This item is only available as the following downloads:
! WHAT IS THE EXTINCTION OF THE CONDOR TO A CHILD WHO HAS NEVER SEEN A WREN? THE EFFECT OF CHARISMATIC MINIFAUNA ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS BY AIDAN BAILEY A THESIS Submitted to the Division of Natur al Sciences New College of Florida In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Arts Under the sponsorship of Professor Sandra Gilchrist Sarasota, Florida May 2012
! ## Dedicated to my mom and dad
! ### Acknowledgement s I would like to thank my sponsor, Professor Sandra Gilchrist, for her guidance, my advisor, Professor Heidi Harley, for her support, Professor Bauer for his advice, Mr. Chapman and Ms. Bodie as well as the teachers and students at Palmer Trinity without whom this study would not have been possible. I would also like to thank Professor Clark, whose support, guidance, and assistance encouraged me to fulfill my academic goals at New College. I would also like to thank my mother and father and sister for their const ant love, support, and help. I'd like to thank Scout, for her love and comfort The thesis process is a difficult one and I would not have been able to complete it without the ever present love, support, and humor of my dear New College friends and family : Faith Benamy, Mallory Fenn, Sherry Haber, Zoe Posner, Francesca Leyva, and James Sheridan.
! #$ Table of Contents Acknowledgements iii ABSTRACT .viii INTRODUCTION ...1 CHARISMATIC MEGA FAUNA ...3 LEARNING STYLES ...37 METHODS 50 RESULTS ..66 DISCUSSION 77 APPENDIX A ...93 APPENDIX B 95 APPENDIX C 9 6 REFERENCES..98
! $ List of Figures Figure 1: Vintage World Wide Fund for Nature Products ............. .. 3 Figure 2 a to f : Animals with ecological charisma are often used in logos ...... ...5 Figure 3: Samples f rom Photographer Jill Greenberg "Monkey Portraits" ....... ..6 Figure 4: Birds, butterflies, and tropical fish ..7 Figure 5: Gray Wolf ( Canis lupus ) .... ..9 Figure 6: Giant Panda at the Vienna Zoo ... 1 0 Figure 7: World Wide Fund for Nature Logo Designed by Peter Scott 11 Figure 8: International Fund for Animal Welfare Elephant conservation campaign ... 12 Figure 9: Coca Cola campaign for Polar Bear/Climate Change 2011 and Ecoeduca campaig n....... ..................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 10: The two variations of coca cola polar bear cans ...... 13 Figure 11: Invertebrates are often neglected in the selecti on of charismatic megafauna ..14 Figure 12: Species Diversity Ranking based on the number of species within a class .15 Figure 13: Female Monarch Butterfly ...16 Figure 14: Various Conservation Campaigns that feature charismatic megafauna ... 18 Figure 15: Coral Reefs...23 Figure 16: Male and female Stag Beetles..25 Figure 17: Stag Beetle Conservation Poster, stag beetle designed by Peter Scott 25 Figure 18: Frog life cycle .. 27 Figure 19: Leg, organ, and eye deformities are becoming more common due to pesticide use and other toxins ...28 Figure 20: "36 Malformations of the Order Anura" ..28 Figure 21: Australian Green Tree Frog, Litor ia caerulea ..29 Figure 22 a to d : Examples of positive frog imagery ... 30 Figure 23: "#$%!'()*+(%,*($-!$.!.+$/)!&-'!*$&')00000000 00000000000123 Figure 24 : Panamanian Golden Frog endemic to Panama .32 Figure 25 a to f : Species of native Florida Frogs...........................33
! $# Figure 26 : Invasive Florida Frog and Toad species ...3 4 Figure 27 : Amphibian Art logo during 2008 "Year of the Frog" .. 36 Fig ure 28 a to f : Native Florida frog and toad species .. 55 Figure 29: The bufotoxins excreted from the parotoid gland can be especially dangerous to inquisitive dogs and cats 57 Figure 30: Frog skin is particularly permeable, unlike human skin, making them susc eptible to chemical pollution found in runoff .58 Figure 31: Chytrid, as it is commonly referred to, grows on both adult frogs and tadpoles smothering their permeable skin and killing the host after two weeks .. 60 Figure 32: Label from Organic Pesticide spray bottles 61 Figure 33 a to f : Invasive Species .. 63 Figure 34: Pre test Participation Demograph ics by group, grade, and gender .. 66 Figure 35 : Post test Participant Demograph ics by group, grade, an d gender 69 Figure 36: Median responses to How often do you use the recycling at school?' survey question with standard error bars ... 70 Figure 37: Median responses to do you encourage your friends to be environmentally aware?' su rvey question with standard error bars .. 71 Figure 38: Yes' No' response counts t the survey question Can you identify exotic Florida plants and animals?'... ... 72 Figure 39 : Young visitors enjoying a touch tank exper ience at the Im aginarium in Anchorage, Alaska 8 1
! $## List of Tables Table 1 : Six Principles of Interpretation by Freeman Tilden 39 Table 2 : Grades were split into two groups: Frog and Global ... 51 Table 3 : These questions were evaluated on a likert scale and were asked to both the Frog group and the Global group ...52 Table 4: These 'Yes' 'No' questions were asked to both groups: Frog and Global 53
! $### WHAT IS THE EXTINCTION OF THE CONDOR TO A CHILD WHO HAS NEVER SEEN A WREN? THE EFFECT OF CHARISMATIC MINIFAUNA ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS Aidan Bailey New College of Florida, 2012 ABSTRACT Large exotic mammals, or "charismatic megafauna," have b een the subject of popular campaigns conveying environmental messages with the goal of inspiring pro environmental attitudes, behaviors and support, both political and financial. Examples include the Polar Bear and the World Wildlife Fund's Giant Panda. Ho wever, the species selected are usually mammalian and are less likely to serve as indicator species, under representing the delicate minifauna that is commonly found around us. This study investigates the potential for "charismatic minifauna," attractive, small, common local animals, to generate change in environmental behaviors in high school students. The author compared a minifauna themed program, which focused on frogs as the minifauna species, and a global themed program that was internationally focuse d. Both presentations covered identical environmental problems: invasive species, chemical pollution, and habitat loss. Both presentations incorporated various learning styles, and utilized a hands on lab in which organic pesticide was mixed. Online surv eys were conducted pre presentation and post presentation. The study found only small changes, and did not find a n overall difference between the frog group and the global group. However, the study identified potential opportun ities for further evaluation of the theory particularly, if live species are u s ed in the classroom Professor Sandra Gilchrist Division of Natural Sciences
! INTRODUCTION Senegalese conservationist, Baba Dioum said "In the end, we will only cons erve what we love, we will love only what we understand, and we will understand only what we are taught." (1968, New Delhi India). Every living person is a steward of this planet, and makes an impact no matter how minute it may seem. Without recognizing what surrounds us and how our world works, we are likely not to understand our impact upon the environment. We may treat nature with indifference, and certainly take "things for granted," that the riches of nature will always be endlessly available to us. Environmental education is one component of overall environmental stewar dship. The goal of environmental education is to raise awareness and increase knowledge, to educate students so that they may make informed choices instead of careless and unintentional actions that, multiplied across billions of people, degrade our planet and its inhabitants (NAI, 2007) All good education must provide first, meaningful fact based content and context; and second, use an effective delivery method to convey the material. Environmental education is defined as "A learning process that increas es people's knowledge and awareness about the environment and associated challenges, develops the necessary skills and expertise to address the challenges, and fosters attitudes, motivations, and commitments to make informed decisions and take responsible action." (NAI, 2007). One of the particular challenges facing environmental education is the global character of many environmental issues. Environmental problems may seem abstract and distant, involving dire consequences someplace far away in some forbid ding future that may not
! % seem urgent, relevant, or even interesting to a student sitting in a comfortable American classroom with running water, heat and cooling, and a bucolic playground. Trying to convey that the incremental decision of what to do with an empty soda can or plastic bag, what to spray to get rid of the weeds poking through the brick patio pavers, or picking a pet, can result in significant environmental impacts as a result of the cumulative consequences of millions of these decisions made every day is a teaching challenge. Environmental educators must convey essential science facts including cause and effect, and encourage positive environmental attitudes and behaviors, with the goal of helping students understand the environmental consequ ences of their actions, resulting in informed decisions on environmentally impactful behaviors. This is particularly true in discussions about what an individual can do to help prevent or ameliorate an environmental issue, because many problems require ha rd work on our part. It is not always quick or convenient to recycle, eat less meat, or walk instead of driving a car everyday. Superior environmental education can convey the urgency of environmental issues persuading students to confront the reality tha t these matters are not something distant, they are environmental issues that are affecting their lives now
! & CHARISMATIC FAUNA Charismatic megafauna is broadly defined across many sources as a large, recognizable animal species that enc ourages an emotional response in people (Barney et al., 2005; Caro, 2010; Leader Williams and Dublin, 2000). These charismatic megafauna have, for decades, served as "the face" for environmental campaigns designed to marshal public support confronting a sp ecific environmental threat. A well known example would be the use of the Giant Panda ( !"#$%&'&()*+,#)-,$.) 4! as the logo for the World Wildlife Fund ( Figure 1) encapsulating by the use of that single species the need to save wildlife across the g lobe. This single charismatic megavertebrate was not only ecologically significant in the wild, but also looked good on a poster, coffee cup, and as a plush toy, available for a donation. !"#$%& ( ')"*+,#&'-.%/0'-"0&'!$*0'1 .%'2,+$%&'3%.0$4+5 '6 7++89::;;;<;.%/0;"/0/"1&<.%#:#"1+ = 4&*+&%:>?,#&5:,88,%&/@AB,*0@AB?.%&:.#4CDE?0EF"*+,#&
! it work? Dictionaries define charisma as a special charm or appeal that inspires enthusiasm or devotion (Merriam Webster Dicti onary). The appeal involved here may be referred to as nonhuman charisma. "Nonhuman charisma can best be defined as the distinguishing properties of a nonhuman entity or process that determine its perception by humans and its subsequent evaluation" (Lorime r, 2005, p 915). Lorimer's 2005 work Nonhuman Charisma' is the definitive analysis on the characteristics of nonhuman charisma, which determined that there are three categories of charisma that determine a nonhuman species' appeal generating a positive emotional response in people. These are: ecological charisma, aesthetic charisma, and corporeal charisma. Charismatic animals frequently appeal to more than one type of charisma. Ecological charisma relates to those creatures that are immediately identifi able by humans, because of unique anatomical or behavioral characteristics of the species. Most people recognize an elephant even if they have never see one in "real life" by virtue of the long, trumpeting trunk, ivory tusks, and large flapping ears attac hed to an enormous four legged body. In addition to appearance, behavioral characteristics of a species can give it ecological charisma. For example, the North American Beaver ( /)01&%* .)-)(,-0"0 4 not only builds a home' that is obvious and visible to hum ans, but also lives in family groups. These characteristics can allow for a human to relate to a beaver and subsequently assign an emotion or feeling to it. Charismatic megafauna that have ecological charisma are not only utilized in environmental educatio n and awareness campaigns, like Smokey the Bear (a) ( Figure 2 ) but they are also used in advertising and logo designs such as the Impala (b) Jaguar (c) Firefox logos (d) and are commonly utilized as sports mascots like the St. Louis Rams (e) and Chicag o Bears (f)
! ( !"#$%& A 'I*"?,/5';"+7'&4./.#"4,/'47,%"5?,',%&'.1+&*'$5&0'"*'/.#.5J'6,H'K/,55"4'L?.M&N'+7&'O&,%' 8.5+&%'6 7++89::;;;<15<$50,<#.F:>*+&%*&+:!L PEQPR>I:15?SEBBTUBV
! ) Aesthetic charisma goes beyond ecological charisma by focusing on appearance. Fauna described as "beautiful" cute', ugly', and dangerous'. Even very quirky ap pearing species, such as an anteater or duckbill platypus, can be aesthetically charismatic because they are so peculiar looking that they are attractive. In addition, species that have identifiable anatomical functions similar to humans may possess increa sed aesthetic charisma. People look for faces: for expressive eyes, noses, and mouths (Konrad Lorenz) Apes and monkeys, early charismatic megafauna, as popularized by Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall ( Figure 3 ) are similar to humans in both appearanc e and behavior. !"#$%& V 'L,?8/&5'1%.?'37.+.#%,87&%'Z"//'C%&&*W&%#'bQ.*M&N'3.%+%,"+5b 6 7++89::5+,N1%&&<+N8&8,0<4.?:<,:\,BB0]VUT(1UU 1\S&AB(U]4\X]&4\\SXB4 = ]BB;" H'
! In addition, the simple beauty of an animal can inspire the response, such as in the examples of birds, butterflies, and tropical fish ( Figure 4 ). !"#$%& U O"%05J'W$++&%1/"&5J',*0'+ %.8"4,/'1"579' c&W%,'Y.*#;"*#'O$++&%1/N '6 !"#$%&'$()* %+,-$.+&'$, H 6 7++89::&*<;"M"8&0",<.%#:;"M":!"/&9d&/"4.*"$5E47,%"+7.*",Ee,/0,%"E(E4%.88&0
! + based upon the character of the experience: epiphany corporeal charisma and jouissance corporeal charisma. Epiphany corporeal charisma stems from an interaction or life changing event with a species. Famous ecologist Aldo Leopo ld's encounter with a dying wolf as described in A Sand County Almanac beautifully exemplifies this form of charisma ( Figure 5) : "In those days we had never head of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping lead into the pack Wh en our rifles were empty, the old wolf was downWe reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes something known only to her and th e mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean a hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither wolf nor mountain agreed with such a vi ew." (page 130 1949)
! !"#$%& T 'C% N'-./1' 6 5,'$)*#(1() H' 6 7++89::&*<;"M"8&0",<.%#:;"M":!"/&9d.;/5*.;
! "! T hese various aspects of nonhuman charisma identify which species are most likely to inspire support from humans, and a corresponding expression of that value through campaigns and donations This marketing insight resulted in the development of ecolog ical campaigns based upon charismatic megafauna. The most famous example of a charismatic megafauna species that embodies the various charismas is the Giant Panda ( Figure 6 ) of the World Wildlife Fund (logo designed by environmentalist Peter Scott ; Figure 7 ). Not only is it ecologically charismatic with its unique Chinese mountain bamboo only diet, but also it is also aesthetically charismatic, often described as cuddly' or cute'. This species is not only mammalian, like humans, but also ha s a face. The Giant Panda is also corporeally charismatic, having both epiphany charisma, perhaps stemming from an encounter in a zoo, but also having high jouissance charisma due to its rareness in both the wild and in captivity. China has capitalized on the charisma of its pandas by using "panda loans" as a tool for international diplomacy, and zoos have recognized that pandas make cash registers ring (Wilson et al., 2003). !"#$%& \ 'C",*+'3,*0,',+'+7&')"&**,'c.. 6 7++89::&*<;"M"8&0",<.%#:;"M":!"/&9C",*+E8,*0,E,+E)"&**,Ec..E@A]4%.88&0@AS
! "" !"#$%& X '-.%/0'-"0&'!$*0'1.%'2,+$%&'Y.#.'R&5"#*&0'WN'3&+&%'L4.++ 6 7++89::$8/.,0<;"M"?&0",<.%#:;"M"8&0",:&*:+7$?W:A:AU:--!E/.#.<5F#:A\V8[ = --!E/.#.<5F# <8*# H' These species are "popular, charismatic species that serve as symbols and rallying points to stimulate conservation awareness and action" (Heywood, 1995, page 491). Whether through public support of a conservation campaign or through monetary su pport of the conservation of a species, the support can be significant. This can be very useful for single species conservation, where a campaign may focus on bringing an important species back from the verge of extinction, such as the California condor ( 45+-&65'0* .)#"7&%-")-$0 4! or African Elephant ( 8&9&(&-1)*)7%".)-) 4 !5 6(/,+7 !84 The underlying corollary assumed that some conservation was better than no conservation and that by saving the charismatic megafauna, the species that shared the same ecosystem would benefit. The charismatic megafauna would function as umbrella species, playing to the trickle down' or umbrella species method of conservation. The African Elephant is a prime example of how trickle down conservation can work in some circumstances The conservation movement in the 1980s to protect the African Elephant led to the foundation of many African wildlife sanctuaries which not only protected the African Elephant but
! "% other species as well ( Western, 19 87; Western, 1982 ). Wh ile there are certainly examples of the trickle down conservation theory working for populations, such as the African Elephant, and, here in Florida, the American Alligator ( !##"6)1&%* +"00"00"''",-0"0 4 the assumption was not studied prior to using the met hodology as a basis for environmental campaigns. !"#$%& ] '>*+&%*,+".*,/'!$*0'1.%'I*"?,/'-&/1,%&'P/&87,*+'4.*5&%F,+".*'4,?8,"#* 6 7++89::;;; <&4.%,^^"<4.?:AB(A:BV:A(:(B = ,;&5.?& = &*F"%.*?&*+,/ = ,05: H' Throughout the environmental campaigns of the 1980's and 1990's emphasis continued on charismatic megafauna. In 1988, Mittermeier suggested, c harismatic megavertebrates are still the best vehicl es for conveying the entire issue of conservation to the public." One of the ways conservation organizations raise awareness for a charismatic megafaunal species and environmental issues is through print, particularly
! "& nature magazines. A survey of species featured on United States nature magazine covers from 1994 to 2006 found that the most featured species were not only mammalian but large predators: wolves, grizzly bears, polar bears, cougars, and tigers topped the list (Clucas et al 2008). Even today, th e polar bear has become the face of global warming through such programs as Coca Cola ( Figure 9 10 ) and World Wide Fund for Nature arctic conservation campaign which says "save the arctic home of the polar bear ( :%0$0* +)%"1"+$0 4 !"#$%& S 'K.4, = K./, '4,?8,"#*'1.%'3./,%'O&,%:K/"?,+&'K7,*#&'AB((',*0'P4.&0$4,'4,?8,"#*' 7++89::8./,%W&,%5<+7&4.4, = 4./,4.?8,*N<4.?:8./,%W&,%5$88.%+1$*0:"*0&[
! "' However, flaws in this approach began to appear. The selection of species for a campaign has historically been biased towards larger mammals. First, as noted by famed H arvard biologist E. O. Wilson, it is "the little things that run the world" (1987). McCormick (1985) initially called charismatic megafauna by the name charismatic megavertebrates' in one of the earliest discussions of the concept in the Newsweek article, "Saving Charismatic' Animals". This bias eliminates less appealing invertebrates, as well as plants, fungi, bacteria, and protists even though these phyla are far more populous than mammals in terms of species diversity ( Figure 11, 12 ). !"#$%& (( '>*F&%+&W%,+&5',%&'.1+&*'*/&4+&0'"*'+7&'5&/&4+".*'.1'47,%"5?,+"4'?,1,$*, 6 7++89::"*F&%+5<;7."<&0$:5"+ &5:"*F&%+5<;7."<&0$:1"/&5:"?,#&5:h4+.8"@AB-,//@ABL+%&&+<8%& F"&;
! "( !"#$%& (A 'L8&4"&5'R"F&%5"+N'D,*M"*#'W,5&0'.*'+7&'*$?W&%'.1'58&4"&5';"+7"*','4/,55<'>+'"5' ,88,%&*+'+7,+'"*F&%+&W%,+&5'7,F&'+7&';"0&5+'58&4"&5'0"F&%5 "+N'6+7.$#7'"+'57.$/0'W&'*.+&0'+7,+' ?,%"*&'"*F&%+&W%,+&5',%&'*.+'"*4/$0&0H '87.+.'4.$%+&5N'.1'Q"47,&/'O&00,// 6 7++89::;;;"M&5W/&*0&%<4.?:#%,87"40&5"#* = 58&4"&5 = "*1.#%,87"4
! ") may be heavily impacted by environmental issues. Examples of non mammal charismatic species are limited, however, one good example is the beautiful Monar ch butterfly ( ;)-)$0*'#,9"''$0< ( Figure 13 ). !"#$%& (V '!&?,/&'Q.*,%47'O$++&%1/N'87.+.'+,M&*'WN'e&**&+7'R;,"*'d,%%&/5.* 6 7++89::&*<;"M"8&0",<.% #:;"M":!"/&9Q.*,%47E>*EQ,N
! "* research suggests a very modest correlation between environmental recovery and charismatic megafauna. They note that the research neces sary to compile a database with all of the information necessary to identify an effective surrogate species, or flagship species that is intended to be used in the trickle down/umbrella species method, is expensive and requires man power, time, and funding that may not be feasible for planning campaigns. Therefore decisions on charismatic megafauna species that are meant to act as umbrella species as well, may be hastily designated without the research necessary to determine if the species selected will ind eed have the benefits of its conservation affect the other species that are supposed to be under its umbrella of conservation. The study suggests that using a species with broad distribution in a conservation area may be a more environmentally sound appr oach than using charismatic megafauna. Once a database is compiled and algorithms are run to determine which species' conservation would provide the most umbrella for other species, the final species may not be charismatic' (Andelman and Fagan 2000). The re is also a corresponding accounting problem with the use of charismatic megafauna. Money raised in support of a specific charismatic megafauna species cannot ethically be diverted in support of other species, even though their need within the same ecosy stem may be more critical. As pointed out in the Economist business magazine in a discussion about ecological "branding" in January 7, 2008 "The so called charismatic megafauna giant panda, tigers, mountain gorillas, African elephants and blue wh ales, to name but a few have become well known brands that when used in emotive advertising, [by conservation organizations] bring in the conservation dollars ( Figure 14 )
! "+ !"#$%& (U ),%".$5'K.*5&%F,+".*'K,?8,"#*5'+7,+'1&,+$%&'47,%"5?,+"4'?,1,$*,9' R",*'!.55&N' C.%"//,'!$*0 '6 7++89::;;;<"*1.%?,+"45<.%#:#.%"//,:/.#.<#"1 HJ 'I1%"4,*'P/&87,*+'4.*5&%F,+".*' 4,?8,"#* '6 7++89::T\B( = *&;5;,+47
! ", Unfortunately, the average American is far more likely to encounter charismatic megafauna through television or media They may encounter them in captivity with corresponding constraints on natural behavior and the limits of the collection. Perhaps, if weal thy, they may pursue jouissance charisma through an African safari, or take part in other ecotourism to see the animal in its natural habitat. Every year 175 million individuals attend zoos and aquariums (AZA, 2008) I f individuals are encounterin g these species in person at zoos or aquaria this presents two problems. First, not all zoos have the campaign species. It is the lucky zoo that houses a Giant Panda, given their scarcity. Zoo locations and facility limitations may also affect availab ility. It can also be expensive to sustain arctic animals in tropical climates (Robert and Fiby, 2010). In addition, the environmental issues are generally not reflected in the conditions at the facility but rather must be explained. Information about t he species and its challenges as well as conservation messages are often presented through signage (Serrell and Adams, 1998) or sometimes through zoo keeper presentations However, if individuals do not read the signage, they may miss the conservation message or information about where to find further resources and return home without any sense of personal investment in the conservation issue. Even i f individuals do read the signage, the conservation focus may be related to the display animal, though th is may vary from facility to facility, due to space, content limitations on signage, and expenses necessary to update signage, as opposed to addressing the other species that are affected in the same area by the same ecosystem issues (Fuhrman and Howard, 2 008). Though zoos, aquaria, and other environmental education venues may now implement a variety of education tools such as
! %! webcams, podcasts, and telephone information, the individual must find these resources on their own accord Many facilities u s e live video feed of various exhibits in hopes of broadening audiences, like the National Zoo's popular Panda Cam ( http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/GiantPandas/default.cfm?cam=LP1 ) and Monterey Bay Aquarium's Open Ocean Cam ( http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/efc/efc_opensea/open_sea_cam.aspx ). Many environmental education venues also offer podcasts that are plentiful in information. However, ind ividuals must be aware that such resources exist and zoos need to have reliable technology to be able to consistently provide this resource. It is also worth noting that these resources may be very useful to a variety of individuals with various learning s tyles and needs (Sivin Kachala and Bialo, 2000). A comprehensive study of internet and computer use in classrooms conducted by Wells and Lewis (2006) found that computer and internet access has increased in schools since 1995 as well as an increased resou rces available to educators on how to integrate technology into the classroom (Gray et al., 2010). This access is helpful to educators by providing additional resources and constantly updating information. However, a study conducted in France (Ballouard et al., 2011; citing similar studies conducted in Italy, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Nepal, and Turkey) found that students valued exotic "virtual" species over their own local species. Students species conservation priorities were guided by conservation messages presented through media, specifically the internet, leading to students considering large, charismatic megafauna, to be a higher conservation priority rather than the conservation of their local environments. Simultaneously Wells and Lewis
! %" (2006) as well as Feldman et al. (2000) assert that in recent years internet based learning has become an important educational tool while field trips are considered a peripheral tool. This combination of media favoritism towards charismatic megafaun a and reliance on the media skews conservation ideals and may not emphasize the importance of local conservation. In sum, seeing a tiger at the zoo tells a spectator very little about wildlife trafficking, invasive species, climate change, and habitat lo ss. A major tenet of interpretation states "Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or described to something within the personality or experience of the visitor will be sterile" ( T ilden Table 1 19 57 ). By failing to relate the experience with the animal to direct behavioral information to the visitor, or by failing to provide a means of action, an opportunity is lost. There are only 67 polar bears in North American zoos ( Polar bear I nt ernational 2012 http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ ) It is may difficult to link the poor environmental behaviors of a Florida student who has never seen a live Polar Bear the flagship spe cies for climate change awareness, to the effect clima te change has on the species Whereas the effect of climate change on a more familiar local species that directly experiences the consequences of poor environmental behavior may be more effective at transmitting appropriate environmental messages. The emotional value placed on an exotic animal may be disassociated from the need to change backyard environmental behaviors as found in Ballouard and colleagues (2011) The thesis project was created to wrestle with the benefits of the charismatic megafauna appeals along with the faults of their limitations in designing the educational programs. The large charism atic vertebrates paint a picture of conservation that is
! %% selective of primarily the cute' and majestic' large mammals (with the exception of bald eagles) (Lunney, 2012). The charismatic megafauna concept short changes species that may be small and e xperience ecological and environmental change long before the large mammals do. In a study conducted by Barney and colleagues (2005) assessing attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge about common bottlenose dolphin ( =$%0"&'0*1%$-.)1 $ 0 4 (a classic char ismatic megafauna species) they found that "differences in knowledge and attitudes were also reflected in participants' behavior toward dolphins. Our most knowledgeable and environmentally responsible participants were much less likely to engage in disrupt ive or potentially harmful harassment behavior" (page 52). The participants' knowledge about a species and environmental awareness positively effected their behaviors towards that species by not only being respectful of an organism the individuals now knew more about, but also placing more value on the species, which is an idea that could be applied to charismatic minifauna in a similar way. Using charismatic "minifauna", ha s the potential to remedy the problems charismatic megafauna foster in conservati on. Mammals as a whole are representative of fewer species than classes that include far more species such as fish, reptiles, amphibians, and especially invertebrates. By using small, charismatic, ecologically significant species and a bottom up' conserva tion method as opposed to the trickle down method, the conservation effects of a successful campaign could be spread over a wider area of distribution and across the wider presence of the "Other 97%". The small species are harder hit by environmental chan ge such as small shifts in the climate or changes in water quality. For example, while many individuals may be aware of the affect that climate change is having on coral reefs, they may not fully comprehend that the change of a few
! %& degrees increase in wat er temperature causes millions of coral colonies to die. Apart from beautiful reefs being reduced to bleached skeletons; marine plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates have to contend with the spread of marine diseases and upheaval in the reef's ecological structure (Harvell et al., 1999) ( Figure 15) !"#$%& (T K.%,/'%&&159' !/N**'D&&1' 6 7++89::&*<;"M"8&0",<.%#:;"M":!"/&9 K.%,/Eh$+4%.8E!/N**ED&&1
! %' educated about environmental climate change before it became an issue that melts polar ice caps and drastically affects larger species such as the polar bear. Charismatic minifauna must also be accessible. As author Robert Michael P yle said what is the extinction of a condor to a child who has never known a wren? (page 146 147, 1993). Foreign charismatic megafauna, such as the polar bear, may be difficult for a South Florida student to relate to. It is important to select species t hat are both relatable world wide (such as frogs which are found on every continent, except Antarctica), and also relatable on a local level, as well as keeping cultural context in mind (Bowen Jones and Entwhistle, 2002). By selecting minifauna that is abundant in the student's home community, it creates opportunities not only to increase environmental knowledge, but also to associate cause and effect on a more immediate and local basis. The minifauna in a student's backyard or schoolyard breathe the same air, use the same water, splash through the same rain, and swelter in the same heat as he or she does. Teachers may be able to more effectively and easily u se the local animals to educate on adverse environmental choices because of a more i mmediate opportunity to demonstrate or discuss cause and effect. Charismatic minifauna can correspond to charismatic megafauna and can be as ecologically significant, provide corresponding benefits to other species, be representative of more species, and b e accessible. To achieve similar success, the minifauna must be considered also be charismatic' by having the various charismas (ecological, aesthetic, epiphany corporeal, and jouissance corporeal). An effective example of an invertebrate charismatic mini fauna is the Stag beetle ( 8$.)-$0*.,%>$0 4 ( Figure 1 6 ), used for Wildlife Watch in London to raise awareness of the ecological
! %( importance of the stag beetle and other deadwood beetles. The stag beetle was given a logo (in which the beetle was given a face Figure 17 ) and popular media promoted its "story." The popularity of the stag beetle gave rise to substantially increased funding for stag beetle surveys and conservation (Lorimer, 2005). !"#$%& (\ 'Q,/&'5+,#'W&&+/& 6 7++89::&*<;"M"8&0",<.%#:;"M":!"/&9Y$4,*$5E4&%F$5E?,/&E+.8EA
! %) In considering options for the thesis subjects, the first challenge was to determine a working definition of minifauna. While it is clear that this term can change over time and with additi onal research, for purposes of testing the educational theory in this case, minifauna was identified as creatures big enough to identify easily with the naked eye, abundant, common, familiar, and small enough and harmless enough to be potentially used in live classroom settings. Additionally, the creature had to be charismatic. The local creature also had to suffer on a local basis from the effects of the same environmental issues as discussed in the global presentation to effectively compare the effe ct of the programs. After considering options, the frog emerged as the standard bearer for charismatic minifauna in this thesis. Frogs serve as an excellent charismatic minifauna exemplar for several reasons. Frogs are ecologically important, acting as an indicator species for their ecosystem. Due to their physiology and life cycle ( F igure 18 ), land resources and water resources must be healthy.
! %* !"#$%& (] '!%.#'/"1&'4N4/&'6 7++89::;;;<"*1.F"5$,/<"*1.:BA:BASE&*<7+?/ H' An unhealthy ecosystem quickly manifests in rapid frog population decline. Frogs, due to a sensitivity to water conditions, rapid lifecycle and high fecundity rate, display deformation or mutation as a result of environmental degradation very quickly. It is not unusual to be able to find frogs with extra non functional legs, no eyes, or other physical abnormalities in backyards across America ( Figure 19 20 ). The frog themed presentati on stressed the importance of frogs in the ecosystem as an indicator species and the role as a species that acted as a natural form of pest control, keeping insect populations under control.
! %+ !"#$%& ( S 'YJ'.%#,*J', *0'&N&'0&1.%?"+"&5',%&'W&4.?"*#'?.%&'4.??.*'0$&'+.'8&5+"4"0&'$5&' ,*0'.+7&%'+.["*5'6!%.#;,+47J'AB(AH' 6 7++89::A
! %, Frogs appeal to the various charismas. They are a recognizable order of amphibians, which have unique characteristics, t hus appealing to ecological charisma. Not only are their adult forms recognizable, but also most individuals can recognize a typical tadpole as well as the life cycle of a frog. Frogs were also selected for their appearance to appeal to aesthetic charisma. Frogs have all the features that make up a face (i.e. eyes, nose', mouth, and ear s') ( Figure 21 ). Another beneficial aesthetic feature frogs have is their limbs. Not only do frogs have four legs, similar to our four limbs, they also have digits. Though these digits are not dexterous like human fingers, they are familiar to us, even if they are webbed. Frogs are also relatively innocuous, having no discernable teeth, thus making them relatively harmless without claws and teeth. !"#$%& A( 'I$5+%,/",*'C%&&*'a%&&'!%.#J' 6$.&-$,*%,"-(#", ''3,F&/'C& %?,*''o'I$5+%,/",*'Q$5&$? 6 7++89::V
! &! Many children develop their perceptions about animals from the media. Frogs are generally positively portrayed as friendly creatures with examples such as (a) Kermit the Frog, (b) Arnold Lobel's Frog and Toad are Friends', (c) Beatrix Potter's Jeremy F isher' character, (d) Mr. Toad from Wind in the Willows', (e) the Frogger' Sega video game, (f) Princess and the Frog' fairytales and the Disney movie based on this fairy tale, Mark Twain's Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County', the song Jeremi ah was a Bullfrog' by Three Dog Night, and many frog characters in pre school learning television programs ( Figure 2 2 ). !"#$%& AA P[,?8/&5'.1'8.5"+"F&'1%.#'"?,#&%N9' 6,H' e&%?"+'+7&'1%.#'4% &,+&0'WN'Z"?'d&*5.*' L+$0".5 '6 7++89::"?,#&5<;"M",<4.?:?$88&+:"?,#&5:X:XS:e&%?"+ = +7& = 1%.#
! &" The abundance of frogs was also heavily considered when making a selection. Frogs are common in South Florida ( Figure 23) !"#$%& AV 'C/.W,/'?,8'.1'1%.#',*0'+.,0'0"5+%"W$+".*'6"*'W/,4MH 6 7++89::$8/.,0<;"M"?&0",<.%#:;"M"8&0",:4.??.*5:+7$?W:S:SV:!%.#E0"5+%"W$+".*<8*#:AUB 8[ = !%.#E0"5+%"W$+".*<8*# H' Frogs can be seen, usually at night sitting by a window waiting for insects to fly to the window attracted by the ligh t emitted from indoors. Even to the unobservant, the presence of frogs is made known by virtue of their evening chirps, calls, and choruses especially after a rain In the frog presentation the only foreign frog species that was used was the Panamanian Golden Fro g ( Atelopus zeteki ) ( Figure 24 ), to discuss how damaging chytridiomycota is to frog species.
! &% !"#$%& AU '3,*,?,*",*'C./0&*'!%.#'&*0&?"4'+.'3,*,?,J'87.+.'WN'O%",*'C%,+;"4M& 6 7++89::$8/.,0<;"M"?&0",<.%#:;"M"8&0",:4.??.*5:+7$?W:T:TT:I+&/.8$5E^&+&M"(
! && !"#$%& AT 'L8&4"&5'.1' *,+"F&'!/.%"0,' 1%.# 5 '1%.?'%"#7+'+.'/&1+9' 6,H' P,5+&%*'L8,0&1..+'+.,0 6 7++89::;;;<%&8+"/&5*4%"++&%5<4.?:"?,#&5:%$/,%:&,5+&%* = 58,0&1..+ = +.,0
! &' After analysis, the environmental issues chosen for discussion in the programs were: invasive species, chemical pollution and habit at loss. These issues were subject to effective analysis on a local level using frogs. In discussing invasive species in the frog program, the pervasive South Florida invaders the Bufo Toad (otherwise known as the Cane or Marine Toad) and the Cuban Tree f rog served as very direct and familiar examples ( Figure 26 ). !"#$%& A\ >*F,5"F&'!/.%"0,'!%.#',*0'a.,0'58&4"&59' O$1.'a.,0 6 7 ++89::1/,+%.4M<.%#<*^:5+,+"4:1%.*+8,#&:,55&+5:,*"?,/5:4,*&E+.,0
! &( Finally, in selecting a charismatic minifauna species one cannot only look at species that are ecologically significant and charismatic; it is vital that the species, or even order such as frogs and toads (or indeed the entire class such as amphibians) require conservation efforts. The IUCN Red List (2008) includes over 6,000 species of amphibians that have been discovered and over a third of these species has experienced severe decline in population or is threatened with extinction The environmental changes that are affecting amphibians worldwide as enumerated by Beebee and Griffith (2005) and Blaustein and Kiesecker (2002) are: "habitat destruction and exploitation, climate change, incr easing level of ultraviolet radiation, environmental contamination, disease, and the introduction of non native species". All of these environmental changes, which are thought to be contributing factors to declines in amphibian populations, are affecting o ther classes of organisms. These environmental issues are all environmental topics that many conservation organizations hope to alleviate or eliminate. Several of these environmental issues (introduced non native species, environmental contamination, and h abitat loss) were discussed in both the frog program developed for this thesis, emphasizing the environmental changes frogs are experiencing and how they relate and are of consequence to humans. These same topics were also discussed in the global presentat ion, which included topics as a global issue and how they relate to humans. Another factor in selecting frogs as my charismatic minifauna species was some of the conservation work that emphasized the importance of frogs. The Association of Zoos and Aquari ums christened the year 2008 as The Year of the Frog' highlighting the importance of both frogs and amphibians and instituting a citizen science program called Frog Watch ((http://www.aza.org/frogwatch/). Project Frog W atch is a national Citizen
! &) Sci ence initiative, which offered the opportunity to directly participate in frog conservation issues. Other foundations such as Amphibian Ark ( http://www.amphibianark.org/ ) are concerned with amphibians of man y varieties with the slogan keeping threatened amphibians afloat' (Amphibian Ark, 2012) ( Figure 27 ) Zoo exhibits featuring amphibians, particularly frogs, were permanently founded at the National Zoo, Tampa Lowry Park Zoo, Jacksonvi lle Zoo, and Forth Worth Zoo E ven Disney Animal Kingdom features exhibits stressing the importance of this class of organisms and their plight. !"#$%& AX 'I?87"W",*'I%+'/.#.'0$%"*#'ABB]'bk&,%'.1'+7&'!%.#b
! &* LEARN ING STYLES Th is thesis project focused on testing the hypothesis that using local environmental examples would result in a more engaged student. The rationale is that this engaged student would then make more sensitive environmental behavior choices. By using a common animal, the frog, students would better appreciate local fauna and flora, and become more engaged in the local consequences of environmental decision making and the responsibilities of stewardship. Environmental education is critical in sc hool curricul a because it may be the first opportunity students have to learn about their environment. Environmental education generally occurs in two formats: formal education which is curriculum based, factual instruction in the involuntary cla ssroom setting; and interpretive education, referred herein as interpretation, which generally occurs i n situ in a voluntary context of activities involving scouts, camp, zoos, or parks. In formal education, particularly in middle and high school, schools generally segregate science topically. Florida's Sunshine state standards and high school graduation requires a year of earth science, biology, chemistry, and physics for separate years. For example, a typical student will have a year of biology discussin g life forms and processes; a year of chemistry discussing the building blocks and chemical processes of our world; or a year of physics about how physical forces work. Understanding ecosystems requires education across these arbitrary subject matter deli neations. For example, t o understand forest ecology may require knowledge of the geologic substrate, the weather and the effect on plants and animals, the chemical process of decomposition
! &+ of fallen trees and fungi, and the physics of mountainside land er osion. However, the classroom is where many students are first introduced to the environment in a factual way, typically in lecture based format due to time and facility constraints ( Florida Deparment of Education, 2011; Gerber et al., 2010; Sunshi ne State Standards, 2008; Powell, 2003; Gibson and Chase, 2002). Unlike interpretation, which leads the audience to revelation of a larger topic, environmental education states the facts. Practically speaking, the classroom with its captive audience may be the first place to attempt to stimulate interest in environmental topics and plant the seeds for environmental behavioral change (Bradley et al., 1999; Kellert 1985). By contrast, in interpretation, a teacher or facilitator offers "a mis sion based communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the interests of the audience and the meaning inherent in the resource" (NAI, 2007). Interpretation takes place generally in the setting of the subject of the educa tion, usually outdoor s (Ham, 1993). The visitor has usually chosen to come to the location and chosen exposure to the program since the education is in an informal setting, an example of this may be attending a national park and electing to listen to a ran ger speak about conservation issues the park faces, however there is no coercing a patron to hear the ranger though children may have little say in how time is spent at a park Therefore, most interpretative education is elective education as it is up t o the patron's choice whether they want to participate. For example, in a tour or educational presentation in a national park, a visitor can attend the full scheduled presentation, wander up for part, or simply enjoy the park independently. In addi tion, interpreters may be stationed at various
! &, key areas for informal inquiry. Typically, interpretation takes place near or at a site relevant to the topic being discussed ( Beck and Cable, 2002 ). This makes the spectacle and unique chara cter of natural wonders a traditional location of interpretation, though zoos, aquariums, museums and historical sites all offer interpretation as well. Even entertainment venues such as Disney's Animal Kingdom u se interpretation to educate p atrons through interpretation and informal learning (Disney Interpretation Handbook, 2009). The United States National Park Service fostered initial development of interpretation as an educational technique, with the goal of fostering public interest and support for America's national parks. During the 1940's, Freeman Tilden developed the six principles of good interpretation to guide the development of programs within the parks (Table 1). a,W/&' ( 'L"['3%"*4"8/&5'.1'>*+&%8%&+,+".*'W N'!%&&?,*'a"/0&* '6 (STX H 1. Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or described to something within the personality or experience of the visitor will be sterile. 2. Information, as such, is not Interpretation. Interpretation i s revelation based upon information. But they are entirely different things. However all interpretation includes information. 3. Interpretation is an art, which combines many arts, whether the materials presented are scientific, historical or architectural. Any art is in some degree teachable. 4. The chief aim of Interpretation is not instruction, but provocation. 5. Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part, and must address itself to the whole man rather than any phase. 6. Interpretation addressed to children (say up to the age of twelve) should not be a dilution of the presentation to adults, but should follow a fundamentally different approach. To be at its best it will require a separate program.
! '! Interpretation suggests that by brin ging information and history to life, making it accessible to patrons, and sparking an interest; one can change the way an audience member views the resource and may even change their mind, or even their heart, to encourage personal behavior informed by a value system which appreciates that resource and ultimately, to be more environmentally minded T o develop effective environmental education for this study, the lesson plan incorporated the principles of interpretation with the basic s of formal e ducation. Environmental education and interpretation both seek to teach facts and at the same time impact values in a manner calculated to alter and change a behavior of the audience, whether it encourages someone to buy a more eco friendly car or just re cycle, it is the c hange in behavior that is the desired outcome. Environmental education espouses similar goals such as "pro environmental behavior" but expands beyond traditional book learning' to include addressing attitudes and behaviors as well as k nowledge (Chan, 1998, page 12). It is a challenge to make the factual lesson relevant, important and motivational. Imagination, and ingenuity are necessary to try to utilize the skills of interpretation and to offer the information in the way most accessi ble and meaningful to the students. There are several studies that offer guidance about effective environmental education. Rickinson conducted a metanalysis published in 2001 Learners and Learning in Environmental Education.' The purpose of the study was to review the body of literature and studies in environmental education research to identify successes and locate
! '" areas that were ripe for additional study. Rickinson evaluat ed over 100 articles to compile a thorough account of the topics that had been studied as well as the findings of the research. He points out that there are three established categories of analysis that are discussed in the research: "learners' e nvironmental knowledge, learners' environmental attitudes and behaviors, and learners' environmental outcomes" (page 219). The first category of research focuses on students' factual knowledge about the environment, understandings and misunderstandings abo ut the environment, and where young people get their environmental information. These studies tend to agree on two conclusions: first, that it will be necessary for students to understand basic environmental scientific concepts and processes in order to ma ke informed decisions in the future (Gambro and Switzky, 1996, page 28) and second, that students are not blank slates. They come with preconceived ideas, misunderstandings, as well as accurate understandings about the environment as observed through exp erience. Pinpointing where students get this information from will be crucial to the evolution of environmental teaching strategies (Boyes and Stannisstreet, 1996, page 187). Rickinson's comparison of the data found commonalities where factual environment al knowledge was concerned and that across many studies (cited examples include: Roper Starch Worldwide, 1994, Connell et al., 1999, and Ivy et al, 1998) "(1) levels of students' factual knowledge are generally low (2) students' factual knowledge can vary for different environmental topic areas (3) students' environmental factual knowledge appears to vary with several factors" (page 226 8). These external factors include gender, schooling, socio economic grouping, and age, though Rickinson remarks, "for a ll the influencing factors, the evidence is not particularly strong, and there is no statistical data available on the relative
! '% importance of these various factors" ( page 231). This is particularly true in the era of the World Wide Web and the Internet. I n an era where students are natives of technology, information can be shared at great speeds. Without the fundamental understanding necessary to think critically about the information and its potential accuracy the opportunity fo r misinformation has exponentially increased. The environment is a hot topic. Movies, television shows, blogs, webcams, chats, Facebook, and talking heads and pundits across all forms of media discuss environmental topics with widely varying degrees of understanding and factual accuracy. Politicians and celebrities may make environmental issues a cause clbre but may not have all their facts straight or even be willing to acknowledge that the factual evidence is inconclusive and that additional research needs to be done. Inaccurate environmental information can certainly affect a students' knowledge base, but also affect a students' attitude towards the environment. As student may see environmental degradation as an inevitable harsh living condition that needs to be dealt with, such as it is presented in the film The Day After Tomorrow or may be exposed to the wonder of unique ecosystems teeming with diverse life as in the documentary series Planet Earth'. Attitudes towards the environm ent and the value one attributes to the environment affect the behaviors one is engaging in to preserve the environment. These attitudes can also be affected by an individual's value system. Stephen Kellert is a prominent environmental author specializing in human relations to nature and categorized the values that can impact environmental decision making.
! '& In designing the lesson plan for use in the thesis project, diverse examples that would address a wide spectrum of student interests were used t o try to address value issues Using examples abut how the environment and pro environmental behavior effects a variety of aspects of a students' everyday life such as the sports they play, the cars the y drive, and the food they eat showed students how local environmental choices affected their lives in ways they had failed to contemplate. Time constraints rendered individual student value inventories impossible, so instead of examining pre existing opi nion, the project took into account and described a broad cross section of values and interests and how those values and interests are effected by the environment. Research also stresses the importance of understanding attitudes and behaviors; Chan (1996) asserts "an understanding of environmental attitudes is crucial because they are the precursor to pro environmental behavior, which is the ultimate goal of environmental education" ( page 298). As Boyes and Stannisstreet (1996) pointed out, stu dents' ideologies and knowledge about the environment can be influenced by a variety of variables, These preconceived ideas can form attitudes that can be hard to change H owever Kwan and Miles (1998) assert that "to achieve success in environmental educ ation teachers need to identify and draw on children's opinions about environments" ( page 12). Examining pre existing opinions and beliefs is a critical piece in order to change behaviors, because we act according to our value system. Experience can be a critical piece of attitude changes, because it gives students a first hand opportunity to see actual cause and effect, which helps build a knowledge base. Frogs were selected as the representative species "charismatic minifauna" bec ause frogs are ubiquitous in South Florida. They are found
! '' in most backyards and front stoops and their croaks are a familiar sound. In addition, most children's experiences with frogs are benign. The final frequently studied topic of environmental rese arch (though Rickinson reports that this topic is researched less frequently than the two preceding it) concerns "learners' environmental outcomes" (Rickinson, 2001, page 219). This aspect of research directly pertains to changes in environmental behavior Most of the research interested in the "learners' environmental outcomes" stems from the evaluation of environmental education programs. Not only do researchers like Dettman Easler and Pease (1999) assert that since there are such variety of environment al education that "evaluation is important to determine which forms are most effective" ( page 33), but there is significant debate on how environmental education programs should be evaluated. Bogner (1998) recommends that "change in individual's envi ronmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors are crucial goals for environmental education, and so are appropriate criteria for program evaluation" (page 18). The thesis study focused on this third issue by attempting to determine the success of di fferent subject matter approaches by measuring self reported change in defined environmental behaviors. By comparing a class taught from a local animal's perspective with charismatic minifauna that children could see in their backyard, with a class taught from the global broader perspectives, I sought to identify whether the different techniques could produce measurably different behavioral outcomes. Therefore, the thesis study was designed to incorporate all three categories refl ected in Rickenson's analysis. In addition, effective education on any topic must also use the best available teaching methodologies. Understanding how students learn most effectively has been a
! '( major research focus for the past century as educatin g educators became more widely accepted. That research led to new analysis and understanding of "learning styles." Learning styles, as defined by Dunn (1989) ; "Learning style is a biologically and developmentally imposed set of personal characteristi cs that make the same teaching method effective for some and ineffective for others" (page 50) Learning styles essentially measure what method of information acquisition works best for an individual learner. Some learn best by hearing a lesson, as auditory learners. Others learn by seeing what they need to learn and understand as visual learners. Kinesthetic learners need to engage in physical action to best understand a teaching point. Students may learn through multiple modaliti es but may have an inclination towards a particular means of knowledge acquisition. As such, learning styles differ in different people. The lessons of learning styles help increase effectiveness, "several reasons for the importance of understanding indi vidual learning styles are provided; such an understanding leads to; (1) reduction of teacher and student frustration; (2) higher student achievement and an improved self concept; (3) accommodation of a variety of learners in the classroom; (4) the versati lity that is crucial to learning; and (5) improved communication with administrators, parents, counselors, and other staff." (Reiff, 1992, page 5 9) Both formal education and interpretation can take advantage of conveying knowledge in a manner, which appea ls to different learning styles. More recently (2005) research by Felder has shown that learning styles are more useful as learning tools to remember information, rather than learn information in only one way. For example it is more effective to learn and remember information if there are multiple senses engaging
! ') the material rather than the idea that only "visual learners" can effectively understand a visually taught lesson In addition to including the lessons of environmental education topics, the thesi s study was also designed to utilize all three learning styles to accommodate the various learners and make the presentation as accessible as possible. As the study encompassed a wide grade range, from 9 th grade to 12 th grade, and acro ss a variety of learners, the project included teaching methods in the program that would use kinetic, aural, and visual tactics so individuals could access and remember the information in a meaningful way. As more fully discussed in the meth ods description, information was presented for each learning style. For visual vivid photographs of the animals and pictures reflecting environmental challenges in each topic gave visual impact to the discussion and painted the problems for them For auditory factual information by shared by a lively lecture, but also appropriate animal sounds illustrated fauna. For the kinesthetic the opportunity was provided to move about and to actually apply the information about natural alternatives to chemical pollutants by allow each student to mix up a natural pesticide in his or her own spray bottle. Along with the actual classroom program, a small take home booklet was provided with sources of additional information about the topics in the presentation (Appendix B) The booklet also offered additional paths to partake in positive environmental behaviors. The booklet also provided access to multiple learners by providing activities through citizen science websites, vis ual content websites, and sites that would provide factual information and auditory support. These varieties of learning styles were playing upon in order to enhance memory of the lesson.
! '* In addition to considerations given to learning styles, the project also used recognized principles of environmental interpretation as a means of effective environmental education. To some extent, my ability to engage in interpretation was hampered by the character of the classroom setting, which of fered the best opportunity for a wide research base, at my high school alma mater, Palmer Trinity School in Miami Florida I chose to follow the principles of interpretation as guidelines for the activities and teaching style for my presentation In particular, I engaged the children with questions throughout the lesson, asking them to draw on experiential learning, such as their experiences hearing various frog sounds outside their homes at night. I also presented the students with information and used dialog to encourage them to think about the information as a whole and what it means in relation to the environment and themselves. This draws on the first and second principles of interpretation by encouraging experiential discourse and guiding the students towards the big picture' concepts, yet allowing them to make the revelations themselves. There were constraints: the host school could not accom modate holding the classes outdoors, which is why the program use d the principles of interpretation, but execute d to them in a formal classroom setting. The program also could not accommodate live animal subjects due to issues regarding acq uisition of animals and their potential treatment over seven teaching days. While lighting was controlled, seating was required to remain in a formal setting. Because we are always surrounded by the environment, in some capacity, the topic of the en vironment lends itself to many different learning styles, whether visual, aural, read/write, or kinesthetic/tactile. In fact, some
! '+ teachers may extend their lesson plans to include the other learning styles, though they may not be in the environment discus sed, a passionate instructor that shows authority and care can interpret just as well inside a classroom as outdoors The combination of the passion, inspiration, and revelation necessary to interpretation, partnered with the science directed principles o f informal education, and u sing the hard facts of environmental education is what is necessary to make a n inspiring, motivational, and educational presentation, whether it be outdoors or indoors. Throughout the lesson, each fact led to information supporting value development and culminating in alternative environmental behavior options. Examples of how the students could change their own behaviors to be more environmentally positive, including receiving new ideas from the students themselves, drew upon the first principle of interpretation, leading the students to revelatory thinking. The ensuing discussion also opened up the topic of the effects of unintentional behaviors in a manner to create nonjudgmental ownership of the consequences of those b ehaviors. High school science class, often taught using formal environmental education, is very stratified. One year a student may take life science, followed by earth science, followed by chemistry, however environmental education marries all sciences a nd allows students to see how the topics come together to form an ecosystem. In the study presentations the lessons students may have learned about life science (in relation to invasive species), chemistry (chemical pollution), and earth science (h abitat loss) were unified into addressing over environmental issues; and then evaluated from a local perspective versus a global perspective. In addition by taking advantage of the opportunities of both formal education and interpretation, the program presented and
! ', measure d outcomes of compelling lessons that drew upon knowledge, attitudes and values, and behaviors to inspire students to self examination and potential changed behaviors. The program u sed the principles of environm ental education and interpretation, along with addressing the various learning styles, and attending to various values, attitudes, and interests, and the goal of environmental behavioral change. The thesis study sought to present the environmental issues as effectively as possible to provide an opportunity to measure the impact of the local and global subjects.
! (! METHODS The project was designed to test the relative effectiveness of a charismatic minifauna presentation versus a glob al issue oriented presentation in terms of positively changing environmental behavior. Frogs were chosen as the charismatic minifauna subject. Three environmental issues were discussed in both types of presentations: habit loss, invasive species, and ch emical pollution. Three hundred and thirty high school students from Palmer Trinity Episcopal School located in southern Miami Dade County, Florida were the subjects of this project. The students reflected a demographic which could generally a fford private school. Participation occurred as a result of science teachers at the school electing to participate. The live presentation aspect of the project was conducted during regularly scheduled science class sessions. Palmer Trinity is a laptop ba sed school which lent itself to the use of online technology for accessing surveys and follow up. The students, ranging from sixth grade to twelfth grade were first asked to complete an online survey (via Survey monkey) before any presentation (Appendix A) The survey was sent to each class the day before the presentation. The survey included general demographic information as well as questions about environmental habits to determine a baseline of environmental behaviors and knowledge. The su rveys were tracked only by source class, in other words, from which class the student came. The surveys were anonymous due to restrictions on tracking students by the host school; the grade levels were split as evenly as possible between the two presentati ons within the confines of maintaining class structure (Table 2) No class was over 20 students. Some of the classes were mixed and included students from multiple grade levels, but the project
! (" compensated for this by keeping as even as possible levels of students in each presentation group. a,W/&' A 'C%,0&5';&%&'58/"+'"*+.'+;.' #%.$859'!%.#',*0'C/.W,/ Group 9 th 10 th 11 th 12 th Total Frog 54 50 40 10 154 Global 46 55 43 29 173 The day before the presentations began, the presenter attended each participating class, handed out debriefing forms and answered any questions the students had about the study. The students were told that the online survey would be emailed to them and that they were requested to answer t he survey before class the next day. During the four days in which the programs were presented, the same pattern was used. The survey was emailed to the students the day before the presentation with a link to either the pre survey for the frog group or t he pre survey for the global group so that, even though the surveys were anonymous, it would be possible to track which presentation they received. The pre surveys were identical and students from both groups were asked to answer the questions sh own in Table 3
! (% a,W/&' V 'a7&5&'`$&5+".*5';&%&'&F,/$,+&0'.*','/"M&%+'54,/&',*0';&%&',5M&0'+.'W.+7'+7&'!%.#' #%.$8',*0'+7&'C/.W,/' #%.$8 How often do you use recycling bins at school? How often do you recycle at home Do you make sure that your trash (cans, bottles, wrappers, etc) makes it into a trash or recycling receptacle? Do you encourage your friend to be more environmentally aware? How often do you spend time outdoors? How often does your family wash your car? Do you ever leave water running while brushing teeth, washing dishes, etc? Do you compost? Apart from answering the previous questions in a L ikert scale, from one to five; the students were also asked to a nswer yes' or no' to the questions in Tab le 4
! (& a,W/&' U 'a7&5&'lk&5l'l2.l'`$&5+".*5';&%&',5M&0'+.'W.+7'#%.$859'!%.#',*0'C/.W,/ Do you know what cleaning products are used in your home? Does you family use a dryer to dry clothes? Can yo u identify native Florida animals and plants? Can you identify exotic Florida animals and plants? Do you know what kind of light bulbs are used in your home? Does anyone maintain your yard? Have you taken any environmental science/studies classes? T hese questions were all complied using basic environmental behavior assessment questions (Scott and Willits 1994; OECD, 2011). Questions were added to focus on the student demographic of the subjects, for example, such as how frequently they wash their ca r and if someone maintains their yard. Given teenage interest in peer relationships and activities as well as peer effect on behaviors, several questions were included to address those issues: if they encouraged their friends to be environmen tally friendly, if they could identify native Florida/exotic species, how much time they spend outdoors, and use of recycling bins at school. Each class received one of the two presentations. To the extent possible, the numbers receiving each presentatio n within a grade were equivalent. One group was presented with the charismatic minifauna or frog' themed program, which related the topics of invasive species, biodiversity loss, and chemical pollution to native Florida
! (' frogs. In the Frog program, students were presented with pictures of native Florida frogs: (a) Eastern Spadefoot Toad, (b) Florida Chorus Frog, (c) Green Treefrog, (d) Spring Peeper, (e) Bullfrog, and (f) Florida Chorus Frog ( Figure 28 ). The pictures provided visual support to the content
! (( !"#$%& A] 2,+"F&'!/.%"0,'1%.#',*0'+.,0'5 8&4"&5'8"4+$%&0'1%.?'% "#7+'+.'/&1+9 '6,H 'P,5+&%*' L8,0&1..+'a.,0 6 7++89::;;;<,*47.%,#&<*&+:5"+&5:,*47.%,#&<*&+:1"/&5:5+N/&5:5/"0&57.;E?&0"$?EA:8$W/"4:" ?,#"*,%"$?V< G8# HJ' 6WH' K7.%$5'!%.# 6 7++89::;;;<;&4<$1/<&0$:&[+&*5".*:;"/0/"1&E"*1.:1%.#5+.,05:"?,#&5:/,%#&:85&$0,4%"5E*"#%"+ ,EF&%%$4.5,A
! () With the dis cussion of each species, frog calls were played ( http://www.wec.ufl.edu/extension/wildlife_info/frogstoads/ ) from the native Florida frog and toad species that the students may ha ve heard around their home This supported auditory learners. Keeping in mind that frogs and toads are well camouflaged and during the day, frogs and toads inhabit dark, damp places to keep their skin from drying, the children were reminded that amphib ians are more frequently heard at night. Having familiarized the students with the Florida frogs' appearance and sounds, the life cycle of amphibians and the importance of their role in the ecosystem as both an indicator species (FrogWatch, Amphibian Ark, UF ) and as form of pest control (Frogwatch, Amphibian Ark, UF) was discussed. Having provided basic information about the charismatic frogs that could be found on the school grounds or backyards, the project turned to the environmental issues to be discus sed and specifically, how those issues affect this population. The first threat discussed in the frog presentation was the threat local frogs fact from invasive species. Students were shown two of Florida's invasive frogs and toads, the Cane toad or Bufo toad, and the Cuban tree frog. As with the native frogs, the species' calls ( http://www.wec.ufl.edu/extension/wildlife_info/frogstoads/ ) were played so that the students would recognize them, which many did (far more than recognized the native species sounds). Discussion included how invasive species arrive, the difference betwe en an "invasive" versus "nonnative" species and what adverse environmental consequences are caused by these species. In particular, students learned how the Cane Toad and Cuban Tree frog have affected the native frog population and what their presence mea ns for the native fauna and ecosystems. These invasive species compete for
! (* resources with native frogs as well as eat native frogs and sometimes small mammal species. Cane toads in particular pose a threat to people since they excrete a toxin out of their parotoid glands located behind the eyes when threatened ( Figure 29) This toxin can make a human seriously ill if ingested and has been known to kill pets (Roberts et al., 2000). !"#$%& AS 'a7&'W$1.+.["*5'&[4%&+&0'1%.?'+7&'8,%.+."0'#/,*0'4,*'W&'&58&4",//N'0,*#&%.$5'+.' "*`$"5"+"F&'0.#5',*0'4,+5 6 7++89::/7V<##8 7+<4.?:E&FLa>!N&T^Q:L`kdD$XL?A>:IIIIIIIIOAg:L"^",FG\>"#:#/,*0@AB4 .8N
! (+ frogs and toads was also discussed ( Figure 30) and how pollution can interfere with breathing in these animals, which makes them excellent indicator species ( Wilson, 2003; Lindenmayer, 2000; Frogwatch ) !"#$%& VB' !%.#'5M"*'"5'8,%+"4$/,%/N'8&%?&,W/&J'$*/"M&'7$?,*'5M"*J'?,M"*#'+7&?'5$54&8+"W/&'+.' 47&?"4,/'8.//$+".*'1.$*0'"*'%$*.11 6 7++89::1,%?U<5+,+"4<1/"4M%<4.?:VBXA:AXUSXB(XA(E]] (SS,SXWB
! (, car or maintaining their lawn. Several students suggested improved runoff treatment systems to deal with oil that runs off the road or parking lot after a storm. The final topic of the presentation was habitat loss. In addressing this topic, discussion focused on both large scale habitat loss, such as the loss of world rainforest acreage and small scale habitat, such as filling in a pond to build a parking lot. The students discussed filling in the Everglades wetlands to build homes. The presentation emphasized the fact that humans may not always see all the animals that live in the area, especially invertebrates and small verterbrates T he loss of small habitats (microh abitats) can be very destructive across a wider number of species Habitat destruction can also occur by means other than bulldozers. Habitat loss can also occur when a resource is no longer useable by a speci es Because the chytrid iomycota is a water borne fungus, amphibians were affected by illness in the water resources necessary to their life cycle and physiology ( Figure ). The consequences of habitat loss in terms of biodiversity and population declin e were also discussed. Chytridiomycota, the deadly water born fungus has spread throughout Central America due to rising temperatures as warmer habitats become favorable to the fungus growth ( Figure 31) It has wiped out entire populations of frogs (Weldon et al., 2004; Bosch, 2001; Berger, 1999).
! )! !"#$%& V( 'K7N+%"0J',5'"+'"5'4.??.*/N'%&1&%%&0'+.J'#%.;5'.*'W.+7' ,0$/+'1%.#5',*0'+,08./&5' 5?.+7&%"*#'+7&"%'8&%?&,W/&'5M"*',*0'M"//"*#'+7&'7.5+',1+&%'+;.';&&M5<'>//$5+%,+".*'8%.F"0&0' WN9'I/"5.*'O$%M& '6 7++89::;;;<,/"5.* = W$%M&<4.?: H' The presentation came to a close with many examples of ways the students could help the environment for the sake of Florida's frogs Students could also ask questions Positive action was discussed. Then, to emphasize the teaching points and to reach kinesthetic lea rners, students were each given the ingredients and an environmentally friendly recycled plastic spray bottle to manufacture their own organic garden pest treatmen t ( Figure 32 ). The b ottle included labels for other environmentally friendly household cleaning and gardening needs.
! )" RECIPES for a safer environment: General Use Organic Pesticide: 1 Teaspoon Dawn Soap 1 Cup Vegetable Oil or rubbing alcohol 1 Quart (32 oz.) Wate r SHAKE VIGOROUSLY Spray on top and bottom side of leaves General Use Cleaning Solution: 1/4 cup vinegar 2 tablespoons baking soda or 2 teaspoons borax 1 quart (32 oz) water Other Safe cleaning substitutes: baking soda: cleans/scours/deodorizes Borax: cleans/deodorizes/disinfects cleans wallpaper, painted walls, floors White vinegar: cuts grease, removes mildew, odors, stains and wax build up removes stickers and residue -sponge on and leave for 15 minutes. Other ideas: http://eartheasy.com/live_nontoxic_solutions.htm Aidan Bailey Jan.2012 !"#$%& VA Y,W&/'1%.?'h%#,*"4'3&5+"4"0&'58%,N'W.++/&5<' a7&'C&*&%,/'g5&'h%#,*"4'3&5+"4"0&' %&4"8&';,5'4 %.55 = %&1&%&*4&0';"+7'+7&'gLRI'h%#,*"4'L+,*0,%05<'D&4"8&'+,M&*'1%.? 7++89::;;;.+7&%&,%+7*&;5<4.?:h%#,*"4 = C,%0&*"*#:(SSU = BA = B(:C$"0& = a. = h%#,*"4 = 3& 5+"4"0&5<,58[ The discussion program lasted 35 minutes, leaving ten minutes of class time for the students to make the pesticide. In the frog presentation, all environmental issues discussed were related to amphibians and, as much as possible, to the students' personal
! )% experience s. Each student also received a pocket sized booklet, which included follow up information on a variety of environmental actions they could take. The alternative Global presentation was a program that discussed the same environmental issues (invasive species, biodiversity loss, and chemical pollution) but lacked the foca l local animal species. Instead, the program was based on a broader discussion about these issues on a global basis. This presentation started by distributing the small handmade booklets. These books were identical to the books given to the fro g group. Students were shown examples of species, both native and non native, and were asked to identify the non native or exotic species. Examples of global and national exotic species supported discussion of the vectors through which invasive species ca n be introduced to an ecosystem. Examples of invasive species on for the global program included examples such as (a) European starlings, (b) brush tailed possums, (c) mongoose, (d) feral cats, (e) brown tree snake, and (f) nutria ( Figure 33 ).
! )& !"#$%& VV '>*F,5"F&'L8&4"&5'1%.?'%"#7+'+.'/&1+9' 6,H' P$%.8&,*'L+,%/"*# 6 7++89::.M/,7.?,W"%05,*0W$++&%1/"&5<4.?:$8/.,05:>?,#&:O"%05:P$%.8&,*EL+,%/"*#E4/.5&E$8
! )' The students discussed the difference between non native and invasive species, as well as potential effects o f invasive species on an ecosystem. After this discussion the students were educated on several ways to help eliminate invasive species from the environment, such as becoming involved in citizen science, planting native plants in their backyard, and select ing pets carefully. These same behaviors were discussed in the frog program and could also be found in the booklet. Paralleling the frog presentation, the next topic of discussion was chemical pollution. Here, like in the frog presentation, review include d what a watershed is, how they work, what runoff is, how it enters the watershed, and how that affects the environment. Additional topics were addressed including bioaccumulation, particularly in the example of mercury in sushi, and how it affects people and ecosystems. The final topic was habitat loss. Here I discussed large scale habitat loss such as rainforest deforestation, but also small scale habitat loss (as in the frog presentation) such as building over a pond. The students and I discussed the rel ated issues of habitat loss such as biodiversity loss, population decline, and negative human wildlife interactions. Where the Frog group discussed small scale habitat loss with the elimination of resources like ponds and wetlands, the Global group discuss ed large scale habitat loss such as deforestation and how it affects the organisms that once utilized those resources, sometimes resulting in negative human wildlife interactions. At the end of the presentation, the program included discussion of the many ways students could engage in pro environmental behaviors and asked the students if they had any questions on the lesson.
! )( The program also included identical final procedures of making the organic pesticide. Two weeks after the completion of the progr ams the students of each group (Global themed and Frog themed) were asked to complete a post survey identical to the pre survey save for the option for students to respond I intend to' to all questions (Appendix C) The two week time frame allowed suffi cient time to allow for changes in environmental behaviors. The students also had the option to answer that I intend to' as a feasible option for students who had not yet started to change their behavior but felt that they would in the future. The I inte nd to' option was not offered in the pre survey of the possibility that it would lead to unintentionally dishonest responses that might be over ly optimistic. The pre and post surveys were non matched pairs due to restrictions on tracking students by the host school.
! )) RESULTS The pre test survey was discussed with the students and debriefing forms were handed out the day before the study began. Surveys were sent out by email the day before the class was scheduled for presentation. The pre test survey for the frog presentation closed with 154 students completing the survey ( Figure 34 ). !"#$%& VU '3%& = +&5+'3,%+"4"8,+".*'R&?.#%,87"45'WN'#%.$8J'#%,0&J',*0'#&*0&%<'L8&4",/'+7,*M5'+.' Q,%M'C%,1+.* Similar to the frog pre survey, the more female students responded to the global pre survey than male students (69 female respondents, 51 male respondents, and 2 chose not to answer). Three hundred thirty students received either the global presentation or the frog presentation in class, however not all the students completed the survey. The
! )* students were divided into nearly equal groups in determining which cla sses would receive the frog presentation or the global presentation. In addition, effort was made to split the presentations as nearly as possible within grades to an equivalent number of students. Results from the frog pre survey show that students in grades 9 through 12 are conscientious about recycling at school and home, spending time outdoors, and not littering. In the frog pre survey 33.8% ( 52 individuals) responded that they sometimes' recycle at school, 32.5% (50 individuals) responded that they always' recycle at home, 52.6% (81 individuals) responded that they often' spend time outdoors, and 30.9% (47 individuals) responded that they always' make sure litter and trash gets into a trash or recycling recepticle. Interestingly, students in high school do not typically encourage their peers to be environmentally aware, with 39.0% (60 individuals) of respondents saying that they rarely' pr omote environmental behavior to their friends. It is worth noting that the results from the pre survey show that 41.5% (5 individuals) of the 12th grade students that responded to the pre survey sometimes' encourage their friends to be environmentally awa r e Students were also widely unaware of native and exotic species in their local environments 57.8% (89 respondents) felt they could not identify native Florida fauna or flora; 75.8% (116 respondents) felt thet could not identify non native Florida faun a or flora. Most students reported being aware of the materials and actions in their house such as what kind of lightbulbs were used in their home and what sort of cleaning products are used, 63.6% and 58.4% respectively.
! )+ Students were also aware of the cl eaning products in their room with 63.8% (98 individuals) responding Yes' when asked if they knew the kinds of cleaning products found in their home. The students were also widely aware of the environmental actions in and around their house such as using dryers to dry clothes (95.5%, 147 individuals responded yes'), knowing the kinds of light bulbs used in their home (58.4%, 90 individuals), and having someone maintain their yard (90.9%, 140 individuals). Interestingly, when asked if the students had take n an environmental studies or environmental science course previous to the study 53.6% (82 individuals) responded positively, suggesting that roughly half of the students significant background knowledge about the environment. The results of the pre surve y for the group receiving the global presentation were not significantly different from frog group. The responses from the global group to the yes' or no' questions on the survey were also not different to the frog group. Two weeks after the last class, post presentation surveys (Appendix C) were distributed again by email notice to take the survey online and post presentation survey responses.were collected. It is worth noting that where 253 students (136 and 117 students) responded to the pre presentation survey there was a significant drop off of responses to the post presentation survey with the post survey frog group having 95 respondents and the global group having 82 respondents (total 117 respo nses ; Figure ). In the frog post survey unlike the pre survey, respondents were typically male with 51.1% (58 individuals) with 3.2% (3 individuals) who chose n ot to respond to the gender question. The respondents in the frog group were also predominantly 9th grade students with 41.1% (39 individuals) of the responses followed by 10th grade making up 29.5%
! ), (28 individuals), 11th grade students making up 24.2% (23 individuals), and 12th grade students making up only 5.3% (5 individuals) of the responses ( Figure 35) !"#$%& VT '3.5+ = +&5+'3,%+"4"8,*+'R&?.#%,87"45'WN'#%.$8J'#%,0&J',*0'#&*0&% <'L8&4",/'+7,*M5'+.' Q,%M'C%,1+.* The results of the post survey showed a increase in how often students used recycling bins at school ( standard deviation pre test frog group: 1.11992 ; standard deviation post test frog group: 1.20961 ; standard deviation pres test global group: 1.16423; standard deviation post test global: 1.21815 Figure 36 ), and encouragi ng their friends to be environmentally aware ( standard deviation pre test frog group: 1.05532 ; standard deviation posttest frog group: 1.32738 ; standard deviation pretest global g roup:1.21433; standard deviation posttest global group: 1.40353; F igure 37 ) There was not change in
! *! other L ikert scale rated behaviors such as how often students washed their cars and compo sting. !"#$%& V\' Q&0",* '%&58.*5&5'+.'bd.;'.1+&*'0.'N.$'$5&'%&4N4/"*#'W"*5',+'547../qb '5$%F&N' `$&5+".* ';"+7'5+,*0,%0'&%%.%'W,%5
! *" !"#$%& VX 'Q&0",* '%&58.*5&5'+.'b0.'N.$'&*4.$%,#&'N.$%'1%"&*05'+.'W&'&*F"%.*?&*+,//N',;,%&qb' 5$%F&N'`$&5+".* ';"+7'5+,*0,%0'&% %.%'W,%5 Results found t hat students in both group s felt that they could identify exotic plants and animals However, there were no other changes in the students environmental knowledge as tested by the survey.
! *% !"#$%&' V] 'lk&5l'l2.l'D&58.*5&'K.$*+5'+.'+7&'5$%F&N'`$&5+".*' i K,*'N.$'"0&*+"1N'&[.+"4'!/.%"0,' 8/,*+5',*0',*"?,/5q j
! *& DISCUSSION 9:7!;7-*+!:<=$*:7)()!$.!*:()!=+$>7;*!)$,/:*!*$!*7)*!*:7!('7&!*:&*!,)(-/!#$;! ;:&+()?&*(;!?(-(.&,-&!&)!&-!7',;&* ($-!.$;,)!@$,#'!7..7;*!=$)(*(A7!;:&-/7!(-! :(/:! );:$$#!)*,'7-*)B !7-A(+$-?7-*!%7:&A($+1!!C
! *' &?%(A-*!$+!&=&*:7*(;!*$@&+')!*:7!7-A(+$-?7-*E!R!.77#!*:&*!*:7!)*,'7-*)!*: &*! =&+*(;(=&*7'!?&$+(*
! *( $.!T(&?( H Z&'7!^$,-*$+(*
! *) M$?7!+7)7&+;:!:&)!):$@-!&!;$++7#&*($-!%7*@77-!)$;(!&))$;(&*($-)!&-'! 7;$-$?(;!)*&-'(-/!$.!&-!(-'(A(',!&-'!*:7(+!7-A(+$-?7-*!%7:&A($+)E!:$@7A7+ E *:7)7!)*,'(7)!&))7+*!*:&*!*:()!;$++7#&*($-!' $7)!-$*!(?=#7;*!()!-7;7))&+7-)! &-'!;$##7&/,7) !5KLLQ4! .$,-'!*:&*!:&-')!$-!);(7-;7!#7&+-(-/!&;*(A(*7;*!&-'! ) ;:$$#B)!;$+!#&%$+&*$+
! ** )=7;(7)1!S!KL3L!)*,'
! *+ G,%#(;!%&)7'!=+$/+&??(-/E!),;:!&)!-7@)!$.*7 -!+7=$+*)!7-A(+$-?7-*! '()&)*7+)!&-'!&-$?(7)E!-$*!,-#(F7!*:7!=$=,#&+!+7=$+*(-/!(-!T(&?(!&%$,*!*:7!7W$*(;! &-'!=&+*(;,#&+#
! *, 7?=:&)(V7'!(-!*:7!=+7)7-*&* ($-)E!*:$,/:!*:7
! +! ,)(-/!.+$/!=(;*,+7)!&-'!?&*;:(-/!.+$/!)$,-')E! *:7!7..7;*!@&)!-$*!7U,(A-*!*$! #(A7! (-*7+&;*($-1! R-!)7A7+!)*,'(7)!(-A$#A(-/!);:$$#!;:(#'+7-!9$?V&(;!5KLL8E!KL334! +7=$+*7'!*:&*!(*7+&;*($-)!@(*:!*$&')!=$)(*(A7#,)*!&!.+$/!;#1!9:7!.+$/!;#!@&)!=&(+7'!@(*:!&! =(;*,+7!$.!*:7!)=7;(7)!*:&*!?&F7)!*:7!;#E!:$@7A7+ E %7;&,)7 !?$)*!)*,'7-*)!?$)*#
! +" !"#$%& 'VS 'k .$*#'F"5"+.%5'&*G.N"*#','+.$47'+,*M'&[8&%"&*4&',+'+7&'>?,#"*,%"$?'"*'I*47.%,#&J' I/,5M,' 6 7++89::;;;<,*47.%,#&<*&+:5"+&5:,*47.%,#&<*&+:1"/&5: 5+N/&5:5/"0&57.;E?&0"$?EA:8$W/"4:" ?,#"*,%"$?V
! +% 7-A(+$-?7-*!7',;&*($-!-77'7'!*$!:7#=!*:7?! 5_$@7!&-'!e(7)7#E!KL3K D!C&+-7
! +& S-(?!7-;$,-*7+)!*:&*!&+7!,-(U,7E!?7?$+&%#7E!&-'!)&.7!;+7&*7!&-!7-;$,-*7+! @:(;:!:&)!=$*7-*(!*$!?&F7!&!#&)*(-/!(?=&;*!56,:+?&-!&-'!O$ @&+'E!KLL8D!Z(7+F(-/E! KLLKD!e#$$+E!KLLKD!M@&-&/&-E!KLLLD!j(=F$E!3QQ241!C,)*!*:7(+!7-A(+$-?7-*!%7:&A($+)!),;:!&)!(-)*#(-/!%(+'! .77'7+)E! =#&-*(-/!*+77)E!A$#,-*77+(-/E!&-'!=(;F(-/!,=!*+&):!5M@&-&/&-E!KLLKD!S'7#?&-!7*!E! KLL341!!9:7!,)7!$.!&;*,!)=7;(?7-!-&*(A7! ?(-(.&,-&! ?&7;*!&-'!*:7!:$)*!);:$$#!)$!?&
! +' &==7!*$!A&+($,)!#7&+-(-/!)*<#7)1!R-!&''(*($-E!*:7+7!@&)!),%)*&-*(!?&*7+(!;$A7+7'! (-!Pa!?(-,*7)1!M7A7+!)*,'(7)!59,-/! 7*!E !KLLKD!O&+*!&'!b$#&-E!3QQQ4!),//7)*!*:&*! @:(#7!):$+*! *(?7! 7W=$),+7!7-A(+$-?7-*!7',;&*($-!7W=7+(7-;7)!?&7;*!@7+7!-$*!&-!()),7!(*!?&
! +( facts" (page 109). They credit this knowledge gap to "societal disparities affecting the way children from different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds are exposed to nature" (page 109). This may correspond with Bullard's findings (2000) that impoverished neighborhoods lacked e nvironmental resources and education, which resulted in limited environmental awareness. Since the participants in my study are from a relatively affluent socioeconomic background they may be afforded more experiences with nature. A similar study conducted with a wider variety of participants from various socioeconomic backgrounds may be beneficial to determining if the effect of charismatic minifauna is affected by pre existing environmental experiences, resources, and knowledge. A recent longitudinal st udy (1976 2005) investigating "environmental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors" in a random sample of roughly 100,000 responses by high school seniors across the United States. The University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future' survey found a significant decline in "environmental concern" and behaviors amongst the participants over the span of three decades (Wray Lake, 2010, page 61). Questions on the survey covered topics that I focused on in my own study such as pollution, biodiversity issues, and scarc ity of resources, among others. My study may provide additional evidence to support the findings that despite protestations of environmental concern there is a lack of environmental action. This effect may be evident in this thesis project's findings, in w hich the post survey results were not drastically different between the Frog group and the Global group. Despite making changes in the behaviors questioned on the surveys the res ults showed that these were very few behaviors that changed indicating a
! +) disc onnect between the perceived interest in the lesson and the reality of the students' environmental behaviors. 9:7!=&+*(;(=&-*)!(-!*:()!)*,'
! +* SGGfbZRk!S!!!!!
! +, SGGfbZRk!C!! !!!!!
! ,! SGGfbZRk!^!!!!!!!
! ,% _f6f_fb^fM 1. Abraham D, Abraham K. Guide to Organic Pesticides. [cited 2011 December 4]. Available from: http://www.motherearthnews.com/Organic Gardening/19 94 02 01/Guide To Organic Pesticides.aspx 2. Adelman LM, Falk JH, James S. Impact of National Aquarium in Baltimore on Visitors' Conservation Attitudes, Behavior, and Knowledge. Curator: The Museum Journal. 2000 January 1 [cited 2011 September 13];43(1):33 61. 3. Ballouard J M, Brischoux F, Bonnet X. Children Prioritize Virtual Exotic Biodiversity over Local Biodiversity. PLoS ONE. 2011 [cited 2012 April 18];6(8):e23152. 4. Balmford A, Clegg L, Coulson T, Taylor J. Why conservationists should heed Pokmon. Science. 2002;295(5564):2367. 5. Barber D. Recommendations for Reptiles and Amphibians Used in Outreach Programs. 2003 posted: ; updated 2008. Available from: http://www.aza.org/amphibian education resources/ 6. Barney EC, Mintzes JJ, Yen C F. Assessing Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior Toward Charismatic Megafauna: The Case of Dolphins. The Journal of Environmental Education. 2 005 January [cited 2011 December 3];36(2):41 55. 7. Beck L, Cable TT. Interpretation for the 21st Century: Fifteen Guiding Principles for Interpreting Nature and Culture, Second Edition. 2nd ed. Sagamore Publishing; 2002. 8. Beebee TJ., Griffiths RA. The a mphibian decline crisis: a watershed for conservation biology? Biological Conservation. 2005;125(3):271 285. 9. Berger L, Speare R, Hyatt A. Chytrid fungi and amphibian declines: overview, implications and future directions. Declines and disappearances of Australian frogs. Environment Australia, Canberra. 1999:23 33. 10. Blaustein AR, Johnson PT. Explaining frog deformities. Scientific American. 2003;288(2):60 65. 11. Blaustein AR, Johnson PT. The complexity of deformed amphibians. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2003;1(2):87 94. 12. Blaustein AR, Kiesecker JM. Complexity in conservation: lessons from the global decline of amphibian populations. Ecology letters. 2002;5(4):597 608. 13. Blaustein AR, Romansic JM, Kiesecker JM, Hatch AC. Ultraviolet r adiation, toxic chemicals and amphibian population declines. Diversity and distributions. 2003;9(2):123 140.
! ,& 14. Blaustein AR, Johnson PTJ. The complexity of deformed amphibians. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2003;1(2):87 94. 15. Block M, McCo rmac J. Birders See Snowy Owl Farther South : NPR. 2012 January [cited 2012 April 18]. Available from: http://www.npr.org/2012/01/09/144923167/snowy owl sighted farther south 16. Bogner FX. The influence of short term outdoor ecology education on long term variables of environmental perspective. Th e Journal of Environmental Education. 1998;29(4):17 29. 17. Bosch J, Martnez Solano I, Garca Pars M. Evidence of a chytrid fungus infection involved in the decline of the common midwife toad (Alytes obstetricans) in protected areas of central Spain. Bio logical Conservation. 2001;97(3):331 337. Boshier R. 1973. Educational participation and dropout: A theoretical model. Adult Eduvation Quarterly 23(4):255 82 18. Bowen Jones E, Entwistle A. Identifying Appropriate Flagship Species: The Importance of Culture and Local Contexts. Oryx. 2002;36(02):189 195. 19. Boyes E, Stanisstreet M. Threats to the global atmospheric envi ronment: the extent of pupil understanding. International Research in Geographical & Environmental Education. 1996;5(3):186 195. 20. Bradley JC, Waliczek TM, Zajicek JM. Relationship Between Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Attitude of High School Students. The Journal of Environmental Education. 1999 January [cited 2011 December 3];30(3):17 21. 21. Bullard RD. Dumping In Dixie: Race, Class, And Environmental Quality, Third Edition. Third ed. Westview Press; 2000. 22. Caro T, Girling S. Conservatio n by proxy: indicator, umbrella, keystone, flagship, and other surrogate species. Island Pr; 2010. 23. Caro T, Engilis Jr A, Fitzherbert E, Gardner T. Preliminary assessment of the flagship species concept at a small scale. Animal Conservation. 2004 Februa ry 1 [cited 2012 March 14];7(1):63 70. 24. Chan K. Mass communication and pro environmental behaviour: waste recycling in Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management. 1998;52(4):317 325. 25. Clucas B, McHugh K, Caro T. Flagship species on covers of US c onservation and nature magazines. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2008 April 18 [cited 2012 February 26];17(6):1517 1528. 26. Coertjens L, Boeve de Pauw J, De Maeyer S, Van Petegem P. Do schools make a difference in their environmental and awareness? Eviden ce from Pisa 2006. International
! ,' Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2010 June 1 [cited 2012 April 5];8(3):497 522. 27. Corral Verdugo V, Bechtel RB, Fraijo Sing B. Environmental beliefs and water conservation: An empirical study. Journal of Envi ronmental Psychology. 2003 September [cited 2012 April 13];23(3):247 257. 28. Dell'Amore C. Pythons Eating Through Everglades Mammals at "Astonishing" Rate? National Geographic [Internet]. 2012 January 30 [cited 2012 April 4]. Available from: http://news.n ationalgeographic.com/news/2012/01/120130 florida burmese pythons mammals everglades science nation/ 29. Dettmann Easler D, Pease JL. Evaluating the effectiveness of residential environmental education programs in fostering positive attitudes toward wildli fe. The Journal of Environmental Education. 1999;31(1):33 39. 30. DiEnno CM, Hilton SC. High School Students' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Levels of Enjoyment of an Environmental Education Unit on Nonnative Plants. The Journal of Environmental Education. 2005 ;37(1):13 25. 31. Dioum B. Address to the general assembly of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 1968 [cited 2012 April 9]. Available from: http://en.microcosmaquariumexplorer.com/wiki/Baba_Dioum 32. Disney Animal Kingdom. Inspiring ou r Guests through Interpretation Training Manual. 2011. 33. Dunn R, others. Survey of Research on Learning Styles. Educational leadership. 1989;46(6):50 58. 34. Emmanuel LO. Burmese Python Caught in SoFla Pool. NBC 6 Miami [Internet]. 2011 December [cited 2 012 April 15]. Available from: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/13 Foot Burmese Python Caught in South Florida Swimming Pool 136221313.html 35. Engeman R, Jacobson E, Avery ML, Meshaka Jr WE. The aggressive invasion of exotic reptiles in Florida with a f ocus on prominent species: a review. 2011. 36. Entwistle A, Dunstone N. Priorities for the conservation of mammalian diversity: has the panda had its day? Cambridge University Press; 2000. 37. Feldman A, Konold C, (U.S.) NSF, Coulter B. Network Science, a Decade Later: The Internet and Classroom Learning. Taylor & Francis US; 2000. Felder RM and Spurlin J. 2004. Applications, reliability, and validity of the index of learning styles. International Journal of Engineeri ng Education 21(1). Frankola K. 2001. Why online learners drop out. Workforce Costa Mesa
! ,( 38. Fuhrman NE, Ladewig H. Characteristics of animals used in zoo interpretation : a synthesis of research. 2008. 39. Gamba RJ, Oskamp S. Factors Influencing Community Residents' Participation in Commingled Curbside Recycling Programs. Environment and Behavior. 1994 September 1 [cited 2012 March 30];26(5):587 612. 40. Gambro JS, Switzky HN. A national survey of high school students' environmental knowledge. The Journal of Environme ntal Education. 1996;27(3):28 33. 41. Gerber BL, Cavallo AML, Marek EA. Relationships among informal learning environments, teaching procedures and scientific reasoning ability. International Journal of Science Education. 2001;23(5):535 549. 42. Gray L, Th omas N, Lewis L. Educational Technology in US Public Schools: Fall 2008. First Look. NCES 2010 034. National Center for Education Statistics. 2010:66. 43. Greenberg J. Monkey Portraits. First ed. Bulfinch; 2006. 44. Ham SH. Environmental Interpretation: A Practical Guide for People with Big Ideas and Small Budgets. Fulcrum Publishing; 1993. 45. Hart P, Nolan K. A Critical Analysis of Research in Environmental Education. Studies in Science Education. 1999;34(1):1 69. 46. Harvell C, Kim K, Burkholder J, Colwe ll R, Epstein PR, Grimes D, Hofmann E, Lipp E, Osterhaus A, Overstreet RM, et al. Emerging marine diseases climate links and anthropogenic factors. Science. 1999;285(5433):1505 1510. 47. Heywood VH. Global Biodiversity Assessment Academic and Professiona l Books Cambridge University Press. 1995 November [cited 2012 April 5]. Available from: http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item5708206/?site_locale=en_GB Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C. 2004. Handling drop out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23(9):1455 97 48. Kalinowski CM, Lynne GD, Johnson B. Recycling as a Reflection of Balanced Self Interest A Test of the Metaeconomics Approach. Environment and Behavior. 2006 May 1 [cited 2012 April 16];38(3):333 355. 49. Kareiva P. Ominous trends in nature recreation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008;105(8):2757. 50. Kellert SR. Attitudes Toward Animals: Age Related Development Among Children. Journal of Environmental Education. 1985;16(3):29 39. 51. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research.
! ,) 2002;8(3):239 260. 52. Kwan T, Miles J. In the words of children and young people: The opinions and concerns about their environments of some Brisbane school students. Australian Journal of Environmental Education. 1999. 53. Larson LR, Green GT, Castleberry SB. I'm too old to go outside! Examining age related differences in children's environmental orientations. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. ; 2010. 54. Leader Williams N, Dublin HT. Charismatic megafauna as "flagship species." Priorities for the conservation of mammalian diversity: Has the panda had its day. 2000:53 81. 55. Leopold A. A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There (Outdoor Essays & Reflections). Ballantine Books; 1989. Availa ble from: http://www.amazon.com/Sand County Almanac Sketches Reflections/dp/019505928X 56. Lindenmayer DB, Margules CR, Botkin DB. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation biology. 2000;14(4):941 950. 57. Lori mer J. Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 2007 [cited 2012 April 9];25(5):911 932. 58. Love G, Calderon F. Miami Dade County's Award Winning Recycling Program Achieves Record breaking Fiscal Year. 2011 November [cited 2012 April 13]. Available from: http://www.miamidade.gov/DSWM/releases/11 11 15 record_breaking_year.asp 59. Lunney D. Charismatic Megafauna. The Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability: Ecosystem Management and Sustainability [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2012 Apri l 10]. Available from: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQF jAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.berkshirepublishing.com%2Fbrw%2Fsamples%2FCha rismaticMegafaunaLunney.pdf&ei=kZiDT6OdEobk9ATx7LTTCA&usg=AFQjCNEsKV ptK8Pzma7bTWiu4JqPhYRi Dg&sig2=mZVRnvxCib0WP2K0E gkcA 60. Mittermeier RA. Primate diversity and the tropical forest. Biodiversity. 1988:145 154. 61. Mobley C, Vagias WM, DeWard SL. Exploring Additional Determinants of Environmentally Responsible Behavior: The Influence of Enviro nmental Literature and Environmental Attitudes. Environment and Behavior. 2010 July 1 [cited 2012 April 16];42(4):420 447. 62. Nash S. Desperately Seeking Charisma: Improving the Status of Invertebrates. BioScience. 2004 June 1 [cited 2012 March 30];54(6): 487 494. 63. Olli E, Grendstad G, Wollebaek D. Correlates of Environmental Behaviors Bringing
! ,* Back Social Context. Environment and Behavior. 2001 March 1 [cited 2012 April 16];33(2):181 208. 64. Powell K. Science education: Spare me the lecture. Nature. 20 03 September 18 [cited 2012 April 3];425(6955):234 236. 65. Pyle RM. Thunder Tree: Lessons from a Secondhand Landscape. Houghton Mifflin; 1993. 66. Rebecca G. Harvey MLB. Burmese Pythons in South Florida: Scientific Support for Invasive Species Management. 2011 September 8 [cited 2012 April 4]. Available from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw286 67. Rickinson M. Learners and learning in environmental education: a critical review of the evidence. Environmental Education Research. 2001;7(3):207 320. 68. Roberts BK Aronsohn MG, Moses BL, Burk RL, Toll J, Weeren FR. Bufo marinus intoxication in dogs: 94 cases (1997 1998). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2000;216(12):1941 1944. 69. Rowe S, Kisiel J. Understanding Interactions at Science Center s and Museums. In: SensePublishers; 2012. pp. 63 77. Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/w2390812x041j304/abstract/ Salim A, Mackinnon A, Christensen H, Griffit hs K. 20 08. Comparison of data analysis strategies for intent to treat analysis in pre test post test designs with substantial dropout rates. Psychiatry Res 160(3):335 45. 70. Scott D, Willits FK. Environmental Attitudes and Behavior A Pennsylvania Survey Environment and Behavior. 1994 March 1 [cited 2012 March 21];26(2):239 260. 71. Serrell B, Adams R. Paying attention: Visitors and museum exhibitions. American Association of Museums Washington, DC; 1998. 72. Sessions SK, Franssen RA, Horner VL. Morpholo gical clues from multilegged frogs: Are retinoids to blame? Science. 1999;284(5415):800 802. 73. Sherwood Jr. KP, Rallis SF, Stone J. Effects of live animals vs. preserved specimens on student learning. Zoo Biology. 1989 January 1 [cited 2011 October 21];8 (1):99 104. 74. Simon SE, Kissinger M, Nakase D, Damiani CC, Garcelon DK. The mobile REEF Program: A vehicle for science literacy. In: Porceedings of the Seventh California Islands Symposium, Oxnard, California, February 5 8, 2008. ; 2009. 75. Sivin Kachal a J, Bialo ER. 2000 Research Report on the Effectiveness of Technology in Schools. Technology. 2000;1(202):1 136. 76. Swanagan JS. Factors influencing zoo visitors' conservation attitudes and behavior.
! ,+ The Journal of Environmental Education. 2000;31(4):26 31. 77. Tilden F, Craig RB. Interpreting our heritage. University of North Carolina Press; 2007. 78. Toma i I. The influence of direct experience on students' attitudes to, and knowledge about amphibians. Acta Biologica Slovenica. 2008;51(1):39 49. 79. Toma i I. Reported Experiences Enhance Favourable Attitudes Toward Toads. Eurasia Journal of Mathe matics, Science & Technology Education. 2011;7(4):253 262. 80. Tung CY, Huang CC, Kawata C. The effects of different environmental education programs on the environmental behavior of seventh grade students and related factors. Journal of Environmental Heal th. 2002;64(7):24 29. 81. Vadala CE, Bixler RD, James JJ. Childhood Play and Environmental Interests: Panacea or Snake Oil? The Journal of Environmental Education. 2007;39(1):3 18. 82. Weldon C, Du Preez LH, Hyatt AD, Muller R, Speare R. Origin of amphibia n chytrid fungus. Emerging infectious diseases. 2004;10(12):2100 2105. 83. Wells J, Lewis L. Internet Access in US Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994 2005. Highlights. NCES 2007 020. National Center for Education Statistics. 2006:83. 84. Wilson EO. The li ttle things that run the world (the importance and conservation of invertebrates). JSTOR; 1987. 85. Wilson LD, McCranie JR. Herpetofaunal indicator species as measures of environmental stability in Honduras. Caribbean Journal of Science. 2003;39(1):50 67. 86. Wilson M, Kelling A, Poline L, Bloomsmith M, Maple T. Post occupancy evaluation of zoo Atlanta's Giant Panda Conservation Center: Staff and visitor reactions. Zoo Biology. 2003 January 1 [cited 2012 April 5];22(4):365 382. 87. Wray Lake L, Flanagan CA, Osgood DW. Examining trends in adolescent environmental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors across three decades. Environment and Behavior. 2010;42(1):61 85. 88. Yalowitz SS. Evaluating visitor conservation research at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Curator: Th e Museum Journal. 2004;47(3):283 298. 89. Anon. Sunshine State Standards Curriculum and Instruction. 2008 [cited 2012 April 18]. Available from: http://www.fldoe.org/bii/curriculum/sss/ 90. Anon. Zoo Visitor Demographics. 2009 July 30 [cited 2012 March 14] Available from: http://www.aza.org/visitor demographics/ 91. Anon. Florida Department of Education: Requirements for Graduation Bureau of
! ,, Curriculum and Instruction: Florida Statute 1003.428. 2011 [cited 2012 April 18]. Available from: http://www.fldoe.o rg/bii/studentpro/grad require.asp 92. Anon. Pythons likely wiping out Glades mammals, new study finds. 2012 January [cited 2012 April 4]. Available from: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/30/v print/2615810/python likely wiping out glades.html 93. Anon. Chytrid Fungus Amphibian Ark. [cited 2011 October 18]. Available from: http://www.amphibianark.org/the crisis/chytrid fungus/ 94. Anon. Amphibian Conservation Program National Zoo| FONZ. [cited 2011 October 18]. Available from: http://nationalzoo.si.ed u/SCBI/SpeciesSurvival/AmphibianConservation/default.cfm 95. Anon. Indicators Amphibian Ark. [cited 2011 December 4]. Available from: http://www.amphibianark.org/the crisis/amphibians as indicators/ 96. Anon. Global Invasive Species Database. [cited 2012 March 30]. Available from: http://www.issg.org/database/species/search.asp?st=100ss&fr=1&str= 97. Anon. Pythons Eating Through Everglades Mammals at "Astonishing" Rate? National Geographic [Internet]. [cited 2012 April 4]. Available from: http://news.nati onalgeographic.com/news/2012/01/120130 florida burmese pythons mammals everglades science nation/ 98. Anon. Giant African Land Snails Return To South Florida. [cited 2012 April 4]. Available from: http://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/09/15/giant african land sna ils return to south florida/ 99. Anon. Giant African Land Snail UF/IFAS Extension: Solutions for Your Life. [cited 2012 April 4]. Available from: http://solutionsforyourlife.ifas.ufl.edu/hot_topics/environment/giant_african_snail.html 100. Anon. Charisma Definition and More from the Free Merriam Webster Dictionary. [cited 2012 April 4]. Available from: http://www.merriam webster.com/dictionary/charisma 101. Anon. National Association for Interpretation: Definitions Project. [cited 2012 April 4]. Availab le from: http://www.definitionsproject.com/definitions/def_full_term.cfm 102. Anon. Bufo marinus: Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce. [cited 2012 March 30]. Available from: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/bufo_marinus.htm 103. Anon. Marine Toad: Flori da Wildlife Extension at UF/IFAS. [cited 2011 October 18]. Available from: http://www.wec.ufl.edu/extension/wildlife_info/frogstoads/rhinella_marina.php 104. Anon. Cuban Treefrog: Florida Wildlife Extension at UF/IFAS. [cited 2011 October
! "-! 18]. Available fr om: http://www.wec.ufl.edu/extension/wildlife_info/frogstoads/osteopilus_septentrionalis.php 105. Anon. Frogwatch: Association of Zoos and Aquariums. [cited 2011 October 18]. Available from: http://www.aza.org/frogwatch/ 106. Anon. Frogs & Toads of Florida : Florida Wildlife Extension at UF/IFAS. [cited 2011 October 18]. Available from: http://www.wec.ufl.edu/extension/wildlife_info/frogstoads/image_index.php 107. Anon. Green.view: Branding land | The Economist. [cited 2012 April 10]. Available from: http://www.economist.com/node/10486391 108. Anon. Fate of the imperiled polar bear may rest in zoos KansasCity.com. [cited 2012 April 10]. Available from: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/03/25/3513375/pola r bear future may rest in.html 109. Anon. Polar Bears International Polar Bear Research Polar Bear Education. [cited 2012 April 10]. Available from: http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ 110. Anon. Greening Household Behaviour Books OECD iLibrary [cited 2012 April 10]. Available from: http://www.oecd ilibrary.org/environment/greening household behaviour_9789264096875 en 111. Anon. Miami Dade County Public Works and Waste Management. [cited 2012 April 13]. Available from: http://www.miamidade.go v/DSWM/releases/11 11 15 record_breaking_year.asp 112. Anon. Association of Zoos and Aquariums. [cited 2012 April 18]. Available from: http://www.aza.org/ 113. Anon. Miami Dade County Public Works and Waste Management Curbside Recycling Program. [cited 2012 March 30]. Available from: http://www.miamidade.gov/dswm/new_curbside_recycling.asp