile range.
2). ~ 20-45 minutes away.
3). Just by our home – Between Rice Lake and Cameron – they are very active in the field
located near our home.
4). I noticed a ton of large green dragonflies the week after the program by/over a newly cut field
of oats.
 73

Appendix J

Second Survey Responses by Outreach Site

Question 11. What could I have done differently during my presentation that would have made
learning about dragonflies easier for you, or becoming involved in the Wisconsin Odonata
Survey more appealing?

KMSP
1). Liked what you did – you really got me interested.
2). I have been going to nature educating programs for over the last 5 years and this was the
Best: large amount of info presented very well. Thank you.
3). Once I went to the website I found answers to all my questions and it was very easy to use.
Just doing it was the only obstacle. Maybe giving folks a business card with the URL, or a
follow-up email to jog their memory later, would help.

LNVA
1). Nothing. It was wonderful and very well presented, and it was nice to be able to ask you
questions!
2). It was excellent!

KEMP
1). It was good.
2). Very interesting and informative – right amount of time for presentation – interesting
displays.
3). Presentation was excellent – lacking nothing. More info on WI Odonata Survey would have
been good – unclear as to its purpose and requirements.
4). Presentation was wonderful – keep it the same! We learned so much from you! You have
inspired three young children to learn more, and simultaneously protect their environment.
Thank you!
5). Nothing. Presentation was great. I just need more hours in a day. I work full time.
6). Being an original fan I always attend naturalist lectures if possible! (yours was B+)! Needed
more room, bigger hall.
7). Presentation is awesome – but could demo website.

NRFO
1). I think the presentation was excellent. I like the hands on experience.
2). We were very pleased with your presentation! We learned a lot and had fun doing it! Thanks
for your time and efforts! Maybe more discussion about the Wisconsin Odonata Survey and
website.
3). We enjoyed your presentation and your enthusiasm for dragonfly research. Thank you.
4). Perhaps a little more thorough on life cycle.
5). Thanks again for an interesting and enjoyable workshop.
 74

BCNC
1). If you could have only separated the waters so we could have gotten down to the river... :-)
2). It would be helpful to me to subscribe to an email list of some sort to provide reminders.
3). Very good presentation.
4). Your presentation refreshes my knowledge and also adds to it. It also puts me in touch with
others interested in it. Most people could care less, especially with the nymphs.
5). I think the weather and high water levels prevented us from learning more, which was outside
of your control. Because I am so new to this – I would have liked more time using a field guide
and having an insect in hand to understand how to find it in the guide. Also, it would have been
helpful to know we should have boots/waders as we had no idea we’d be in swamps, river water,
etc., again because we were so new to this. I still learned a lot and want to learn more and have
done a lot of reading now. -
6). Have live specimens available at the start of the presentation.
7). Presentation was great! – hope that you will come to the area next year. I liked the informal
approach.

HHAS
1). Your presentation was great – my son and I enjoyed the afternoon. Thank you for your time!!
2). The presentation was well done. Maybe more info on what the WI Odonata Survey involves
would help – would we have to ID the dragonflies, etc...
3). It was great!
4). I enjoyed your presentation and think you did a great job. – I didn’t really understand the
Odonata survey – maybe I was dreaming when you explained it or maybe I’ve just forgotten.

View publication stats