USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Ocean literacy and reasoning about ocean issues

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Ocean literacy and reasoning about ocean issues the influence of content, experience and morality
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Greely, Teresa
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Environmental education
Ocean sciences education
Socioscientific
Stewardship
Dissertations, Academic -- Secondary Education -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: Ocean issues with conceptual ties to science and a global society have captured the attention, imagination, and concern of an international audience. Climate change, over fishing, marine pollution, freshwater shortages and alternative energy sources are a few ocean issues highlighted in our media and casual conversations. From the life-giving rain that nourishes crops and our bodies, to life-saving medicines; from the fish that come from the ocean, to the goods that are transported on the sea's surface-the ocean plays a role in our life in some way every day (NOAA, 1998). However, a disconnect exists between what scientists know and the public understands about the ocean. Although standards for science teaching and literacy are established, the fundamental role of the ocean is not emphasized.This was an exploratory study of 30 females, 13-14 years old, during an extended ocean learning experience, the Oceanography Camp for Girls, which included direct experiences in natural environments. Teens were engaged in a series of ocean learning and stewardship activities. A mixed-methods approach was used to develop three quantitative instruments: the Survey of Ocean Literacy and Engagement (SOLE), Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS) and Scenarios of Ocean Environmental Morality (SOEM). Three ocean socioscientific issues (OSSI) case studies were analyzed qualitatively. Participants reasoned and expressed positions in writing and verbally following OSSI embedded activities. Research questions examined what understanding teen girls currently hold about the ocean (content), how they feel (environmental attitudes and morality) toward the ocean environment, and how these feelings and understanding are organized when reasoning about ocean issues.Results from SOLE and SOS revealed that content knowledge and environmental attitudes significantly contribute to ocean literacy. Analysis of SOEM demonstrated that biocentric environmental reasoning was most important to teens in solving specific ocean dilemmas. Analysis of OSSI from interview responses revealed three patterns of informal reasoning (rationalistic, emotive and intuitive). Findings support the critical need to globally advance ocean literacy, especially amongst youth and adults. An overarching outcome was that the Oceanography Camp for Girls program is multimodal and goes beyond cognitive understanding to include social and emotive aspects of learning.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Teresa Greely.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 235 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002046386
oclc - 496014763
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002696
usfldc handle - e14.2696
System ID:
SFS0027013:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200397Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 002046386
005 20100106140935.0
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 100106s2008 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002696
035
(OCoLC)496014763
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
LB1601 (Online)
1 100
Greely, Teresa.
0 245
Ocean literacy and reasoning about ocean issues :
b the influence of content, experience and morality
h [electronic resource] /
by Teresa Greely.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2008.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 235 pages.
Includes vita.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
520
ABSTRACT: Ocean issues with conceptual ties to science and a global society have captured the attention, imagination, and concern of an international audience. Climate change, over fishing, marine pollution, freshwater shortages and alternative energy sources are a few ocean issues highlighted in our media and casual conversations. From the life-giving rain that nourishes crops and our bodies, to life-saving medicines; from the fish that come from the ocean, to the goods that are transported on the sea's surface-the ocean plays a role in our life in some way every day (NOAA, 1998). However, a disconnect exists between what scientists know and the public understands about the ocean. Although standards for science teaching and literacy are established, the fundamental role of the ocean is not emphasized.This was an exploratory study of 30 females, 13-14 years old, during an extended ocean learning experience, the Oceanography Camp for Girls, which included direct experiences in natural environments. Teens were engaged in a series of ocean learning and stewardship activities. A mixed-methods approach was used to develop three quantitative instruments: the Survey of Ocean Literacy and Engagement (SOLE), Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS) and Scenarios of Ocean Environmental Morality (SOEM). Three ocean socioscientific issues (OSSI) case studies were analyzed qualitatively. Participants reasoned and expressed positions in writing and verbally following OSSI embedded activities. Research questions examined what understanding teen girls currently hold about the ocean (content), how they feel (environmental attitudes and morality) toward the ocean environment, and how these feelings and understanding are organized when reasoning about ocean issues.Results from SOLE and SOS revealed that content knowledge and environmental attitudes significantly contribute to ocean literacy. Analysis of SOEM demonstrated that biocentric environmental reasoning was most important to teens in solving specific ocean dilemmas. Analysis of OSSI from interview responses revealed three patterns of informal reasoning (rationalistic, emotive and intuitive). Findings support the critical need to globally advance ocean literacy, especially amongst youth and adults. An overarching outcome was that the Oceanography Camp for Girls program is multimodal and goes beyond cognitive understanding to include social and emotive aspects of learning.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor: Dana Zeidler, Ph.D.
599
002046386
653
Environmental education
Ocean sciences education
Socioscientific
Stewardship
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Secondary Education
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2696



PAGE 1

Ocean Literacy and Reasoning About Ocean Issues: The Influence of Content, Experience and Morality by Teresa Greely A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Secondary Education College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Dana Zeidler, Ph.D. Elaine Howes, Ph.D. Pamela Hallock-Muller, Ph.D. Steve Lang, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 12, 2008 Keywords: environmental education, ocean sciences education, socioscientific, stewardship Copyright 2008, Teresa Greely

PAGE 2

DEDICATION It is with great delight that I dedicate this work to my marine science mentor, Dr. Peter Betzer. He has steadfastly provided th e example and support to grow professionally as an ocean educator. I thank you, Peter for inspiring me to soar higher. Finally, my ultimate dedication is to my Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ. You are my life mentor. May this gift of a highe r education be used to honor and glorify you, and to inspire those with whom I am privil eged to meet along the journey. Thank you for the work you have done in me. Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:6) Rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing and in everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Jesus Christ concerni ng you (I Thessalonians 1:16-18)

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I extend my appreciation to my doctoral committee of Dana Zeidler, William Steve Lang, Pamela Hallock-Muller, and Elai ne Howes. Dana, I thank you for your vote of confidence and hopes for this research. Steve, I thank you for your tireless measurements lessons and perpetually positive outlook. Pam, I thank you for encouraging me many years ago to pursue this degree and for your support to see it to completion. Elaine, I thank you for seeing the vision of th is research and suppor ting its completion. To my devoted colleague, Angela L odge, no words can express the joy of pursuing this research with you. I am se nding a shout out to all the 2008 Oceanography Camp for Girls campers and parents. W ithout you this research would not have happened. Thanks for making history with me Thank you to the teach ers, Julie Butler, Heather Judkins and Elizabeth McGowan, a nd your students from St. Petersburg High, Seminole High and Countryside High Schools for contributing to this research. My deepest appreciation for the love and support from countless friends and family who have encouraged me every step of the way (thanks, Mom, Grandmother, Aunt Joanne, and O’kids). Finally, I extend my humble gratitude and thanksgiving to my two faithful friends and sisters in Christ, Angela Lodge and Angela Sizemore. Your prayers and fellowship kept me going sister friends. Sing wi th me, ‘How great is our God!”

PAGE 4

i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES viii ABSTRACT x CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM 1 Introduction 1 Research Issues 7 Scientific and Ocean Literacy 7 Socioscientific Issues and Ocean Literacy 10 Framework for Examining O cean Literacy and Reasoning 12 Content Knowledge and Ocean Literacy 14 Experience and Ocean Literacy 16 Experience and Nature (as Context) 16 Experience and Socioscientific Issues 18 Environmental Morality and Development 19 Informal Reasoning and Ocean Literacy 22 Problem Statement 24 Research Questions 25 Question 1 25 Question 2 27 Question 3 28 Question 4 29 Significance of Study 30 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 33 Introduction 33 Scientific Literacy and Citizenry 35 Ocean Literacy Defined 44 Content Knowledge 47 Role of Content Knowledge fo r Understanding about the Ocean 48 Role of Content Knowledge for Reasoning about Socioscientific Issues 53 Socioscientific Issues and Reasoning 57 Socioscientific Issues and Teaching Strategies 62 Environmental Morality 64 Environmental Attitudes 70

PAGE 5

ii A Framework for Investigating Ocean Literacy 76 Summary of Literature 77 CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 84 Introduction 84 Research Questions 85 RQ1 85 RQ2 85 RQ3 86 RQ4 86 Research Design and Methodology 86 Methods for Assessing Ocean Literacy and Reasoning 88 Ocean Sciences Content Selection for SOLE Instrument 90 Environmental Attitude Content Selection for SOS Instrument 91 Environmental Morality Reasoning Content Selection for SOEM Instrument 92 Ocean Socioscientific Issues Content Selection for Case Studies 94 Data Collection 97 Instrumentation 99 Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience (SOLE) 99 Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS) 99 Scenarios of Ocean Envi ronmental Morality (SOEM) 100 Interview Structure and Protocol 103 Population and Sample 104 Participant Characteristics 107 Context for Treatment 107 Data Analysis 108 Rasch Model Analysis 108 Analysis of Ocean Knowledge, Attitudes and Environmental Reasoning 109 Analysis of Informal Reasoning about Ocean Socioscientific Issues 110 Trustworthiness 112 Research Question 1 and 2: Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience (SOLE) & Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS) 112 Research Question 3: Scenar ios of Ocean Environmental Morality (SOEM) 113 Research Question 4: Youth’s Reasoning about Ocean Socioscientific Issues 114 Limitations of Study 114 Summary 117

PAGE 6

iii CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 119 Introduction 119 Interpreting Rasch M odel Output Results 121 Research Question 1 and Sub-questions 122 Sub-Questions 1a 122 Sub-Questions 1b 122 Research Question 2 124 Research Question 3 124 Research Question 4 125 Ocean Knowledge Assessment 125 Research Question 1 125 Ocean Environmental Attitudes Assessment Research Question 2 132 Scenarios of Ocean Environmental Moral Reasoning Assessment Research Question 3 139 OSSI Informal Reasoning Assessment Research Question 4 147 Quality of OSSI Informal Reasoning 150 OSSI Informal Reasoning Patterns 150 OSSI Written Responses 153 Limitations 154 Measuring Ocean Literacy 154 Scenario Selection 155 Sample Population 155 Nature of Study 157 Summary 158 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 159 Introduction 159 Content and environmental context 160 Content 160 Context 162 Environmental Attitudes 164 Environmental Moral Reasoning 166 Informal Reasoning about Ocean Issues 169 Characteristics of Informal Reasoning 169 Patterns of Informal Reasoning 170 Recommendations and Future Research Needs 172 Opportunities to Build an Ocean-knowledge Base 172 Professional Development and Teaching Resources for Ocean Literacy 174 Practice and Experience Reasoni ng about Ocean Socioscientific Issues 174 Contribution to Science Education 175 Summary 176

PAGE 7

iv REFERENCES CITED 182 APPENDICES 195 Appendix A: Description of the Cent ers of Ocean Sciences Education Excellence (COSEE) 196 Appendix B: A Description of th e Oceanography Camp for Girls Education Program 198 Appendix C: Three Quantitative In struments Developed to Measure Ocean Literacy 199 Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience (SOLE) Instrument 199 Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS) Instrument 206 Scenarios of Ocean Envi ronmental Morality (SOEM) Instrument 209 Appendix D: Description of Ocean So cioscientific Issue Case Studies and Questions for Written Responses 215 Description of Turtle Hurdle (Case Study I) 215 Description of Fish Banks (Case Study II) 216 Description of Marine Pollution and Coastal Clean-up Activity (Case Study III) 218 Appendix E: Informal Reasoning Ocean Socioscientific Readings and Interview Questions 220 Sea Turtle Reading (Case Study I) 221 Fish Banks Reading (Case Study II) 223 Ocean Pollution Reading (Case Study III) 225 Appendix F: Matrix 1, Constr uct Map of Ocean Literacy 226 Appendix G: Matrix 2, Items Matrix for Ocean Literacy Using the Essential Principles of Ocean Sciences 230 Appendix H: A Rubric to Analyze Types of Moral Development and Environmental Moral Reasoning 231 Appendix I: Output Data for SOLE Item Analysis 232 Appendix J: Output Data for SOS Item Analysis 233 Appendix K: Output Data for SOEM Item Analysis 235 ABOUT THE AUTHOR End Page

PAGE 8

v LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Ocean Literacy and Seven Essent ial Principles of Ocean Sciences (COSEE, 2005) 5 Table 2 Possible Relationships between Components of Ocean Literacy and the Socioscientific Elements of Functional Scientific Literacy 14 Table 3 Summary of the Four Compone nt Model of Moral Development (Rest, 1986; Rest et al ., 1999; Rest et al., 2000) 21 Table 4 Outline of the Parallel Relationships between the Tenets of Scientific Literacy and Ocean Literacy; CKC = Content Knowledge Construction, SSI = Socioscien tific Issues and Reasoning 37 Table 5 Summary of Kolsto (2001) Content-transcending Topics 56 Table 6 Ocean Literacy Survey Instrume nt Questions by Category within an Ocean Literacy Matrix of Learning Objectives as Conceptualized by Cudaback (2006) 78 Table 7 Ocean Literacy Matrix of Lear ning Objectives as Conceptualized by Cudaback (2006); Italicized Text is Additional Objectives for the Present Study 90 Table 8 Content Item Map of Using th e Essential Principles of Ocean Sciences Literacy Used for This Study, Construct Measured (Content, Attitudes, Stewardship, Reasoning), In strument Choice, and Sample Group 93 Table 9 Methods for Assessing Ocean Literacy and Reasoning (SOLE= Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experiences, SOS= Survey of Ocean Stewardship, SOEM= Scenario of Ocean Environmental Morality, OSSI= Ocean Socioscientific I ssues, RQ= Research Question Addressed) 96 Table 10 A Summary of Ocean Literacy Instrument Development and Data Collection 105

PAGE 9

vi Table 11 Constructs for Assessing the Quality of Informal Reasoning about the OSSI 111 Table 12 A Summary of Data Analysis 118 Table 13 Question Groups Asked to Repres ent Each Construct for SOLE, SOS, SOEM and OSSI as Aligns with the Seven Essential Principles of Ocean Sciences 120 Table 14 SOLE Questions Demonstra ting Most Significant Group Gains 130 Table 15 SOLE Misfit Questions Perf orming Outside Criteria of Rasch Analysis 131 Table 16 Excerpts from Participants’ Sc ience Learning Essays as Revealed from Thematic Content Analysis, N=30 133 Table 17 Comparison of Differences w ithin Scenarios and between Reasoning from Pre-Post Program Responses 146 Table 18 Examples of Interview Res ponses Organized by Informal Reasoning Constructs Identified by Sadler ( 2003); Number of Participants (1-29) and Scenario; TH=Turtle Hurdle and OP=Ocean Pollution 152 Table 19 Examples of Informal Reasoni ng Patterns (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004) Evident from Written (W) and Oral (O) Responses to Ocean Socioscientific Issues; TH=Turtle Hurdle and OP=Ocean Pollution 153 Table 20 Emergent Themes Identified from Written Responses to Ocean Socioscientific Issues (OSSI) Fo llowing an Interactive OSSI Learning Activity; Examples of Written Responses from 29 Participants; Italicized Text Adde d for Clarification of Statement 156 Table 21 Scores from Ocean Socioscientific Issues (OSSI) Written Response for Persuasiveness of Letters Outl ining Proposed Law Related to Issue; Note, Proposed Law was Consid ered Persuasive if 1) Target Group and Enforcer Identified, 2) Law Clearly Defined, and 3) Penalty Identified; Scores Me asured Scale 0-5; 0 = did not Write Letter; Higher Number More Persuasive Law; Zero Scores not Included for Analysis 157

PAGE 10

vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Socioscientific Elements of Functional Scientific Literacy 13 Figure 2 Graphic Outline of the Topics Addressed in Literature Review 35 Figure 3 Graphic Summary of Research Rela ted to Scientific Literacy and the Influence of Contextual Values on Social Knowledge Construction 40 Figure 4 Graphic Summary of Research Related to What I ndividuals Know about the Ocean from Content Scales 52 Figure 5 Graphic Summary of Influence of Content Knowledge on Reasoning about SSI 55 Figure 6 A Graphic Summary of Research Related to Socioscientific Issues and Informal Reasoning 59 Figure 7 A Graphic Summary of Research Related to Environmental Morality and the Influence of Environmental Outdoor Programs Including Links to Behaviors and Attitudes 73 Figure 8 Graphic Summary of Research Design and Methodology 89 Figure 9a Construct Map of Person Measur es and Item Thresholds for Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experien ce from Pre-Program Responses, N=29 128 Figure 9a Construct Map of Person Measur es and Item Thresholds for Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience from Post-Program Responses, N=29 129 Figure 10 Plot of Pre-Post Measures to Demonstrate Analysis of Change at the Individual Level for the Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience Responses, N=29 130 Figure 11a Construct Map of Person Measur es and Item Thresholds for Survey of Ocean Stewardship from Pr e-Program Responses, N=29 137 Figure 11b Construct Map of Person Measur es and Item Thresholds for Survey of Ocean Stewardship from Pr e-Program Responses, N=29 138

PAGE 11

viii Figure 12 Plot of Pre-Post Measures to Demonstrate Analysis of Change at the Individual Level for the Survey of Ocean Stewardship Responses, N=29 139 Figure 13a Construct Map of Person M easures and Item Thresholds for Scenarios of Ocean Environmenta l Morality from Pre-Program Responses, N=29 141 Figure 13b Construct Map of Person M easures and Item Thresholds for Scenarios of Ocean Environmenta l Morality from Post-Program Responses, N=29 142 Figure 14 Analysis of Change Between Pre and Post Responses for the Four Moral Development Components of the Rest Model (1986, 2000); R1= Moral Sensitivity, R2= Moral Judgment, R3= Moral Motivation, And R4= Moral Character 143

PAGE 12

ix OCEAN LITERACY AND REASONING ABOUT OCEAN ISSUES: THE INFLUENCE OF CONTENT, EX PERIENCE AND MORALITY Teresa Greely ABSTRACT Ocean issues with conceptual ties to sc ience and a global society have captured the attention, imagination, and concern of an international audience. Climate change, over fishing, marine pollution, freshwater shor tages and alternative energy sources are a few ocean issues highlighted in our media and casual conversations. From the life-giving rain that nourishes crops and our bodies, to life-saving medicine s; from the fish that come from the ocean, to the goods that are transp orted on the sea’s surf ace—the ocean plays a role in our life in some way every day (NOAA, 1998). However, a disconnect exists between what scientists know and the pub lic understands about the ocean. Although standards for science teaching and literacy ar e established, the fundamental role of the ocean is not emphasized. This was an exploratory study of 30 female s, 13-14 years old, during an extended ocean learning experience, the Oceanography Camp for Girls, which included direct experiences in natural environments. Teens we re engaged in a series of ocean learning and stewardship activities. A mixed-methods approach was used to develop three quantitative instruments: the Survey of Ocean Literacy and Engagement (SOLE), Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS) and Scenarios of Ocean Environmental Morality (SOEM). Three ocean socioscientific issues (OSSI) case studies were analyzed qualitatively.

PAGE 13

x Participants reasoned and expressed positions in writing and verbally following OSSI embedded activities. Research questions examined what understa nding teen girls cu rrently hold about the ocean (content), how they feel (envir onmental attitudes and morality) toward the ocean environment, and how these feelin gs and understanding are organized when reasoning about ocean issues. Results from SOLE and SOS revealed that content knowledge and environmental attitudes signi ficantly contribute to ocean literacy. Analysis of SOEM demonstrated that bioc entric environmental reasoning was most important to teens in solving specific ocean dilemmas. Analysis of OSSI from interview responses revealed three patterns of in formal reasoning (ratio nalistic, emotive and intuitive). Findings support the critical need to gl obally advance ocean literacy, especially amongst youth and adults. An overarching ou tcome was that the Oceanography Camp for Girls program is multimodal and goes beyond co gnitive understanding to include social and emotive aspects of learning.

PAGE 14

1 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM Introduction Ocean issues with conceptual ties to sc ience and a global society have captured the attention, imagination, and concern of an international audience. Global climate change, natural disasters, over fishing, marine pollution, freshwater shortages, groundwater contamination, economic trade and commerce, marine mammal stranding, and decreased biodiversity are just a few of th e ocean issues highlighted in our media and conversations. The ocean shapes our weather, lin ks us to other nations, and is crucial to our national security. From the life-giving ra in that nourishes crops and our bodies, to life-saving medicines; from the fish that co me from the ocean, to the goods that are transported on the sea’s surface--the ocean plays a role in our lives in some way everyday (NOAA, 1998). The American public va lues the ocean and considers protecting it to be a fundamental responsibility, but its understanding of why we need the ocean is superficial (Belden, Russonello & Stewart, 1999). However, a broad disconnect exists between what scientist know and the pub lic understands about the ocean. The ocean, more than any other single ecosystem, has soci al and personal releva nce to all persons. In the 21st century we will look increasingly to th e ocean to meet our everyday needs and future sustainability. Thus, there is a critical need to advance ocean literacy within our nation, especially among youth and young adults. It has been estimated that less than 2% of all American adults are environmentally literate (NEETF, 2005). Results from a series of ocean and coastal literacy surveys

PAGE 15

2 (AAAS, 2004; Belden, et al., 1999; Steel, Sm ith, Opsommer, Curiel & Warner-Steel, 2005) of American adults reveal similar fi ndings. Surveys demonstrated that in the 1990’s the public valued the ocean and expre ssed emotional and recreational connections, however, awareness about ocean health was low. A decade later Americans had an increased sense of urgency about ocean issu es and were willing to support actions to protect the oceans even when the tradeoffs of higher prices at the supermarket, fewer recreational choices, and increased governme nt spending were presented (AAAS, 2004). While most Americans surveyed agree that hum ans are impacting the health of the ocean more than one-third felt that they cannot make a difference. In contrast, a survey of youth reveals strong feelings about environmental i ssues and the confidence that they can make a difference (AZA, 2003). Collectively, these st udies reveal that th e public is not well equipped with knowledge about ocean issues. Th is implies that the public needs access to better ocean information delivered in the mo st effective manner. The component lacking for both adults and youth is a baseline of o cean knowledge--literacy about the oceans to balance the emotive factors exhibited through care, concer n and connection with the ocean. The interdependence between humans and the ocean is at the heart of ocean literacy. Cudaback (2006) believes that gi ven the declining quali ty of the marine environment (Pew Ocean Commission, 2003), ocean educators have the responsibility to teach not only the science of the ocean, but also the interdependen ce with humans. Ocean literacy is especially significant, as we im plement a first-ever national ocean policy to halt the steady decline of our nation’s ocean and coasts via the Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century (U.S. Commission on Ocean Polic y, 2004). The need for ocean education

PAGE 16

3 and literacy that goes beyond em otive factors is critical a nd relevant towards preparing our students, teachers, and citizens to regul arly contribute to ocean decisions and socioscientific issues that impact their h ealth and well being on Earth. “The biggest barriers to increasing commitment to ocean pr otection are Americans’ lack of awareness of the condition of the oceans and of their own role in damaging the oceans,” (Belden, et al., 1999). The challenge for ocean educators is to explicitly state the connections between the ocean and daily deci sions and actions of people. People enjoy the beauty of the ocean a nd the bounty of its waters, but may not understand that their everyday actions such as boating, construction, improper waste disposal, or ignoring protected areas, can imp act the ocean and its resources. More than one-half of the US population lives within 200 miles of the ocean. Long-term planning for growth, development and use of coastal ar eas is key to the con tinued productivity of the ocean (NOAA, 1998). Because the ocean is inextricably interconn ected to students’ lives it provides a significant context for so cioscientific issues that foster decision making, human interactions, and environmental stewardship. Ocean literacy encompasses th e tenets of scientific l iteracy which is defined by national standards, as the ability to make info rmed decisions regarding scientific issues of particular social importan ce (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996, 2000). As such, scientific literacy encompasses both cognitive (e.g. knowledge skill s) and affective (e.g., emotions, values, morals, culture) processes. Science standards were designed to guide our nation toward a scientifically literate society and provide criteria to judge prog ress toward a national vision of science literacy (NRC, 1996). Although standards for science teaching and literacy are established, the fundamental and crit ical role of the ocean is not emphasized.

PAGE 17

4 Recently the definition of scie ntific literacy has been more broadly conceptualized to include dealing sensibly with moral r easoning and ethical i ssues, and understanding connections inherent in soci oscientific issues (Zeidler, 2001; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). Even more recently, the Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence (COSEE) established a definition of ocean literacy as understanding how the ocean affects you and how you affect the ocean. An ocean-literate person understands the sc ience of the ocean, can communicate about the oceans, and can make informed decisions about ocean policy. Table 1 identifies the seven content principl es that guide the sc ope of ocean literacy. Appendix A provides a descripti on of the COSEE centers and their contribution to ocean literacy. Now that a definition, characteristics and essential principles exist to describe ocean literacy, there is a cr itical need to operationalize the concepts and assess the success and shortfalls of current ocean edu cation programs using the tenets of ocean literacy. The present study sought to test the concept of ocean literacy within the context of an ocean education program, the Oceanogr aphy Camp for Girls. Appendix B provides a description of the Oceanography Ca mp for Girls education program. Understanding the role of science in relati on to other areas of life rather than an isolated subject is an important goal of many educators and scientists (Cudaback, 2006; Kolsto, 2001; Schroedinger, Cava, Strang & Tuddenham, 2006; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). Evident from Table 1 is that ocean literacy en compasses both social a nd scientific factors. Socially, humans are consumers of ocean recreation, transported goods, and products from the sea. One of every six US jobs is marine-related, and one-t hird of the nation’s gross domestic product is produced in coas tal areas through fish ing, transportation,

PAGE 18

5 Table 1. Ocean Literacy and Seven Essential Principles of Ocean Sciences (COSEE, 2005) Ocean Literacy Definition Seven Essential Principles An ocean-literate person: understands the science of the oceans, can communicate about the oceans, and can make informed decisions about ocean policy 1. Earth has one big ocean with many features 2. The ocean and life in the ocean shape the features of Earth 3. The ocean is a major influence on weather and climate 4. The ocean makes Earth habitable 5. The ocean supports a great diversity of life and ecosystems 6. The ocean and humans ar e inextricably linked 7. The ocean is largely unexplored recreation and other industri es dependent on healthy wate rs and marine habitats. Scientifically, the oceans make Earth habitabl e, cycle our freshwater, and drive weather patterns. A major outcome of scientific literacy is the ability to negotiate complex issues that involve scientific know ledge and social influences (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004). The socioscientific movement aims to empower st udents to functionally handle science-based issues that shape their current world and t hose which will determine their future world (Driver, Newton & Osborne, 2000; Kolsto, 2001; Sadler, 2004). It may be that socioscientific issues and di scourse can provide the kineti c energy to set in motion a wave of ocean literacy. The goal to advance ocean literacy is s ynchronous with the goals of most science educators and research councils (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996, 2000), that is to progress toward a national vision of functional scien tific literacy for de cision making. Science

PAGE 19

6 literacy research has focused in three primar y areas: attitudes, knowledge, and processes. My study examined the role of content know ledge specifically conceptual understanding and attitudes about the ocean were analyzed as mediating factors contributing to ocean literacy. Socioscientific decisionmaking is a significant aspect of scientific literacy and responsible citizenship (Berkowitz & Simmons 2003; Driver et al., 2000; Kolsto, 2001; Zeidler, 1984). The socioscien tific movement has gained su bstantial momentum over the past several years; consequently, the nu mber of empirical studies to support socioscientific issues has e xpanded. The significance of content (Lambert, 2005; Sadler, 2004; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004), context (e.g. culture, individual be liefs, experience, place/time in life; McGinnis, 2003; Persing, 200 6; Sadler, 2004; Semken, 2005), morality (Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Persing, 200 6; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Zeidler, & Keefer, 2003), critical thinking skills (Ault, 1998; Keef er, 2003; Zeidler, Lederman & Taylor, 1992), and the nature of science (Sadler, 2004; Zeid ler & Keefer, 2003) are cited as components to attend to when engaged in discourse about socioscientific issu es. Decision making is further influenced by personal experiences, emo tive factors, and social considerations. It is reasonable therefore to consider that many of these same processes will contribute to the resolution of ocean socioscientific issues. Because the ocean is inextricably interc onnected to students’ lives it provides a significant context for socioscientific issues that foster decision making, classroom discussions, human interactions, and envir onmental stewardship. Ocean literacy and reasoning most closely align with the internat ional definition of scie ntific literacy which is “the capacity to use scientific knowledge to identify questions and draw evidencebased conclusions in order to understand the natural world and the changes made to it

PAGE 20

7 through human activity” (OECD/PISA, 2001, p. 76). The present study sought to support the science education comm unity’s understanding of r easoning and resolution of socioscientific issues by expanding the rese arch to include the influence of ocean conceptual understanding (e.g. content), envi ronmental experiences (e.g., context) and environmental morality on reasoning about the ocean. The remainder of this chapter will introduce issues and concepts central to the research: scientific literacy, socioscientific issues and reasoning, content knowledge, e xperience, and environmental morality. A framework for investigating ocean literacy and reasoning will be provided, and the research questions presented. The chapter will conclude with the study’s significance for science education practiti oners and researchers. Research Issues Scientific and Ocean Literacy The need to advance a scient ifically literate citizenry is a widely accepted U.S. educational goal (AAAS, 1993; Laugksc h, 2000; NRC, 1996, 2000; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1994; Zeidler, 1984, 2003; Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, & Howes, 2005). Two sequential works have served as a catalyst and vision for scie nce education reform in the U.S. These are Science for All Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989; AAAS, 1994) and Benchmarks for Scien ce Literacy: Project 2061 (AAAS, 1993). Science for All Americans provides the societal wake-up call, rele vance, and viability of science literacy for citizens. It answers the question of what constitutes adult science literacy, recommending what all students should know and be able to do in science, mathematics, and technology by the time they graduate fr om high school (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989; AAAS, 1993). The Benchmarks for Science Literacy provides a framework for obtaining

PAGE 21

8 life-long science literacy. However, the question of what constitutes scientific literacy, or what a literate person should know or be ab le to do, remains controversial (AAAS, 1993; Durant, 1994; Kolsto, 2001; NRC, 1996; Ra msey, 1993; Sadler, 2004; Zeidler & Lewis, 2003). Two central foci have emerged from a re view of scientific literacy research, a knowledge-centered perspective and a soci ocultural-centered pe rspective (Brown, Reveles, & Kelly, 2005). A knowledge-centered perspective is evident in the major reform documents. Brown et al. (2005) argue that this perspective is abstracted from experience, ultimately disconnected from the liv es of people engaged in their worlds. In contrast, a sociocultural-centered perspectiv e considers how literacy is relevant to particular tasks at hand in some relevant social contexts. This perspective situates scientific literacy in the acti on of accomplishing everyday life. From an international perspective ocean li teracy is a global issue and necessary to sustain environmental, economic and human health. UNESCO (1977) provided a tool to accomplish environmental and economic vitality and sustainability via the Environmental Education (EE) process. EE is a process that includes at least five components most relevant to the present study: 1. Awareness to help social groups and indi viduals acquire an awareness and sensitivity to the total envir onment and its allied problems. 2. Knowledge to help social groups and individu als gain a variety of experiences in, and acquire a basic understanding of the environment and its associated problems.

PAGE 22

9 3. Attitudes to help social groups and indivi duals acquire a se t of values and feelings of concern for the environment a nd motivation for actively participating in environmental improvement and protection. 4. Skills to help social groups and individuals acquire a set of skills for identifying and solving environmental problems. 5. Participation to help provide social groups a nd individuals with opportunities to be actively involved at all levels in work ing toward resolution of environmental problems (UNESCO, 1977) Participation may include environmenta l stewardship of which one component is environmental literacy. Literacy denotes knowle dge. Without the integration of an ocean environmental knowledge base, individuals could be drawn to poor environmental decision making and/or count erproductive actions, thus jeopardizing productive and sustainable initiatives within a nation. Ocean environmental knowledge is one manageable, goal-driven step that can be a pplied in the context of the commonwealth’s environment, economy, human health, and sust ainability. My study proposed to expand the baseline data currently available about ocean literacy (Brody & Koch, 1990; Brody, 1996; Fortner & Mayer, 1983, 1991) to incl ude a cross-section of youth using a standardized multi-item instrument aligned w ith the three tenets of an ocean literate person and the seven essential principles of ocean literacy. If the goal was for the future citizen not only to be able to possess and use scientific knowledge, but also to take pa rt in decision-making with re gard to the application of science to everyday life, today’s students mu st be taught not only what science can do, but also how science is done (Hurd, 1998) Teaching science should therefore be

PAGE 23

10 consistent with the nature of scientific inquiry (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996). This includes starting with questions about phenomena rather than with answers to be learned (AAAS, 1993). The ocean is the largest unexplored en vironment on Earth. This frontier invites exploration and inquiry essential to understa nding ocean systems, processes, potential resources and limitations. Sust aining a healthy an d vibrant lifestyle on planet Earth requires a citizenry with a broad understandi ng of major ocean scie nce concepts and the ability to engage criti cally with cultural and moral deci sions which involve scientific ocean knowledge. My study utilized the essentia l content principles of ocean literacy defined by COSEE (2005) to examine the de velopment of concep tual understanding towards ocean literacy. This was accomplishe d by assessing the degree of ocean literacy amongst youth using a multi-item ocean enviro nmental knowledge scale to establish a baseline of what is presen tly understood about the ocean. Socioscientific Issues and Ocean Literacy Socioscientific issues occupy a central role in the promotion of scientific literacy, and are based on scientific c oncepts or problems controvers ial in nature, discussed in public arenas, and frequently subject to pol itical and ethical in fluences (e.g. global climate change; Sadler, 2004). A major outcome of scientific literacy is the ability to negotiate complex issues that involve scientif ic knowledge and social influences (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004). Both cognitive and affectiv e processes contribute to the resolution of complex issues via informal reasoning. The oc ean sciences may provide developmentally appropriate ocean environmental dilemma s relevant to youth grades 5-9. One way to provide opportunities to pract ice and experience connections between the science students are learning and the issues they are likely to confront in their daily

PAGE 24

11 lives is through reasoning and discourse with socioscientifi c issues. The socioscientific issues (SSI) movement emphasizes empoweri ng students to consider how science-based issues and the decisions made concerning them reflect, in part, the moral principles and qualities of virtue that encompass their own li ves, as well as the physical and social world around them (Brown et al., 2005; Kolsto, 2001; Kozoll & Osborne, 2004; Lemke, 2001; Sadler, 2004; Zeidler & Lewis, 2003). This m ovement provides a conceptual framework that unifies the development of moral and ep istemological orienta tions of students and the role of emotions and char acter as key components of sc ience education (Sadler, 2004; Sadler, 2005; Zeidler & Keefer 2003; Zeidler et al., 2005). While the infancy of ocean science literacy precludes an in-depth discussion of mediating factors, a compelling case can be put forth to illustrate how ocean science concepts, questions, and research closely pa rallel the central co mponents of functional scientific literacy. The ocean is an environm ent that is inextricab ly interconnected to students’ lives and provides a significant cont ext for socioscientific issues that foster decision making, social discour se, human interactions, a nd action via environmental stewardship. The ocean not only is the dominant feature on our blue planet but throughout the course of our everyday activit ies we are exposed to multiple social and emotive issues related to the oceans (e.g., re creation, hurricane predictions and relief efforts, freshwater supplies, import of consumer products, flooding and droughts, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals). Zeidler et al. (2005) provide a coherent conceptual framework to achieve a ‘functi onal’ view of scientific l iteracy. Although this framework is a tentative model, it is flexible enough to allow for multiple perspectives. For the present study the assumptions of the Zeidler et al. model of functiona l scientific literacy

PAGE 25

12 were examined via the use of case-based ocean socioscientific issues (OSSI) to provide empirical evidence towards the use of OSSI to advance ocean literacy. Framework for Examining Ocean Literacy and Reasoning Zeidler and others (Zeidler & Keefer, 2003; Zeidler et al., 2005) framework may help to identify key components that likel y influence ocean liter acy and reasoning about ocean issues. Derived from a cognitive-moral reasoning perspective, this framework identifies four pedagogical areas that are central to the teach ing of socioscientific issues. The relationship between these areas and cogni tive and moral development are visualized in Figure 1. It is reasonable to think that these same pedagog ical areas will be central to ocean literacy and reasoning. However, to date few ocean-based socioscientific case studies have been reported in the literature (Rebich & Ga utier, 2005; Schweizer & Kelly, 2005). The present study sought to identify the mediating fact ors contributing to ocean literacy and reasoning by examining the relati onships between ocean literacy outlined in Table 1, and the socioscientific elements of functional scientific literacy outlined in Figure 1. Possible relationships between ocean literacy and the socioscientific elements of scientific literacy ar e suggested in Table 2.

PAGE 26

13 Figure 1. Socioscientific Elements of Functional Scientific Literacy Current socioscientific issues (SSI) that have been addressed in primarily high school and college classrooms include: cloning, stem cells genetically modified foods, global climate change, land-use decisions, th e introduction of exotic species, dietary decisions, smoking, hazards of meteors, a nd ozone depletion (Abd-El-Khalick 2003; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). Specific OSSI I considered included co astal development, offshore drilling (e.g. fuel to drive our car s), global climate change, fisheries and harvesting, marine mammal rescue and rehabi litation, marine debris and pollution (e.g. impacts on recreation and tourism economy), habitat restoration (e.g., maintain healthy waterways), drinking water via precipitation (e.g., for health an d survival), transportation and shipping (e.g., consumers of MP3 players, other electronics, computers, automobiles, crude oil, cell phones), beach re-nourishment (t ourism economy) and sea turtle nesting. I sought to expand the current SSI to include oc ean socioscientific issues (OSSI). This was Functional Scientific Literacy Personal Cognitive & Moral Development

PAGE 27

14 Table 2. Possible relationships between components of ocean literacy and the socioscientific elements of f unctional scientific literacy Ocean Literacy Definition An Ocean Literate Person: Functional Scientific Literacy Element Mediating Factors Understanding how the ocean affects you and how you affect the ocean Understands the science of the ocean Can communicate about the oceans Can make informed decisions about ocean policy Content knowledge & nature of science Classroom discourse issues & cultural issues Case-based issues, classroom discourse & cultural issues Content & experience (nature context) Environmental morality, content & informal reasoning Content, morality & behavioral commitment (action) accomplished by developing and piloting several case-based ocean environmental dilemmas. Content Knowledge and Ocean Literacy Kolsto (2001) addresses three challenges wh en dealing with socioscientific issues: “the need for specificity, the need for relevance, and the need to adjust the amount of content knowledge to be emphasized in order to put it within reach of most students” (p. 293). Sadler & Zeidler (2004) emphasize th e significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific i ssues that used case studies of applied genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. There is a need to develop an epistemology of ocean literacy to effectively engage ocean socioscientific issues (OSSI).

PAGE 28

15 Ocean science issues are relevant to our ev eryday needs and decision-making in contexts that impact multiple levels of human development (e.g., K-adult). To advance an ocean knowledge base requires development of ocean science content that utilizes the cr iteria put forth in Projec t 2061 (AAAS, 1993)—utility, social responsibility, the intr insic value of knowledge, and philo sophical value. These criteria provide a basis for addressing the social as pects of ocean science as a way of knowing while embedding the tenets of the nature of science and socioscientific issues. Ocean education resources and experiences do not exis t in a collective, sta ndardized format to teach or assess the essential content principl es for ocean literacy (COSEE, 2005) outlined in Table 1. It is hoped that the establishmen t of ocean literacy standards will help to realize the next step. Assuming acceptance of thes e standards, the next step is to develop measurable and appropriate ocean science curriculum, instruction, and experiences. The concerns are similar in developing the competency of the learner to integrate what is being learned with the actions that are required to contribu te to community and everyday socioscientific issues in life. A progressive appr oach to science education incorporates a social dimension based on an interdisciplinary curriculum (Zeidler & Shafer, 1984). Ocean science lite racy naturally encompasses interdisciplinary topics, thus reducing traditional content, and provide contex t meaningful to a wider range of students in terms of applying the scie ntific process (including mora l and ethical components) to societal problems. The future of ocean health relates directly to personal, individual decisions about its management or exploitati on. There is a critical need to provide the public with the scientific knowle dge and societal issues releva nt to our ocean and people. Equipped with ocean-based knowledge, processe s, and issues, students beginning at early

PAGE 29

16 ages can make scientifically informed deci sions inclusive of evidence, evaluation, and personal commitment. I examined the impact of building ocean content knowledge from the point of personal relevance towards sc ientific understanding by engaging youth in direct sustained experiences with natu re (e.g. local ocean environments). Experience and Ocean Literacy Experience and Nature (as Context) Kellert (1996, 2002) suggests that wi thin contemporary society, children experience nature in one of three ways: direct indirect, and symbolic Direct experiences require the individual to be physically involved and interact ing with the natural world, indirect experiences are those in which physical contact occurs but in a structured context (e.g., zoos, aquaria), and symbolic experiences take place without any physical contact with the natural world (e.g., television pr ogram, books, computer program). While all three types of experience may impact a child ’s cognitive, affective, and/or evaluative maturation, studies suggest that direct experiences have the greatest potential for positive youth development (Kals et al., 1999; Taylor et al., 2001; Wells, 2000). However, among many youth today, opportunities fo r direct experiences in na ture have been usurped by increases in symbolic experiences through repr esentations of nature in television, film, and computer technologies (Naban & Trimble, 1994; Orr, 1994, 2002). Rop (2004) provides a review from 1980-pr esent of learning in schoolyards and nearby natural settings. The research literatur e clearly supports that field studies and environmental education programs that take students outside to learn in nature have significant impact on the NSES category—student perspectives; their attitudes, individual ethic and concern for the environment. Resear ch also provides evidence that students

PAGE 30

17 improve cognitively, by improving their scientific content knowledge and learn science more efficiently as a result of study in natural se ttings. However, there is a critical lack of research that connects field studies with i nquiry, a major tenant of the current national standards for scientif ic literacy. Crompton and Sellar (1981) in a review of whether outdoor educational experiences contribute to positive development in the affective domain conclude that evaluative research in this area is sparse and generally of poor quality. Rop (2004) concludes from his 20-year review of the literatu re that the potential of science education in out door settings for improving st udent understanding about the nature of science and doing sc ientific inquiries is enhan ced. However, the quality of comparative research in this area is lacking. With this in mind, much more research is needed to find clear connections and empirical evidence about whether or not field studies actually result in improve ments in scientific literacy. The evidence for a relationship between nature experien ces and a child’s cognitive functioning is onl y just emerging. In a long itudinal study, Wells (2000) measured the cognitive functioning of youth wh ile they were living in low rent housing complexes and after they had moved to a single family home in a residential neighborhood funded through a self-help housin g program. Objective measures of the naturalness of the living environment were ta ken pre and post move. Results suggest that youth whose homes improved the most in terms of natural surroundings had the highest levels of cognitive functioning after the move A growing body of empi rical literature has emerged that focuses on nature as a cont ext for human development and the ways children may benefit. These studies have pr imarily focused on affective and evaluative domains of human development. Findings sugges t that exposure to as pects of nature can

PAGE 31

18 positively influence development in children and adolescents but the effect is largely contingent upon the types of experiences the youth have ha d with nature. It is reasonable to expect experiences in nature to carry an emotional component as well. Studies suggest that the affective dom ain is believed to precede cognition in the production of knowledge (Iozzi, 1989). The na tural world provides opportunities for youth to experience such emotions as curios ity and indifference, attraction and repulsion, courage and fear, like and dis like. It has been suggested that the intensity of these emotions significantly affects how strongly one interprets, perceives, and remembers the experience (Milton, 2002). Childhood experience s with the natural world are frequently cited by adults as some of the most powerful and formative memories they can recall (Kals et al., 1999; Milton, 2002; Sebba, 1991). In all of thes e studies, adults’ current feelings, values, and behavior towards nature were substantially attributed to their experience with nature as a child. My study examined the impact of an out door education program, to determine if the learning experience results in improveme nts in ocean literacy. The goal was to produce empirical evidence that connects field studies with improvements in scientific literacy, especially at it relates to reasoning and socios cientific issues. Experience and Sociosc ientific Issues Kolsto (2001) suggests that only thro ugh experience will students develop the attitudes and skills necessary to examine and effectively re ason about socioscientific issues. Zeidler and others (Zeidler, 1984; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002) argue that students must be provided experien ces that allow them to practice and apply rational, informed decisions about their soci ety via individual a nd collective decision

PAGE 32

19 making. Learners therefore should be provided with experiences that will have direct impact and relevance to their present and fu ture social experiences (Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). In Sadler’s (2004) review of reasoning and socioscientific i ssues, the role of personal experience was pervasive in all resear ch categories. “Personal experiences of the decision makers emerged as a consistent in fluence on informal reasoning related to socioscientific issues, but its effect differed across contex ts” (Sadler, 2004; p. 531). The role of personal experiences was examined from the perspective of direct outdoor learning experiences. The relationship be tween emotion and reasoning was also examined, specifically attitudes and behavi ors about ocean concepts and the ocean environment. Environmental Morality and Development The limitations of conceptualizing moral development as a singular process, i.e. principles, have been clearly argued in the lite rature (Sadler, 2004). The essential role of affect, specifically emotive factors, has em erged more frequently in the literature (Eisenberg, 1982; Gilligan, 1977; Hoffman, 198 1; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). Persing & Britner (2002) examined middle school stude nts’ responses to environmental dilemmas. Students elicited moral responses that were st rongly care-oriented and suggest that youth conceive of environmental dilemmas from both a justice and care perspective. The framework adopted for the present study was the four-component model of moral development proposed by Rest and colleag ues (Rest, 1986; Rest et al, 1999; Rest et al., 2000) to explore morality as it relates to reasoning about ocean issues. A key strength of this model is that it addresses the in terconnectedness of cogn ition and affect, thus

PAGE 33

20 addressing the limitations of conceptualizing moral development as a singular process, i.e. principles (Kohlberg, 1984). Persing (2006) summarizes the Rest model as follows: The Four Component model is intended to organize the various psychological processes that result in the execution of a moral act and presents these processes as distinct functions that are nevertheless interactive with, and influenced by, the other processes. It addre sses the obvious and complex question of what happens psychologically when a person behave s morally (Rest, 1986). The four components follow a logical sequence but do not necessarily have to occur in this order for moral behavior to occur. (p. 33) The components of the model are moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral character. These components and the intersection of c ognition and affect are summarized in Table 3. By attempting to synthesize the diverse approaches and phenomena associated with the study of morality, the Four Com ponent Model possesses multiple processes and constructs that are appropriat e both as a framework for cons tructing important theoretical questions that may advance the understanding of the totality of morality as well as structuring specific goals and outcomes when applied to specific moral education programs (Persing, 2006; p. 34). My study applied the four component model to evaluate how and under what circumstances youth think morally about ocean environmental dilemmas.

PAGE 34

21 Table 3. Summary of the Four Component Model of Moral Development (Rest, 1986; Rest et al., 1999; Rest et al., 2000) Component Definition Cognitive & Affective Processes moral sensitivity Requires the individual to be able to interpret the situation by role taking how various actions may affect the parties involved and thinking in terms of cause and effect Grounded in the research on empathy in which an individual, even at a very early age is able to recognize distress in others as a primary affective response (Hoffman, 1981) moral judgment Involves the individual’s ability to judge which action is most justifiable from a moral perspective Concepts of justice, fairness, and care moral motivation The degree of commitment an individual has in taking the moral course of action; competing nonmoral values may play a role in whether the individual is able to redirect these alternatives and persist in the moral course Entails the imagining of a desired goal and implies both cognition (the imagining) and affect (the desiring) moral character Involves the execution of a particular action; requires an individual to persevere and overcome the temptation of competing values and goals to achieve the moral task Manipulation of self-regulatory processes has suggested that how an individual feels while in the course of helping someone else may influence the level of persistence and effort in that action (Rest, 1986) Two distinct moral orientations towa rds nature have been identified by researchers who have attempted to unders tand reasoning, values, or motives underlying

PAGE 35

22 an individual’s environmental ethic. An anth ropocentric environmental orientation views nature as having value and dese rving to be protected in so far as it affects human well being, while a biocentric orientation toward the environment perceives nature as worthy of rights and protection because of its intr insic value (Kahn 1999; Kortenkamp & Moore, 2001). As we progress in the 21st century ocean issues may be a benefit or detriment to human well being and/or the ocean environment. There is an emerging societal need to understand ocean socioscientific issues wh ich may be influenced by environmental morality. Although both orientati ons may engender concern a nd interest for the ocean environment, and even result in similar acti ons toward the ocean, the reasons and motives for doing so are quite different. The significan ce in understanding these orientations has potential implications for deci sions about natural resource management and in designing more effective ocean education programs. Socioscientific issues in science classrooms are beginning to play a centra l role in the development of a responsible citizenry capable of applying scientific know ledge and habits of mind in making decisions (Bingle & Gaskell, 1994; Driver et al., 2000; Kolsto, 2001; Zeidler, 1984) It is reasonable to think that ocean socioscientific issues may help to advance ocean liter acy and reasoning about ocean issues. These are issues that encomp ass environmental ethics and morality. Informal Reasoning and Ocean Literacy During social interaction a nd discourse (e.g. written or oral) students are engaged in informal reasoning as they negotiate a nd resolve complex problems that lack clear solutions. Characteristics that are manife sted when learners are reasoning about socioscientific issues are: 1) process of inquiry, 2) negotiati on, 3) discourse, 4) argumentation, 5) compromise, 6) conflict, 7) decision making, and 8) commitment

PAGE 36

23 (Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). Findings from Sadl er & Zeidler (2005) reveal that college students using informal reasoning might relate to socioscientific issues in three ways during discourse: (a) rationa listically, which encompasses reason based considerations, (b) emotively, which encompass care based c onsiderations, and (c ) intuitively which encompasses considerations based on immediat e reactions to the cont ext of the scenario or dilemma presented. Middle sc hool students have elicited moral responses that were strongly care oriented sugges ting youth conceive of environmental dilemmas with a justice and care perspectiv e (Persing & Britner, 2002). In Sadler’s (2004) literature review of reasoning and socioscientific issues, the key research areas that influence informal r easoning are a) argumenta tion skills, b) nature of science conceptualizati on, c) evaluation of information, and d) development of conceptual understanding of sc ience content. Further research from Sadler and colleagues (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Zeid ler et al., 2005) suggests th at the degree of personal relevance of an issue is associated with in creased validation of knowledge claims. For the present study ocean socioscientific issues were introduced after students engaged in a content-embedded role playing (e.g. Fish Ba nks) or stewardship activity (e.g. Coastal Clean-up). Building upon the res earch of Sadler & Zeidler (2004) and Persing (2006), the present research study examined the reasoni ng patterns and environmental morality of rising 9th graders while engaged in ocean socioscien tific issues. It is beyond the scope of this study to assess argument structure howev er, argumentation is useful as a means of assessing an individual ’s informal reasoning.

PAGE 37

24 Problem Statement The overarching goal of my study was to te st the construct of ocean literacy within the context of an ocean education program. The pract ical purpose was to provide baseline data to describe what youth unde rstood about the ocean and how youth reason about ocean environmental issues. These data we re then analyzed to assess the degree of ocean literacy demonstrated in individuals with varying levels of content knowledge and social development, and how they used thes e factors to make decisions about the ocean. The major education needs at the heart of ocean science literacy are to provide (a) ocean science content and experiences as part of a 21st century integrated science curriculum, and (b) opportunities to engage in ocean socios cientific issues (OSS I) meaningful to the life experiences of most citizens. I pursued the first need by examining ocean content and attitudes that emerged during an informal ocean education program. The second need was addressed by engaging students’ ages 13-14 y ears in a series of ocean environmental dilemmas. While present methods preclude di rect empirical access to an individual’s ocean literacy, the analysis of conceptu al understanding and attitudes about the ocean may reveal underlying patterns of ocean liter acy and mediating factors of ocean-related decision making. The working hypothesis for the present research was that both the acquisition of content knowledge (understanding, experiences) and social considerations (e.g., emotions, morality) contribute to ocean literacy and to reasoning about ocean socioscientific issues. The pr esent study explored the va lidity of this hypothesis by analyzing the degree of ocean l iteracy demonstrated in indivi duals with varying levels of content knowledge and social development, a nd how they used these factors to reason

PAGE 38

25 and make decisions about the ocean. To acco mplish this goal four research questions were pursued. Research Questions Question 1 How do content and environmental c ontext mediate the development of conceptual understanding about the ocean during an ocean education program, the Oceanography Camp for Girls, an experience for rising 9th graders focused on direct experiences in natural environments? Rationale. I utilized the seven essential cont ent principles of what constitutes ocean literacy as defined by COSEE (2005) to examine the development of conceptual understanding towards ocean lite racy. In the present study part icipants were engaged in a 3-week primarily outdoor ocean education program to determine if the learning experience results in improved ocean literacy. This was accomplished via pre and postprogram scaled instruments, learning essa ys, and interviews. I sought to discover the effectiveness of the Oceanography Camp for Gi rls (OCG) program to increase conceptual understanding about the ocean based on essentia l principles of ocean literacy. A detailed description of the OCG can be found in Appendix B. Although it is understood that these variables do not function inde pendently, my study addressed the influence of content knowledge and context via direct envir onmental experiences on conceptual understanding about the oceans. A series of two sub-questions were formulated to address this broader question.

PAGE 39

26 Sub-Question 1a. To what extent does content knowledge contribute to conceptual understanding about the ocean? Rationale. I examined the impact of building ocean cont ent knowledge from the point of personal relevance to wards scientific understanding by engaging youth in direct sustained experiences with natu re (e.g., local ocean environm ents). There is a need to develop an epistemology of ocean literacy to effectively engage ocean socioscientific issues (OSSI). Ocean environmental knowledge is a manageable, goal-driven step that can be applied in the context of the environment, economy, human health, and sustainability. In this study th e baseline data currently av ailable about ocean literacy (Brody, 1996; Brody & Koch, 1990; Fortner & Mayer, 1983, 1991) was expanded to include a cross-section of youth from an informal learning setting. This was accomplished by assessing the degree of o cean literacy among youth using a multi-item ocean environmental knowledge scale to establish a current baseline of what is presently understood about the ocean, nearly 20 years later. This instrument was called a Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience (SOLE). Sub-Question 1b. To what extent do direct environmental experiences (e.g. context) contribute to conceptual understanding about the ocean? Rationale. The evidence for a relationship between nature experiences and a cognitive functioning are only just emergi ng. Kellert (1996, 2002) suggests that within contemporary society, children experience nature in one of three ways: direct, indirect, and symbolic. While all three types of e xperience may impact a child’s cognitive,

PAGE 40

27 affective, and/or evaluative maturation, studies suggest that direct experiences have the greatest potential for positive youth development (Kals et al., 1999; Tayl or et al., 2001; Wells, 2000). Direct experiences require th e individual to be physically involved and interacting with the natural world. In my study, participan ts were engaged in ocean learning through physical interactions with mu ltiple natural environments in the Tampa Bay region. I examined the extent to wh ich an outdoor ocean education program contributes to improved ocean literacy amongs t youth. Participants were asked how the Oceanography Camp for Girls environmental experiences impacted their learning of science. A 500 word learning essay was writte n by each participant titled, ‘Compare and contrast learning science during OCG with learning science in school.’ Question 2 How do environmental attitudes (e.g. care, concern and connection) contribute to conceptual understanding about the ocean? Rationale. In as much as content knowle dge has been shown to contribute significantly to scientif ic literacy, the present study sought also to investigate the extent to which it contributes to more favorable ocean environmental attitudes amongst youth. I postulated that experiences in nature to carry an emoti onal component as well. Iozzi (1989) concluded that the affective domain precedes cognition in the production of knowledge (Iozzi, 1989). The natural world provides oppor tunities for youth to experience such emotions as curiosity and i ndifference, attraction and repulsion, courage and fear, like and dislike. Milt on (2002) suggested that the intensity of these emotions significantly affects how st rongly one interprets, perc eives, and remembers the experience. Numerous ocean surveys of adults in the U.S. consistently reveal that

PAGE 41

28 emotive factors play a significant role in participant response s. Indeed social considerations had greater sign ificance than knowledge as evid enced in a critical lack of ocean conceptual understanding. However, the specific moral emotions and extent of impact is unclear from the literature. I investigated the extent to which environmental attitudes contributed to youth’s understanding about science, the ocean environment, and stewardship by asking participan ts to express their attitude s via pre/post measurements. The Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS) was used to examine if the OCG experience contributed to more favorable ocean envir onmental attitudes. A multi-item scale was constructed to assess genera l environmental attitudes towa rd science, oceanography, care and connections to the ocean. After camp, pa rticipants were asked how the OCG learning experiences had impacted their feelings and attitudes about the ocean environment, stewardship, products and services. Question 3 What types of environmental moral reas oning are important to youth in resolving ocean dilemmas and how likely are they to act in an environmentally-sensitive way? Rationale. I sought to expand understanding of sc ientific literacy to include a functional aspect of action via stewardship as a consumer and/or citizen of the ocean environment. Research suggests that direct experiences have the greatest potential for positive youth development (Kals et al., 1999; Taylor et al., 2001; Wells, 2000). Participants in this study were engaged in ocean stewardship as pa rt of the Oceanography Camp for Girls program design, which includes coastal clean-ups and habitat restoration activities. I investigated the type of environmental moral reasoning (e.g., biocentric, anthropocentric) most important in ocean decision-making and if reasoning type was

PAGE 42

29 predictive of one acting in an environmentally sensitive manner (e.g. ocean stewardship). Persing (2006) identified the types of r easoning important to young adults in solving environmental moral dilemmas experienced duri ng common outdoor recreation activities. Rest and colleagues model of moral action (R est, 1986; Rest et al ., 1999; Rest et al., 2000) was adapted to evaluate how and unde r what circumstances youth think morally about ocean environmental dilemmas. This was accomplished by developing and piloting four familiar ocean environmental dilemmas adap ted from the research of Persing (2006). The Scenarios of Ocean Environmental Mora lity (SOEM) instrument was used to measure moral motivation and likelihood to act. Moral motivation refers to the degree to which one chooses a moral course of action, va luing moral values over other values, and taking responsibility for a moral resolution to the problem at hand (Rest et al., 1999). Likelihood to act refers to the execution and im plementation of one’s moral plan (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Question 4 How do youth informally reason about ocean socioscientific issues in the context of direct experiences in ocean environments? Rationale. I examined the influence of info rmal learning experiences on reasoning about ocean socioscientific issues. This was accomplished by directly engaging participants in ocean socioscientific role-p laying and stewardship activities, followed by open dialogue discussions, written responses and interviews. Building on the work of Sadler & Zeidler (2004, 2005) my study sought to gather insight a bout how individuals reason informally about ocean environmenta l socioscientific issu es. It is beyond the scope of this study to assess argument struct ure, however argumentation was used as a

PAGE 43

30 means of assessing an indi vidual’s informal reasoni ng. The present study expanded current SSI to include ocean socioscientific issues (OSSI). Significance of Study This research emerged from a wave of recent interest in promoting ocean literacy on a national level (AAAS, 2004; COSEE, 2005; National Geographic Society, 2006; Pew Ocean Commission, 2003; Schroedinger et al., 2006; US Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004). I constructed an operational mean ing of the term ocean literacy. Currently, K-12 students and our citizenry at large are under-prepared to contribute individual or societal decisions about our oceans, due to limited ocean knowledge from which to make socioscientific decisions. Any c onversation about scientific lite racy for our citizenry that does not include ocean literacy as a pivotal focus will fall short of literacy goals for all students by neglecting the plan et’s largest environment. The ocean environment is bountiful with opportunities to engage in ocean-related socioscientific issues (OSSI) meaningful to the life experiences of most citizens. By providing ocean content, learni ng experiences, and socioscientific case studies students and citizens can contribute to the social, economic, and cultu ral development of an ocean literate society permeated with global implicat ions. The ocean sustains life on Earth and everyone is responsible for caring for the oc ean. Individual and co llective actions are needed to effectively manage ocean res ources for all (Nationa l Geographic Society, 2006). I examined the influence of an informal learning experience to advance ocean literacy and reasoning about ocean socioscien tific issues. Specifically, my research described what understanding youth currently ho ld about the ocean (content), how they

PAGE 44

31 feel toward the ocean environment (environmen tal attitudes), and how these feelings and understanding are organized when reasoning about ocean issues (environmental morality). It is hoped that this baseline st udy will provide standardized measures where possible that can be replicated by other re searchers. As others conduct similar ocean literacy empirical research, a se t of studies that build on ea ch other will be established. This investigation adopts the following position on ocean literacy. An ocean literate person is an individual equipped to use oce an knowledge, to engage in oral or written discussion about the oceans (e.g., support a position), to understand the changes made to the ocean through human activity and to apply ocean knowledge through actions as citizen, steward or consumer In as much as educational research supports one’s knowledge as a significant component of scientific literacy and reas oning, the significance as relates to ocean literacy is not known. On a theoretical level it is reasonable to propose that acquisition of content knowledge and social considerati ons will contribute to ocean literacy and reasoning about ocean socioscientific issues. I propose that the development of ocean literacy may advance functional scientific literacy through an integrat ed knowledge base, practice doing and reasoning about science, and opportunities for social action. Ocean socioscientific issues (OSSI) may have relevanc e to a broader audience of learners than current socioscientific issues reported in the literature. Finall y, ocean literacy may advance science literacy by le ssening the gap between public knowledge and the frontiers of scientific inquiry. While there is a paucity of educational research regarding ocean literacy and reasoning, my findings contribute more genera lly to the pedagogy of classroom practice

PAGE 45

32 and curriculum. Specifically, my research iden tified current ocean content that advances ocean literacy based on the formal and inform al ocean learning experiences examined. In addition, a preliminary metric to evalua te conceptual understanding was developed. Classroom practice and curriculum will be further enriched with the addition of developmentally appropriate ocean socioscien tific issues via case studies implemented during my study. Ultimately, ocean literacy re search provides (a) ocean science content and experiences as part of a 21st century integrated science curriculum, and (b) opportunities to engage in ocean socioscientif ic issues (OSSI) meaningful to the life experiences of most citizens.

PAGE 46

33 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction My study is primarily concerned with wh at youth know about the ocean, how they feel and might act toward the ocean, and how they reason about ocean issues of interest. While the need to advance a scientifically literate citizenry is a widely accepted educational goal (AAAS, 1993; Laugksch, 2000; NRC, 1996; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989; Zeidler, 1984; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003; Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons & Howes, 2005), the role of ocean literacy as a pa rt of this goal is not evident. Ocean education and literacy that goes beyond emotive factors (e.g., care, concern and connection with the ocean) is critical a nd relevant towards preparing our students, teachers, and citizens to contribute to ocean decisions and socioscientific issues that impact their health and well being on Earth. It has been estimated that less than 2% of all American adults are environmentally literat e (NEETF, 2005). This implies that the public needs access to better ocean information deli vered in the most effective manner. In the 21st century we will look increasingly to the ocean to meet our everyday needs and future sustainability. Thus, there is a critical call fo r ocean literacy within our nation, especially amongst youth and young adults. For the present study, I analyzed the ro le of content knowledge specifically conceptual understanding and attitudes about the ocean as mediating factors contributing to ocean literacy. The significance of conten t (Lambert, 2005; Sadler, 2004; Sadler &

PAGE 47

34 Zeidler, 2004), context, (e.g. culture, individual beliefs, e xperience, place/time in life; McGinnis, 2003; Persing, 2006; Sadler, 2004; Semken, 2005), morality (Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Persing, 2006; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003), critical thinking skills (Ault, 1998; Keefer, 2003; Zeidler, Le derman & Taylor, 1992), and the nature of science (Sadler, 2004; Ze idler & Keefer, 2003) are often cite d as components to attend to when engaged in discourse about sociosci entific issues. Decision making is further influenced by personal experiences, emotiv e factors, and social considerations. Therefore, I consider that many of these sa me processes contribute to the resolution of ocean socioscientific issues. In particular, content knowledge construction as it relates to the ocean, context as relates to nature experiences, and morality as relates to the environment are examined in this study. Because the ocean is inextricably interc onnected to students’ lives, it provided a significant context for socioscientific issu es that foster decision making, social discussions, human interactions, and envir onmental stewardship. I sought to support the science education community’s underst anding of reasoning and resolution of socioscientific issues by expanding the rese arch to include the influence of ocean conceptual understanding (e.g., content), envi ronmental experiences (e.g., context) and environmental morality and attitudes. Figure 2 presents a graphic organizer of th e general themes to be covered in this review. The ensuing literature review will address issues a nd concepts central to ocean literacy and emerging research. Past research reviewed included scientific literacy and citizenship, socioscientific issues and reasoning, content knowledge, experience, and environmental morality.

PAGE 48

35 as as advance is expressed through influences influences influences influences Stewardship Actions & Decisions Consumer Citizen Ocean Literacy Ocean Learning Experiences Scientific Literacy & Citizenship Content Knowledge Socioscientfic Issues & Reasoning Environmental Morality Figure 2. Graphic Outline of the Topics Addressed in Literature Review Scientific Literacy and Citizenry The goal to advance ocean literacy is s ynchronous with the goals of most science educators and research councils (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996, 2000), that is, to progress toward a national vision of functional sc ientific literacy for decision making. Science for

PAGE 49

36 All Americans described the scientifically literate person as one who knows that science, mathematics, and technology are interdep endent enterprises with strengths and limitations; who understands key concepts and pr inciples of science; recognizes both the diversity and unity of the natu ral world; and uses scientif ic knowledge and scientific ways of thinking for personal and social purposes (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989). The National Science Education Standards defined scientific liter acy as the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and pr ocesses required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affa irs, and economic productivity (NRC, 1996). However, the question of what constitutes scie ntific literacy, or what a literate person should know or be able to do, remain contr oversial (Durant, 1994; Kolsto, 2001; Ramsey, 1993; Sadler, 2004; Yores & Treagust, 2006; Zeidler, 2001). Factors that have influenced interpretations of scientific literacy are 1) the number of interest groups, 2) different c onceptual definitions, 3) the re lative or absolute nature of scientific literacy as a concept, 4) diffe rent purposes (i.e., benefits) for advocating scientific literacy, and 5) different ways of measuring it. Three common reasons to advocate scientific literacy are 1) economic well being of the nation to compete in international markets, 2) greater literacy translates into great er support for science, and 3) promotion of the public’s expectations of science by knowing more about how science is accomplished. Laugksch (2000) concluded that the most advanced scientifically literate person therefore uses science in performing a function in society. Table 4 outlines the parallel relationships between the tenets of scientific literacy a nd ocean literacy. The following is a review of relevant definitions and specific factors to be considered towards implementation of scientific literacy as rela tes to the advancement of ocean literacy.

PAGE 50

37 Table 4. Outline of the Parallel Relationships between the Tenets of Scientific Literacy and Ocean Literacy; CKC = Content Knowle dge Construction, SSI = Socioscientific Issues and Reasoning Scientific literacy as defined by Science for All Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1994) Scientific literacy as defined Internationally (OECD/PISA, 2001) Key area addressed as relates to this study; CKC or SSI Ocean essential principles content as defined by COSEE stakeholders (Schroedinger, et al., 2006) 1. science, mathematics, & technology are interdependent enterprises with strengths & limitations CKC SSI (e.g. nature of science) 1. earth has one big ocean with many features 6. ocean & humans are inextricably linked 7. ocean is largely unexplored 2. understands key concepts & principles of science 1. capacity to use scientific knowledge CKC 2. ocean & life in the ocean shape the features of the earth 3. ocean is a major influence on weather & climate 4. ocean makes earth habitable 5. ocean supports a great diversity of life & ecosystems 3. recognizes both the diversity & unity of the natural world 2. identify questions & draw evidencebased conclusions CKC 1. earth has one big ocean with many features 4. ocean makes earth habitable 5. ocean supports a great diversity of life & ecosystems 4. uses scientific knowledge & scientific ways of thinking for personal and social purposes 3. understand the natural world & the changes made to it through human activity SSI (functional literacy); consumer, citizen, or steward 4. ocean makes earth habitable 6. the ocean & humans are inextricably linked 7. the ocean is largely unexplored

PAGE 51

38 Laugksch (2000) provided a review of the c ontemporary literature about scientific literacy. He noted that the term scientific li teracy was coined in the late 1950’s and has evoked a plethora of meanings. It is noteworthy that this is also the time when modern oceanography emerged as a field of science. La ugksch classified scie ntific literacy based on three implied interpretations of the word li terate. The literate categories are learned, competent, and able to function minimally as consumers and citizens. The emphasis when moving from “learned” to able to “functi on in society” is an increasing ability to carry out a task with the acquired scientific literacy and use these at tributes to cope in everyday life. The learned literate category is proposed only for intellectual value with no associated purpose for obtaining this abil ity (Branscomb, 1981; Shamos, 1995). Literacy advances to competent when the learned attribut es of scientific litera cy are extended to an ability to carry out a task (AAAS, 1993; Layton, Davey & Jenkins, 1986). The functionally literate person is re quired to play a role in so ciety, as citizen or consumer, and to use the knowledge in a variety of social contex ts (AAAS, 1993; Miller, 1983). From this literacy continuum it can be concl uded that a person can know about the ocean (learned); know about the oceans and particip ate in a coastal clean up event (competent); or know about the ocean and pa rticipate in a petition drive about offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and/or purchase onl y dolphin-safe tuna (functional). Laugksch (2000) concluded that to be f unctionally literate requires an individual to use science in performing a function in society in a variety of contexts (i.e. citizen or consumer) that affect their personal or economic well-being. Ryder (2001) provided a revi ew of published case studies of adult individuals interacting with science to identify the knowledge needed for functiona l scientific

PAGE 52

39 literacy. Drawing from the work of Miller et al. (Miller, 1983; Miller & Osborne, 1998) he outlined five specific knowle dge areas that argue for functi onal scientific literacy. The relationship between levels of science educat ion and the economic wealth of a nation is the ‘economic’ argument (e.g., science graduate s needed to occupy sc ience professions). An understanding of science is practically useful in everyday contexts within a technologically advanced society. For exam ple, an individual drawing upon knowledge of human nutrition in follow ing a balanced diet describe s the ‘utility’ argument. In contexts featuring scientific information, sc ience knowledge enables people to engage in debate and decision-making as part of the ‘democratic’ argument. The importance of maintaining links between scienc e and the wider cultu re (e.g., less alienated from science, sympathetic with the aims of science) suppor ts a ‘social’ argument Finally, individuals should know something of science because it is a major accomplishment of human “cultures”, such as history, music and art. Shamos (1995) asserted that a functionally literate person lacks an understanding of the fundamental role played by theories in the practice of science and of the unique processes that characterize it. He thus introduces the concept of ‘true’ scientific literacy. ‘True’ scientific literacy is characterized by all the scien tific habits of mind such as logical reasoning, the role of experiments, reliance on evidence, the ability to think critically and other elements of scientific investigation. True scientific literacy is also characterized by “the ability to converse read and write coherently in a non-technical but meaningful context” (p. 88). Fi nally, a true-scientifically literate person is able to use scientific ways of thinking for individual and social purposes (AAAS, 1993; Hurd, 1998; NRC, 1996; Shamos, 1995). Even Shamos (1995) conceded that this level of literacy is

PAGE 53

40 likely out of reach for most members of societ y. It thus lacks meani ngful application to current research. The remainder of this sec tion reviews research related to scientific literacy and the influence of c ontextual values on social kno wledge construction. Figure 3 summarizes these findings. having is the studies reveal a studies reveal a includes includes are are combined result in result in Social Construction of Knowledge Knowledge centered perspective Socio-cultural centered perspective Functional scientific literacy Scientific Literacy Socioscientific elements Knowledge Skills & Content Emotive components Contextual values Affective components Language Use Personal Identity Zeidler & Keefer, 2003 NRC, 1996 & AAAS, 1993 Ryder, 2001 Langksch, 2000 Zeidler et al., 2005 Brown et al., 2005 Kozoll & Osborne, 2004 Figure 3. Graphic Summary of Research Related to Scientific Literacy and the Influence of Contextual Values on Social Knowledge Construction

PAGE 54

41 Brown et al. (Brown, Reveles & Ke lly, 2005) identified two cen tral perspectives of scientific literacy, a knowledge-centered perspective and a soci ocultural-centered perspective. A knowledge-centered perspective is evident in the major reform documents (AAAS, 1993; NRC 1996, 2000). This perspectiv e may be appropriate if a generalized view of knowledge is required, for example, when setting national standards. However, Brown et al. (2005) argued th at a knowledge-centered pers pective is abstract from experience, ultimately disconnected from the liv es of people engaged in their worlds. In contrast, a sociocultural-centered perspectiv e considers how literacy is relevant to particular tasks at hand in some social context. This perspective situates scientific literacy in the action of accomplishing everyday life. One view (knowledge-based perspective) proposes the acquisition of knowledge as preparation to engage in social events; the other (sociocultural pers pective) proposes to engage students in social activities that employ knowledge (Brown et al., p. 780). For example, students spend hours and hours so lving math problems or memorizing the body’s chemical cycles (e.g. Kreb’s cycle), ye t seldom does the subject matter connect in a way to inspire or promote sustained interest in science. Scientif ic understanding of any type must occur within a cultu rally specific context for participants to make sound use of the new scientific knowledge. Thus, sociocultura l perspectives highlight the affective and emotive components of scientific literac y. Factors identified as relevant from a sociocultural-centered perspec tive included issues of language use (Brown et al., 2005), student identity (Kozoll & Osborne, 2004), a nd articulating communities (Lemke, 2001; Yerrick & Roth, 2005).

PAGE 55

42 In a study of a fifth-grade classroom of African American students, Brown et al. (2005) examined the use of discursive id entity as an analytical framework for understanding student discourse (e.g. attainment of scientific literacy). Results revealed a co-construction of student identity and scienc e literacy through specific language use. The sociocultural context of language was part icularly important in considering whether students embrace or resist scie ntific dialogue (e.g. science learning). This study “provides insight into how students’ di scursive interactions conti nually transform new forms of cultural knowledge and understanding of and about science” (p.800). Kozoll & Osborne (2004) argued that scie nce teaching and learning should include students’ understandings of self in rela tion to others and how science may provide experiences that contribute toward personal growth. Results from four case studies of migrant students revealed percep tions of science that relate to what science is, who it is that does science, and who needs science. The ultimate literacy goal was to achieve a union between science and self to fully realiz e the potential science has to contribute to citizens’ everyday lives. From these fi ndings Kozoll & Osborne (2004) posit the importance of students finding meaning in science as a part of their pe rsonal identity and lives lived in the world. However, too often sc ience learning has been abstract and distant from the personal experience. Zeidler et al. (2005) concluded that many of the previous definitions of science literacy are too narrow and fa ll short in not attending to “the role of personal epistemological and intellectual development in the context of varied cultural settings” (p. 362). Their definition of functional scientif ic literacy is “informed decision making; the ability to analyze, synthesize, and evalua te information; dealing sensibly with moral

PAGE 56

43 reasoning and ethical issues; and under standing connections inherent among socioscientific issues (SSI)” (Zeidler et al., 2005; p. 358). Tw o key abilities characterize this literacy: a) understanding the epistemo logy of scientific knowledge, and b) the processes and methods used to develop su ch knowledge. In addition, a functional degree of scientific literacy includes evaluation of scientific claims by discerning connections among evidence, inferences and conclusions. Th e seminal contribution of Zeidler et al. (2003, 2005) offered a coherent conceptual fram ework to achieve a ‘f unctional’ view of scientific literacy. Derived from a cognitive-moral reasoning perspective, this framework identified four pedagogical areas that are central to the teach ing of socioscientific issues. These areas are 1) nature of science issues, 2) cultural issues, 3) classroom discourse issues, and 4) case-based issues. These four i ssues are potential entry points in the science curriculum (see Figure 1, chapter one). Although this framework is a tentative model, it is flexible enough to allow for multiple perspec tives. The two perspectives of scientific literacy outlined above are th erefore aggregated in the fr amework proposed by Zeidler et al. (Zeidler & Keefer, 2003; Zeidler et al., 2005) to include both cognitive (e.g., knowledge skills) and affective (e.g., culture, em otions, values) processes, as well as, socioscientific elements and moral reasoning. The factors outlined in this section relate d to scientific literacy are significant in evaluating and establishing what constitutes ocean literacy and what an ocean literate person should know and be able to do. For the present study, advancing ocean literacy focused upon the sociocultural-centered perspect ive of literacy described by Brown et al. (2005) and examined the socioscientific elemen ts of reasoning provide d by Zeidler et al. (Zeider & Keefer, 2003; Zeidler et al., 2005). Through this perspective, students will be

PAGE 57

44 engaged in social activities that will em ploy ocean knowledge. Argument structure is beyond the scope of my study, however, I incl uded documentation of how youth learn to talk and write about the ocean, as fundament al components of ocean literacy as defined for this study. For the present study, I adopted the fo llowing definition of ocean literacy. An individual equipped to use ocean knowledge, to engage in oral or written discussion about the oceans (e.g., support a position), to understand the changes made to the ocean through human activity, and to apply ocean knowledge through actions as citizen, steward or consumer. This operational definition of ocean literacy most closely parallels the international definition of science literacy which is, “The capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify questions and draw evidenced-based conclusions in order to understand the natural world and the cha nges made to it through human activity” (OECD/PISA, 2001; p. 76). Ocean Literacy Defined Ocean literacy was defined in 2005 by consensus of over 100 ocean educators and scientists, including members of the Nationa l Marine Educators Association (NMEA) and the Centers for Ocean Sciences Educa tion and Excellence (COS EE). Ocean literacy is an understanding of how the ocean aff ects you and how you affect the ocean. An ocean-literate person understands the scienc e of the ocean, can communicate about the oceans, and can make informed decisi ons about ocean policy (COSEE, 2005; Schroedinger, Cava, Strang & Tuddenham, 2006). Seven essential principles guide the scope of ocean literacy. These essential princi ples are: 1) Earth has one big ocean with many features; 2) the ocean and life in the ocean shape the features of Earth; 3) the ocean

PAGE 58

45 is a major influence on weather and climate; 4) the ocean makes Earth habitable; 5) the ocean supports a great diversity of life and ecosystems; 6) the ocean and humans are inextricably linked; and, 7) the ocean is largely unexplored. Equipped with a definition, characteristics and essential principles that describe ocean literacy, there is now a cr itical need to assess the suc cess and shortfalls of current ocean education programs using the tenets of ocean literacy as criteria. Evident from the definition and principles of ocean literacy is th at it encompasses both social and scientific factors. Socially, humans are consumers of ocean recreation, transported goods, and products from the sea. Scientifically, humans are dependent upon the ocean to maintain the comfortable climate we live in, for 50% of the oxygen in the atmosphere and similar amounts of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere, as well as regulating the freshwater resources on the planet. As a discipline, oceanography has rarely been examined by social scientists (Goodin, 1995; Mukerji, 1998). Further, the ocea n and geological (i.e ., Earth) sciences have been under researched in science educ ation (Ault, 1998; Bezzi, 1999; Libarkin, et al. 2005). Research contributed from the ocean sciences education community was primarily from the broader discipline of geos ciences education. This research included several examples and applica tions of teaching strategies such as place-based courses (Kean, Posnanski, Wisniewski, & Lundbe rg, 2004; Semken, 2005), role playing (Abolins, 2004), and debates (Rebich & Gau tier; Schweizer & Kell y, 2005). There is a plethora of articles on ocean teaching materials, programs, government reports, and career guides. However, these materials and reports are not equiva lent to educational research. The following is a summary of the research available about ocean literacy.

PAGE 59

46 Personal experience has emerged as a ke y influence on ocean science literacy. Multiple surveys of adults’ literacy about th e ocean and coastal environments revealed that the public values the ocean and ha ve emotional (e.g., care and concern) and recreational connections to th e ocean but lack ocean conten t knowledge (Belden, et al., 1999; AAAS, 2004; Steel, et al., 2005). Indeed, although American adults surveyed demonstrated a critical lack of awareness about ocean he alth and issues (conceptual understanding), these same adults consisten tly cited personal experiences and emotive connections to the ocean to express value a bout the ocean. In gene ral these surveys of 1000’s of adults via telephone interviews re vealed a high level of concern about the ocean but not the understanding needed to act on that concern. Similar findings were reported by Cudaback (2006) from her survey of college students. Personal experience (45% of respondents) with and connection (43% ) to the ocean is what most interested respondents about the ocean. The number one ocean content interest of students was to learn about ocean life and ecosystems. These results support the well established role of prior knowledge and personal experiences in learning (Berk, 2000; Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999; Flavel, Miller & Miller, 2002). Cudaback’s (2006) research on ocean liter acy provided a summary of the ocean topics of interest to college students and affective fact ors to consider towards advancing ocean literacy. Results from surveys of 119 college students entering an introductory oceanography course revealed that students feel a strong personal, emotional connection with and curiosity about the ocean. Students’ prior knowledge about the ocean came from formal courses (56%), personal experience ( 45%), and media (26%) namely science and exploration television stations Only a few students (7%) me ntioned informal experiences

PAGE 60

47 such as aquaria and camps as sources of o cean information. This suggested that either students did not learn or retain ocean knowledge from informal experiences, or that few of the students surveyed had had these inform al experiences. Findings related to attitudes about how individual actions affect the o cean identified pollution (88%) and fishing (20%) as the most frequent actions affecti ng the ocean. Results from Cudaback’s survey were encouraging in that students are gaini ng ocean knowledge from a variety of sources, feel strongly connected to the ocean, and are curious about the oceans and desire to learn more. These results further emphasized the critical need for a baseline of ocean content knowledge at earlier ages to advance a ge neral understanding about the ocean beyond emotive factors. Content Knowledge Rest et al. (2000) and Zeidler & Keefer (2003) share the pe rspective that the primacy of content knowledge in the pro cess of making individual and socially constructed decisions was a pivotal factor in terms of scientific literacy. Without a science knowledge base the social aspect pr evailed and allowed for decisions that are made based on psychological processes drawi ng on the role of aff ect and emotions in moral decision making. Moral development oc curred in tandem but distinct from cognitive development. Cognitive development was necessary but not sufficient for moral development likewise, content knowledge was necessary but not all sufficient for socioscientific decision making. Furthermore, it was not sufficient for students to master the content if they did not unde rstand how to apply it to the world in which they live by reasoning and actions. Teaching must provide mo re opportunities for students to interact with the subject matter, the environment, othe r students, and societal issues (Itin, 1999).

PAGE 61

48 The role of content knowledge and scien tific literacy was well established and formed the basis of the national science stan dards. Science content standards described the knowledge and abilities students need to develop to become scie ntifically literate. Bransford et al. (1999) provide d succinct relationships in the construction of knowledge and organization of content knowledge when advancing from novice to expert about any subject matter or skill level. Conceptual understanding of content was strongly influenced by prior knowledge and personal experiences (Berks, 2000; Bransford et al., 1999; Flavel et al., 2002). The remainder of this section reviews what is known about ocean content knowledge and the link between content knowle dge and reasoning about socioscientific issues. Role of Content Knowledge fo r Understanding about the Ocean Six studies have been published about marine science knowledge of students at various grade levels (Brody & Koch, 1990, 1996; Fortner & Mayer, 1983, 1991; Fortner & Teates, 1980; Lambert, 2005). These stud ies focused on students’ understanding of specific ocean science concepts. Fortner & Ma yer’s (1983) conducted a baseline study in 1979 to determine the knowledge and attitude s of Ohio students about the ocean and Great Lakes. The study revealed a low level of knowledge, with 5th graders answering 37.6% and 9th graders 48.3% of questions correctl y. Attitudes about the ocean and Great Lakes were related to knowledge, with hi gh scorers having more positive attitudes. Students indicated that most of their information on the content knowledge was obtained through movies and television. The Oceanic and Great Lakes Awareness Survey was repeated in 1983 and 1987, offering a longitudi nal study of awareness changes amongst students using comparison groups.

PAGE 62

49 Fortner & Mayer’s (1991) cohort comparis ons showed that over a four year period, from 5th grade to 9th grade, the students gained substantial amounts of knowledge, increasing their scores on average of over ten percentage points. Both science and social studies subject matter reflected gains, while humanity scores remained constant. Amongst ninth graders, science scores ranged from 49.9 to 54.3. While Ohio students were learning a significant amount about the ocean an d Great Lakes in middle years, the slow rise in knowledge levels was i ndicative of little progress in increasing general awareness of the water world over the eight year test pe riod. Subject matter tre nds showed improved scores on nearly all biology items, while items related to earth sc iences declined or remained at low scores. This finding suppor ted the need to increase basic understanding of Earth (e.g., ocean features and processes) systems and how they relate to people. Media trends demonstrated that students’ source of informati on shifted from television to classes in school, as most influential in teaching students about the ocean. Brody (1996) assessed the marine envi ronmental science knowledge of 4th, 8th, and 11th grade students in Oregon. Researchers interviewed 159 students on a variety of ocean concept principles in geology, physical and chemical characteristics, ecology, and natural resources. Brody speci fically sought to establish the extent of students’ knowledge about the nature and use of marine resources. Findings revealed that students learn a few basic science and natural resour ce concepts in elementary grades, and that overall, the level of understand ing of basic concepts and pr inciples related to marine ecosystem dynamics, resource use, management and decision making processes was low. From 8th to 11th grade students demonstrated an in creased understand ing of geological processes and structures. Persistent know ledge gains about beaches, sand, and rock

PAGE 63

50 shorelines likely reflected personal experi ences of students. Little or no difference between grades was found for physical and chem ical concepts. Ecological concepts, such as food chain and habitat, showed some ela boration as did natural resource concepts. Overall, older students’ unde rstanding did not progress be yond the early grades as evidenced by a lack of elaboration or di fferentiation of basic concepts, especially physical and chemical concepts. Two critical points were emphasized in Brody’s (1996) conclusions. First, the significance of the misconceptions held by at least half of the students interviewed. These included: 1) no one owns the ocean and th ere are no political boundaries; 2) animals breathe oxygen in the water by breaking up th e water molecule; 3) coral reefs exist throughout the oceans; 4) water temperature ch anges with seasons and gets colder in winter; 5) salinity is the same throughout the ocean; 6) some plants like seaweed at the bottom of the ocean do not need sunlight to li ve, they must grow in soil to live. These misconceptions influenced the meanings stude nts attached to concepts and conceptual relationships in the major ocean content prin ciples that were addressed in the Brody’s study. Second, the critical need to assess prior knowledge was emphasized. As science education moves toward an interdisciplin ary teaching strategy, such as ocean or environmental sciences, the increase in po ssible misconceptions rises because of the multiple relationships of various concepts from the disciplines. Fortner & Mayer (1983, 1991) utilized th e Oceanic and Great Lakes Awareness Survey to assess student knowledge, while Br ody (1996) utilized modified clinical interviews. Overall knowledge progression fi ndings were similar for all authors, however, the details about conceptual unde rstanding varied. The written assessment

PAGE 64

51 provided insights about subject matter and attitude trends, while interviews identified misconceptions that would not likely emerge from the awareness survey. The assessment of student knowledge through interviews provided a more comprehensive picture of student understanding of con cepts and conceptual relati onships than other more frequently used assessment techniques, su ch as multiple-choice tests (Novak & Gowin, 1984). I used both assessment techniques in an effort to maximize research findings and begin development of a quantitative metric fo r ocean literacy that can be more broadly distributed. Figure 4 is a graphic summary of research re lated to what individuals know about the ocean from content scales. Two studies that provide a more significant research perspective are Lambert (2005, 2006). Lambert provided empirical data from a science content assessment of students before and after their participation in a high school marine science course. This study determined that for at least two of th e nine classes studied that marine science could serve as a model for teaching integrat ed science if curricula and instructional activities are aligned with National Science E ducation Standards (NSES). Overall, this research found significant science content gains from pre and post camp assessment of high school students completing a marine science course. The most significant content gains seem to be found in the properties of water and ocean and atmospheric interactions. This finding suggests that st udents in an integrated mari ne science course improved understanding of physical and chemical concepts This was not the case in either Brody (1996) or Fortner and Mayer (1991) studies, which showed no appreciable gains in the physical or chemical subject areas.

PAGE 65

52 but, have has been measured by measured by combined result result mostly little some improved significant low little gain no gain increased identified Under researched Written Assessments Clinical Interviews Overall Lack of Understanding Ocean Content Knowledge Strong emotive, personal connections & high level of care, interest & concern about oceans Geology 8th & 11th graders Physics & Chemistry Basic Ecology Belden et al, 1999; Fortner et al., Cudaback 2006 Brody et al., 1990 5th & 9th graders in Ohio knowledge gains between grades, (~10%) Biology Earth Science Lambert 2005, 2006 High school students in Florida knowledge gains between grades, (3-17%) Property of water Ocean & atmosphere interactions 4th, 8th & 11th graders in Oregon knowledge gains between grades, (~10%) 6 critical Misconceptions Steel et al, 2005 Brody, 1996 Figure 4. Graphic Summary of Research Related to What Individuals Know about the Ocean from Content Scales

PAGE 66

53 Lambert argued that single-discipline science instruction is outdated for the demands of contemporary science. Students participating in integrated science courses are more completely exposed to the true nature of sc ience than single disc ipline courses (McComas & Wang, 1998). Integrated science provides a context-rich teaching method that helps students better apply science to their da ily lives (McComas & Wang, 1998). Marine science concepts were taught using the contex t of a system for connecting the disciplines to realistically reflect the relationships in nature. Lambert recommended that more integrated courses be taught and assessed, that course-taki ng patterns be changed to include integrated science as a core-c ourse option, and to provide professional development for teachers to practice an in tegrated, system context for teaching and learning. These conclusions supported the case for changes in course design to include integrated content-embedded socioscientific issues (Zeidler & Keefer, 2003; Zeidler et al., 2002). Most prevalent from the research on ocean content knowledge is the overall shortfall of conceptual understanding. Th e need to provide more opportunities to construct knowledge about the ocean through formal and informal learning experiences and quality media programs is criti cal to advance ocean literacy. Role of Content Knowledge for Reas oning about Socioscientific Issues Sadler & Zeidler (2004) rese arch findings positively supported the significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning of so cioscientific issues. The context for their study was reasoning about genetic engineeri ng issues. Findings from a quantitative content measure and multiple interviews revealed that 30 college students’ genetics understanding was related to the quality of informal reasoning in response to gene therapy and cloning. Those individuals with a higher level of content knowledge

PAGE 67

54 demonstrated fewer reasoning flaws and incorp orated genetics conten t as part of their arguments, consequently improving the quality of their arguments. Individuals who did not possess a strong understanding of genetic s frequently cited a lack of content knowledge as a direct reason why they were unable to answer some interview questions. In contrast, findings did not support that individuals with different levels of content knowledge relied on different modes of info rmal reasoning patterns. For example, ‘Understanding the science behind a controvers ial issue does not necessarily imply that an individual will base his/her decisions on that science content’ (p. 89). Findings from this research support a positive relationship between the variables of content knowledge and quality of informal reasoning about so cioscientific issues (Hogan, 2002; Zeidler & Shafer, 1984). Zeidler & Shafer (1984) empirically de monstrated that mastery of content knowledge resulted in improved moral reas oning for college st udents reasoning about environmental dilemmas. Researchers selected two groups of college students, 86 environmental science majors and 105 non-sc ience majors, to identify the mediating factors contributing to moral reasoning. As expected the environmental content knowledge of science majors was significantly higher than non-majors as well as overall measures of environmental attitudes. Howeve r, the groups were not significantly different in terms of affect defined as emotive fee lings toward the environment. Both groups exhibited significantly higher levels of moral reasoning on environmental issues (EIT) than on general social issues (DIT), a lthough science majors outperformed non-science majors on both reasoning scales and conten t measures. Hogan (2002) reported that 8th grade students with the gr eatest understanding of conten t knowledge displayed the

PAGE 68

55 highest quality of argumentation and informal reasoning in the context of environmental management dilemmas. Figure 5 provides a gr aphic summary of the influence of content knowledge on reasoning about soci oscientific issues (SSI). improves improves improves Reasoning Quality of Argumentation Discourse to talk, write & read science Influence of Content Knowledge on SSI Reasoning Zeidler & Shafer, 1984 Hogan, 2002 Sadler & Zeidler, 2004 Yore & Teagust, 2006 Norris & Phillips, 2003 Figure 5. Graphic Summary of Influence of C ontent Knowledge on Reasoning about SSI Kolsto (2001) addresses three challenges wh en dealing with socioscientific issues: “the need for specificity, the need for relevance, and the need to adjust the amount of content knowledge to be emphasized in order to put it within reach of most students” (p. 293). Kolsto provides a framework of eight spec ific content transcending topics as tools to deal with the science content dimension of socioscientific issues (Table 5). These topics are intended to serve as focal poin ts when developing curriculum materials and provide contexts of applica tion for the science issue.

PAGE 69

56 Table 5. Summary of Kolsto (2001) Content-transcending Topics I. SCIENCE AS A SOCIAL PROCESS II. LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE III. VALUES IN SCIENCE IV. CRITICAL ATTITUDE 1. Science-in-the-making & the role of consensus in science 2. Science as one of several social domains 3. Descriptive & normative statements 4. Demands for underpinning evidence 5. Scientific models as context-bound 6. Scientific evidence 7. Suspension of belief 8. Scrutinize science-related knowledge claims It takes practice to gain competence in us ing the suggested tools and concepts to examine the science dimension of issues. The ultimate goal was to empower students with tools to gain insights and knowledge that prepared them for doing their own evaluations as to the relative relevance and trustworthin ess of different knowledge claims with a science dimension. The present study proposed that understanding of ocean content knowledge supports an individual’s ability to r eason and contribute positively toward environmental decisions and activities, e. g., stewardship conten t and attitudes. Yore and Treagust (2006) emphasized how language shaped and influenced knowledge construction. The author s proposed that a central c onsideration in facilitating scientific literacy was consideration of “the three-language problem encountered as people move from their home language to an instructional language on their way to acquiring scientific language” (p. 299). Learning how to ta lk, write, and read science frequently requires the embedding of explicit la nguage tasks and instruction into science inquiry that can be used to enhance the de sired sense of scientif ic literacy---talking, writing, and reading to learn science (Yore, 2000). Science learning and discourse (e.g.,

PAGE 70

57 oral or written) in classroo ms connect classroom talk, info rmal personal experiences, everyday terms and concrete experiences. The specific science discourse functions generally employed are argumentation (oral), reading, and writing. Argumentation research often drawing on Toulmin’s (1958) model has linked teachers’ pr actice and discourse to students’ discourse, identified taxonomies, and criteria for evaluation (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Niaz, Aguilera, Maza, & Liedo, 2002; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). However, this line of research needs to link students’ argume ntative discourse and quality using established means of science achievement (Yore & Treagust, 2006). Norris and Phillips (2003) argue that oral discourse is necessary, but not sufficient to learn and do science. A written record is required to document ownership of claims, re veal patterns of events and arguments, and to connect claims inter-textually. For the present study both oral and written discourse were examined via classroom talk, wr itten records, and guided interviews. Socioscientific Issues and Reasoning One way to provide opportunities to pract ice and experience connections between what the science students are learning and the issues they are likely to confront in their daily lives is through reas oning and discussions about so cioscientific issues. The socioscientific issues (SSI) movement empha sizes empowering students to consider how science-based issues and the decisions made concerning them reflect, in part, the moral principles and qualities of virt ue that encompass their own li ves, as well as the physical and social world around them (Brown et al., 2005; Kolsto, 2001; Kozoll & Osborne, 2004; Lemke, 2001; Sadler, 2004; Zeidler, 2003) This movement provides a conceptual framework that unifies the development of moral and epistemological orientations of

PAGE 71

58 students and the role of emotions and charac ter as key components of science education (Sadler, 2004; Sadler, 2005; Ze idler & Keefer, 2003; Zeidler et al., 2005). Socioscientific issues are based on science concepts or probl ems controversial in nature, discussed in public arenas, and frequently are subject to political and ethical influences. From a theoretical context, socioscientific issues di ffer from other issues in science in being characterized as open ended, ill structured, debatable problems, subject to multiple perspectives and solutions, and involve th e process of negotiation and resolution via informal reasoning (Sadler, 2004; Kolsto, 2001). One rationale for the use of socioscientific issues to advance scientific literacy is that the processes students are engage d in when making decisions regarding socioscientific issues is similar to the one scientists engage in when making decisions regarding the justifi cation of scientific knowledge (e .g., choosing between two competing theories). While the literature base of soci oscientific issues and research is expanding (Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Sadler, 2004 ; Zeidler, 2003; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003; Zeidler et al., 2005), there remains a paucity of research about ocean issues (Kelly & Takao, 2002; Rebich & Gautier, 2005; Schweizer & Kelly, 2005) contributing to scientific literacy. As our scientific knowledge and th e processes used to develop knowledge about the oceans has expanded, so too has our awareness of th e significant impacts of personal, ethical, moral and societal decision-making. In part icular, ocean research is increasingly revealing our direct and cri tical dependence on the ocean as a global, human society. As such, the ocean can contribute powerfully to the current reform initiatives that require scientific literacy that includes moral and ethical aspects, and relevancy. Figure 6 is a graphic summary of research related to soci oscientific issues and informal reasoning.

PAGE 72

59 are influenced are evaluated are taught Emotive Factors 3 Ways: Rationalistically Emotively Intuitively Case Studies Socioscientific Issues & Informal Reasoning Zeidler & Shafer, 1984 Sadler & Zeidler, 2005 Sadler & Zeidler, 2005 Keefer, 2003 Berkowitz, 2003 Zeidler et al., 2002 Context Personal Experience Morality Content Knowledge Peer Discussion Role Playing Written Discourse Kolsto, 2001 Kelly & Takoa, 2002 Figure 6. A Graphic Summary of Research Rela ted to Socioscientific Issues and Informal Reasoning During classroom discussions of SSI stude nts are engaged in informal reasoning as they negotiate and resolve complex problem s that lack clear solutions. Findings from Sadler & Zeidler (2005) reveal that students using informal reasoning might relate to socioscientific issues in three ways duri ng discussions: (a) rati onalistically, which encompasses reason and logic based consider ations, (b) emotively, which encompasses care and empathy based cons iderations, and (c) intuitively, which encompasses considerations based on immediate reactions to the context of the scenario or dilemmas presented. These results were gleaned from in terviews of 30 college students about the

PAGE 73

60 topic of genetic engineering. Decision making of college stud ents was further influenced by morality, personal experiences, emotive factors, and social considerations. Thus, both cognitive and affective processes contributed to the resolution of thes e complex issues via informal reasoning. Sadler’s (2004) critic al review of informal reasoning and socioscientific issues literature identified a) argumentation skills, b) nature of science conceptualization, c) evaluation of inform ation, and d) development of conceptual understanding of science conten t as mediating factors. The mediating factors I examined for the present study were conceptual unde rstanding of ocean science content and discourse via talking and writing about ocean issues. Zeidler and Shafer’s (1984) pivotal st udy with college stude nts substantiated a link between content knowledge and inform al reasoning. Researchers selected two groups of college students, 86 environmenta l science majors and 105 non-science majors, to identify the mediating fact ors contributing to the moral reasoning. Students completed the Defining Issues Test (DIT), a general m easure of reasoning about social issues, the Environmental Issues Test (EIT), a measur e of reasoning about environmental problems, the Test of Ecology Comprehension (TEC), a conceptual test of environmental understanding, and the Ecology Att itudes Inventory (EAI), a m easure of verbal and actual commitment and affect related to the e nvironment. Results fro m ANOVA and multiple regression analysis indicated th at moral reasoning is influenc ed by context, content, and attitudes toward the content. The environmental content kn owledge of science majors was significantly higher than non-majors, as were overall measures of environmental attitudes. Content knowledge was a significant factor in the resolu tion of environmental

PAGE 74

61 dilemmas. Science majors had greater comm itment to and comprehension of ecology than non-science majors. However, the groups were not significantly di fferent in terms of affect defined as emotive feelings toward the environment. Affect accounted for th e most variation in moral reasoning. Both groups, science and non-science majors, exhibited significantly higher levels of moral reasoning on environmen tal issues (EIT) than on general social issues (DIT), although science majors outperformed non-science majors. The environmental context of this study resona ted highly for both gr oups, thus supporting a relationship between context and moral reas oning. These findings challenged previous work that suggests moral reasoning was i ndependent of context (Iozzi, 1978). The findings of Zeidler & Shafer (1984) also pr ovided evidence that content understanding may be an important variable for info rmal reasoning. This finding was further substantiated by Sadler and Zeidler (2004), see previous content knowledge section. Kelly & Takoa (2002) examined university students’ use of evidence in writing (i.e. discourse) assignments as part of an oceanography course. Kelly & Takoa provided examples of reasoning skills related to disciplin e specific constructs (i.e., epistemic levels in argument) and a working model for addi tional applications and assessments. The hierarchy of epistemic levels presented m oved from observation, such as simple data representations and the iden tification of topographical st ructures, to interpretive statements including context specific th eory and general geological theory. Personal experience emerged as a cons istent influence on reasoning about socioscientific issues. In some studies pers onal experience seemed to mediate scientific knowledge (Tytler et al., 2001; Zeidler & Sh afer, 1984), while other studies suggested

PAGE 75

62 personal experience was used to the exclusi on of scientific knowledge (Sadler et al., 2002; Zeidler et al., 2002). Kolsto (2001) suggested that only through experience will students develop the attitudes and skills ne cessary to examine and effectively reason about socioscientific issues. Zeidler and K eefer (2003) posit that learners should be provided with experiences that will have dir ect impact and relevance to their present and future social experiences. The central argument [for te aching and learning] is that if citizens are expected to make reasoned, informed decisions about their science and technology embedded society then as students they ought to be provided with necessary experiences in which to practice and apply this kind of decision making. (p. 11) In my study, I sought to demonstrate that the ocean can provide relevant science connections to life experience, decisions, and actions impac ting individuals and the ocean environment. Socioscientific Issues and Teaching Strategies Several recommendations were put forth in the literature for how to teach using socioscientific issues. Sociosci entific issues provided a useful mechanism for teachers to stimulate the intellectual and social growth of their stude nts (Sadler, 2004). Among the more common instructional approaches for atte nding to socioscientific issues were case studies (Keefer, 2003), peer discussion (B erkowitz & Simmons, 2003), role playing (Kolsto, 2001), and explicit nature of sc ience instruction (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell & Lederman, 1998; Khishfe & Lederman, 2006). Keefer (2003) provided a compelling perspective for the development and implementation of case-based approaches to ethical instruction in science and science

PAGE 76

63 education. Keefer recommended a classical ap proach to moral reasoning because it taught “ethics using analyses of mora l decision-making in practical c ontexts, usually in the form of realistic case examples” (e.g., engineeri ng, medicine; p. 253). Mo ral decision-making was analyzed using a seven-component model th at established if one could: 1) identify the moral issue at stake, 2) identify th e relevant knowledge and unknown facts in a problem, 3) offer a resolution, 4) provide a jus tification, 5) consider alternative scenarios that argue for different conclusions, 6) iden tify and evaluate moral consequences, and 7) offer alternative resolutions. By specifically outlining these components, the relevance of moral decision-making and its ne cessity in thinking about and engaging in socioscientific issues was immediately clear. This perspectiv e helped to develop se nsitivity to context and the importance of professional knowledge. For practical applica tion of case-based approaches Keefer recommended using realistic cases and ca se analyses, and infusing inquiry based science and inst ructional programs w ith realistic and informed case-based ethical instruction. Berkowitz & Simmons (2003) posited that teaching and learning must include an understanding of civic character and moral reas oning as integral part s of science inquiry. This research demonstrated how transact ive peer discussion not only nurtured the development of moral reasoning and social ski lls, but also increased science learning and experiences that prepared students to participat e in a democratic society. By definition, “transactive discussion occurs when one di scussant demonstrates clear discursive evidence of reasoning about another discu ssant’s reasoning” (p. 129). Transactive discussion was likely when student s collaboratively explored sc ientific issues and solved scientific problems. The emphasis on colla borative inquiry-based education closely

PAGE 77

64 paralleled the nature of ocean science as nearly every research project was multidisciplinary and multi-collaborative (IOOS, NMS, IODP). Problem solving, reasoning, transactive discussion, and reaching agreement or consensus, each enhanced the science learning and ‘research ’ experience. The role and valu e of the inclusion of peer collaborative scientific and ethical problem-solving and inquiry in the science classroom included learning to solve scientific and ma thematical problems more effectively and being more capable of active, thoughtful engagement and understanding in public debates. Results from research in this area clearly demonstrated that more transactive discussion in social interact ions was significantly related to both the development of reasoning capacities and the solution to scie ntific problems. Overlapping science and character education promoted fu ture “ethical scientists and re flective, responsible citizens who are scientifically literate.” (p. 128). Environmental Morality The emergence of global environmental problems as major policy issues symbolizes the growing awareness of the problematic relationship between modern industrialized societies and the physical environments on which they depend (Stern, Young & Druckman, 1992). Recognition that human activities are altering the ecosystems on which the existence of all liv ing species are dependent and the growing acknowledgment of the necessity of achievi ng more sustainable forms of development give credence to suggestions that we are in the midst of a fundamental reevaluation of the underlying worldview that has guided our relationship to the physical environment (Milbrath, 1984). Suggestions that a more ecologically sound worldview is emerging have gained credibility in the past decad e (Olsen, Lodwick, & Dunlap, 1992). In this

PAGE 78

65 context, it is not surprising to see that traditional measures of "environmental concern" are being replaced by instruments seeking to measure "ecological consciousness" (Ellis & Thompson, 1997), "anthropocentrism" (Chandler & Dreger, 1993), and "anthropocentrism versus ecocentr ism" (Thompson & Barton, 1994). Environmental and outdoor education programs have sought to increase an awareness and understanding of the natural world through an experiential process of engagement with the immediate physical enviro nment. This process of direct experience and primary interaction with the natural environment is intended to influence the learner’s attitudes and behaviors towards the natural world. In tur n, these attitudes and behaviors, what may be construed as environm ental ethic, often manifest as civic action in the form of particular duties performe d for the sake of both the health of the environment and its residents, both humans and animals. The emphasis on environmental attitudes and values as a primary objective of environmental and outdoor education is we ll intended and successful (Orr, 2002; Pooley & O’Conner, 2000). Indeed, in terms of eff ectiveness, outdoor education programs have demonstrated significant change in the student’s pro enviro nmental attitudes. However, environmental attitudes have confounded resear chers who have attempted to argue for a strong corollary between one’s attitudes and corresponding behavior. While attitudes provided a means of knowing an individual’s position or pref erence regarding a specific behavior, object, or organism, they did not contribute to understa nding the underlying processes that conspired in the formation of the particular environmental attitude. Recently, researchers have become interest ed in the potential role that outdoor environmental education programs can play in promoting moral development (Beringer,

PAGE 79

66 1990; Caduto, 1998; Garvey, 1999; Palmberg & Kuru, 2000). Garvey (1999) and others suggested that outdoor educa tion is inherently suited to present moral dilemmas and facilitate moral reasoning through its emphasi s on group problem solving. In this context, moral judgment is understood to be a pro cess through which the decision of what is morally right in the particular situation is determined by deciding what is in the best interest of the group. This is an approach to moral education that subscribes much more to ethics of care and responsibility than ethi cs of rights and justice. This approach is similar to Kohlberg’s (1984) notion of the ‘just community’ in which the individual’s membership within a group of just and car ing individuals instills a sense of moral commitment to the group. The content, setting, and structure of outdoor education programs are unique to facilitate opportunities for moral development. If morality in the c onventional sense is a basis for social cooperation and coordination, it is easy to discern the compatibility of outdoor education and moral development. Bu t does the same potential exist for outdoor education in promoting moral reasoning about the environment? Thomashow (2002) suggested that children and adolescents are capable of po ssessing an ecologi cal identity that has ‘the potential to shift the way we conceptualize the world and how it works, shaping an ecologically minded sense of purpose and responsibility in the way we behave’ (p. 265-266). Her research attempted to link ecological awareness to identity formation through educational experience that ‘i ntegrates the essentia l character of teens into a study of the local environmental issues ’ (p. 267). This approach closely parallels the mission of the Oceanography Camp for Girl s in advancing a posit ive sense of self, science, and the environment.

PAGE 80

67 More recently research on environmenta l attitudes and ethics has moved beyond mere description of who and how much of a given population support environmental conservation efforts, to a deeper understa nding of why they hold these beliefs and attitudes (Kahn, 1997; Kortenkamp & Moor e, 2001; Thompson & Barton, 1994). One way to achieve answers was by framing one’s relationship with the natural environment from a moral reasoning perspe ctive. By extending moral consideration to the natural world, one acknowledges a responsibility for pr otecting nature and pe rhaps a recognition of the inherent and intrinsi c rights of nature. Moral orie ntations towards nature are typically categorized as anth ropocentric (i.e., nature has value and deserves to be protected as it affects human we ll-being) or biocentric (i.e., nature is perceived as worthy of rights and protection because of its intrinsic value). Kortnekamp & Moore (2001) studied unive rsity undergraduat es’ moral reasoning about environmental dilemmas and found variat ion in biocentric and anthropocentric reasoning that was contingent upon several situ ational variables. Sp ecifically, the authors determined that when a social conflict was present in the dilemma (i.e., the needs and effects on humans was emphasized), students tended to reason anthropocentrically. Conversely, when a land-use c onflict was emphasized (i.e., th e impact of an act on the environment was emphasized), more biocentr ic reasoning was use d. These contextual influences highlighted the shortfall of past research on moral reasoning based on principles only, suggesting that moral r easoning was independent of context. The significance of context has also been re ported by Zeidler & Shafer (1984). Current research has moved toward a more constr uctivist approach to understanding moral reasoning by considering salient situ ational and contex tual variables.

PAGE 81

68 The research of Kahn and colleagues ( 1995, 1997, 1999) involved interviews to determine children’s environmental moral reasoning in response to specific ecological moral dilemmas. The results of these studies provided evidence for the ability of 8th, 5th, 3rd, and even 1st graders to morally reason about the environment, and a systematic analysis of their responses confirmed the exis tence of both anthropocentric and biocentric orientations in their reasoning. These result s represented moral reasoning of a cross section of youth including African American y outh living in an inner-urban setting (Kahn & Friedman, 1995), a mixed-ethnic population of children of varying economic levels (Kahn, 1997), and a population of both urban and rural Brazillian youth and Portuguese students (Kahn, 1999). As a cross-cultur al representation, Kahn’s studies found commonality among these different groups in both environmental knowledge and environmental moral reasoning. Kahn and his colleagues discovered that th e majority of children interviewed provided justifications for their responses to environmental dilemmas that were prescriptive, generalizable, not contingent on rules, and utilized principles of rights, justice, and welfare. Thus, children reas oning about the environment consistently revealed a type of obligatory moral judg ment. For example, Kahn & Friedman (1995) conducted a study among African-American yout h living in inner-c ity Houston. When asked whether it was acceptable to throw garb age into a local bayou that ran through their community, 97% of youth responded that this action was unacceptable, would not be acceptable even if a law allowed for it (97% ), and would not be acceptable even if it occurred in a another city where a law a llowed for it (86%). These responses supported

PAGE 82

69 the assertion that child ren are not only capable of recogni zing issues or moral import, but that they also recognize aspects of nature as morally significant. Outdoor education programs vary widely in the types of ac tivities and learning that occurs. Zelezny (1999) conducted a meta-a nalysis of educationa l tactics intended to improve environmental behavior. The author concluded that educational programs that actively involved the learner were most successful in creating the intended outcomes. Often, these programs used the outdoors as a context for learning and deriving meaning about environmental processe s (Caduto, 1998). Direct expe riences with nature are thought to increase not only the participant’s environmental knowledge but also his or her positive attitudes towards nature. Palmber g & Kuru (2000) in a study of outdoor experiences among 11-12 year old youth, found that those students more experienced in outdoor activities had a str onger emotional relationship w ith nature, exhibited better social behavior, and had higher moral judgments. Pooley & O’Conner (2000) investigations found that both affect and cognition formed the basis for environmental attitudes. They posited th at environmental education programs should balance the emphasis on cognitive-based learning with an emphasis on affective learning. They concluded that attitudes formed through dire ct experience with obj ects of nature (e.g., examining aquatic life in a stream in a forest) tended to be affectively based and attitudes formed through indirect experi ence with objects of nature (e.g., seeing an instructional video on aquatic life) were typically c ognitively based. The Oceanography Camp for Girls program used the outdoors as a cont ext for learning and deriving meaning about environmental processes, concurrently provi ding direct experiences with nature that

PAGE 83

70 strive to advance both cognitive and affectiv e-based learning. Within this context I sought to examine how youth think morally ab out ocean-based environmental dilemmas. Environmental Attitudes Environmental attitudes are conceptualized in terms of attitude theory as being composed of beliefs and affect toward an obj ect. The environment as an object is difficult to define. People experience an aspect of th e environment (e.g., a beach, a park, a river) not the environment as a whole. To meas ure environmental attitude, it must be operationalized it or defined to describe what one thinks an individual's environmental attitude might be. Following an extensive literature search on environmental attitude, the work of Dunlap et al. (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap, Van Lier e, Mertlig & Jones, 2000) operationalized environmental attitude a nd developed a scale to measure it. At the time of its development, people were b ecoming disenchanted with the so-called "Dominant Social Paradigm," (DSP; Pirage s & Ehrlich, 1974), which emphasized human ability to control and manage the envir onment, limitless natural resources, private property rights, and unlimited industrial growt h. In response, Dunlap & Van Liere (1978) developed the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale that emphasized environmental protection, limited industrial gr owth, and population control. Since its development, the scale has been used in many other studies that have replicated as well as modified the scale. The NEP has establishe d internal validity (coeffici ent alpha of 0.81), construct validity (predictive validity and face valid ity), and content validity. Several studies conducted since NEP development, have quest ioned the validity of the instrument especially since it was not grounde d in social-psychological theo ries of attitude structure.

PAGE 84

71 Twenty years later, Dunlap et al. (20 00) conducted an extensive revision of the original NEP to develop the New Ecologi cal Paradigm. This revised ecological instrument improved on the original design as follows: 1) it tapped a wider range of facets of an ecological worldview; 2) it offe red a balanced set of proand anti-NEP items; and 3) it avoided outmoded termi nology. The New Ecological Paradigm Scale consisted of 15 items (Appendix C). Cudaback (2006) used the New Ecological Paradigm instrument with college students in her Oceanography courses, along with modified versions of the AAAS Public Opinion Su rvey (AAAS, 2004), Ocean Project Public Opinion Survey (Belden et al., 1999a), and CL ASS-Geosciences (Libar kin et al., 2005). I used a combination of questions from the NEP and Cudaback’s Attitude Surveys to compose the Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS). Kempton, Boster & Hartley (1995) conducte d in-depth, ethnographic interviews in an attempt to sort out the environmental perspectives of Americans. Kempton et al. (1995) concluded that three general sets of e nvironmental beliefs played crucial roles in the "cultural models" by which Americans attempt to make sense of environmental issues. Environmental belief sets were: 1) nature is a limited resource, upon which humans rely; 2) nature is balanced, highly interdependent and complex, and therefore susceptible to human interference; and 3) ma terialism and lack of contact with nature have led our society to devalue nature. Inte restingly, Kempton et al found three nearly identical beliefs to those that formed the major facets of the NEP Scale; balance of nature, limits of growth, and human dominati on over nature, further confirming the scales content validity. In the context my study m easuring attitudes about the ocean and ocean stewardship, these belief sets were important to consider in developm ent of the Survey of

PAGE 85

72 Ocean Stewardship (SOS) instrument and Su rvey of Ocean Environmental Morality (SOEM). These instruments strived to access general environmental attitudes, valuebased environmental attitudes, and pro-e nvironmental behavior (e.g., stewardship). The following is a brief review of several key studies examining youth’s environmental attitudes and awareness, specifi cally within the context of experiential, outdoor education programs. Crompton & Sell ar (1981) reviewed over 30 empirical studies to determine if outdoor educa tion experiences contributed to positive development in the affective domain. Cumula tive findings were ge nerally supportive of claims that outdoor education experiences f acilitate positive affective development, if the subject area of concern wa s closely associated with the outdoors and the outdoor education experience was of su fficient duration (e.g. five or more days). However, these general conclusions remained very tentative for two reas ons: 1) the cumulative body of evaluative literature was sp arse and the majority was not found in scientific or professional journals; and 2) weaknesses in the quality of research designs, including inadequate control or randomization procedur es, small and unrepresentative samples, and untested reliability and validity of instruments. Figure 7 is a graphic summary of research related to environmental morality and the influence of environmental outdoor programs including links to behaviors and attitudes. In contrast, in more recent studies researchers have reported a positive connection between attitude and behavior in natural environments (Dressner & Gill, 1994; Leeming, Dwyer, Porter & Colbern, 1993; Palmer & Neal, 1994; Ryan, 1991; Shepard & Speelman, 1985). Mittelstaedt et al. (Mittelstaedt, Sanker & VanderVeer,

PAGE 86

73 evidenced in extends links facilitated by provides influences Environmental Morality Children 1st, 3rd, 5th & 8th grades Moral considerations to natural environment Multiple Cultures Multiple Economic levels Moral environmental orientations anthropocentric Environmental & Outdoor Programs Ecological Awareness to Identity Gender Differences biocentric situational variablesInfluenced by Direct Experiences with Nature Behaviors Kahn et al., 1996 Kahn et al., 1997 Kahn et al., 1999 Caduto, 1998 Palmberg & Kuru, 2000 Zelezny et al., 2000 Mittelstaedt et al., 1999 Kahn et al., 1995 Attitudes Studies reveal College Undergraduates Kortnerkamp & Moore, 2001 Kortnerkamp & Moore, 2001 Persing, 2006 Zelezny, 1999 Figure 7. A Graphic Summary of Research Relate d to Environmental Morality and the Influence of Environmental Outdoor Pr ograms Including Links to Behaviors and Attitudes

PAGE 87

74 1999) evaluated the impact of a week-long summer science camp on 46 youth, ages 9-12 years on their attitudes and behaviors toward the environment. A pre-post research design was utilized using the Millw ard-Ginter Outdoor Attitude Inventory (MGOAI). This instrument was designed for 9-14 year olds, applicable to camp experiences, included four subcategories (environment, educa tion, pollution, and soci alization), and had reliability coefficients that exceed 0.80. Resu lts of the matched t-te st analysis comparing pre-post attitude scores indicat ed significant improvements in all four categories, Girls scored significantly higher on both pre-post atti tude scores however, regardless of gender on average, all participants had a positive atti tude toward the environment. Both groups had positive attitudes at the out set and these attitudes significa ntly improved at the end of the week-long program. The most interesting findings from this study were the relationships between intentions related to ac tivity in and for the natural environment and self-reported involvement in those activities. A content analysis of qualit ative data which asked stude nts, ‘Is there anything you will do differently in your life after attending ca mp this summer? If so, what are the three most important things you believe you w ill do to help the environment? Analysis revealed five key categories of intended behaviors. These were educational action, physical action, persuasive action, acts of omission or preservation, and acts of environmental appreciation and awareness. The largest number of intended behaviors (93% of campers) represented acts of omi ssion (e.g., to not litter or harm nature) or preservation of the environment, indicating a heightened sensitivity to the natural world around them. Physical actions represented the second largest nu mber of intended behaviors; 21% of responses dealt with preservation of the na tural environment by

PAGE 88

75 picking up trash, saving energy, a nd recycling. Most noteworthy wa s that a subset of over 50% of participants were questioned 12-months later and of the 69 intentions originally reported, 60 resulted in actual behaviors. These behaviors included 38% categorized as environmental appreciation and awareness (e.g., going on hikes, listening to nature, respecting and being more observant of natu re), and 25% were educational activities (e.g., reading books about nature, learning names of animals, and studying nature on their own). This study supported the research that an experiential ed ucation program can effectively help to produce citizens willing a nd motivated to take some action (e.g., from intentions to behaviors) on behalf of the planet. Zelenzy, Pho Pheng & Aldrich (2000) pr ovided data on gender differences in environmentalism among 1293 primary and se condary youth systematically surveyed over a two year period. A 35-item instrument wa s constructed to assess students’ general environmental attitudes, se lf-reported knowledge, feelings of personal responsibility, specific environmental attitudes, and attit udes about recycling. This instrument incorporated 6-items from the NEP to assess general environmental attitudes. Compared to boys, girls consistently reported str onger pro-environmental responses on all environmental variables in this study. In bot h years, girls reported stronger overall concern for the environment, general NEP environmental concern, and personal responsibility for improving the environment than boys. Further, girls reported stronger concern about trash, interest in recycling, and interest in sc hool recycling. Finally, girls reported significantly more participation in school recycling. Qualitatively, with regard to specific environmental issues, girls reported in both years that the issue that they cared the most about was animal extinction. Boys, however, reported in year one that their top

PAGE 89

76 concern was animal extinction, and in year two, they reported that they were most concerned about water pollution. Girls and boys consistently reporte d, across both years, that they were least concerne d about wasting energy. These fi ndings were consistent with the adult studies. Females, regardless of ag e (i.e., youth or adult) reported more concern for the environment and pro-environmental be haviors than males. In both adults and youth, the effect of gender (female) was st ronger on pro-environmental behaviors than NEP environmental concerns. In a subs equent study of gender differences in environmentalism across 14 countries, females c onsistently reported hi gher ratings than males on all variables, includi ng pro environmental behavior s. As a group, females across 14 countries reported significantly stronger NEP environmental attitudes, stronger valuebased ecocentric environmental attitudes, and greater participation in pro-environmental behaviors, although gender diffe rences in environmental attitudes and behaviors within countries were less convincing. Although th e present study is primarily focused on a single gender, findings about ge nder differences in environmen tal attitudes and behaviors are important to recognize as potential me diating factors in analysis of my study. Specifically, will trends emerge within a sing le gender group or be consistent throughout the group? A Framework for Investigating Ocean Literacy Cudaback (2006) used the essential learni ng principles to examine ocean literacy among undergraduate students in her oceanography courses. My study builds on the framework presented by Cudaback to pr ovide comparative data in developing a continuum of ocean literacy knowledge construc tion and stewardship attitudes. Cudaback has organized in a simple 2x2 matrix the lear ning objectives for ocean literacy defined by

PAGE 90

77 COSEE (2005). The quadrants of the ocean l iteracy matrix are named Science Content, Science Attitudes, Stewardship Content and Stewardship Attitudes. Cudaback is working to establish reliability and validity parameters for the ocean literacy surveys developed and evaluated over the past se veral years with her undergra duate students. Her hope is that students will understand aspects of the ocean sciences, the human impacts upon the ocean (cognitive domain), and perceive science as a useful tool that can be used to protect the ocean (affective domain). Table 6 provides an outline of Cudaback’s survey questions by category within the ocean literacy matrix of learning objectives. Summary of Literature Research related to scientif ic literacy and r easoning about socios cientific issues has focused on the following distinct but re lated areas: 1) scientific literacy as a functional process, 2) the influence of c ontent knowledge on scie ntific literacy and reasoning, 3) the characteristic s of reasoning about socioscientific issues, and 4) the emerging influence of environmental morality. (For graphical summaries of the research related to each of these vari ables see Figures 3-7.) By expl oring the studie s contributing to these areas, a comprehensive picture of what is known thus far and what still needs to be learned appears. Research on scientific literacy focused on pivotal reviews to identify a perspective to frame ocean literacy. Based on the literature, the transition of scientific literacy from a knowledgecentered perspective to a sociocultura l-perspective more realistically reflects the true nature of science and social values about science accessible to others (Brown et al., 2005; Zeidler et al., 2005). Of the studi es investigated, several emphasized that

PAGE 91

78 Table 6. Ocean Literacy Survey Instrument Questions by Category Within an Ocean Literacy Matrix of Learning Objectives as Conceptualized by Cudaback (2006) Science Content Stewardship Content Quantitative Size Of The Ocean Properties Of Water Life In The Ocean Qualitative Ecosystems: Open-Ended With Rubrics Quantitative Pollution Coastal Development Destruction Of Marine Life Global Warming (Climate Change) Qualitative Ecosystems: Open-Ended With Rubrics Science Attitudes Stewardship Attitudes Attitudes About Oceanography Survey Where Did You Learn About The Ocean? Concern, Responsibility And Empowerment Whose Actions Can Affect The Ocean? Whom Do You Trust To Provide Information About Human Impacts? Self-Reported Behaviors science understanding must take place in a cu lturally specific c ontext for learning to occur by making use of the new knowledge. Rele vant factors are language use (Brown et al., 2005; Yore & Treagust, 2006), student’s personal identity (Kozoll & Osborne, 2004), and articulating communities (Lemke, 2001) Zeidler et al.’s (2003, 2005) offered a functional view of scientific literacy de rived from a cognitive-moral reasoning perspective. Within this framework four pe dagogical areas are centr al to teaching SSI. These are nature of science issues, cultural issues, classroom discourse issues, and case-

PAGE 92

79 based issues. From these findings my study grounds ocean literacy within the sociocultural perspective of scientific literacy and case-based and cultural issues (Zeidler et al., 2005) to advance reasoning about ocean issues. Specifically, I examined if current ocean literacy standards are multimod al and go beyond cognitive understanding to include social and emotiv e aspects of learning. The studies that examined the influe nce of understanding content on cognitive literacy and reasoning suggested some tentativ e, yet instructive trends. A review of current levels of ocean cognitive literacy rev ealed a general lack of even a baseline of ocean content knowledge amongst youth (Brody, 1996; Fortner & Mayer, 1983, 1991), high school students (Lambert 2005), college students (C udaback, 2006), and adults (Belden et al., 1999; Steel et al., 2005) who pa rticipated in survey studies. Research supported the critical need to establish a validated, reliable scale to measure conceptual understanding about the ocean across groups Of the studies reviewed there is no meaningful comparison or validity establishe d. General trends suggested content gains in early grades with no significant gains in la ter grades. Students w ho participated in a marine science course demonstrated signi ficant content gains in some areas of oceanography (Cudaback, 2006; Lambert, 2005). However, these results were tentative and require further investigation with valid ation of scales. A key finding of Lambert’s research (Lambert, 2005, 2006) on high school students’ conceptual understanding of science after participation in a marine science course suppor ted an integrated curriculum to advance scientific literac y. Support for an integrated cu rriculum was also echoed by Zeidler (1984) and others (Zeidler, Wa lker, Ackett & Simmons, 2002) that included socioscientific issues as part of science classes.

PAGE 93

80 Studies related to the influence of c ontent on reasoning a bout socioscientific issues provided evidence that increased c ontent knowledge influen ces the quality of informal reasoning (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Zeidler & Sadler, 2005; Zeidler & Shafer, 1984). Sadler & Zeidler (2004) specifically focu sed on the role of c ontent knowledge and informal reasoning. Results support a link between level of content knowledge and quality of informal reasoning, however, addi tional work is needed in this area. The present study will address the influence of content knowledge and reasoning from a preliminary perspective. The minimal level of conceptual understanding about the oceans required to reason about ocean issues is not yet known. A goal of the Oceanography Camp for Girls environmental program is to increase conceptual understanding about the oceans and that participants will be able to r easonably engage in socioscientific dilemmas related to the ocean environment. Research related to the role of sociosci entific issues (SSI) and reasoning towards scientific literacy demonstrated an emerging ro le for SSI, especially when viewed in light of a sociocultural perspectiv e of scientific l iteracy. Sadler’s (2004) review of socioscientific issues provided a number of empirical studies that support socioscientific issues as a mechanism to advance scientific literacy. The follow ing factors should be attended to when examining reasoning about socioscientific issues, content (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004), context (Per sing, 2006; Sadler 2004; Semk en, 2005), morality (Persing, 2006; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Zeidler & Keef er, 2003), critical thinking skills (Ault, 1998; Keefer, 2003), and the nature of scie nce (Sadler, 2004; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). Several authors provide teaching strategies for implementing SSI; case studies (Keefer, 2003), peer discussion (Berkowitz, 2003), ro le playing (Kolsto, 2001), and written

PAGE 94

81 discourse (Kelly & Takoa, 2002). Sadler & Zeidler (2005) identifie d three ways that college students reason about SSI; rationally, emotively, and intuitively or a combination thereof. Building upon Sadler & Zeidler (2005) re search, I explored if the three informal reasoning patterns evidenced in adult college students were manifest in teen-aged girls when negotiating ocean relate d socioscientific issues. Studies related to environmental mora lity and its facilitation via outdoor, environmental programs showed promise as a ne w line of research in moral development. The majority of research related to e nvironmental and outdoor education programs demonstrate a significant cha nge in students’ pro envir onmental attitudes, however correlation with corresponding behaviors is only recently emerging (Mittelstaedt et al., 1999). Recent moral environmental research has examined the influence of outdoor programs on moral orientations (Kortnerkamp & Moore, 2001; Persing, 2006), attitudes (Palmberg & Kuru, 2000; Zelezny et al., 2000), behaviors (Mittelstaed t et al., 1999), and direct experiences with nature (Caduto, 1998; Zelezny, 1999). Mittel staedt et al., (1999) provided a comprehensive study of the imp acts of week-long, outdoor, science summer camps on youths’ attitudes and behaviors to ward the environment. Results clearly demonstrated significant improvements on all levels measured, positive environmental attitudes and intentions. Most striking were the delayed post experience results 12 months after the summer program that re vealed 69 originally reported intentions resulted in 60 actual behaviors toward the environment. Thes e findings are particular ly relevant to my study which hoped to advance ocean stewardship behavior as a post impact of the threeweek, Oceanography Camp for Gi rls summer science program.

PAGE 95

82 A trend that emerged across all research areas was the pervasive influence on knowledge construction, reasoni ng about socioscientific i ssues, and environmental morality associated with outdoor learning programs. Specific to reasoning about socioscientific issues, personal experience in so me studies appeared to mediate scientific knowledge (Tytler, 2001; Zeidler & Shafer 1984), while in other studies personal experience was used to the exclusion of sc ientific knowledge (Sad ler & Zeidler, 2005; Zeidler et al., 2002). Personal experiences emer ged consistently in ocean literacy surveys as one of the most influential factors repor ted by adults and undergraduate students when asked about their interest in the ocean and s ource of prior knowledge (Belden et al, 1999; Cudaback, 2006; Steel et al., 2005). Studies in environmental morality consistently reported the significant influence of direct personal experiences with nature in developing positive attitudes, values, and behavior s towards the environment (Caduto, 1998; Palmberg & Kuru, 2000; Zelenzy, 1999). Specific to knowledge construction and scientific literacy, the role of prior know ledge and personal experi ences have been wellestablished (Berk, 2000; Bransford et al., 1999; Flavell et al., 2002). I considered the role of personal experience in the process of ocean knowledge construction and moral environmental r easoning. Recognizing and addressing how personal experiences effect development of ocean literacy, reasoning, and decision making was an explicit focus of my study. The fu ture of ocean health relates directly to personal, individual decisions about its management and exploitation. Perhaps building from the point of personal relevance towards scientific understa nding can leverage informed decision making about ocean socioscientific issues.

PAGE 96

83 Two major education needs are at the heart of ocean science literacy. These are the need to provide (a) o cean science content and experiences as part of a 21st century integrated science curriculum, and (b) opportunities to engage in ocean-related socioscientific issues (OSSI) meaningful to th e life experiences of most citizens. In this way students and citizens can contribute to the social, ec onomic, and cultural development of an ocean literate society perm eated with individual, regional, and global implications. An overarching outcome of my study was to examine if current ocean literacy standards are multimodal to go beyond cognitive understanding to include social and emotive aspects of learning.

PAGE 97

84 CHAPTER THREE: METHODS Introduction Science literacy research studies have primarily focused on three main areas as factors contributing to literacy. These are content knowledge, process skills, and attitudes about science and towards science. More recently socioscientific decision-making has emerged as a research area of scientific liter acy and has advanced a functional aspect to literacy. Elements of socioscientific deci sion making that guided this study included informal reasoning, understanding of embedded content, and emotive factors. Although current methodologies preclude direct empirical access to an indivi dual’s ocean literacy and informal reasoning about ocean issues, the analysis of learning experiences may reveal underlying factors contributing to o cean literacy and decision-making. Because science literacy encompasses both cognitive (content knowledge and skills) and affective (emotions, values, morals, and culture) processe s, it is reasonable to hypothesize that both science content and social components will contribute to ocean literacy. The purpose of this study was to explor e the validity of this hypothesis by analyzing learning experiences of individuals to reveal underlying factors and patterns contributing to ocean literacy and reasoning. The overarching goal of the present study was to test the validity of the construct of o cean literacy within th e context of an ocean education program. The broader educational obj ectives of this study relate to students’

PAGE 98

85 understanding of particular ocean scien ce concepts (content acquisition, skills development) and changes in attitudes and l ong-term behavioral outcomes (Ewell, 1987). In the case of ocean literacy, the lear ning objective is to positively impact students’ understanding, attit udes toward the ocean, and beha viors that protect the ocean (e.g. stewardship). To the extent possible, th e research protocol initiated by Cudaback (2006) and Persing (2006) were adapted for this study. This will lead to comparative studies in the future based on similar rese arch design and methodol ogies, although certain aspects of instruments and measurements will vary due to developmental differences in populations. The initial work of Cudaback (2006 ) provides some of the first baseline data associated with ocean literacy in a formal education setting. Her sample population was undergraduate students in college level introductory oceanography courses. The remainder of this chapter presen ts the research design, methodology and research questions that guide my inves tigation. Topics includ e the selection of appropriate content and attitudinal questions instrument development, selection of appropriate socioscientific i ssues about the oceans, data collection, the target population and samples, and data analysis. Research Questions RQ1. How do content and environmental contex t mediate the development of conceptual understanding about the ocean during an ocean education program (Oceanography Camp for Girls) for teen-age youth focused on di rect experiences in natural environments?

PAGE 99

86 RQ1a. To what extent does content knowledge contribute to conceptual understanding about the ocean? RQ1b. To what extent do direct e nvironmental experiences (context) contribute to conceptual unde rstanding about the ocean RQ2. How do environmental attitudes contri bute to conceptual unde rstanding about the ocean? RQ3. What types of environmental moral reas oning are important to youth in resolving ocean dilemmas and how likely are they to act in an environmentally-sensitive way? RQ4: How do youth informally reason about the ocean socioscientific issues in the context of direct experien ces in ocean environments? Research Design and Methodology This study primarily explored and desc ribed what youth know about the ocean, how they feel and might act toward the ocean (stewardship), and how they reason about ocean issues of interest. Specifically, this re search aimed to provide a systematic study which describes what understanding youth have about the ocean (content), how they feel and might act toward the ocean environmen t (environmental attitudes), and how these feelings and understandings are organi zed when reasoning about ocean issues (environmental morality). The investigator us ed a mixed-methods approach to explore these processes. Content knowledge was evaluate d using a quantitative survey instrument named Survey of Ocean Literacy & Experi ences (SOLE). Stewardship attitudes were measured using a quantitative instrument named Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS). Variables related to reasoning about ocean issues (emotions and content knowledge) were explored through qualitative an alysis of classroom discu ssions/role playing, written

PAGE 100

87 responses, and interviews. This was an explor atory study of an intact group of 13-14 year old females during an extended, three-week ocean learning experience, encompassing local and global environmental issues and conceptual science understanding. Construct modeling was used to deve lop item response measures for each instrument (Linacre, 2002; Wilson, 2005). C onstruct modeling provided a framework for developing the instruments and a theoretical model of a person’s cognition that is an understanding of a certain set of ocean concep ts and their attitude and reasoning toward ocean issues. Four building blocks comprise d the instrument development cycle, the construct map, items, item scores and measures A construct map matrix, referred to as Matrix 1, was constructed to align each esse ntial principle of ocean sciences with an established framework for scientific literac y, attitudes, morality, and reasoning using a Knowledge, Impact, Disposition and Skills (K IDS) organizing structure. Matrix 1 provides a visual representation of the constr uct, ocean literacy, and can be viewed in Appendix F. A second matrix, an items desi gn matrix, was constructed to show which specific instrument items evaluated each concep t level constructed in Matrix 1. The item responses Matrix 2 can be viewed in Appendix G. A survey research design was implemente d to provide descriptive and explanatory aspects of ocean literacy and reasoning. St ructured interviews have provided a rich description of the types of environmental reasoning commonly used by youth (Kahn, 1999; 2002). However, there is a need to system atically test previous research in this area. The present study examined the types of environmental moral reasoning preferred by youth and while engaged in ocean environmental dilemmas through direct experience and written responses to familiar recreationa l scenarios. Specifically, the instrument,

PAGE 101

88 Scenarios of Ocean Environmental Mora lity (SOEM), and a series of ocean socioscientific issues (OSSI) activities were examined. A graphic summary of the research design and methodology is provided in Figure 8. The role of the researcher in this study was as a participant observer. The researcher is co-director of the ocean education program, the Oceanography Camp for Girls, which was sampled for this study. Th e researcher facilitated many field and labbased activities as well as the OSSI activiti es embedded as part of the program. A second researcher, a member of the in terviewer team for this study, wa s also a co-director of the Oceanography Camp for Girls and served to facilitate teambuildi ng activities, daily energizers and re-focusers, and open-dialogue group activities. Methods for Assessing Ocean Literacy and Reasoning The following is a review of the methodol ogy utilized to develop four assessment instruments designed to measure different as pects of ocean literacy and reasoning. The Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience (SOLE) quantitatively measured conceptual understanding about general ocean content. Th e Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS) will quantitatively measure stewardship attitu des about ocean environmental issues connecting humans and the ocean. The Scen arios of Ocean Environmental Morality (SOEM) quantitatively analyzed environm ental morality in the context of ocean dilemmas and the likelihood of acting sensibly toward the ocean environment. The fourth instrument was a set of Ocean Socioscientific Issues (OSSI) activities, as case studies that analyzed how youths’ feelings and understa nding about the ocean are organized when reasoning about ocean socioscientific issues.

PAGE 102

89 analyzed analyzed and and and and and analyzed Ocean Literacy Participants Setting High School students Marine Science I&II Courses Oceanography Camp for Girls informal formal Research Tools Quantitative Qualitative Data Collection OSSI Written Responses OSSI Interviews Data Analysis SOS & SOLE OSSI Written Responses SOEM t-test thematic content analysis ANOVA Regression analysis t-test SOLE OSSI Interviews A/V RecordingsKey: Conservation Letters Learning Essays Conservation Letters Learning Essays OCG students ages 13-14 females 9th grade ages 17-18 females & males 11-12th grade SOS SOEM Figure 8. Graphic Summary of Research Design and Methodology

PAGE 103

90 Ocean Sciences Content Sele ction for SOLE Instrument For the assessment of literacy of the ocean science content a scale was needed to measure conceptual understanding using the essential principles of ocean sciences (COSEE, 2005), this study requires a meas ure of ocean conceptual understanding. A review of the literature rev ealed no preexisting instruments that met the specifications of this study. Therefore, the author developed th e Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience (SOLE). Cudaback (2006) provided some usef ul survey questions and a framework that had been used to evaluate ocean literacy amongst college undergraduates (Table 7). Cudaback’s research design supported research questions 1 and 2 from this investigation. Table 7. Ocean Literacy Matrix of Learning Objectives as Conceptualized by Cudaback (2006); Italicized Text is Additiona l Objectives for the Present Study Science Stewardship Content Attitudes Ocean Sciences Earth Science Environmental Sciences Ocean Sciences Other Sciences Environmental Sciences Human Impacts Suggested Individual Actions Cudaback Surveys Public Opinion Surveys Persing Surveys (2006) Kahn semi-structured interviews (1979) Content selection for instrument developm ent of the Survey of Ocean Literacy & Engagement (SOLE) was based on general ocean questions from the Essential Principles (EP) and Fundamental Concepts from COSEE (2005) and the ‘What I Know Ocean

PAGE 104

91 Survey’ based on local ocean content (T ampa Bay and Florida) developed for Oceanography Camp for Girls (Greely, 2004). Specific general ocean questions will focus on EP1 (size of ocean), EP3 (weathe r and climate), EP4 (habitability), EP5 (biodiversity), and EP6 (human connections ). A total of 57 gene ral ocean sciences content questions were constr ucted (Appendix C). Table 8 is an item content map that provides an overview of the essential principl es of ocean sciences used for this study, matrix concept measured (content, attitudes, stewardship, science) instrument choice, and sample group. Environmental Attitude Content Se lection for SOS Instrument One educational objective for ocean literacy is to positively impact students’ attitudes toward the ocean and inspire behaviors that protect the ocean. An instrument was developed to identify emotive factors (attit udes, feelings, experien ces) related to ocean literacy. A review of the literature revealed se veral preexisting instruments that meet the specifications of the present study. Therefor e, the author developed the Survey of Stewardship (SOS) by combining questions from other surveys. Cudaback (2006) developed two instruments with 29 items fo r surveying ocean literacy amongst college undergraduates specifically, attitudes a bout the ocean and attitudes about ocean stewardship. These same categories comprise d the SOS instrument. Content questions for the Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS) also utilized 15 questions from the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) that focused on humans and the environment. The NEP response items have been used with child ren age 13-15 in United States, Belgium and Zimbabwe (Dunlap et al., 2000). The SOS had a total of 44 items selected from four existing instruments. Items were selected based on reliability estimates for each

PAGE 105

92 instrument and use with age groups analogous to my study. It may be that attitudes formed through direct environmental experi ence such as the Oceanography Camp for Girls are better predictors of behavior (Bixler & Floyd, 1997). Appendix C includes a list of SOS survey items. Rasch analysis provide d probabilistic, quantitative estimates of item performance, and model fit statistics wh ich made it possible to assess reliability. Environmental Morality Reasoning Conten t Selection for SOEM Instrument Environmental morality was determined followi ng the protocol of Persing (2006) of the Rest model of moral development. An adap tation of the four-com ponent model of Rest and colleagues (1986, 2000), which descri bes moral behavior based on four psychological processes, was used to analyze ocean environmental morality (biocentric, anthropocentric) and the like lihood of acting sensibly towards the ocean via ocean environmental stewardship. An instrument, S cenarios of Ocean Envi ronmental Morality (SOEM) was designed to measure ocean e nvironmental moral reasoning rather than collect information by other means, such as interviews (Kohlberg, 1976; Kahn, 1999). The primary reason was pragmatic in choosing a methodology that is ti me expedient, yet reliable and valid in measuri ng the important constructs. While much is gained from the interview method including knowledge construc tion and face validity, limitations exist. For the purpose of this study the reliance on verbal ability (produc tion data) required for successful interviews may not be most eff ective with youth. Rather a self-administered questionnaire (recognition data ) relies less on one’s ability to articulate a response by providing examples of responses whic h the participant rates and ranks.

PAGE 106

93 Table 8. Content Item Map Using the Esse ntial Principles of Ocean Literacy Essential Principle Number of Questions Concept Measured Instrument Choice Sample Group 1. Size of ocean 19 14 general ocean content 4 attitudes/stewardship 1 reasoning SOLE SOS OSSI OCG & HS OCG & HS OCG 2. Oceans & its life shape Earth 12 6 general ocean content 6 attitudes/stewardship SOLE SOS OCG & HS OCG & HS 3. Weather & climate 11 10 general ocean content 1 attitudes/stewardship SOLE SOS OCG & HS OCG & HS 4. Habitability 5 1 general ocean content 3 attitudes/stewardship 1 reasoning SOLE SOS OSSI OCG & HS OCG & HS OCG 5. Biodiversity 16 13 general ocean content 2 attitudes/stewardship 1 reasoning SOLE SOS OSSI OCG & HS OCG & HS OCG 6. Human connections 93 8 general ocean content 23 attitudes/stewardship 62 environmental morality SOLE SOS SOME OCG & HS OCG & HS 7. Oceans largely unexplored 6 4 general ocean content 2 attitudes/stewardship SOLE SOS OCG & HS OCG & HS Other questions 27 8 attitudes/stewardship 19 environmental morality SOS SOME OCG & HS OCG & HS Total essential principles questions 155

PAGE 107

94 Recognition tasks reduce variab ility in interpretation, provide clarity about what is being asked, and reduce inhere nt subjectivity of scoring re sponses (Rest et al., 1999). There are, of course, limitations with rec ognition data such as arbitrary ratings and rankings, and overestimation of one’s developm ental level. The Rest model (1999) uses distinct statements reflective of reasoning from different stages or levels, the researcher then can ask participants to rate or rank thes e distinct reasons in terms of preference or importance. This method is more flexible and comprehensive because the participant’s attention can be focused on specific reasoni ng types and reactions can be evaluated. Stephens & Bredemeier (1996) followe d the methods of Rest (1979, 1986) by utilizing the technique of rec ognition data as a way to assess various processes associated with moral reasoning about youth sports, (JAMBYSQ). Persing and Britner (2002) studied middle school students’ responses to environmental dilemmas. Persing (2006) minimized the inherent limitations of a pa per and pencil instrume nt by structuring his instrument containing recognition data in a format similar to the DIT (Rest, 1979) and JAMBYSQ (Stephens, Bredemeier & Shields, 1997). Persing’s scenarios have been modified for use in the present study by changi ng scenarios to reflect ocean concepts and settings. It is hoped that these adaptations will allow for comparative studies between researchers. Ocean Socioscientific Issue Cont ent Selection for Case Studies It was reasonable to assume that so cioscientific reasoning and decision making would be mediated by each quadrant of the C ontent, Attitudes, Scie nce, and Stewardship matrix. Understanding of ocean content knowledge and attitudes characterized an individual’s body of knowl edge and feelings regarding a so cioscientific issu e of interest.

PAGE 108

95 Youth in this study were engaged in a series of ocean stewardship activities including coastal clean-ups and habitat restoration. Embedded in these and other activities were ocean socioscientific issues (OSSI) about which participants reasoned and expressed positions via written and oral discourse during and following the OSSI embedded activities. The Ocean Socioscientific I ssues (OSSI) activities as case studies were piloted for this study. The first OSSI Case Study was ‘Coa stal and offshore fishing’ as it relates to economic and consumer choices (Seafood List) towards conservation of natural resources. The associated activity that addressed this OSSI was Fish Banks a role playing simulation game depi cting commercial fishing te ams engaged in business and environmental ethics choices. This activit y aligned with ocean literacy EP6, EP5 and EP3. A second OSSI Case Study was ‘Biodivers ity and protection of endangered species’ as it related to the theme of coastline and ha bitat protection for endangered species. The associated activity that addressed this OSSI was Turtle Hurdle, a role playing simulation game depicting the life of a sea turtle by enga ging students in concep ts of predator, prey, life cycles, and identifying natural and anthr opogenic impacts on sea tu rtle survival. This activity aligned with ocean literacy EP6, EP5 and EP4. A third OSSI Case Study was ‘Ocean pollution’ as it related to coastal ma rine debris. According to adult public opinion surveys, pollution was the most salient th reat to the ocean (Belden, et al., 1999b; Cudaback, 2006). The associated activity included a 15-minute NOAA video detailing sources of ocean debris, a 20-minute video (Sav ing Inky) depicting th e rescue and release of a pygmy sperm whale, a coastal cleanup including data collection, and an ocean

PAGE 109

96 action letter about how indivi dual teams could contribute to ocean conservation. This activity aligned with ocean literacy EP6, EP4 and EP1. Analysis of transcripts from A/V recordi ngs of OSSI dialogues, and analysis of written responses, and interviews were used to evaluate reasoning patterns. Descriptive paragraphs of OSSI activities as case study that participants di d and questions they responded to in writing are prov ided in Appendix D. A list of interview questions asked post camp can be found in Appendix E. After OSSI Cases were presented, particip ants provided a written response to each issue. Participants completed a higher order task related to ocean stewardship by writing an ocean conservation or issue letter to their congress-person about an issue affecting the ocean. Youth were given free choice a bout which OSSI Case Study (e.g., coastal pollution, habitat restoration and protection fo r sea turtles, or conservation of natural resources) concept they addressed in their lette r. A thematic analysis of this written form of discourse was conducted independently by two researchers. The goal of the writing activity was to have participants lay out th e ocean issues coherently and demonstrate a clear understanding of the relevant science in their ocean conservation letters. A summary of methods used in this study fo r assessing ocean liter acy and reasoning is provided in Table 9.

PAGE 110

97 Table 9. Methods for Assessing Ocean Literacy and Reasoning (SOLE= Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experiences, SOS= Survey of Ocean Stewardship, SOEM= Scenario of Ocean Environmental Morality, OSSI= Oce an Socioscientific Issues, RQ= Research Question Addressed) Quantitative Methods # Questions Instrument RQ # Ocean Literacy General knowledge about the ocean Ocean Attitudes/Stewardship (beliefs, values, feelings) Knowledge related to stewardship activities 47 44 10 SOLE SOS SOLE 1 2 1 Ocean Environmental Morality Four ocean environmental morality scenarios with a dilemma; walking along the beach, fishing on a bay pier, picnicking in a coastal park, and swimming at the beach/bay 56 questions; 14 for each scenario SOEM 3 Qualitative Methods Ocean Reasoning Open-ended written responses to OSSI case study scenarios, follow-up interviews, ocean conservation issue letters 25 OSSI 4 Nature Learning Experience OCG Comparative learning that asks campers to compare learning in OCG and learning in school 1 1, 2, 3, 4 Other Mediating Factors Outdoor recreational experiences Standard demographic information Stewardship information about family and friends 25 SOEM 1, 2, 3, 4 Data Collection Once this study was approved by the Univer sity of South Florida’s Internal Research Board (IRB), consent forms were dist ributed to all participants in the present study. Development of the survey instrument s, data collection, data analysis and

PAGE 111

98 validation of the instruments progressed in a cyclic fashion. Data on a) standard demographics and b) ocean recreational expe riences were examined to identify other potential mediating factors contributing to ocean literacy. Responses to open ended questions were used both as qualitative data and to refine questions for sequential drafts of SOLE and SOS until a final version was adopted by consensus of reviewers. The SOLE and SOS instruments were deve loped at the high school level. To assess the reliability of the researcher-designed instrume nts, a pilot study was conducted with a voluntary sample of co llege and high school level st udents. The instruments were designed to distinguish between individuals who have a high level of understanding and a level of understanding equivale nt to the learning goals of a high school marine science I course. Content validity of the instruments was determined through a review by panel of five content experts (1 high school marine science teacher and 4 marine science professors). Content experts reviewed the pr oposed concepts for clarity, accuracy, and the extent to which they represent the associat ed ocean literacy essent ial principles. After revisions the SOLE and SOS were piloted am ong a subset of marine science graduate students and a subset of high school students (e.g., enrolled in marine science I and marine science II courses) to provide a larger sample size to calibrate and anchor that instruments by providing a wide range of scores. From the pilot sample the instrument’s internal consistency, reliability, and item analyses were evaluated. Internal consistency analysis estimated test score reliability by examining individual items on the test. Cr onbach’s coefficient alpha was used for computing test score reliability. Item analys is for SOLE was conducted using p values; in addition, point-biserial correlation coefficients were calculated for each item. The SOLE

PAGE 112

99 and SOS were finalized when 4 of the 5 experts approved the appropriateness of a question in addressing the intend ed concept to be part of the final survey instrument. Each target concept was addressed by at le ast three questions. The dependent variables included ocean knowledge and environmental att itudes. The resultant surveys were used for the main portion of this investigation. Th e final versions of each quantitative survey can be seen in Appendix C. Instrumentation Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience (SOLE) The construct ocean conceptual understanding was measured by 57 items corresponding to the seven essential principl es (EP) of ocean literacy (COSEE, 2005). Each EP targeted had a minimum of thr ee corresponding questions related to general ocean knowledge. Items were written as mu ltiple choice questions. The analysis of knowledge was done in two ways: by using sepa rate empirical indicators of each concept and by combining the individua l questionnaire items into a summary index. By analyzing each knowledge indicator, it was possible to focu s attention on each specific question. By combining several responses into a single inde x, the goal was to generate a measure that reflected an individual’s overa ll knowledge of the ocean (e.g., ocean literacy index). The value of a summary index can also be used in a regression analysis allowing for statistical controls. Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS) This study attempted to identify emotive f actors (e.g., attitudes, feelings, personal experiences) related to ocean literacy. For the present investigation the 14 item ‘Attitudes about Oceanography’ survey developed by C udaback (2006) was distributed to all

PAGE 113

100 participants to assess general ocean scienc e attitudes. The 15 item ‘Attitudes about Ocean Stewardship’ survey developed by Cudaback (20 06) was distributed to all participants to assess general stewardship attitudes. The 15 item ‘New Ecological Paradigm’ (NEP) survey developed by Dunlop & Va n Liere (2000) was distributed to participants to assess relationships between humans and the envir onment. Post and delayed post surveys asked students to identify specific ocean stewardshi p activities that they engaged in after the Oceanography Camp for Girls and stewardship activ ities they may be part of in the future along with a commitment metric. Delayed pos t SOS provided data on actual behaviors acted upon and compared to the intentions recorded on the post survey. Refer to Appendix C to observe survey items. A measure of ocean recreation and stewar dship participation was constructed to determine the types of environmental serv ice activities each group prefers and enjoys. This measure consisted of 16 items and includ ed an enjoyment scale. Participants were asked how often in the past year they have participated in eac h activity. Items were measured from 1-5 with 1 indicating ne ver and 5 indicating a few times a week. Participants were also asked how often they planned to participate in each activity in the next five years. Items were measured from 1-5 with 1 indicating never and 5 indicating once every year for five years. This measure provided a level of commitment value. Refer to Appendix C. Scenarios of Ocean Envir onmental Morality (SOEM) To measure the various items associated with ocean environmental moral reasoning four descriptive scenarios were written and contained information about a particular outdoor ocean sett ing, activity, and moral dilemm a. The scenarios reflected

PAGE 114

101 outdoor ocean activities that mo st individuals have directly experienced or are likely familiar with. The first scenario involved walking on an undeveloped beach. The second scenario involved picnicking in a coastal park at an established picnic area. The third scenario entailed fishing from a pier on public land. The fourth scenario described swimming at a public beach. The goal of a moral reasoning instrument was to design a quantitative instrument to assess several dimensions of moral functioning related to ocean outdoor nature experiences among youth. The framework sele cted for scenarios was adapted from Persing (2006) and measured several constr ucts related to youth’ s moral reasoning about specific ocean environmental dilemmas. One item per scenario measured youth’s deontological judgment as a nominal variab le and required a yes or no response to commit a specific act that had potential nega tive environmental consequences. One item was used to measure responsibility judgme nt as a nominal variable and asked youth whether, based on their deontological judgment, they would or would not engage in the behavior. Moral justification was measured using one item per scenario to provide an indication of whether a moral judgment speci fic to each scenario was contingent upon specified societal rules or conventions. The construct environmental moral reasoning was measured by nine items corresponding to diffe rent types of anthr opocentric, biocentric, and egocentric reasoning discussed in chap ter two. The anthropocentric items consisted of three categories; welfare, aesthetic, and justice. The bi ocentric items comprised three categories; intrinsic, justice, and harmony. The egocentric it ems formed three categories; aesthetic, justice, a nd personal. Each type of reasoni ng was measured on a five point Likert-type scale ranging from not at all im portant to very important. Moral motivation

PAGE 115

102 was measured by one item in each scenario in which youth were asked to select the moral reason they most agreed with in guiding thei r decision to not act in an environmentally harmful way. Likelihood to act was measur ed by one item asking how likely, based upon the reason they most agree with (e.g., anthropoc entric, egocentric or biocentric), they were to act in a morally sensitive way to wards the environment based upon the reason. The item was measured on a five point Likert-typ e scale ranging from not at all likely to very likely (Appendix C). The measure of ocean outdoor participation consisted of 14 items determined to be the activities most likely engaged in by this age group. Y outh were asked how often in the past year they participat ed in each activity. Items were rated on a scale of 1 to 5 ranging from 1 indicating never to 5 indicati ng a few times a week. The same items were further rated as to the degree of enjoyment of each activity on a scale of 1 to 5 ranging from 1 indicating do not enjoy to 5 indi cating very much enjoy (Appendix C). A measure of parent and peer environm ental attitudes, knowledge, and behavior was included. The influence of parents and pe ers has been identified as an important factor in the development of youths’ e nvironmental values (Bixler & Floyd, 1997; Chawla, 1992; Kals et al., 1999). Questions aske d youth how often in th e last year 1) the environment was a topic of discussion with family and friends, 2) family and friends recycled items, and 3) family and friends bought environmentally friendly products (e.g., organic produce or all natural cleaning pr oducts). The items were measured on a five point Likert-type scale rangi ng from never to a few times a week (Appendix C).

PAGE 116

103 Interview Structure and Protocol Participants’ informal reasoning of SSI was assessed by guided interviews. Interviews provided a more comprehensive pi cture of student understanding of concepts and conceptual relationships. Following wr itten responses to OSSI, a subset of participants were interviewed for a deeper understanding of reasoni ng patterns in the context of ocean socioscientific issues. Convers ations were tape recorded and notes were taken by the interviewer. A reading prompt and open-ended questions were similar to those asked in the written surveys, but were presented in ways to encourage a commitment to a position and justification to support one’s position. Interviews were guided by a general lead-in re ading about the OSSI. Each interview began with a few broad questions to determine the particip ants’ general understa nding of the issue. Interview prompts were used to sustain par ticipant interest and to focus attention. The specific probing questions were based on the idiosyncratic response of participants, and interviewers asked them to explain their re sponses, give examples, or make connections of individual concepts to a specific situation. The written responses collected throu gh surveys provided insight about the conceptual ideas participants hold about the ocean, while th e interviews provided deeper contextual understanding a nd reasoning patterns. Togeth er, these data allowed for documentation of both the range of ideas held by participants a nd the perspectives formed about how they view the ocean. Dela yed post surveys were conducted to assess longer term impacts, reten tion of concepts, and provided time to act on intended stewardship behaviors. Delayed post data wa s gathered three and eight months following the summer program during fall and spring re unions of participants in the Oceanography

PAGE 117

104 Camp for Girls. Finally, demographic questi ons were asked and include the following categories: age, gender, where live and wher e grew up (urban, rura l, and suburban, near coastline or not), outdoor recreation activ ities and frequency. Table 10 provides a summary of instrument devel opment and data collection. Population and Sample The sample population for this study was an intact group of 30 rising 9th grade students, self-selected to participate in a summer Oceanography Camp for Girls. Participants were teen age girls, ages 13-14. The sample popula tion was a convenience sample. This likely limits the transferability of the research. However, convenience sampling is frequently used when a research er has access to a particular group of people or solicits participation in a study through voluntary methods (Babbie, 1998). For this study the researcher had access to a particul ar group of individuals engaged in an informal ocean learning program. This allowe d the researcher 1) to survey a population before and after an ocean education lear ning experience, and 2) to observe the phenomena during implementation in learning e nvironments. All participants voluntarily participated in the data collection for this study. Oceanography Camp participants included first-time campers, alum campers in high school and college age, and marine science graduate students. The rationale for intentional sampling was to assess mediating factors that contribute to ocean literacy beyond the public attitude surveys previously conducted. Thus, by studying students with an assumed degree of ocean literacy, post and delayed post data can be examined to evaluate media ting factors contributing to ocean literacy

PAGE 118

105 Table 10. A Summary of Ocean Literacy Instrument Development and Data Collection I. Developed three preliminary instruments A. Survey of Ocean Literacy & Experience (SOLE) – ocean content knowledge Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS) – stewardship attitudes & content Survey of Ocean Environmental Morality (SOEM) –environmental morality & reasoning B. Developed three OSSI activity C ase Studies & Questions–reasoning about ocean issues II. Review instruments for clarity, accuracy and alignment with associated essential principal (EP) of ocean sciences. Modified items as prescribed by expertscontent validity. III. Piloted survey instruments for construct, face validity, item reliability and internal consistency. A. 50 high school students enro lled in marine science I course (general level) B. 50 high school students with marine science 2 course (honors level) C. 12 marine science graduate students and ocean scientists IV. Rasch analysis of survey items to yiel d acceptable Cronbach alpha scores that suggest these measures are appropriately constructed A. Eliminate items not yielding acceptable behavior B. Final surveys completed V. Data collection (Convenience sampling) A. Distribute 3 surveys, SOLE, SOS, SOME i. 30 Pre/post/delayed post rising 9th grade girls enrolled 2008 Oceanography Camp (OCG) ii. 50 high school students enrolled in marine science I course (general level) iii. 50 high school students with marine science 2 course (honors level) B. Observe reasoning phe nomena while engaged in Ocean SSI activities i. 30 rising 9th grade girls enrolled in 2008 Oceanography Camp for Girls ii. Conduct OSSI Activities (Marine Pollution, Fish Banks, Turtle Hurdle) iii. Complete video and audio record ings of post activity discussions C. Distribute open-ended OSSI questionnaire to gather individual responses i. Assign conservation letter writing assignment ii. Assign OCG Learning Essay, ‘Learning in OCG compared to learning in school’ iii. Complete transcripts of recorded post activity dialogues iv. Conduct post-treatment guided interviews to assess informal reasoning patterns

PAGE 119

106 and reasoning about ocean dilemmas. A broa der focus of this study was to determine ‘what is working’ with current ocean edu cation programs to advance ocean literacy and identify ‘why various strategies are working’, as well as ‘what is not working’. Therefore, the researcher for the presen t study acknowledges a level of predisposition towards ocean literacy is expected of participants. Survey s of incoming college students have indicated that students were already gaining ocean knowledge from a wide variety of sources (Cudaback, 2006). This general awareness of ocean sciences was a good basis upon which to build greater unde rstanding and stewardship. To assess environmental reasoning of samp le populations the decision to sample rising 9th graders was based upon previous resear ch in which significant developmental differences in environmental reasoning were revealed. Previous studies have demonstrated significant breaks among fifth gr aders, eighth graders, and college age students (Kahn, 1999; 2002). Participation was voluntary. Youth partic ipants in the Oceanography Camp for Girls completed a written application and interview as part of the application process. Finalists were selected based on rankings of two reviewers who have independently reviewed written materials and conducted pair ed interviews with applicants. Selection and rankings were based on a series of 10 criteri a, including social and academic benefits from camp, potential to excel in camp setti ng, learning ability and exceptionalities, and level of confidence. A total of 30 girl s were selected for each camp session. The Oceanography Camp seeks to activel y recruit, educate and inspire all students. To date, over 800 young women have participated a nd include minority and non-minority girls inclusive of all learning ab ilities (e.g., high achieving, av erage, and high potential).

PAGE 120

107 Participant Characteristics Initially, 30 of the participants select ed for the Oceanography Camp for Girls, during summer 2008 consented to participate in this study. All participants were females who ranged in age from 13-14 with the ma jority, 90% fourteen years old. They represented 22 schools in Pinellas County including 16 public, 4 private schools, 1 charter school, and 1 home school. The majority of participants were Caucasian, 90% and included 27% high potential (C or lower; at-ris k, socially or academically), 33% average (B to C+ students) and 40% high achieving (A to B+) students. Data were analyzed for twenty-nine of the thirty pa rticipants in the program, as one camper chose not to complete pre-program surveys and did not a ttend camp the last day when post-program surveys were distributed. Context for Treatment The context analyzed for the purpose of this study was an informal learning setting, the Oceanography Camp for Girls (OCG ). The mission of the OCG is to build a positive sense of self, science, and the environment. The Oceanography Camp is a threeweek summer educational program for teen aged girls who are poised to enter high school. The primary goals of the program are to retain young women’s interests in science and to encourage thei r pursuit of science careers by sparking their curiosity about the natural world around them. The program provides a multidisciplinary, hands-on, inquiry learning experience in both laboratory and field environments. The camp takes place in an ocean setting at USF marine scie nce laboratories where students actively use the knowledge they acquire to understand lo cal and global environments. Bridging the gap between the real world and the classroom is accomplished by taking students on

PAGE 121

108 cruises aboard a research vessel to collect real-time data, taking them on field trips to provide outdoor ecology classrooms, and engagi ng them in practical laboratory research. Data Analysis Rasch Model Analysis Rasch measurement models were employed to explore the four constructs that guided this study (Rasch, 1980; Wright & M ok, 2004). The Rasch model was selected because it could 1) accommodate different it em structures (e.g. surveys, interviews, observations), 2) robustly manage missing data and 3) provide proba listic, quantitative estimates of both participant and item perf ormance that could be arranged along a single interval scale (e .g., logit scale). The software, WINSTEPS (Version 3.66) wa s used to conduct Rasch analyses. Each Rasch estimate included an error term a nd model fit statistics (e.g., outfit and infit), which made it possible to assess reliabilit y. A Rasch analysis provides a reliability estimate that is equivalent to Cronbach’s al pha coefficient. Detail ed information about individual performances and item functio ning made it possible to simultaneously examine group and individual effects for each instrument. For example, knowledge achievement and ability were analyzed using item location which revealed item difficulty and person location which revealed responde nt ability. Rasch outcomes of attitude provided a respondent’s attit ude toward something via respondent location, and item scale value via item location. Likewise, Rasch outcomes of environmental morality provided a respondent’s moral response towa rd an ocean environmental scenario via respondent location, and item scale value via it em location. The distan ce between logits has a particular probalistic meaning. For this study, an ability estim ate for a participant

PAGE 122

109 means that the probability of that person pe rforming at a level whose difficulty estimates are at the same level is 100%. The same relati onships apply in reverse for levels that are one, two, and three logits harder. The mean item difficulty was set at 50. Analysis of Ocean Knowledge, Atti tudes and Environmental Reasoning A Rasch analysis was conducted for the fo llowing data sets, SOLE, SOS, SOEM and written OSSI responses. All data were coded and entered into a SAS statistical package. The analysis of knowledge, envi ronmental attitudes, and environmental morality and reasoning were accomplished by using separate empirical indicators of each concept and by combining the individual que stion items into a summary index. Several constructs (e.g. SOS, SOEM) were measured us ing Likert-type items as integral data and responses were coded on a scale of one to five. Other constructs were measured using continuous data (SOLE) and nominal, ordinal or categorical data (SOME, OSSI written responses). Rasch analysis calibrated all data to be interval so that multiple data forms are comparable on the same scale. For the pr esent study the constr ucts of knowledge, attitudes and reasoning were compared to th e essential principles of ocean sciences literacy. Thus, all data was evaluated as meas ured scores not raw data scores. The power of the Rasch model is that it maximizes the available information (e.g., variability) in the data and does not use information that is likely not real. The Rasch analysis uses a conjoint measurement of not only items but also individuals. The Rasch model provides dimensionality and probability. The model was a useful way to look at a complex, multifaceted program. All survey data were analyzed using standard descriptive and inferential statistics. Knowledge data were analyzed using t-tests as appropriate for the

PAGE 123

110 data type, as were responses from attitude and reasoning data. Significant differences were reported at the alpha level of p<0.05. Analysis of Informal Reasoning abou t Ocean Socioscientific Issues Triangulation involves using multiple met hods to collect data. Fraser (1991) recommends the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative methods to enhance the credibility of the results. This study incorporates qualita tive data from individual interviews and transcripts of group dialogue to enrich the quantit ative datasets. Post treatment interviews were conducted fo llowing OSSI group dialogues and written responses performed during OCG. Post treat ment interviews were conducted following completion of the SOLE and SOS instruments. Interviews allowed the researcher to include additional data for students’ conceptu al understanding (SO LE, SOS) and emotive factors (caring, concern, and commitment) that may not have been expressed in the selfreport questionnaires. This was also a m eans of checking students’ responses and researchers’ interpretations. Interviews were recorded using audio recordings and researcher’s written notes of st udents’ responses or comments. An interview team of one ocean scien tist and one social scientist conducted interviews. Following the interview, each inte rviewer reviewed audiotapes and completed an evaluation rubric for each participant’s responses. Each ocean knowledge concept was ranked for basic understanding by designating as complete, incomplete, or missing. Interviewers included notes on specific mi sconceptions as well as other noteworthy aspects of the interview. Each interviewer also identified patterns and major themes emerging from discussions of reasoning patterns The interview team shared data as they were collected to provide consistency and corroboration of independent findings, and

PAGE 124

111 determine when thematic saturation had occurr ed. It was hoped that this would protect interviewers from imposing their personal bias es on the analysis while providing for the input of various perspectives and expertis e that are brought to the investigation by different members of the research team. This resulted in a richer de scription of student knowledge results and provided a qualitativ e version of inter -rater agreement. A framework composed of four of the fi ve criteria, developed by Sadler (2003), was used for analyzing the quality of inform al reasoning. Table 11 presents the criteria and descriptive questio ns for each criterion. Table 11. Constructs for Assessing the Quality of Informal Reasoning about the OSSI Criterion Description Intra-scenario coherence Counter-position construction Rebuttal construction Scientific accuracy Does the rationale support the stated position? Can participant construct & explain a counter position? Can participant construc t a coherent rebuttal? Are the arguments advanced c onsistent with scientific information? Content themes of qualitative data, from written and oral responses to questions related to participan ts’ level of informal and environmental moral reasoning, were grouped into categories in orde r to facilitate analysis. Th emes and analysis of the qualitative portion of the research emerged fr om the data rather than being imposed prior to data collection. According to Patton (2002) the inductive search for patterns can be

PAGE 125

112 guided by the research questions. The research er and other interviewers analyzed the students’ comments and organize d the responses to find major categories. Final analysis of data incorporated triangulation of the findings from multiple researchers who had reviewed the same datasets for consensus of themes and knowledge content scales. An inter-rater agreement of 80% was sought. Table 12 provide s a summary of the data analysis for the present study. Trustworthiness The present study used three techniques to address trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of the results presented. Investig ator triangulation was utilized to build credibility and conformability and to guard against the misint erpretation of data. To build consensus about emergent thematic analysis, tw o raters reviewed 30% of all OSSI written responses. Two raters reviewed 50% of all OSSI interview transcripts. The participants in this research provided member checking to confirm the interviewer’s interpretation of their responses and the opportunity to clar ify or correct an in terpretation. Finally, comprehensive record keeping throughout the course of this study provided an audit trail to further bolster confirmability. The audit trail for this study included detailed notes regarding instrument development, interv iew questions, modifications, analytical strategies, and development of protocols re lated to data collection and analysis. Research Questions 1 and 2: Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience (SOLE) & Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS) Survey responses were examined using paired t-tests to determine mean differences between pre and post responses. An overall literacy score was determined to suggest a level conceptual unde rstanding. Significant differences were reported at the

PAGE 126

113 alpha level of p<0.10. To meet Rasch criter ia for a quality instrument SOLE and SOS demonstrated: a) dimensionality or separati on reliability (> 0.8, desirable), similar to Cronbach alpha; b) person fit (z-score < 3.0, desirable); a nd, c) item fit for category ordering and item threshold. Two important st atistics provided by Rasch analysis were person performance estimates and item diff iculty estimates. The person performance estimates ordered respondents by the likeli hood to perform at a given stage. The item difficulty estimates ordered items by their relative difficulty. Research Question 3: Scenarios of Ocean Envir onmental Morality (SOEM) This study sought to explore the type s of environmental moral reasoning (biocentric, anthropocentr ic, or egocentric) most important to youth in solving specific ocean moral dilemmas. A t-test was performe d to determine mean differences between the three types of reasoning (biocentric, anth ropocentric, or egocen tric). The type of moral reasoning was treated as the nominal le vel independent variable and the ratings of each type of reasoning treated as the interval level dependent variable. Post hoc testing was used to determine the significance of the relationship. A rubric adapted from the four-component model of Rest and co lleagues (1986, 2000), which described moral behavior based on four psychological proce sses, was used to analyze moral reasoning development about ocean socioscientific issues (Appendix G). To examine if a participant’s type of environmental reasoning was predictive of one’s likelihood to act in an environmentally-sensitive way, a scen ario comparison was conducted. For this analysis, likelihood to act in an environm entally-sensitive way wa s regressed on each

PAGE 127

114 type of environmental moral reasoning. Significa nt differences were re ported at the alpha level of p<0.05. Research Question 4: Youth’s Reasoning about Ocean Socioscientific Issues For the assessment of reasoning about ocean so cioscientific issues, this investigation required a qualitative measure of participants’ positions on various issues. Participants challenged with multiple decision making scenarios derived from the three OSSI activities described previously (over fishing, protection of endangered species, ocean pollution). The issues were each based on similar content knowledge (e.g., ocean conservation) and included some level of mo ral considerations. A series of questions were developed for which participants pr ovided a written response that required a commitment and rationale for the position se lected. Following analysis of written responses, post camp interviews were sche duled to clarify themes identified (e.g., member checking). To gain a richer contextu al picture of reasoning patterns about OSSI, guided interviews were conducted with a subset of participants. Interv iews were recorded and transcripts analyzed for reasoning patte rns and quality of re asoning about OSSI. The informal reasoning constructs of Sadler ( 2003) and Sadler and Zeidler (2005) were utilized for analysis. Limitations of Study Important variables potentia lly affecting a meaningful analysis of ocean literacy include resource limitations to thoroughly ex haust reliability and validity of newly developed instruments. This is due primarily to time constraints in completing this research within the scope of a dissertation. Pote ntial ethical issues that might arise in this

PAGE 128

115 research could be participants opting not to participate in the program activities and data collection processes. This was minimized by emphasizing that participation in the Oceanography Camp for Girls wa s voluntary, students apply a nd are selected, and data collection was explicitly identified to campers and parents as part of program participation. If any aspect of the program wa s ethically not agreeable with a student they could opt out of an activity. The sample population used to represen t the data was drawn from an urban, coastal region of central west Florida. The sample was not assumed to be representative of other populations residing in urban or ru ral, land bound areas. The data were derived from individuals enrolled in a self select ed summer experiential outdoor environmental program and, as such, generalization of results to other populations is not appropriate. The selection of OCG activities and the four outdoor ocean re creational scenarios likely do not represent universal outdoor activities among all populations. Although selection of these scenarios was based on the national stat istics reporting that hiking, picnicking, fishing and swimming are rated cons istently high in term s of participation rates (USDA Forest Service, 2001); it was not possible to generalize results from these specific activities and experiences. The survey method used to collect the data has inherent limitations. Research methods utilizing standardized items with fixed responses compromise depth and specificity of responses for flexibility in design and analysis of these responses, especially those measuring at titudes, beliefs, and behavior s. Survey research occurs outside the realm of real life and thus the context in which much of the phenomena of interest take place is not accounted for. Survey research has been recognized as generally

PAGE 129

116 weak on validity and strong on reliability. Ther efore, responses to survey items must be understood as only approximations to an individual’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that are compensated for by a standardized format that greatly diminishes the issue of reliability on behalf of the researcher and respondent. Determining the validity of confidence surv eys is critical, because the higher the level of understanding on Bloom's taxonomy, th e harder the question is to grade. For large scale educational surveys, the questions must be easy to grade. The challenge for my study, given the limitations, was to find si mple proxies for the big questions. Delayed post testing was conducted three and eight m onths following the summer program, with opportunities to continue post testing multiple years after program participation. The validity of generalizing the content instruments acro ss populations is a limitation. OCG participants were self selected, theref ore preprogram surveys may indicate an upper bound, ceiling effect for ocean literacy in th e general population. A control group has not been selected however an appropriate si milar cohort group may be available for the purpose of comparison of SOLE, SOS, and SO EM surveys, which would strengthen the research design of this study. A final ac knowledgment is that the ocean learning experience targets only females, age 13-14, t hus results may not be generalized across populations. Although Batson and others (1999 ) reported that both male and female college students relied similarly on empathy as a determinant of moral behavior. Similar results have been reported for high school students of both genders regarding empathy, and Sadler (2003) concluded that the ethic of care tran scends gender. The moral development literature opinions are still mi xed as to whether gender is an important factor. However, research from Zelenzy et al. (2000) clearly demonstrated gender

PAGE 130

117 differences in environmentalism. Females of all ages consistently have stronger proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Summary To implement this study it was necessar y to adopt an opera tional definition of ocean literacy and to develop and multiple instruments to establish a baseline for assessing ocean literacy. These were accomp lished by assessing the degree of ocean literacy by developing the Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience (SOLE) that combined features of ocean and stewardshi p content, and the Survey of Stewardship (SOS) as an indicator of e nvironmental attitudes influencing ocean literacy. It was anticipated that results from baseline data would identify a suite of factors showing promise towards advancing ocean literacy as defined by the seven essential principles every ocean literate person should understa nd (COSEE, 2005). Furt her, evaluation of youth participating in an ocean education program revealed wh at essential principles of ocean sciences are being addressed th rough an informal education setting. Research design proceeded as follows: deve lopment and distribution of SOLE, SOS and SOEM, analysis of results from three instru ments to identify key f actors contributing to ocean literacy; assessment of the relati onships among contributing factors and ocean literacy; testing the assumptions of knowle dge, attitude, and reasoning based on results from ocean literacy instruments; and finally identifying potential ocean scenarios for socioscientific issues case studies from SOS and SOEM results. This investigation also explored factors contributing to informal reasoning about oc ean socioscientific issues (OSSI). Three ocean socioscientific issues scenarios were pilote d as part of this study to assess the efficacy of ocean SSI as a component of science literacy.

PAGE 131

118 Table 12. A Summary of Data Analysis I. Data Processing a. Coded data and entered into WINSTEP so ftware program for Rasch analysis b. Knowledge constructs measur ed used continuous data c. Moral reasoning constructs measured usi ng Likert-type item and responses coded on a scale of 1-5 d. All categorical data was dummy coded II. Research question 1a (SOLE) & 2 (SOS) SOLE and SOS data analyzed using Rasch equivalent of standard descriptive and inferential statistical procedures. Answer s related to knowledge and attitude measures analyzed by paired t-tests to determine mean differences between pre and post SOLE and SOS responses. Significant differences reported at the alpha level of p 0<0.05. III. Research question 1b Multiple graders evaluated open-ended responses to the OCG comparative Learning Essay. Responses to open-ended questions we re coded and grouped into categories via thematic content analysis and triangula tion from multiple researchers to facilitate analysis. Significant differences reported at the alpha level of p<0.05. IV. Research question 3 A qualitative measure of participant’s positions on various OSSI utilized thematic content analysis of audio and video recordings duri ng OSSI dialogues. An OSSI questionnaire of individual written responses was examined for patterns of commitment and reasoning level based on rationale for pos itions selected. Multiple researchers examined data using thematic content analysis towards consen sus via triangulation. Post program guided interviews were conducted to assess informal reasoning patterns and quality of reasoning using constructs of Sadler (2003) and Sadler and Zeidler (2005) Table 11 is a summary of constructs used for assessing the quality of informal reasoning about OSSI. V. Research question 4 a. Results from the SOEM instrument anal yzed youth’s ocean environmental moral reasoning about four ocean dilemmas. Pair ed t-tests were conducted to determine mean differences between types of moral reasoning. Significant differences reported at the alpha level of p<0.05. b. Youth’s likelihood to act in an environmentally sensitive way was analyzed from SOEM data. To examine this question likelihood to act was compared for differences in each type of reasoning (bio centric, anthrocentric, or egocentric).

PAGE 132

119 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS Introduction The overarching goal of my study was to test the four constructs of ocean literacy within the context of an o cean education program, the Oceanography Camp for Girls. This chapter presents the results and analysis of ocean literacy in this context and the meaning of these results. The four construc ts analyzed in the present study, ocean knowledge, ocean environmental attitudes, e nvironmental moral reasoning, and informal reasoning about ocean issues, were seen as four dimensions on which students could progress towards ocean literacy. The dimensions were positively related because they all related to ocean sciences, but were educa tionally distinct. Rasch measurement models were employed to explore the four constructs that guided this st udy (Rasch, 1980; Wright & Mok, 2004). Data were collected through surveys, exte nded responses to ocean socioscientific issues, and interviews. Refer to Table 13 for a summary of the number of questions asked from each instrument and alignment with the se ven essential principles of ocean sciences literacy. The Rasch model provided a conjoi nt measurement by anal yzing both the items and the respondents, thus maximizing the ava ilable information, e.g., variability in the data. The Rasch model calibrated all data types (e.g. ordinal, in terval, nominal, etc.) so all were comparable using measured scores in place of raw scores. M easured scores took into account the behavior of the items unlike raw scores. Therefore, constructs could be

PAGE 133

120 measured on the same scale for knowledge, affect and morality. The following presentation of data was organized accordi ng to the research questions which guided the present study. Each question wa s restated and relevant findi ngs presented and discussed. Table 13. Question Groups Asked to Repres ent Each Construct for SOLE, SOS, SOEM and OSSI as Aligns with the Seven Esse ntial Principles of Ocean Sciences Seven Essential Principles SOLE SOS SOEM OSSI W=written I=interview 1. Earth has one big ocean with many features 2. The ocean and life in the ocean shape the features of Earth 3. The ocean is a major influence on weather and climate 4. The ocean makes Earth habitable 5. The ocean supports a great diversity of life and ecosystems 6. The ocean and humans are inextricably linked 7. The ocean is largely unexplored 1-11, 13-15, 20 12, 16-18 21-22, 26 19, 22, 25 28-33 39 35-38 40-48 23-24, 27 52, 5357 49-51, 53 2, 19 35, 40 11-13, 18, 37 23, 39 36, 42 4, 7-8, 14-17, 20-22, 2529, 30-32, 34,39, 41, 44 11-66 11-66 5-10 11-66 W 1-23 I 1-20 W 1-23 I 1-20

PAGE 134

121 Interpreting Rasch Model Output Results The results are presented based on items that were found to fit the Rasch Rating Scale Model. In several instances it was found th at 2 and 3-point response scales could be combined to better represent the data than the original 4, 5 and 9point response scales. The method of assessing change using a dependent t-test often demons trates statistically significant gains for a group from pretest to posttest. This method however has two limitations. First, changes in the underlying vari ables are not investigated. For instance, if the variable being measured was not the sa me from pretest to posttest, evaluation of change was meaningless (refer to Wright, 1996). Second, rather th an concentrating on group differences, it was of greater value to see which individuals demonstrated statistically significant gains or losses. The Rasch measurement was used to address both of these limitations of dependent t-tests. Re fer to Figure 9 which compares the variable being measured, ocean content knowledge, at pr etest and posttest. Several of the items (right-hand side of maps) ma intained their location on the variable, which indicated stability (invariance) of the item calibrations. This type of evidence was required to make valid pre-post comparisons. Figure 9 also displays the shift in person measures by observing the shift in the group mean labeled ‘M’ between pre-post responses. Note that results reported for the present study represent calibration of all ava ilable data to Rasch measured scores for pre and post responses including partial data, unlike dependent ttests which are based on complete data only. Rasch measurement also produced standard errors for each measure. This was a distinct advantage over Classical Test Theory by allowing for the statistical comparisons of pre-post scores at the individual rather than group level (Sm ith, Lawless, Curda &

PAGE 135

122 Curda, 1999). Using this information, I c ould identify individuals who displayed statistically significant gains in ocean lit eracy constructs (e.g., ocean knowledge, attitudes, environmental morality and inform al reasoning) and those who demonstrated reductions. Figure 10 demonstrates analysis of change at the i ndividual level. Data points above the identity line indicated statistically significant gains for those individuals from pre to post program responses. This informa tion was of greater value for evaluating the current Oceanography Camp for Girls progra m and will guide follow-up procedures to investigate how and why the program benef ited most individuals while seemingly not affecting a few. Research Question 1 and Sub-questions Question 1 How do content and environmental c ontext mediate the development of conceptual understanding about the ocean during an ocean education program, the Oceanography Camp for Girls, an experience for rising 9th graders focused on direct experiences in natural environments? Sub-Question 1a To what extent does content knowledge contribute to conceptual understanding about the ocean? Sub-Question 1b To what extent do direct environmental experiences (e.g., cont ext) contribute to conceptual understanding about the ocean? The original intent of re search question 1 and its asso ciated sub-questions focused on the influence of content knowledge and cont ext via direct environmental experiences

PAGE 136

123 on conceptual understanding about the oceans. Ba sed on dominant research in this area of content knowledge a framework was proposed for analysis of participants. The framework utilized the seven essential cont ent principles of what constitutes ocean literacy as defined by COSEE (2005) to ex amine the development of conceptual understanding. Ocean literacy was asse ssed among youth using a multi-item ocean environmental knowledge scale to establish a current baseline of what is presently understood about the ocean. This instrument wa s called a Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience (SOLE). A total of 57 items co mprised the SOLE instrument and all items were analyzed for this study. Refer to Appendix C for a list of the 57 questions (e.g., items) asked on the SOLE. For content validit y, an expert scientist team comprised of four scientists and 2 educators reviewed each item of the instrument and identified which essential principle (EP 1-7) of ocean scie nces was addressed by the question item. My study also examined the extent to which an outdoor ocean education program contributed to ocean literacy through direct experiences with nature. Participants were engaged in ocean learning through physic al interactions with multiple natural environments in the Tampa Bay region. Each was asked how the Oceanography Camp for Girls environmental experiences impacted their learning of science. A 500 word learning essay, ‘Compare and contrast learni ng science during OCG with learning science in school’, was evaluated using thematic cont ent analysis. From a first round of analysis 10 themes emerged as important to youth in comparing science learning via direct experiences with nature and classroom science.

PAGE 137

124 Question 2 How do environmental attitudes (e.g., care, concern and connection) contribute to conceptual understanding about the ocean? In as much as content knowledge has b een shown to contribute significantly to scientific literacy, I sought al so to investigate the extent to which it contributes to more favorable ocean environmental attitu des amongst youth. The Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS) was used to examine if the OCG experience contributed to more favorable ocean environmental attitudes. SOS was a multi-item scale constructed to assess general environmental attitudes toward science, oceanography, and ocean stewardship. A total of 44 items comprise d the SOS instrument and all items were analyzed for this study. Refer to Appendix C for a list of the 44 questions (e.g., items) asked on the SOS. Question 3 What types of environmental moral reas oning are important to youth in resolving ocean dilemmas and how likely are they to act in an environmentally-sensitive way? The present study investigat ed the type of environm ental moral reasoning (e.g., biocentric, anthropocentric) important in oc ean decision-making and if predictive of one’s acting in an environmentally sensitive manner (e.g., ocean stewardship). This was accomplished by developing and piloting four familiar ocean environmental dilemmas adapted from the research of Persing ( 2006). The Scenarios of Ocean Environmental Morality (SOEM) instrument was used to measure moral motivation and likelihood to act. A total of 81 items comprised the SOEM instrument and 56 items were analyzed for

PAGE 138

125 this study. Refer to Appendix C for a list of the 81 questions (e .g., items) asked on the SOEM. Question 4 How do youth informally reason about ocean socioscientific issues (OSSI) in the context of direct experien ces in ocean environments? The present study examined the influen ce of learning experiences on informal reasoning about ocean socioscientific issues This was accomplished by directly engaging participants in ocean socioscientific role-p laying and stewardship activities, followed by open dialogue discussions, written respons es and interviews. A total of 23 items comprised the OSSI written instrument. Four teen items were analyzed for this study. Refer to Appendix D for a complete list of OSSI written questions A total of 20 items comprised the OSSI informal reasoning inte rviews and seventeen items were analyzed for this study. Refer to Appendix E for a comp lete list of OSSI interview questions. Ocean Knowledge Assessment Research Question 1 How do content and environmental c ontext mediate the development of conceptual understanding about the ocean during an ocean education program, the Oceanography Camp for Girls, an experience for rising 9th graders focused on direct experiences in natural environments? The Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience (SOLE) met the Rasch model criteria for the purpose of this research. Part icipants’ responses were analyzed to estimate instrument reliability, e.g., internal consis tency. The Rasch model’ s estimated internal reliability was 0.89, and the equivalent Cr onbach’s alpha for responses was 0.91. Item

PAGE 139

126 analysis of responses revealed that th e majority of items, 61.4% were mid-range challenging (difficulty index between 0.41 a nd 0.60), while 19.3% of items were easy (difficulty index < 0.40) and 19.3% were most challengi ng (difficulty index > 0.60). Refer to Appendix I for a complete list of items and difficult y indices (e.g., the measurement column of output table). There was a total of 57 items on th e SOLE cognitive instrument. The OCG participant mean scores as a group increas ed from 54.55 on the pre-test to 60.04 on the post-test. The difference between the mean chan ge scores for the pre and post-test was 5.489 and was statistically signifi cant based on paired t-test. The standard deviation was 5.880 for t= -5.027 (df, 28), p = 0.000. Review of the map of latent distributions and thresholds for SOLE revealed three performa nce groups. These were participants (18%) that showed highest gains from pre to post (up to 32% gain in SOLE scores), 20% of participants demonstrated moderate gains from pre to post (up to 20% gain in SOLE scores), and 48% of participants showed no significant gain from pre to post (up to 10% gain in SOLE scores). Refer to Figure 9 fo r construct map of SOLE pre and post person measures and item thresholds. While the major ity of participants demonstrated gains in ocean content knowledge, four campers had re duced scores. Qualitative explanations for this trend are addressed below. In general, results from the analysis of SOLE revealed the majority (25 of 29) of campers had a positive significant gain in ocean content knowledge during OCG. Knowledge gains ranged from 2% to 32% fo r all but four campers. Three campers had reduced SOLE scores, and one camper completed only 12 of 57 items on the SOLE posttest. Figure 10 demonstrates anal ysis of change at the indivi dual level. Data points above

PAGE 140

127 the identity line indicated statistically significant gains between pre and post camp responses. Most participants demonstrated stat istically significant gain s, none statistically significant reductions. There are two possible ex planations based on a qualitative review of the campers showing no gain in ocean knowledge, 1) the OCG had no effect as measured by SOLE, or 2) these campers did not perform well on the post-test for undocumented reasons (e.g. time limitations, te st anxiety, tired, not serious about responses). The ocean concepts (e.g., essential principl es, EP, of ocean sciences literacy) that demonstrated the most significant group gains were items 7, 12, 14, 41 and 48 (Table 14). Four question items performed outside the normal standards for the Rasch analysis. These items were 3, 24, 25 and 32 based on zscores >3.5. These four questions were likely too difficult as worded. These mis-fitting questions and the ocean literacy essential principle and science disciplines addr essed are summarized in Table 15. Two interpretations are possible for why these items performed outside of Rasch standards, 1) items were poorly written or too hard and shoul d be revised or 2) items were within the realm of random expected outliers for a data se t with 57 items. It s hould be noted that items 24 and 25 were identified by the scien ce expert review team as questions of concern, and recommended for revision by two of five experts. In an effort to improve the precision of the SOLE instrument, following initial analysis of fit statistics, item-to-measure co rrelations, and redundancy of item difficulty measures additional responses from a group of high school students was added to the

PAGE 141

128-------------------------------------------------------------------------------SOLE Pre-program SOLE Persons MAP – Items | 75 + I0007 74 + 73 + I0025 I0042 72 + 71 +T 70 + 69 211 + 68 + I0009 I0047 67 + 66 T+ 65 + 64 + I0024 63 + I0023 I0031 62 + 61 251 +S I0032 I0045 60 161 171 S+ I0012 I0029 59 091 + I0030 58 101 131 281 + I0014 I0053 57 071 191 221 + 56 051 081 121 291 + 55 021 041 151 201 231 M+ I0003 54 + I0006 I0008 I0028 I0039 53 + 52 + I0040 I0041 51 031 + I0011 I0026 I0056 50 141 181 +M I0005 49 S+ I0048 I0049 I0054 48 061 + I0017 47 271 + I0002 I0013 I0033 I0034 I0051 46 241 261 + I0021 I0027 I0035 45 + I0044 44 011 111 + I0055 I0057 43 T+ 42 + I0004 I0038 I0052 41 + I0010 I0016 I0018 40 + I0019 39 +S I0015 I0043 38 + I0022 37 + I0050 36 + I0037 I0046 35 + I0036 34 + 33 + 32 + 31 + 30 + I0020 29 +T 28 + I0001 | Figure 9a. Construct Map of Person Measures and Item Thresholds for Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience fr om Pre-Camp Responses, N=29

PAGE 142

129-------------------------------------------------------------------------------SOLE Post-program Persons MAP – Items | 75 + I0007 74 202 T+ 73 + I0025 I0042 72 + 71 +T 70 232 + 69 042 + 68 + I0009 I0047 67 212 252 S+ 66 172 + 65 192 282 + 64 142 292 + I0024 63 + I0023 I0031 62 082 162 242 + 61 072 222 +S I0032 I0045 60 022 M+ I0012 I0029 59 032 122 132 + I0030 58 + I0014 I0053 57 052 092 + 56 102 272 + 55 152 182 + I0003 54 + I0006 I0008 I0028 I0039 53 S+ 52 + I0040 I0041 51 262 + I0011 I0026 I0056 50 +M I0005 49 062 112 + I0048 I0049 I0054 48 + I0017 47 + I0002 I0013 I0033 I0034 I0051 46 T+ I0021 I0027 I0035 45 + I0044 44 + I0055 I0057 43 + 42 + I0004 I0038 I0052 41 + I0010 I0016 I0018 40 + I0019 39 +S I0015 I0043 38 012 + I0022 37 + I0050 36 + I0037 I0046 35 + I0036 34 + 33 + 32 + 31 + 30 + I0020 29 +T 28 + I0001 | Figure 9b. Construct Map of Person Measures and Item Thresholds for Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience Post-Camp Responses, N=29

PAGE 143

130 PRE.txt & POST.txt30 40 50 60 70 80 90 304050607080Measures (PRE.txt)Measures (POST.txt) Figure 10. Plot of Pre-Post Meas ures to Demonstrate Analysis of Change at the Individual Level for the Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience Responses, N=29 Table 14. SOLE Questions Demonstra ting Most Significant Group Gains SOLE Question Essential Principle Science Discipline 7. Approximately how much of th e earth’s water is fresh and unfrozen (neither ice nor ocean)? (Answer: 1%) 1 physics, chemistry 12. Many earth materials originated in the ocean. Which rock type now exposed on land in the Southwest U.S. formed in the ocean? (Answer: sedimentary) 2 geology, physics 14. Approximately what fraction of the total water on the earth is in the ocean? (Answer: 97%) 1 chemistry 41. Ocean life ranges in size from the smallest virus to the largest animal that has lived on earth, called the (blue whale) 5 biology 48. Which ocean ecosystem provides habitat for one-third of all marine species? (Answer: coral reefs) 5 biology

PAGE 144

131 Table 15. SOLE Misfit Questions Performi ng Outside Criteria of Rasch Analysis SOLE Question Essential Principle Science Discipline 3. Rivers supply most of the salt to the oceans, which comes from (seafloor reactions, er oding land, volcanic emissions, and the atmosphere) 1 physics, chemistry 24. What is the source of most trash on the beaches in the U.S.? (Answer: people leaving trash) 6 biology, unifying concept 25. The ocean dominates the earth’s carbon cycle. Approximately how much of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean? (Answer: 50%) 3 chemistry, physics 32. The ocean dominates the earth’s carbon cycle. Approximately how much primary production on earth takes place in the sunlit areas of the ocean? (Answer: 50%) 3 chemistry, biology SOLE for a second level analysis. The increased sample size (n=105) provided a broader distribution of responses a nd in turn provided better anchors for calibrating the instrument. The resultant analysis improved the precision of the SOLE instrument as a measurement device of ocean content knowledge aligned with ocean literacy standards. All items that correlated > 0.2 using Rasch point measure analysis (e.g., point bi-serial analysis). Refer to Appendix I for a listing of item measure correlations for the 57 items comprising SOLE. No persons were identifi ed as potential misfit data based on the person fit statistic (all z-scores > 2.0). While the instrument was calibrated with a larger data set (n=105), only results from 29 participants in the 2008 Oceanography Camp for Girls are reported. Results from the first-round of thematic analysis of 30 Science Learning Essays revealed the following trends from particip ants written responses. The learning themes that emerged consistently across 30 essays included 1) hands-on learning, 2) caring people to ask and discuss scienc e questions, 3) more than ju st learning science, 4) all

PAGE 145

132 girls-no boys, 5) doing scienc e not talking science, 6) using authentic equipment to do field and lab-based research, 7) having fun learning authen tic science and environmental issues, 8) field visits to learn about the j obs oceanographers and ot her scientists do, 9) career interviews with scientists in their wo rk environment, and 10) scientists as real people and professionals. Table 16 provides excerpts from participants’ learning essays. Results indicate that the learning context for the Oceanography Camp for Girls had a positive impact on learning about the ocean, science and environmental issues. The importance of context in learning and reas oning has been consistently cited in the literature. This is discussed in more detail in chapter 5. Ocean Environmental Attitudes Assessment Research Question 2 How do environmental attitudes (e.g. care, concern and connection) contribute to conceptual understanding about the ocean? The Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS) met the Rasch model criteria for the purpose of this research. Participants’ responses were analyzed to estimate instrument reliability, e.g., internal consistency. The Rasch model’ s estimated internal reliability was 0.89, and the equivalent Cronbach’s alpha was 0.90 for the multiple response Likert type items. The SOS instrument had three sub-scales for attitudes about oceanography, attitudes about ocean stewardship, and attitudes a bout humans and the environment. Refer to Appendix K for a summary map of item and individual (person) indices. Because there was a total of 44 items on the cognitive instrument, means scores were converted to percent correct for ease of data interpretation. Th e participants’ mean

PAGE 146

133 Table 16. Excerpts from Partici pants’ Science Learning Essays as Revealed from Initial Thematic Content Analysis, N=30 Learning Content Theme Excerpts from written learning essays % Occurrence Hands-on science learning OCG is amazingly fun, hands on science experience. Everything is hands-on. 97% Caring people to ask & discuss science questions Also, at OCG you are surrounded by mentors who care about whether or not you understand the things the talk about. I love working with teachers but at OCG we get to work with teachers that are also scientists. 27% More than just learning science OCG is a joyous way to learn about marine biology, oceanography, teen issues, and positive energy. I am so glad that I got in because it has changed the way I look at things now. For instance, whenever I see trash on the ground I pick it up and throw it away, cause after the camp showed the other girls and myself the video about what pollution is doing to our marine animals, I just can’t let that happen; and another good thing that I learned from camp is, one person can make a big difference. 83% All girlsno boys It is a camp for girls and girls only; so we have no one to impress or show off in front of, and try to top any of the girls. I love learning with girls, there are no boys to cause distraction, competition, or annoyance to anyone. 50% Using authentic science equipment to do field and labbased research We also get to experience an equivalent to being “real” oceanographers by working with field equipment, analyzing our data and working in labs. 33% Field visits to learn the jobs oceanographers and other scientists do We got to talk to people, well really scientists about the specific field they study. There are a lot of fields in oceanography. For example, one scientist might study sediments, while another will study fish eating habits, or one might study hurricane patterns while another is building the technology to allow these scientists to study the field that they do. 17% Doing science, not talking about science When I was on cruise I learned many new things like how to identify plankton, fish and invertebrates, measuring nutrients in the sea, and how to use a Niskin bottle. I really liked learning and observing the life in the sea… 27% Having fun learning authentic science and environmental issues The style of learning is awesome! I love it…we always learn new things by voice…We are not locked up in classrooms with books all day. I learn more quickly and I have tons of fun in the process. I’m glad we had the Clam Bayou clean –up. It was self assured to myself that pollution can happen on private property. Learning = 100% Env. Issues =33% Scientist as real people and professionals Teresa and Angie take pleasure in seeing us happy, like when they smile, sing and dance with us… teachers at school don’t like seeing us sad but at camp it’s a big family and we want everyone to feel great, confident and radiant.” 13% Career interviews of scientist where they work We got to meet ACTUAL scientists and that was very interesting. These people are THE people to ask if you have a specific question in a particular area. 13%

PAGE 147

134 score as a group was 60.88 (s.d. 5.05). Mean score increased from 59.89 agree to strongly agree positively on the pre-te st to 61.87 on the post-test. The difference between the mean change scores for the pre-test and post-test was -1.98 and was not statistically significant using a paired t-te st, p<0. 05. The standard deviat ion was 1.14 for t= -1.73 (df, 55), p = 0.089. Review of the map of latent di stributions and thresholds for SOS revealed two performance groups. These were participants that demonstrated moderate gains from pre to post (14%) and those who showed no significant gain from pre to post (76%). Refer to Figure 11 for map of SOS pre and post person measures and item thresholds. In general, results from the analysis of SOS revealed positive attitudes of the majority of participants be fore participation in the O ceanography Camp for Girls. As indicated by this scale the sample populat ion was already positive about the ocean, stewardship and the environment, leaving litt le opportunity for a gain from pre to post responses. Indeed, it is likely that a ceiling effect was evident and the SOS scale had no sensitivity with this sample population within th e range of the instrument. The average person began 1.5 standard deviations above th e mean before the OCG experience. Stated another way the average person started at a mean of 62.5 on a mean scale of 50. The result was little room to improve attitudes th at were already positive to strongly positive. The SOS met the Rasch model criteria for internal reliability, category order and separation however the SOS scale was not sensitive enough with the 2008 OCG participants. It is possible that the SOS scale was too easy as is and requires a more sensitive and challenging scale. To test this interpretation, following anal ysis of fit statistics, item-to-measure correlations, and redundancy of item difficulty measures additional responses from a

PAGE 148

135 group of high school students was added to SOS for a second level analysis. The increased sample size (n=119) with a greater range of par ticipants provided a broader distribution of responses to SOS items, and in turn provided better anchors for calibrating the instrument. The instrument was calibrated with a larger data set, but only results from participants in the 2008 Oceanography Camp for Girls are reported. The resultant analysis improved the precision of the SOS inst rument as a measurem ent device of ocean environmental attitudes. It should be noted that four items (e .g., questions 30, 35 and 41) from SOS were identified as misfit items (z -scores significantly >3.6). Two interpretations are possible, these items are 1) poorly written items or ar e too easy and should be revised, or 2) these items are within the realm of random expected outliers for a data set with 44 items. Three people were identified as potential misfit data based on the person fit statistic (z-scores > 2). A qualitative examination of these persons revealed that persons completed all survey questions, but had attitudinal changes from pre to post toward a slightly less positive view (e.g., strongly agree to agree; agree to neutral). In general persons did not change (increase or decrease) attit udinally between the pre and post SOS responses. Six persons responded with strongly positive attitudes consis tently for pre and post responses, so no significant gain occurred. One person advan ced 1.5 standard deviations above the mean between pre and post responses (person 29). A ttitudes for some campers were positively impacted by OCG. Refer to Figure 12 which demonstrates analysis of change at the individual level. Darkened symbols above the identity line in dicate statistically significant gains for those individuals from pretest to posttest. Some participants demonstrated statistically significant gain s, none statistically significant reductions.

PAGE 149

136 The attitude survey was comprised of three subscales, 1) attitudes about oceanography, 2) attitudes about ocean stewar dship, and 3) attitudes about humans and the environment. Results for the three subscal es were similar. To facilitate ease of interpretation, the following terms were used to refer to specific ranges of mean scores on the attitude assessment: strongly di sagree, 1; disagree, 2; neutra l, 3; agree, 4; and strongly agree, 5. The SOS instrument sub-scales response frequencies ranged from 7.5% strong agreement, 71% agreement, 14% neutral, and 7.5% disagreement for attitudes about oceanography; response frequencies ranged from 33% strong agreement, 60% agreement, and 7% neutral for attitudes about ocean stewardship; a nd, response frequencies ranged from 13% strong agreement, 67% agreement, and 20% neutral for attitudes about humans and the environment. Attitudes about stewards hip scored positively highest by teens in this sample, followed by attitudes ab out humans and the environment and no disagreement scores on these two attitude subscales. The majority of items for the attitudes about oceanography subscale were mid-range challenging 93% (difficulty index between 0.41 and 0.60) and 7% of items were most challenging (difficulty index > 0.60). Item analysis of responses about ocean stew ardship revealed that all items, 100% were mid-range challenging (difficulty inde x between 0.41 and 0.60), however not as challenging at items for attitudes about ocea nography. Item analysis of responses about humans and the environment revealed that the majority of items, 93% were mid-range challenging (difficulty index between 0.41 and 0.60), and 7% of items were most challenging (difficulty index > 0.60). Refer to Appendix K for a complete list of items and difficulty indices (e.g., measur ement column of output table).

PAGE 150

137-------------------------------------------------------------------------------SOS Pre-program Persons MAP – Items | 80 + | | | | | | | | 281 | 70 + | T| 051 141 | | | I000 011 121 171 221 S| | 101 211 | 041 161 | I003 60 151 241 251 M+T I001 021 291 | 061 071 | I000 I003 031 081 191 201 231 | 111 131 S| I002 091 181 271 |S I004 261 | I000 | I003 I004 T| I000 I001 I002 I003 I003 I003 | I000 I004 50 +M I000 I001 I002 I004 | I000 I001 I001 I001 I001 I002 I002 I003 I004 | | I000 I002 I003 | I000 I001 I003 |S I001 | I001 I002 | | | I002 I002 I003 40 +T I002 | Figure 11a Construct Map Person Measures and It em Thresholds for Survey of Ocean Stewardship Pre-Progr am Responses, N=29

PAGE 151

138 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------SOS Post-program Persons MAP – Items | 80 + | | | | | | | 282 | 052 T| 70 + 142 | | 122 172 292 | 222 S| 152 | I00 162 212 | 042 232 252 | M| 022 242 | I00 60 102 +T I00 012 062 082 | 072 092 112 182 192 202 262 | I00 I00 032 132 S| 272 | I00 |S I00 | I00 T| I00 I00 | I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 | I00 I00 50 +M I00 I00 I00 I00 | I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 | | I00 I00 I00 | I00 I00 I00 |S I00 | I00 I00 | | | I00 I00 I00 40 +T I00 | Figure 11b. Construct Map of Person Measures and Item Thresholds for Survey of Ocean Stewardship from Post-Program Responses, N=29

PAGE 152

139 SOS Item Analysis Greely & sosPOSTpfile.txt40 50 60 70 80 90 4050607080Measures (SOS Item Analysis Greely)Measures (sosPOSTpfile.txt) Figure 12. Plot of Pre-Post Meas ures to Demonstrate Analysis of Change at the Individual Level for the Survey of Ocean Stewardship Responses, N=29 Scenarios of Ocean Environmental Moral Reasoning Assessment Research Question 3 What types of environmental moral reas oning are important to youth in resolving ocean dilemmas and how likely are youth to ac t in an environmentally-sensitive way? The Scenarios of Ocean Environmental Morality (SOEM) met the Rasch model criteria for the purpose of this research. Part icipants’ responses were analyzed to estimate reliability, e.g. internal consistency. The Rasch model’s es timated internal reliability was 0.95, and the equivalent Cronbach’s alpha for responses was 0.97 for the multiple response Likert type items. The SOEM in strument had four sub-scales for moral

PAGE 153

140 sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivati on, and moral character following the Rest model (Rest et al., 1986, 2000). The moral se nsitivity scale examined type of environmental moral reasoning (biocentric, anthropocentric, egocentric). Refer to Appendix L for a summary map of item and respondent indices. Because there were a total of 56 items on the Likert-scale instrume nt, means scores were converted to percent correct for ease of data interpretation. Th ere was no significant difference between the mean change scores between the pre and post responses. Review of the map of latent distributions and thresholds for SOEM revealed two performance groups. These were participants who demonstrated moderate gains from pre to post, and those who showed no significan t gain from pre to post camp responses. Refer to Figure 13 for construct map of pr e and post response comparisons for SOEM person measures and item thresholds. The ma jority of participants was high functioning and stayed functioning at this level for pr e and post tests, while the remainder of participants was a super high functioning group that remained at this level for pre and post tests. This sample population demons trated high levels of moral sensitivity, judgment, motivation and character. Figure 14 il lustrates analysis of change between pre and post responses for the four moral development components of the Rest model (1986, 2000). Overall participants demonstrated no sign ificant change in mora l sensitivity (Rest, component 1; refer to Appendix H) or mo ral judgment (Rest, component 2). Moral motivation (Rest, component 3) decreased slightly based on scenario (contextdependent), and moral character (Rest, compone nt 4) which was likelihood to act in an environmentally-sensitive manner, increased slightly between pre and post responses.

PAGE 154

141 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------SOEM Pre-program Persons MAP – Items | 71 151 + 70 +T 69 121 + I00 68 111 251 + 67 231 + 66 191 + 65 271 + 64 + 63 + 62 S+ 61 241 + 60 131 +S 59 051 + 58 + I00 I00 57 + I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 56 + I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 55 + I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 I00 54 + I00 I00 53 + I00 I00 52 + I00 51 M+ 50 +M I00 I00 I00 49 + I00 48 + 47 041 181 + 46 + I00 I00 45 021 141 211 221 291 + 44 201 + I00 43 101 171 + 42 071 + 41 011 031 061 281 + 40 081 091 261 +S 39 161 S+ 38 + 37 + I00 I00 36 + I00 35 + 34 + I00 33 + I00 I00 32 + I00 31 + I00 30 +T I00 I00 29 + 28 T+ I00 27 + I00 | Figure 13a. Construct Map of Person Measures a nd Item Thresholds for Scenarios of Ocean Morality from Pre-Program Responses, N=29

PAGE 155

142-------------------------------------------------------------------------------SOEM Post-program Persons MAP – Items | 80 + | | | | 082 | T| 242 | | 152 | 70 +T | I003 | 192 252 | 122 | | 132 | 232 | S| | 60 +S | | I003 I004 | I000 I000 I001 I002 I002 I002 I004 I004 I004 I005 | I000 I001 I001 I002 I002 I003 I003 I003 I003 I004 I005 | I000 I002 I002 I003 I003 I005 I005 I005 | I001 I003 052 | I000 I001 | I000 M | 50 012 +M I000 I001 I005 042 112 | I004 | 292 | | I002 I004 142 | 202 212 222 262 | I001 022 032 182 | 062 102 172 | 072 282 | 40 092 +S S| 162 272 | | I000 I002 | I003 | | I004 | I001 I005 | I000 | I002 30 +T I001 I004 | | I004 T| I001 | Figure 13b. Construct Map of Person Measures a nd Item Thresholds for Scenarios of Ocean Morality from Post-Program Responses, N=29

PAGE 156

143 DGF: Person DIF & Item DPF plot 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 123 Person DIF Class: Reasoning Types Data Symbols: 1= Pre responses 2= Post responses 3=High School groupDGF SIZE (Item Response) R1 R2 R3 R4 Figure 14. Analysis of Change between Pre an d Post Responses for the Four Moral Development Components of th e Rest Model (1986, 2000); R1= Moral Sensitivity, R2= Moral Judgment, R3= Moral Motivation, And R4= Moral Character Initial analysis of fit stat istics, item-to-item measure correlations, and redundancy of item difficulty measures led researcher s to add additional re sponses from a group of high school students for a sec ond level analysis of SOEM. The increased sample size (n=95) with a greater range of participants provided a broade r distribution of responses to SOEM items, and in turn provided better an chors for calibrating the instrument. The resultant analysis improved the precision of the SOEM instrument somewhat as a

PAGE 157

144 measurement device of ocean environmental morality. However, the second level analysis showed improvement for instrument precision but only minimally. SOEM still had two problems, 1) extreme high group ceili ng effect, and 2) item category threshold problems in that there were too many categor ies for most questions (e.g. 1-5 scale). This prompted a third level analysis of SOEM that combined ordered categories (Linacre, 1995; McCullagh, 1985) based on categorical output for the majority of items comprising SOEM. Analysis revealed that there were three dis tinct moral reasoning factors. The moral reasoning questions were co llapsed from the original 9-point scale to a 3-point scale to better represent the data while identifying three mo ral reasoning factors. The remaining original 5-point scale items were each collapsed to 3-point scales, again to better represent the data as revealed by th e Rasch Rating Scale Model. The resultant analysis improved the precision of the SOEM instrument and showed distinct categories however, dimensionality was not as distinct. Co nstructs of moral reasoning could now be compared at the group and individual levels fo r each scenario. Failure of the SOEM data to conform to the Rasch model implies furthe r work on the substantive problem of scale construction. Results for the research question, what t ype of reasoning is most important to young confronted with an environmental moral dilemma was answered by establishing an overall environmental reasoning score that was computed by collaps ing a person’s type of reasoning across scenarios. Next, a mean score for biocentric, anthropocentric and egocentric reasoning was generated for each of the four scenarios. Finally, scores were compared for biocentric reasoning with anth ropocentric and with egocentric reasoning overall, and across each unique context (i.e ., walking along beach, picnicking, fishing and

PAGE 158

145 swimming). Based on SOEM responses th ere was a significan t difference overall between the reasoning types in that biocentric (71%) reasoni ng rated significantly more important than anthropocentr ic (17%) and egocentric (12%) reasoning when making a decision to act in an environmentally-sensi tive manner. Post-survey responses revealed biocentric (68%) reasoning remained the most important reasoning type to youth in this study. Analysis of differences in types of reasoning within each scenario was also evaluated. A Welch t-test revealed no statis tical significantly difference between pre-post reasoning type responses. Results indicated higher rating of bio centric reasoning over anthropocentric or egocentric reasoning on th e beach walk scenario, picnicking scenario, fishing scenario, and swimming scenario. Po st-survey responses indicated the same trends for three scenarios, beach walk, picnicking and fishing. However for the swimming scenario there was a higher ra ting of the egocentric reasoning over anthropocentric and biocentric reasoning on post responses. A possible reason for this shift in reasoning type is suggested below. The frequency with which different types of environmental reasoning were applied varied acr oss scenarios, indicating that the context of an issue may have influenced how participan ts responded to that issue. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 17. To answer the question, if one’s type of environmental reasoning is predictive of one’s likelihood to act in an environmentally sensitive way, differences in the three types of reasoning for the four scenarios were analyzed. The environmental moral reasoning categories were established based upon th e responses to the Items 13, 27, 41, and 65 which asked “which of the reasons do you most agree with?” Those respondents

PAGE 159

146 selecting a biocentric respons e were coded with a one, an anthropocentric response was coded with a two, and an egocentric response was coded with a three. The “likelihood to act” variable was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale rangi ng from not at all likely to very likely. Before analysis this scale was co llapsed to a 3-point scale to best represent the data. Table 17. Comparison of Differences within Scenarios between Reasoning Type from Pre and Post-Camp Responses Reasoning Type N= Pre-SOEM N= Post-SOEM Biocentric Anthropocentric Egocentric (Overall) 112 71% 17% 12% 103 68% 7% 25% Biocentric Anthropocentric Egocentric (Beach Walk) 112 72% 21% 7% 103 73% 12% 15% Biocentric Anthropocentric Egocentric (Picnicking) 112 68% 18% 14% 103 81% 15% 4% Biocentric Anthropocentric Egocentric (Fishing) 112 71% 11% 18% 103 77% 0% 23% Biocentric Anthropocentric Egocentric (Swimming) 112 75% 18% 7% 103 40% 0% 60%

PAGE 160

147 Findings indicate that in all four of th e scenarios, those respondents choosing biocentric, anthropocentric or egocentric reasoning as their most important type of moral reasoning were all likely to act in an environmentally-sensitive manner. There were no significant differences in the biocentric, anth ropocentric or egocen tric groups for the beach walk, picnicking, fishing or swimmi ng scenarios in likelihood to act in an environmentally-sensitive manner. Data suggested that overall context (type of scenario) for likelihood to act in an environmentallysensitive way was not significant for this question since 83% participants were likely to act in an environmentally-sensitive way irrespective of scenario. Two pa rticipants responded that they would not likely act in an environmentally-sensitive manner to the beach walk scenario (n=1) and picnicking scenario (n=1); meaning they would walk through dunes and sea oa ts during beach walk or not likely take trash home from pi cnicking. Three participants (10%) responded neutrally, no commitment one way or another, to beach walk scenario (n=2) and fishing scenario (n=1). OSSI Informal Reasoning Assessment Research Question 4 How do youth informally reason about ocean socioscientific issues (OSSI) in the context of direct experien ces in ocean environments? My study investigated the complexity of informal reasoning and positions expressed by youth while discussing issues abou t the ocean environmen t. Interviews were recorded on audiotape and tran scribed. Data for 12 interviews were collected. Refer to Appendix E for a complete list of 20 inte rview questions. Interview responses were divided into scorable argu ments (Dawson, 1998). A modified clinical interview was

PAGE 161

148 employed. Questions and probes were designed to encourage participants to expand upon their conceptions about specific OSSI and elicit their highest level of reasoning. Responses were probed with requests for furt her elaboration, “What factors influenced your position?’ “Why was that important?’ “W hy should the issue include both of those things?” until the interviewer was satisfied that a given participant had presented as full an account as possible of her reasoning on each question. The interviewer did not introduce concepts of her own unless the subject was unable to respond to initial questions. Instead, she noted the elements of the issue that were mentioned by the participant and probed for explan ations of why these were impor tant. Interviews varied in length from 20 to 40 minutes. For the present analysis, 8 of 12 interviews were divided into scorable segments (e.g., statements). Because the interviews were so mewhat open-ended, there was no predetermined content-guided basis for segmentation. Consequently, the following criteria were employed: 1. A scorable segment should, as much as is possible, represent a complete argument for a given proposition or related set of propositions, in cluding all of the “why,” probes and responses associated with that argument. 2. When two or more arguments are intertwi ned in the same text, the text is left intact and scored only once; and 3. Arguments must include responses to “why” probes or spontaneous justifications, because these, much more than the propositions themselves, reveal the structure of participants’ thinking. When these are not present, the argument is not scorable, and is drop ped from the analysis.

PAGE 162

149 Participants’ written and oral responses to OSSI were evaluated to demonstrate how a student progressed through an issue and communicated their position on an issue. Analysis of the OSSI responses overall was conducted classifying responses in one of three ways: a) thematic categories that em erged from written responses, b) quality of informal reasoning, or c) one of three informal reasoning patterns. Two raters scored each of the informal reasoning interview and written questions. The first rater assessed the questions, and then compared sc oring with the second rater. The first rater was a social scientist and educator skilled in conducting interviews and evaluating qualitative data. The second rater was an ocean scientist and ed ucator skilled in scoring qualitative data and conducting interviews. Overall rates of agreement were high (average, 94.50%), and only agreements >90% were analyzed. The in terview questions were chosen on the basis of authentic ocean socioscientif ic issues (OSSI) of current concern. In all cases, the answers to the written questions were disc ussed during camp OSSI embedded activities, e.g., Turtle Hurdle and Fish Banks simulations. Interviews were analyzed using inductiv e data analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and the constant comparative method describe d by Glaser and Strau ss (1967). Analysis of written and oral responses was conducted a nd emergent categories were identified and compared between raters. Upon consensus of >90% on four of five categories, the emergent categories were used to classify arguments offered by each participant in response to one of two scenar ios, protection of endangered marine species or regulation of ocean pollution. Analysis relied on the abil ities of two raters to recognize emergent categories and relative importa nce of each by estimating a percent occurrence of each category.

PAGE 163

150 Quality of OSSI Informal Reasoning Interviews were then subdivided into protocols representi ng the individual judgments about an ocean issue made by each respondent in response to nonstandard probes. Each protocol included the complete positional statement along with the argument used to support it. The quality of informal reasoning was evaluated using the criteria reported by Sadler (2003). The present study used four of the five criteria from Sadler’s work. These were 1) intra-scenario coherence, 2) counter-position construction, 3) rebuttal construction, and 4) scientific accuracy. A summary of this analysis is provided in Table 19, along with sample excer pts representing each criteria of reasoning quality. In general, interviewees provided we ll structured OSSI inte rview responses that formulated a position and provided justific ation, anticipated c ounter-positions, and constructed rebuttal while incorporati ng scientific information accurately. OSSI Informal Reasoning Patterns Protocols were then examined individually for evidence of the informal reasoning patterns described by Sadler & Zeidler (2005). From the interview data, three informal reasoning patterns, rationalistic, intuitive and em otive were present to varying degrees in the OSSI interview responses. The informal reasoning demonstrated by participants in response to ocean socioscientific issues re lated to protection of endangered marine species and ocean pollution had both cogniti ve and affective components. The term, informal reasoning, is characterized by the gene ral processes of negotiating and resolving ocean socioscientific issues that are assumed to be embedded with cognitive and affective processes (Sadler, 2004). Results from the pr esent study revealed that participants relied on a combination of reasoning patterns. Some pa rticipants relied on logical arguments to

PAGE 164

151 support a position, such as marine animal be haviors and human behaviors and choices, while others displayed no apparent rationa listic informal reasoni ng. Other participants resolved issues based on an immediate fee ling or reaction (positive or negative) to an issue, which is termed intuitive informal reasoning. Many participants were empathetic towards the well being of marine animals and/or their ocean environment. In nearly every case, participants displayed some degree of mo ral emotions of a sense of care or concern for the animal or environment impacted by the OSSI. This pattern is termed emotive informal reasoning. Sadler & Zeidler (2005) provide a helpful dis tinction between the three patterns keeping in mind that most ofte n these patterns inters ect or overlap during the informal reasoning process. Emotive reasoning differed from rationa listic reasoning in that rationalistic reasoning lacked the influence of emo tions. Emotive and intuitive informal reasoning are both affective classificati ons, but remain unique, because, whereas emotive patterns are directed toward real people or fict itious characters, intuitive patterns are personal reactions in response to specific aspects of the scenario. (Sadler and Zeidle r, 2005; p. 121) Examples of excerpts of informal reasoni ng patterns in response to interview questions about two OSSI (e.g., protection of endangered sea turtles and ocean pollution) are provided in Table 19. In terview excerpts presented do not capture every reason-based consideration but do provide evidence to support the reasoning pa tterns described. The context of an issue significantly influenced how individuals responded to that issue. The frequencies were variable across scenarios for which mode of reasoning was applied.

PAGE 165

152 Table 18. Examples of Inte rview Responses by Campers, Organized by Informal Reasoning Constructs Identified by Sadler ( 2003); Number of Participant (1-29) and Scenario (TH=Turtle Hurdle And OP=Ocean Pollution) Construct Example Intra-scenario coherence (Does the rationale support the stated position?) 8TH: They should not build condos on the land because usually when turtles are born there they usually go back to th e same beach that their mother does. 12OP: Uhmm, I would clean it up myself and I would get other people to clean it up. Because you can’t just wait around on someone else to do it, especially if you’re going to say something about it, like you can’t complain about it not being cleaned up because you could clean it up just as easily yourself. 2TH: If they were there for over a hundred years they come back so we shouldn’t build there unless we expect the sea turtles to die. Build the homes but as far from the coastline as possible…Sea turtles keep coming back to the same place so if you take away that place it hurt s the sea turtles even more and they’re already endangered. Counter-position construction (Can participant construct & explain a counter position?) 8TH: It doesn’t really matter to us we ar e not sea turtles, why should I take my time to write a letter? 12OP: Yeah, this one is really easy because they tell me this a lot. It’s just one thing. It’s not going to hurt, it’s just one thing. 2TH: They could say how the earth is ov erpopulated and the cost of houses is expensive, because the economy is so horrible right now… Rebuttal construction (Can participant construct a coherent rebuttal?) 8TH: It doesn’t take that long to write a letter. If you like, time manage you can find time. 12OP: If it’s just one thing then you can pick that one thing up and throw it in the garbage. Right, it’s just one thing and how many people are saying it’s just one thing, and how many times do they say that; like a day, a week, a month, a year. It all adds up to so much trash. If everyone that says it’s just one thing just picks up their one thing and throws it away we wouldn’t have all this litter every where. 2TH: I would argue the point that we don’t have to build more houses on the beach…I would say that these animals have been here for so much longer than us and that like in the whole entire ecosystem and food chain and stuff will be hurt severely if sea turtles die. Sea turtle s are like one of the on ly animals that eat jelly fish, right? If sea turtles become extinct there will be more jellyfish which means more people will be stung and that will mean more deaths right?, which means that the entire food chain would be out of whack... Scientific accuracy (Are the arguments advanced consistent with scientific information?) 8TH: Loosing a species hurts more than ju st the species. It hurts the environment and that will hurt us. So we should help them to not lose their land and their home. 12OP: …so the area around yo u or around the ocean isn’t all dirty and littered so the habitat and all the animals living in the habitat will have a better life and not die from it 2TH: Sea turtles are like one of the only animals that eat jelly fish 2TH: …these animals have been here for so much longer than us and that like in the whole entire ecosystem and food chain and stuff will be hurt severely if sea turtles die.

PAGE 166

153 Table 19. Examples of Informal Reasoning Pa tterns (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004) Evident from Written (W) and Oral (O) Responses to Ocean Socioscientific Issues; Specific OSSI; TH = Turtle Hurdle and OP = Ocean Pollution Pattern Example Rationalistic (reason-based considerations) 8THO: Losing a species hurts more than ju st the species. It hurts the environment and that will hurt us. So we should help them to not lose their land and their home. 12OPO: Uhmm, I would clean it up myself and I would get other people to clean it up. Because you can’t just wait around on so meone else to do it, especially if you’re going to say something about it, like you can’t complain about it not being cleaned up because you could clean it up just as easily yourself. So I would grab a group of friends and do it because then it’s not killing the environmen t and it just doesn’t look good at all. 12OPO: It all adds up to so much trash. If everyone that says it’s just one thing just picks up their one thing and throws it away we wouldn’t have all this litter every where. 2THO: …I think about that movie we saw when we went to Clam Bayou about the dolphins and stuff, and how bad stuff like was and then I also think about what humans do uhm, for the sea turtles, like when we turn on the lights, like, street lamps, and how some sea turtles like turn around and go to the street lamps thinking it’s the moon and how dogs eat them and how people destroy their nests … Intuitive (immediate reactions to the context of the scenario) 2THW: The world doesn’t see how bad the issue is becoming or maybe the world sees but doesn’t care 8THO: Yeah, I would say that, I want it to be like stopped if they are endangered. 12OPO: so the habitat and all the animals living in the habitat will have a better life and not die from it so it’s like really easy and it’s not hurting anyone (to clean up) 2THO: Well the first thing happens when I hear something about sea turtles all I can think about is the activity we did when we ran around that’s just, (slight laughter) the first thing I think of. ( Turtle hurdle activity that simulates turtles life cycle and longevity ). Emotive (care-based considerations) 2THO: I’ve always pretty much wanted to become a marine biologist and help these animals. They deserve to live on the planet, too. Because the frequency counts were not independ ent measures, inferential statistics, such as Chi-square analysis were not attempted. OSSI Written Responses Analysis of OSSI written responses reveal ed five content themes by consensus of two raters. Initial analysis began with review of five participant re sponses to three OSSI activities comprised of 23 que stions. Refer to Appendix D for descriptions of OSSI

PAGE 167

154 activities and written questions. The first an alysis of 115 questions resulted in nine themes identified by rater one and six th emes by rater two. Following discussions and clarification of themes, raters reached consensus on five cate gories. Themes that emerged from participants’ written responses were content knowledge (e.g. science and environmental issues), affective responses, soci al aspects, opinions and actions of what should be done, and misconceptions. A summar y of analysis of written responses and emerging themes is provided in Table 20. Participants were also given the option for the OSSI written responses to compose a persuasive letter or law about an issue of concern to a legislature. Letters were scored based on overall persuasiveness, degree of science understanding, and knowledge about the environmental issue. Eighty-three percen t of campers completed one, two or three letters each. Of these letters, all were scored based on the three criteria stated above. Letters were scored on a scale of 1-5 (1 lowest score and 5 hi ghest score). Descriptions of aspects of laws, sample excerpts are summarized in Table 21. Limitations Measuring Ocean Literacy There were a number of reasons for c hoosing to use interviews for qualitative analysis of ocean literacy. Open ended in terviews create variability, delaying the operationalization of the variab les that the researcher thi nks are important. During such interviews the participant may or may not c hoose to discuss a partic ular topic which may be important for clarifying the reasoning patte rns. While solving specific problems, on the other hand, the participant is more likely to obtain clearer in structions from the researcher regarding which partic ular topics are important and relevant to address. Of the

PAGE 168

155 three quantitative measures of ocean literac y, the SOEM instrument did not perform with the same level of precision as SOLE and SO S. I concluded, as did the measurement professor, that the in strument needed to be redesigned with better quality questions and clearer distinctions between scales. Scenario Selection for SOEM The selection of the four outdoor recreati on scenarios as somehow representative of universal activities among mo st populations is a limitati on. Although national statistics were used that suggested hiking, picnicki ng, fishing and swimming rated consistently high in terms of participation rates, it is not possible to generalize results from these specific activities and experiences. The speci fic activities included were selected as representative of popular outdoor activities that teens like ly are familiar with. However this necessary assumption presents an inherent limitation as to how the results can be interpreted. Sample Population While access to the OCG population of teen-age d girls was certainly convenient in terms of data collection, it is difficult to make generalizations and assumptions from these results. Because the participants in this study were self-selected to participate in a summer ocean sciences program, there is less likelihood that these rising 9th grade students were representative of the general student body at this age. As a consequence interpretation of the results should be made in light of these acknowledgements. Future studies in this area would benefit from a more diverse sampling pool.

PAGE 169

156 Table 20. Emergent Themes Identified from Written Responses to Ocean Socioscientific Issues (OSSI) Following OSSI Activit; Ex amples of Written Responses from 29 Participants; Italicized Text Adde d for Clarification of Statement Construct Excerpts from written responses Conceptual Knowledge (science & environmental issue) TH: Natural impacts that affect longevity are predator s such as other animals like foxes, crabs, birds TH: Human impacts that affect longevity are hunti ng (food, leather), street/shore lights, pollution, fishing nets (entanglement), and habitat loss OP: Human factors that influence are… trash/litter, boating, building, waste disposal, carelessness, selfishness, noise OP: Types of pollution are…plastic bottles, bags, glass, cigarettes, wood oil/oil spill, fishing nets/lines, Styrofoam, balloons chemicals, fertilizer OP: It is important to keep our ocean healthy for the organisms and the resources FB: There is a finite number of fish If we catch them all, they will be gone. However, they reproduce and if they are managed there will always be fish to catch FB: Sustainable management is taking only a little of a resource and leaving enough for the population Social Aspects (human impacts related to issue) TH: Sea turtles are beginning to become endangered because of trash, and plastic and … are winding up dead because of pollution TH: Sea turtles are beginning to become endangered because of trash, and plastic and … are winding up dead because of pollution OP: Yes ( government manage ), they ( citizens ) need people to tell them so they know it is serious. OP: No ( government manage problem ), because it should be on them (c itizens) to take care of their own environment FB: Fishes are a very important resource both for the economy and food…salmon fishing in CA was banned because there aren’t enough fish FB: People should research where they live and see what they can do to help FB: A little coastal development is alright But most beaches should be protected FB: We must protect breeding and spawning area s and areas in which the young fish mature Affective Reaction TH: They have a hard life since they can be attacked or killed any time TH: If you see a site that has been marked…please do not hurt them OP: The ocean is something precious and it holds more varieties of animals OP: Pick up other people’s garbage OP: It is our planet and we have a re sponsibility to keep it safe and clean FB: It is more important to protect the environment than to live on the beach FB: The fish population need as much protection and monitoring as possible to ensure more fish for consumption and a healthy ecosystem Recommendations & Actions OP: Yes ( to tax base for issue ), there is lots of money in the world, but only one ocean. If we mess it up we can’t go back. OP: Educating industries that they can comp ly with laws without sacrificing business OP: Recycle a lot more and dispose of things properly TH: Beaches known to have reproducing turtle s should be protected from development and disturbances TH: More hatcheries should be es tablished and beaches protected FB: People ( citizens, not government ) should manage the fisheries because if we can all help the environment it will be better for us and the environment FB: Fisheries should be managed by government agencies. Management may mean fewer fish collected now but we will have a steady supply forever FB: People should help to clean up our waters and drive non oil powered water vehicles Assumptions & Misconceptions TH: It is hard to get most people to lis ten to teens about the problems now a days TH: The world doesn’t see how bad the issue is becoming. Maybe the world sees but doesn’t care OP: The more managing ( of ocean pollution by government ) the better things will get and the more people will abide the laws FB: Management may mean fewer fish collected now but we will have a steady supply forever

PAGE 170

157 Table 21. Scores from Ocean Socioscientif ic Issues (OSSI) Written Response for Persuasiveness of Letters Outlining Proposed Law Related to Issue. Note, Proposed Law was Considered Persuasive if 1) Target Group and Enforcer Identified, 2) Law Clearly Defined, and 3) Penalty Identifi ed; Scores Measured on Scale 0-5; 0= did Not Write A Letter; Higher Number More Pe rsuasive Law; Zero Sc ores not Included in Average Score Estimates Group 1 Group 2Group 3Group 4Group 5 Average Score by ocean issue Turtle Hurdle Ocean Pollution Fish Banks Average Group Score, all Issues 3.66 (n=3) 3.75 (n=3) 3.66 (n=4) 3.69 3.75 (n=4) 4.00 (n=5) 3.40 (n=5) 3.72 3.25 (n=4) 3.75 (n=4) 3.75 (n=4) 3.58 3.75 (n=4) 4.00 (n=5) 4.00 (n=5) 3.92 4.25 (n=4) 4.50 (n=4) 4.00 (n=3) 4.25 3.72 4.00 3.76 Group average 3.83 Nature of Study Finally, as an exploratory study, my re sults serve as a good introduction to the discussion of how the constructs ocean knowledge and attitudes, environmental reasoning and informal reasoning about ocean sociosci entific issues influence ocean literacy via

PAGE 171

158 learning experiences in natural settings. However, this study does not claim to test a complete model of ocean liter acy. While it does address some components identified in the literature as essential to ocean literacy and reasoning (e.g., conceptual understanding, moral emotions, stewardship and motivation) there are certainly other factors not accounted for in this study that influence o cean literacy and reasoni ng within the unique context of the Oceanogr aphy Camp for Girls. Summary Results from analysis of the four resear ch questions that guided this study reveal that youth participating in this study, teen-a ged girls participating in the Oceanography Camp for Girls, had a baseline of ocean li teracy and improved their literacy over the course of the program. The constructs s howing the most significant gains were the content knowledge assessed using the Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience (SOLE); attitudes about ocean stewardship assessed using the Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS); and, environmental reasoning towards bi ocentric values asse ssed using Scenarios of Ocean Environmental Morality. The introduction of ocean socioscientific issues as part of the program revealed that youth informally reasoning about challenging ocean environmental dilemmas are capable of fo rming a position, counter-argument, rebuttal and incorporating scientific concepts in s upport of their positions. Most encouraging was that youth are willing to be a part of the solution to ocean environmental challenges and are motivated to advance from interest to commitment to action.

PAGE 172

159 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION Introduction The goal of the present study was to exam ine the validity of the construct ocean literacy as defined by COSEE (2005), within the context of an ocean education program. The purpose was to provide a baseline of data to describe what youth currently understand about the ocean and how they re ason about ocean environmental dilemmas and issues. Because the ocean is inextricably interconnected to students’ lives, it provides a significant context for soci oscientific issues that fost er decision-making, classroom discussions, human interactions and envir onmental stewardship. The present study sought to support the science education community’s understand ing of reasoning and resolution of socioscientific issues by expanding the re search to include the influence of ocean conceptual understanding (e.g., content), envi ronmental experiences (e.g., context) and environmental morality on reasoning about the ocean. The present investigation adopted a definition of ocean literacy and reasoning th at closely aligned with the international definition of scientific literacy (OECD/PI SA, 2001, p. 76), such that an ocean literate person is an individual equipped to use ocean knowledge to engage in oral or written discussion about the oceans (e.g., support a posit ion), to understand the changes made to the ocean through human activity, and to a pply ocean knowledge through actions as citizen, steward or consumer. The present study examined the role of four constructs to assess their contribution in advancing ocean literacy. These were ocean content

PAGE 173

160 knowledge, environmental attitudes and r easoning about the ocean and informal reasoning about ocean soci oscientific issues. The remainder of this chapter will discu ss the results as they align to each research question, draw conclusions from the results of this study and conclude with the study’s significance for science education practi tioners and researchers. A framework for investigating ocean literacy and reasoning was developed and evaluated (refer to Appendix F) in the context of the Oceanography Camp for Girls, summer 2008. The present research focused on teen’s ocean-con tent knowledge, environmental attitudes and morality, and informal reasoning about ocean socioscientific issues. Content and Environmental Context Content Content knowledge and environmental cont ext both mediated the development of conceptual understanding about the ocean during the ocean education program, the Oceanography Camp for Girls. Findings revealed that conceptual understanding significantly contributed to ocean literacy as evidenced in pre-post camp responses for SOLE. The difference between the mean chan ge scores for the pre and post responses was -5.489 and was statistically significant base d on a paired t-test, t= -5.027 (s.d. 5.880), p = 0.000. In addition, 100% of participants cite d the authentic ocean learning settings as significant to their understanding of ocean concepts as evidence in OCG Learning Essays. Results from the present study are c onsistent with findings that the degree of scientific content knowledge sign ificantly contributes to scie ntific literacy (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996, 2000) and reasoning about OSSI (Sad ler & Zeidler, 2004; Zeidler & Shafer, 1984; Zeidler et al., 2005).

PAGE 174

161 The present study examined the impact of building ocean content knowledge from the point of personal relevance towards sc ientific understanding by engaging youth in direct sustained experiences with nature (e .g. local ocean environments). Baseline data about ocean literacy was gathered 20 years ago (Brody, 1996; Brody & Koch, 1990; Fortner & Mayer, 1983, 1991). My study contri butes more current findings from youth participating in an informal learning setting. This was accomplished by assessing the degree of ocean literacy among youth using a multi-item ocean environmental knowledge scale (SOLE) to establish a current baseline of what is presently understood about the ocean. Further, the need to develop an ep istemology of ocean literacy to effectively engage ocean socioscientific issues (OSSI) was addressed in the present research. The Oceanography Camp for Girls provides a series of integrated ocean learning activities that successfully built content knowledge via di rect experiences with the ocean and ocean research settings. Studies that have examined levels of o cean cognitive literacy revealed a general lack of even a baseline of ocean content knowledge among youth (Brody, 1996; Fortner & Mayer, 1983, 1991), high school student s (Lambert, 2005), college students (Cudaback, 2006), and adults (Belden et al., 199 9; Steel et al., 2005) who participated in these studies. General trends suggested content gains in early grades (5th grade) with no significant gains in later grades (8th-11th). High school and unde rgraduate students who participated in a marine science course dem onstrated significant content gains in some areas of oceanography (Cudaback, 2006; Lamber t, 2005). The findings from those studies support the critical need to es tablish a validated, reliable scale to measure conceptual

PAGE 175

162 understanding about the ocean across grad e levels. The present study has initiated development of an instrument, SOLE to address this critical need. Results from the present study also demonstr ated that participants had obtained a level of conceptual understandi ng about the oceans required to reason about ocean issues. Studies related to the influence of conten t on reasoning about so cioscientific issues provided evidence that increased content knowledge influences the quality of informal reasoning (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Zeidle r & Sadler, 2005; Zeidler & Shafer, 1984). Sadler & Zeidler (2004) specifically focu sed on the role of content knowledge and informal reasoning. Results support a link between level of content knowledge and quality of informal reasoning; however, additi onal work is needed to examine the nature of the relationship in various contexts or settings. My study provided more evidence to show that in the context of the Oceanography Camp for Girls, environmental conceptual understanding about the oceans was increased an d participants were able to reasonably engage in reasoned argumentation about soci oscientific dilemmas related to the ocean environment. Context I examined the extent to which an outdoor ocean education program contributes to improved ocean literacy amongst youth. Partic ipants were engaged in ocean learning through physical interactions with multiple natural environments in the Tampa Bay region. My results corroborate the significance of context on multiple constructs of ocean literacy, namely cognitive gains to expand conceptual understanding and when reasoning about environmental dilemmas or socioscientific issues. Many researchers have identified context as a significant factor contributing to learning cont ent, moral development and

PAGE 176

163 reasoning about socioscientific issues. The evidence for a relationship between naturerich experiences and cognitive functioning ar e only just emerging. Kellert (1996, 2002) suggests that within contemporary society, ch ildren experience nature in one of three ways: direct, indirect, and symbolic. Direct experiences examined in the present study required the individual to be physically involved and interactin g with the natural world in a marine environment. My results are consistent with findings that direct experiences have great potential for positive youth development (Kals et al ., 1999; Taylor et al., 2001; Wells, 2000). Findings via thematic content analysis from Learning Essays revealed that direct experiences with the ocean environment a nd ocean research settings significantly impacted learning of ocean sciences. The Learning Essays were 500 words written response to the question, ‘Compare and c ontrast learning science during OCG with learning science in school’. This finding was further s upported by positive significant gains in ocean conceptual knowledge from SOLE pre-post responses. Results from the OCG Learning Essays were an initial analysis only and should be considered in this light. Raters analyzed 30 essays independently and identified 10 common themes without further analysis for this study. More in-depth analysis is necessary. The next steps would be to evaluate the data to see if categorie s could be collapsed. In addition, essays would be scored using the Hierarchical Complexity Scoring System (HCSS). Then, reliability of the scale could be assessed through statis tical modeling using Rasch analysis and by examining inter-rater agreement rates. In th is way scores from SOLE, SOS and Learning Essays could be cross-walked to identify re lationships and weight ed effect factors.

PAGE 177

164 My results are, therefore, consistent with findings that context is a significant and meaningful factor influencing informal r easoning about socioscientific issues. Context was reported by Sadler and Zeid ler (2005) and Zeidler and Sc hafer (1984) as a factor consistently influencing the informal reasoning patterns invoked while negotiating socioscientific decision maki ng. Sadler and Zeidler (2005) demonstrated how reasoning patterns varied significantly based on individu al’s immediate respons e to the context of six different scenarios within the context of genetic engineering dilemmas. Sadler suggested a greater context-dependence for emotive and intuitive informal reasoning patterns, as compared with rationalistic reason ing patterns. This patt ern is not as evident in the present study; however, additional informal reasoning interviews may provide more evidence of underlying trends. Environmental Attitudes In as much as content knowledge has b een shown to contribute significantly to scientific literacy, my study investigated th e extent to which know ledge contributed to ocean environmental attitudes amongst youth. It was reasonable to expect experiences in nature to carry an emotional component. St udies suggest that the affective domain is believed to precede cognition in the producti on of knowledge (Iozzi, 1989). The natural world provides opportunities for youth to e xperience such emotions as curiosity and indifference, attraction and re pulsion, courage and fear, like and dislike. It has been suggested that the intensity of these emo tions significantly affects how strongly one interprets, perceives, and rememb ers the experience (Milton, 2002). Environmental attitudes (e.g., care, con cern and connection) contributed to conceptual understanding about the ocean. Findi ngs from the present study revealed that

PAGE 178

165 teens participating in the Oceanography Camp for Girls began the program with strong positive attitudes about oceanography, stewardship, and the environment. Girls retained these positive attitudes after the camp experience. Most encouraging were findings that youth were willing to act on their feelings to actively engage in ocean stewardship activities beyond the camp expe rience. For example, 63% of 2008 campers participated in a marine debris clean-up activity and/or a habitat restoration project during an OCG Fall Reunion, three months after the summer pr ogram. Other campers participated in the International Coastal Clean-up in Septem ber 2008, which was two months after the summer program. My results are consistent with findings of others. Studies in environmental morality consistently reported the significant influence of direct personal experiences with nature in developing positive attitudes, values, and behaviors towards the environment (Caduto, 1998; Palmberg & Kuru, 2000; Zelenzy, 1999). Mittelstaedt et al. (1999) pr ovided a comprehensive study of the impacts of weeklong, outdoor, science summer camps on youths ’ attitudes and behaviors toward the environment. Results clearly demonstrated significant improvements on all levels measured, positive environmental attitudes and intentions. Most striking were the delayed post test results 12 months after the summer pr ogram that revealed 69 originally reported intentions resulted in 60 actua l behaviors toward the environment. These findings are particularly relevant to my study which will access ocean st ewardship behavior as a post impact of the three-week, summer scien ce program, 6, 9, and 12-months after the Oceanography Camp for Girls.

PAGE 179

166 Environmental Moral Reasoning The main purpose of this portion of the i nvestigation was to determine what types of environmental moral reasoning (i.e., ego centric, biocentric, anthropocentric) were demonstrated by teens when making a deci sion about ocean environmental dilemmas. The moral orientations toward nature examined were: 1) egocentric is viewing everything in relation to oneself, self has value, na ture has value only relative to self; 2) anthropocentric is viewing na ture as having value and dese rves to be protected as it affects human well-being; and, 3) biocentric is when nature is perceived as worthy of rights and protection because of its intrinsic value. This research also sought to determine whether the type of environmental reasoning used in decision-mak ing was predictive of one’s likelihood to act in an environmentally -sensitive manner. The current investigation examined reasoning within the context of various popular ocean-related outdoor recreational activities (SOEM). This study conceptualized environmental moral reasoning based upon these three constructs as a mean s of measuring the re lative importance of these pathways to environmental moral thinking and action. Studies related to environmental mora lity and its facilitation via outdoor, environmental programs show promise as a new line of research in moral development. The majority of research related to e nvironmental and outdoor education programs demonstrate a significant cha nge in students’ pro-envir onmental attitudes; however correlations with correspondi ng behaviors that align with attitudes are only recently emerging (Mittelstaedt et al., 1999). Moral environmental research has examined the influence of outdoor programs on moral or ientations (Kortnerkamp & Moore, 2001; Persing, 2006), attitudes (Palmberg & Kur u, 2000; Zelezny et al., 2000), behaviors

PAGE 180

167 (Mittelstaedt et al., 1999), a nd direct experiences with nature (Caduto, 1998; Zelezny, 1999). My study identified biocentr ic environmental reasoning as most important to youth in resolving ocean dilemmas. The results indicated that all moral dilemmas encountered during outdoor learning experiences signifi cantly elicited biocentric reasoning. Egocentric and anthropocentric reasoning were expressed for each environmental dilemma, however not signi ficantly. Patterns between various dilemmas and associated reasoning are discussed below. Biocentric orientations engender concern and interest for the ocean environment, and even result in positive actions toward the ocean. The significance in understanding these orientations has poten tial implications for decisions about natural resource management and in designing mo re effective ocean education programs. From a broad perspective, these results are consis tent with previous findings by Beringer (1992) and Kahn (2002, 2004), that individuals think in moral terms about how their actions affect the well-being an d interests of nature from biocentric and anthropocentric perspectives. The difference in reasoning was further an alyzed by looking at differences across the four scenarios. Results revealed a signi ficantly higher demonstr ation of biocentric reasoning for all four scenarios, beach wa lk scenario, picnicking scenario, fishing scenario and swimming scenario. My findi ngs differ from Persing’s (2006) findings based on similar scenarios in forest settings Biocentric reasoning was rated higher for hiking (equivalent to beach walk for presen t study), anthropocentr ic for picnicking, and no significant differences be tween fishing and swimming.

PAGE 181

168 My findings about behavioral intentions re vealed strong intenti ons for all scenarios (beach walk, picnicking, fishing or swimming). Participants were likely to follow through with their actions regardless of reasoning type. Participants of all reasoning types (egocentric, biocentric, anthropocentric) we re likely to act in an environmentallysensitive manner for each scenario. The beach walk scenario revealed one example when an overall anthropocentric re asoning orientation responded wi th a counter moral course of action of not likely to st ay on the beach, and walk in the dunes. The picnicking scenario revealed one example when an overall biocentric reasoning orientation responded with a counter moral course of ac tion of not likely to take trash home. In general the present study has de monstrated that participants elicited moral responses that were strongly care-oriented and suggest th at youth conceive of environmental dilemmas from a care perspective (empathy; Rest, 1999, moral sensitivity) and are able to judge which action is most justifiable from a mo ral perspective (Rest, 1999, moral judgment). Youth in this study demonstrated high levels of commitment to a moral action and equally high behavioral intentions. In the future, it would be interesting to survey participants who have a high level of involvement and commitment to their chosen outdoor activity as a means of determining how these factors influenced their decisionmaking process when confronted with envi ronmental moral dilemmas. My results are similar with previous findings that ex amined youths’ responses to environmental dilemmas (Persing, 2006). Persing’s findings supported that youth choosing biocentric reasoning as their most important type of moral reasoning were more likely to act in an environmentally-sensitive manner than those choosing anthropocentric or egocentric reasoning for fishing (t(223) = -2.243, p<.026) and for swimming (t(226) = -2.528,

PAGE 182

169 p<.012). Persings’s hiking (equivalent to be ach walk for present study) and picnicking did not produce significant differences between reasoning types in likelihood to act in an environmentally sensitive way. Persing ( 2006) provides to possible explanations. Participants may not have perceived the consequences of not acting as acceptable in terms of harm to others, self or the environment. For example, scenarios about trampling on wild flowers (sea oats in the pr esent study) during a hike or leaving other’s garbage at a picnic site may ha ve been perceived to have lit tle effect on their experience, others, or the well-being of the environment. Alternatively, some participants simply may not be aware of the consequences of not acting in an environmentally sensitive way towards sea oats or leaving other’s garbage. Kortenkamp and Moore ( 2001) state that, “it is more difficult to take the interests of the environment into consideration if those interests and the effects on them are eith er not known or not salient” (p. 268). Informal Reasoning about Ocean Issues My study examined the influence of in formal learning experiences on reasoning about ocean socioscientific issues. This was accomplished by directly engaging participants in ocean socioscientific role-p laying and stewardship activities, followed by open dialogue discussions, written responses and interviews. Building on the work of Sadler & Zeidler (2004, 2005), I identified the informal reasoning patterns youth demonstrated while resolving ocean e nvironmental socioscientific issues. Characteristics of Informal Reasoning Reasoning about and discussing socioscien tific issues provides opportunities to practice and experience connections between wh at science students are learning and the issues they are likely to conf ront in their daily lives. The goa l of OSSI case studies was to

PAGE 183

170 develop the competency of the learner via auth entic, direct experien ces with the ocean in order to integrate what was be ing learned with actions require d to contribute to everyday socioscientific issues in one’s community. The participants demonstrated multiple patterns of informal reasoning when resolving ocean socioscientific i ssues in the context of direct experiences with ocean environments. My findings are consistent with pr evious findings (Kahn, 1995, 1997, 1999) that youth are capable of identifying a position a nd supporting that position with scientific knowledge and moral considerations. During social interaction and discourse (e.g., written or oral) students were engaged in in formal reasoning as they negotiated and resolved complex problems that lacked cl ear solutions. Zeidler and Keefer (2003) identified eight characteristics apparent when learners are reasoning about socioscientific issues: 1) process of inquiry, 2) nego tiation, 3) discourse, 4) argumentation, 5) compromise, 6) conflict, 7) d ecision-making, and 8) commitment. OCG participants’ informal reasoning interviews manifested the following characteristics 1) negotiation, 2) argumentation, 3) conflic t, 4) decision making, and 5) commitment when reasoning about OSSI. Thus, five of th e eight characteristics were evident in the present study. Patterns of Informal Reasoning My study explored if the three informal reasoning patterns evidenced in adult college students (Sadler & Ze idler, 2005) were manifested in teen-aged girls when negotiating ocean related socios cientific issues. My results are consistent with findings that college students’ informal reasoning patterns while reso lving socioscientific issues may be (a) rationalistic, which encompasses reason based considerations; (b) emotive,

PAGE 184

171 which encompass care based considerations; and/or (c) intuitive which encompasses considerations based on immediate reactions to the context of the scenario or dilemma presented. Results from this study are consistent with previous findings that the degree of personal relevance of an issue is associat ed with increased va lidation of knowledge claims (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Zeidler et al., 2005). For my study ocean socioscientific issues were introduced after students engaged in a content-embedded role playing (e.g. Fi sh Banks, Turtle Hurdle) or stewardship activities (e.g., Coastal Cl ean-up). OSSI were select ed based on relevancy and accessibility to youth by including issues impacting where they live and play daily. Results support previous findi ngs to provide developmentally appropriate OSSI (Bingle & Gaskell, 1994; Kellert, 2002; Kolsto, 2001), an d pedagogical strategies (Pedretti, 2003; Keefer, 2003) that advance o cean literacy through social action and local relevance. The present study examined the assump tions of the Zeidler et al. (2005) framework by piloting three OSSI case studies. The approach used to present the OSSI was a new strategy for SSI implementation, not the traditional classroom-based role playing or discussion or debate OCG participants were conf ronted with OSSI dilemmas while engaged in interactive l earning activities ta king place indoors as well as outdoors in a natural setting. Participants were learning relevant content about an OSSI as they were doing an activity. The OSSI was embedded w ithin the activities (Turtle Hurdle, Fish Banks, or Ocean Pollution; refer to Appendi x E). Following engagement, participants were asked explicit questions about the OSSI via written responses and interviews. Descriptions of the OSSI lear ning activities used in this study are available in Appendix E. I also added new ocean-based OSSI to th e family of SSI topi cs. The present study

PAGE 185

172 provided an example of how to integrate conten t with flexibility and with relevancy to the students. Results support that the order of SSI presentation can be concurrent with relevant science content as evidenced by cam pers’ ability to effectively support a position on an OSSI, utilize scientific information accu rately, and identify specific ways to take action to support that position (stewardship). In contrast, some researchers have argued that learning the science content needs to precede socioscientific reasoning events (Kolsto, 2001; Sadler, 2004). Recommendations and Future Research Needs The following is a summary of research or theoretical work that is needed to address and increase our understanding of the issue—ocean literacy to promote scientific literacy and socioscientific issues. Lines of needed research include : a) opportunities to build a knowledge base for ocean literacy and have ocean learning experiences; b) professional development and access to ocean teaching resources; and c) practice and experience reasoning about ocean socioscientific issues. Opportunities to Build an Ocean-Knowledge Base As demonstrated in the current st udy, providing authentic ocean learning experiences in natural settings, research facilities, and career interviews with scientists can make a positive difference. There is a need for individuals to have opportunities to practice and to assess the integration of ocean content and ocean-related SSI as part of curriculum to initiate more relevant and m eaningful learning expe riences. One scenario for explicit connections to practice may be to integrate ocean-related SSI as part of marine science 1 and 2 courses at the high school level. Alternatively, infusing ocean science concepts and ocean socioscientific issues as part of traditional science courses

PAGE 186

173 may offer a new context to apply fundamental (e.g., standards based; Schroedinger, Cava & Jewell, 2006) science concepts. Another scenar io may be to present explicit SSI as part of experiential education programs (e.g., summe r camps, field trips to natural marine settings) to engage students in the social relevanc y of science learning in a place-based context. A final strategy is to provide place-base d learning experiences to build ocean content knowledge and develop reasoning sk ills and informed ocean decision making. Based on the current study such experiences provided relevant connections for campers to not only learn ocean knowledge but to also apply that knowledge to the place they live. Even in land-locked locations without an ocean, science c oncepts can be applied to parallel environments that characterize wher e students live. Concurrently, students are building their science knowledge via their curiosity about the ocean and applying that curiosity and science principl es in their local environm ent. Providing teachers and students with opportunities to participate in environmental field trips, student designed research projects, and current i ssues of concern to scientists in students’ place has global implications for indirectly connecting ocean concepts. Other opport unities for students to build ocean knowledge are provided by Ocean Camps, Project Oceanography, and the National Ocean Sciences Bowl. Ocean science literacy may contribut e to teaching and learning through freechoice education programs that promote scient ific and social engagement. For example, guided visits to Aquariums, Science Muse ums, and Exploratoriums could include relevant ocean socioscientific issues (OSSI). Interactive exhibits and simulation scenarios can provide ocean content that requires eval uation and a choice based on the content-rich

PAGE 187

174 experiences gained from the exhibits. Th e primary consumers at free-choice, public exhibits are school ch ildren, thus the implications are significant in advancing ocean literacy through informal learning environments. Professional Development and Teaching Resources for Ocean Literacy There is a critical need to provide te achers with professional opportunities to develop or extend an ocean knowledge base, experience using integrated content and teaching strategies, and increased exposure to textbook alternatives to teach and learn about the ocean. Next, there is a need to develop or identify existing pedagogy to effectively engage ocean socioscientific issues. There is a need to assess the effectiveness of current ocean education programs (e.g., experiential education, summer camps, high school marine science I&II courses, teacher professional development) to increase ocean literacy and the audiences targ eted. My study has provided initi al constructs to consider in this process. Practice and Experience Reasoning about Ocean Socioscie ntific Issues There is a need to develop additional o cean socioscientific case studies and to provide opportunities for practic e and experience to develop the attitudes and skills to reason about ocean socioscientific issues (O SSI). I utilized a socioscientific issues framework to provide scientific ocean-based issues that were personally and socially relevant to students. While the ocean sciences may be credible as a rich source for socioscientific issues and discourse, I am realistic in acknowledging the potential challenges for teaching and le arning about the ocean. Some examples from my teaching expe riences include a) students’ initial perception that the ocean is too far away in di stance to be of value in their daily lives, and

PAGE 188

175 b) a common belief amongst middle grade stud ents that their opinion does not matter and will not change anything. However, with expl icit attention to how the ocean connects to something within a student’s daily realm th ese perceptions can be countered. Placebased learning is a strategy that promotes m eaning in science and self identity within a science context. In most locations (places) st arting with an area’s watershed may lead to personal relevance that ultimately connects to the oceans. Another connection may be to address ocean issues from the perspective of products and consumption of products transported by ship as imported products or products produced by the ocean and used in daily life. Contribution to Science Education The areas of science education that o cean science literacy can contribute to include 1) coupled nature of science and real world topics, 2) ocean socioscientific casebased issues, 3) an integrated ocean peda gogy, 4) relevancy and c onnections of science learning to everyday life decisions thr ough ocean socioscientific issues, and 5) contributions to the paucity of ocean scie nce education research (e.g. Day, 1999; Kelly & Takao, 2002; Lambert, 2005). On a broader scal e ocean literacy contributes a) content knowledge about the planet’s largest ecosystem —the ocean, b) an integrated curriculum, and c) personal, cultural, and social relevance of ocean sciences to our everyday lives. As a discipline oceanography has rarely been examined by social scientists (Goodin, 1995; Mukerji, 1998). Geosciences education research includes many examples and applications of teaching strategies such as place-based courses (Kean, Posnanski, Wisniewski, & Lundberg, 2004; Semken, 2005), ro le playing via regi onal planning group activities (Abolins, 2004), and global warm ing debates via role playing (Rebich &

PAGE 189

176 Gautier; Schweizer & Kelly, 2005). However, th is research has not been equivalent in rigor and meaning to educational research. The present study contributes to science literacy in ge neral and specifically to ocean literacy, including an action com ponent called ocean stewardship. Science education research will benefit from this newl y emerging field of ocean literacy research as an inherent model for inte grating science content and SSI. Components of this research that contribute to the socioscientific arena are the addition of ocean environmental issues to SSI topics, and an implementation strate gy to introduce embedded OSSI through direct experiences with the ocean environment and experiential learning act ivities. Given our growing dependency on the ocean as a societ y, the relevance and critical need for research in this area will likel y grow as an integral part of international SSI research. Summary Although the oceans contribute significantly to our everyday lives, there exists a critical disconnect between wh at research scientists know about the oceans (e.g., ocean content knowledge, conservation) and what the public understands about the oceans (e.g. ocean literacy, personal releva ncy, moral decision making). Given the oceans’ critical and direct role in regulating many of the physical comforts of human society, international economies, personal and environmen tal health, the paucit y of ocean literacy is a clear and present con cern. Ocean education and lite racy that goes beyond emotive factors (e.g., care, concern and connection with the ocean) is critical and relevant towards preparing our students, teachers, and citizens to regularly contribute to ocean decisions and socioscientific issues that impact their health and we ll being on Earth.

PAGE 190

177 For the present study the role of conten t knowledge, environmental attitudes and reasoning about the ocean, and informal r easoning about OSSI were analyzed as mediating factors contributing to ocean lite racy. The significance of content (Lambert, 2005; Sadler, 2004; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004), cont ext, (e.g. culture, individual beliefs, experience, place/time in life; McGinnis, 2003; Persing, 2006; Sadler, 2004; Semken, 2005), morality (Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Persing, 2006; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003), critical thinking skills (Ault, 1998; Keefer, 2003; Zeidler, Lederman & Taylor, 1992), and the nature of science (S adler, 2004; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003) are often cited as components to attend to when enga ged in knowledge-building and socioscientific issues. Decision making is further influenced by personal experiences, emotive factors, and social considerations. Many of these same processes contributed significantly to the acquisition of ocean knowledge and resolution of ocean socioscientific issues in my study. In particular, content knowledge, contex t as direct experiences in nature, and environmental morality each contributed to ocean literacy as defined in this study. Because the ocean is inextricably interc onnected to students’ lives, it provided a significant context for socioscientific issu es that fostered decision making, social discussions, human interactions and environmental stewards hip. This study supports the science education community’s underst anding of reasoning and resolution of socioscientific issues by expa nding the research to include the influence of conceptual understanding of the ocean (e.g., content and at titudes), direct envi ronmental experiences (e.g., context) and environmental and informal reasoning about ocean dilemmas and issues.

PAGE 191

178 Science literacy research studies have primarily focused on three main areas as factors contributing to literacy (e.g., content, process skills and attitudes). The present study examined content knowledge and attitudes about scie nce and towards science. More recently socioscientific decision-ma king has emerged as a research area of scientific literacy and has advanced a f unctional aspect to literacy. Elements of socioscientific decision making that guide d this study included informal reasoning, understanding of embedded content, and emotive factors. Although current methodologies precluded direct empirical access to an individual’s ocean literacy and informal reasoning about ocean issues, the analysis of ocean learning experiences revealed underlying factors contributing to ocean literacy and d ecision-making. Findings from the present study revealed that both science content and social components contributed to ocean literacy in the context of an ocean education program. A trend that emerged across all research areas was the pervasive influence of direct, personal experiences with na ture (ocean environments) on knowledge construction, reasoning about so cioscientific issues, and environmental morality. These findings were evidenced in pre-post camp responses for SOLE, SOS, and OCG Learning Essays. The present study supported findings of others that personal experience mediated scientific knowledge without exclusion. Personal experiences emerged consistently in ocean literacy surveys as one of the most influential factors reported by adults and undergraduate students when asked about their interest in the ocean and source of prior knowledge (Belden et al, 1999; Cudabac k, 2006; Steel et al ., 2005). Studies in environmental morality consistently reported the significant influence of direct personal experiences with nature in developing positive attitudes, values, and behaviors towards

PAGE 192

179 the environment (Caduto, 1998; Palmberg & Kuru, 2000; Zelenzy, 1999). Specific to reasoning about socioscientific issues a trend is less clear, personal experience in some studies appeared to mediate scientific knowledge (Tytler, 2001; Zeidler & Shafer, 1984), while in other studies personal experience wa s used to the exclusion of scientific knowledge (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Zeidler et al., 2002). Recognizing and addressing how personal experiences affect development of ocean literacy, reasoning, and decision making was an explicit focus of the present study. The future of ocean health relates directly to personal, individual decisions about its management and exploitation. The role of prior knowledge and personal experiences in developing conceptual understa nding has been wellestablished (Berk, 2 000; Bransford et al., 1999; Flavell et al., 2002). The present study advanced ocean knowledge from the point of personal relevance to wards scientific understandi ng. As evidenced from OSSI written and oral responses, rising 9th graders participating in OCG were capable of quality decision-making about o cean socioscientific issues. In summary, ocean content, context, and reasoning all contribute to ocean literacy as defined by my study. My findings contribut e a new line of research for scientific literacy by including ocean sciences content and concepts. My study further contributes to socioscientific issues research by presen ting an alternative approach for implementing SSI via interactive content-rich activities that are embedded with SSI provided via direct experiences in nature. Finally, my research provides a series of three ocean-based socioscientific issues to present in both formal classrooms and informal learning environments (e.g., fr ee-choice learning).

PAGE 193

180 Two major education needs are at the heart of ocean science literacy. These are the need to provide (a) o cean science content and experiences as part of a 21st century integrated science curriculum, and (b) opportunities to engage in ocean-related socioscientific issues (OSSI) meaningful to the life experiences of most citizens. The present research contributes to each of thes e needs. OCG participants as citizens can contribute to the social, economic, and cultural development of an ocean literate society permeated with individual, regional, and gl obal implications. An overarching outcome of the present study was to establish that the OCG program is multimodal and goes beyond cognitive understanding to in clude social and emotive asp ects of learning. Findings from this study clearly support that OCG successfully integrates cognitive, affective, and social aspects of learning to advance ocean literacy. Supported by the findings of SOLE, the cu rrent ocean sciences standards provide a framework for building cognitive understanding about the oceans. However, current ocean literacy standards using the seven essent ial principles of ocean sciences may not be multimodal. The relevancy of social and affective aspects also critical to an ocean literate citizenry, are lacking. This study proposes that ocean literacy include engagement in OSSI and stewardship. Current ocean literacy standards inform about the ocean but do not engage people to apply what they know. I therefore reiterate the definition of ocean literacy adopted for this research. An ocean literate person is an individual equipped to use ocean knowledge, to engage in oral or written discussion about the oceans (e.g., support a position), to understand the changes made to the ocean through human activity, and to apply ocean knowledge through actions as citizen, steward or consumer

PAGE 194

181 Further research is needed to more comple tely assess the breadth and relevancy of an ocean literate person and society.

PAGE 195

182 REFERENCES CITED Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socios cientific issues in pre-college science classrooms: The primacy of learners episte mological orientations and views of the nature of science. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 41-61). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Ab-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instructi on in pre-service elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 215-233. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Lederman, N. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Maki ng the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417436. Abolins, M. (2004). A student-centered region al planning group activity for non-science majors. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52, 472-480. American Association for the A dvancement of Science (2004). AAAS Survey Report, 9 pp. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/aaas_survey_report.pdf American Association for the A dvancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061 New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc. American Zoo and Aquarium Association, (2003). AZA's Poll for the Planet 31 pp. Ault, C. (1998). Criteria of excellence fo r geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 189. Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research (8th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Batson, C., Ahmad, N., Yin, J, Bedell, S., Johnson, J., Templin, C., & Whiteside, A. (1999). Two threats to the common good: Self-interested egoism and empathyinduced altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 3-16. Belden, Russonello, & Stewart (1999a). The Ocean Project: High lights of National Survey, 3 pp. http://www.theoceanproject.org /whatwedo/research.html

PAGE 196

183 Belden, Russonello, & Stewart (1999b) Review of existing pub lic opinion data on oceans 59 pp. http://www.theoceanproject.or g/what_we_do/research.html Beringer, A. (1990). Understanding moral development and environmental values through experience. The Journal of Expe riential Education, 13, 29-34. Berk, L. (2000). Child development (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Berkowitz, M., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integr ating science educa tion and character education: the role of peer di scussion. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 117138). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bezzi, A. (1999). What is this thing called geoscience? Epistemological dimensions elicited with the repertory grid and thei r implications for scientific literacy. Science Education, 83, 675–700. Bingle, W.H., & Gaskell, P.J. (1994). Scient ific literacy for decision making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78, 185-201. Bixler, R., & Floyd, M. (1997). Nature is scary, disgusting, a nd uncomfortable. Environment and Behavior, 29, 443-467. Branscomb, A.W. (1981). Knowing how to know. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 6, 5-9. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington: National Academy Press. Brody, M., & Koch, J. (1990). An assessement of 4th-, 8th-, and 11th – grade students’ knowledge related to marine scie nce and natural resource issues. Journal of Environmental Education 21 16-26. Brody, M. (1996). An Assessment of 4th-, 8th, and 11th-grade students' environmental science knowledge related to Oregon's marine resources. Journal of Environmental Education, 27, 21-27. Brown, B.A., Reveles, J.M., & Kelly, G.J. (2005) Scientific liter acy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89, 779-802. Centers for Ocean Science Education Excellence (2005). Ocean Literacy: A Working Definition Consortium for Oceanographic Re search and Education, CORE, Washington, D.C.

PAGE 197

184 Chandler, E., & Dreger, R. (1993). Anthr opocentrism: Construct validity and measurement. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 169-188. Chawla, L. (1992). Childhood place attachments. In I. Altman & S. Low (Eds.), Human Behavior and Environment (pp. 63-86). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Praeger. Crompton, J.L., & Sellar, C. (1981). Do outdoor education experiences contribute to positive development in the affective domain? Journal of Environmental Education, 12 21-29. Cudaback, C. (2006). What Do College Students Know About the Ocean? Eos, 87, 418421. Cudato, M. (1998). Ecological educati on: a system rooted in diversity. Journal of Environmental Education, 29 11-15. Dawson, T. L. (2002). A comparison of three developmental stage scoring systems. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(2), 146-189 Dresner, M., & Gill, M. (1994). Environmen tal education at a summer nature camp. Journal of Environmental Education, 25 35-41. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312. Dunlap, R.E., & Van Liere, K.D (1978). The ‘n ew environmental paradigm’: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19. Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertlig, A., & Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP ScaleStatistical data included. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 448-463. Durant, J.R. (1994). What is science literacy? European Review 2, 83-89. Ellis, R., & Thompson, F. (1997). Culture and th e environment in the Pacific Northwest. American Political Science Review, 91, 885-897. Ewell, P. (1987). Asse ssment: Where are we? Change,19, 23-28. Flavel, J., Miller, P ., & Miller, S. (2002). Cognitive Development (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

PAGE 198

185 Fortner, R., & Mayer, V. (1983). Ohio stude nts’ knowledge and at titudes about the oceans and Great Lakes. Ohio Journal of Science, 83 218-224. Fortner, R., & Mayer, V. (1991). Repeated meas ures of student’s marine and Great Lakes awareness. Journal of Environm ental Education, 23, 30-35. Fortner, R., & Teates, T. (1980). Baseline st udies for marine edu cation: Experiences related to marine knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Environmental Education 11, 11-19. Fraser, B. J. (1991). Validity and the use of classroom environmental instruments. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 26, 5-11. Garvey, D. (1999). Outdoor adve nture programming and moral deve lopment. In S. Priest & J. Miles (Eds.), Adventure Programming (2nd ed.). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Goodin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25, 237–274. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological re asoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341-368. Hurd, P.D. (1998). Scientific liter acy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407-416. Iozzi, L.A. (1989). What research says to the educator. Part One: Environmental education and the affective domain. Journal of Environmental Education, 20, 3-9. Itin, C. (1999). Reasserting the philosophy of experiential educati on as a vehicle for change in the 21st century. Journal of Experiential Education, 22, 91-98. Kahn, P., & Friedman, B. (1995). Environmenta l views and values of children in an inner-city black community. Child Development, 66, 1403-1417. Kahn, P. (1997). Children’s moral and ecologi cal reasoning about the Prince William Sound oil spill. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1091-1096. Kahn, P. (1999). The human relationship with nature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

PAGE 199

186 Kahn, P. (2002). Children’s affiliations with na ture: Structure, development, and the problem of environmental generational amnesia. In P. Kahn & S. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature (pp. 93-116). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999) Emotional affinity toward nature as motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 178-202. Kean, W.F., Posnanski, T.J., Wisniewski, J.J., & Lundberg, T.C. (2004). Urban Earth Science in Milwaukee Wisconsin. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52, 433-437. Keefer, M.W. (2003). Moral reasoning and casebased approaches to ethical instruction in science. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7-38). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kellert, S. (1996). The value of life: Biologica l diversity and human society. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Kellert, S. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affect ive, cognitive, evaluative development in children. In P. Kahn & S. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature (pp. 117-152). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kelly, G.J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314342. Kempton, W., Boster, J. S., & Hartley, J. A. (1995). Environmental values in American culture Chapter 3. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Exp licit nature of science instruction. Science Education, 43, 395-418. Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: The psychology of moral development. The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row Publishers. Kolsto, S.D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citi zenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310. Kortenkamp, K., & Moore, C. (2001). Eco centrism and anthropo centrism: Moral reasoning about ecological commons dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 261-272. Kozoll, R.H., & M.D. Osborne (2004). Finding meaning in science: Lifeworld, identity, and self. Science Education, 88, 157-181.

PAGE 200

187 Lambert, J. (2005). Students’ conceptual unders tanding of science after participating in a high school marine science course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 531539. Lambert, J. (2006). High school marine science and science literacy: The promise of an integrated science course. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 633654. Laugksch, R.C. (2000). Scientific l iteracy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71-94. Layton, D., Davey, A., & Jenkins, E. (1986). Science for specific social purposes (SSSP): Perspectives on adult scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 13, 27-52. Leeming, F.C., Dwyer, W.O., Porter, B., & Cobe rn, M.K. (1993). Outc ome research in environmental education: A critical review. Journal of Environmental Education, 24, 8-21. Lemke, J.L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspe ctives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 296-316. Libarkin, J. C., Anderson, S.W., Science, J.D., Beilfuss, M., & Boone, W. (2005). Qualitative analysis of college students’ ideas about the Earth: Interviews and open-ended questionnaires. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 17-26. Linacre, J. M. (1995). Cate gorical Misfit Statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 9, 450-451. Linacre, J. (2002). Optimizing Rati ng Scale Category Effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3 85-106. Linacre, J. (2003). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS Rasch-model computer program s. Chicago, IL: Winsteps.com. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry Newbury, CA: Sage Publications. McComas, W. F., & Wang, H.A. (1998). Blended science: The rewards and challenges of integrating the science disciplines for instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 340-348. McCullagh, P. (1985). Statistical a nd scientific aspects of mode ls for qualitative data. In P. Nijkamp et al. (Eds), Measuring the Unmeasurable (pp.39-49). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

PAGE 201

188 McGinnis, J.R. (2003). The morality of inclusive versus exclusive settings. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on soci oscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7-38). Dordrecht: Kl uwer Academic Publishers. Milbrath, L. (1984). Environmentalists: Vanguard for a new society Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Miller, J.D. (1983). Scientific literacy : A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112, 29-48. Miller, J.D., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London, UK: King’s College. Milton, K. (2002). Loving nature: Towards an ecology of emotion. London, UK & New York, NY: Routledge. Mittelstaedt, L., Sanker, L., & Venderveer, B. (1 999). Impact of a week -long experiential education program on environmen tal attitude and awareness. Journal of Experiential Education, 22, 138-148. Mukerji, C. (1989). A fragile power: Scientists and the state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Nabhan, G., & Trimble, S. (1994). The geography of childhood: Wh y children need wild places. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. National Environmental Educati on and Training Foundation (2005). Understanding Ocean and Coastal Literacy: How Pub lic Opinion and Knowledge Research Helps Inform Ocean and Coastal Scie nce Education Programming at NOAA. National Geographic Society (2006). Ocean Literacy: The essentia l principles of ocean sciences K-12. National Geographic So ciety, Washington, D.C. National Oceanographic and Atmosp heric Administration. (1998). Year of the Ocean Discussion Papers. Office of the Chief Scientist, NOAA, Washington, D.C. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions,

PAGE 202

189 resistances, and conceptual change in students’ understa nding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86, 505-525. Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87 224-240. OECD/PISA. (2001). Measuring student knowledge and skills: The PISA 2000 assessment of reading, mathema tical and scientific literacy. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Developm ent/Programme for International Student Assessment. Olsen, M., Lodwick, D., & Dunlap, R. (1992). Viewing the world ecologically Boulder, CO: Westview. Orr, D. (1994). Earth in mind Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Orr, D. (2002). The nature of design: Ecology, culture, and human intention New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Palmberg, I., & Kuru, J. (2000). Outdoor act ivities as a basis for environmental responsibility. Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 32-36. Palmer, J., & Neal, P. (1994). The handbook of environmental education. New York, NY: Routledge. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Persing, J. (2006). Expanding the moral domain: environmental moral reasoning in outdoor recreation contexts Dissertation, Pennsylvani a State University, May 2006. Persing, J.R. (2007). On Environmental Mo ral Thinking: Outdoor Recreation as a Context for Development. U.K. :VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller. Pirages, D., & Ehrlich, P. (1974). Ark II: Social response to environmental imperatives San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Pooley, J., & O’Connor, M. (2000). Environmen tal education and attitudes: Emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environment and Behavior, 32, 711-723. Pew Ocean Commission (2003). Pew Charitable Trusts 2003: Protecting Ocean Life http://www.pewtrusts.co m/ideas/index.cfm?issue=16 Ramsey, J. (1993). The science education refo rm movement: Implications for social responsibility. Science Education, 77, 235-58.

PAGE 203

190 Rasch, G. (1980). Probalistic model for some intelligence and attainment tests Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Rebich, S., & Gautier, C. (2005). Concept mapping to reveal prior knowledge and conceptual change in a mock summ it course on global climate change. Journal of Geoscience Education 53 355-365. Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory New York, NY: Praeger. Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S., & Bebeau, M. (2000). A neo-Kohlbergian approach to morality research. Journal of Moral Education, 29, 381-395. Rop, C. (2004). Close to home: A review of the lit erature on learning in schoolyards and nearby natural setti ngs, 1980 to the present University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center. Rutherford, F.J., & A. Ahlgren (1989). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc. Ryan, C. (1991). The effect of a conservati on program on school ch ildren’s attitudes towards the environment. Journal of Environmental Education, 22, 30-35. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understa nding for functional sc ientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36 1-46. Sadler, T.D. (2003). Informal reasoning regarding sociosci entific issues: The influence of morality and content knowledge Dissertation, University of South Florida, March 2003. Sadler, T.D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536. Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). The signi ficance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific is sues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71-93.

PAGE 204

191 Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138. Schroedinger, S., Cava, F., Strang, C., & T uddenham, P. (2005). Ocean Literacy Through Science Standards. OCEANS, 2005. Proceedings of MTS/IEEE, 2005 Conference. http://coexploration.org/oceanlite racy/documents/workshopreport.pdf Schroedinger, S., Cava, F., & Jewell, B. ( 2006). The need for ocean literacy in the classroom, Part I: An overview of efforts to promote ocean literacy. Science Teacher, 73, 44-47. Schweizer, D.M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005) An i nvestigation of student engagement in a global warming debate. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 75-84. Sebba, R. (1991). The landscapes of ch ildhood: The reflecti on of childhood’s environment in adult memories and in children’s attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 23, 395-422. Semken, S. (2005) Sense of place and place-bas ed introductory geoscience teaching for American Indian and Alas ka Native undergraduates Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 149-157. Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Shepard, C.L., & Speelman, L. (1985). Aff ecting environmental attitudes through outdoor education. Journal of Environmental Education, 17, 20-23. Shields, D., & Bredemeier, B. (1995). Character development and physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Smith, E. V., Lawless, K. A., Curda, L., & Curda, S. (1999). Measuring change in efficacy. Popular Measurement, Spring, 31-33. Steel, B. S., Smith, C., Opsommer, L., Curiel S., & Warner-Steel, R. (2005). Public ocean literacy in the United States. Ocean and Coastal Management, 48, 97-114. Stephens, D., & Bredemeier, B. (1996). Moral atmosphere and judgments about aggression in girls’ soccer: Relatio nships among moral and motivational variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 158-173. Stephens, D., Bredemeier, B., & Shields, D. (1997). Construction of a measure designed

PAGE 205

192 to assess player’s descriptions and prescr iptions for moral behavi or in youth sport soccer. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 370-390. Stern, P., Young, O., & Druckman, D. (1992). Global environmental change: Understanding the human dimensions Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Taylor, A., Kuo, F., & Sullivan, W. (2001). C oping with ADD: The surprising connection to green play settings. Environment and Behavior, 33, 54-77. Thomashow, C. (2002). Adolescents and ecological identity: Attending to wild nature. In P.Kahn & S. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature (pp. 259-278). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Thompson, S., & Barton, M. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 14, 149-158. Toulmin, S. (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 815-832. United Nations (1977). UNESCO Conference in Tbilisi, Georgia, USSR in 1977 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (2004). An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st century. Final Report Washington D.C. Wells, N. (2000). At home with nature: Effect s of ‘greenness’ on children’s cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior, 32, 775-795. Wilkerson, J., & Lang, W. (2006). Measuring t eaching ability with the Rasch model by scaling a series of product and performance tasks. Journal of Applied Measurement, 7, 239-259. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: an ite m response modeling approach Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Wright, B. D. (1996). Time 1 to time 2 comparisons. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 10, 478-479. Wright, B. D., & Mok, M. C. (2004). An overv iew of the family of Rasch measurement models. In E. V. Smith & R. M. Smith (Eds.) Introduction to Rasch measurement (pp. 1-24). Maple Grov e, MN: JAM Press.

PAGE 206

193 Yerrick, R., & Roth, W.M. (2005). Introduction: The role of language in science learning and teaching. In R. Yerrick & W. M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Mult iple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 1-18). Mahwah, NJ: La wrence Erlbaum Associates. Yore, L. (2000). Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading instruction and wiringto-learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 105-122. Yore, L., & Treagust, D. (2006). Current realit ies and future possibilities: Language and science literacy---empowering rese arch and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Teaching, 28, 291-314. Zeidler, D.L. (1984). Moral issues and social policy in science edu cation: Closing the literacy gap. Science Education, 68, 411-419. Zeidler, D.L. (2001). Participating in program development: Standard F. In D. Siebert & W. McIntosh (Eds.), College pathways to the science education standards (pp. 18-22). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Press. Zeidler, D.L., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). Identi fying mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education. Journal of Research in Science Education, 21, 1-15. Zeidler, D.L., Lederman, N.G., & Taylor, S.C. (1992). Fallacies and student discourse: Conceptualizing the role of criti cal thinking in science education. Science Education, 76, 437-450. Zeidler, D.L., Walker, K.A., Ackett, W.A ., & Simmons, M.L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367. Zeidler, D.L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reas oning and the status of socioscientific issues in science educ ation: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and di scourse in science education (pp. 7-38). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Zeidler, D.L., & Lewis, J. (2003). Unifying th emes in moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and di scourse in science education (pp. 289-306). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

PAGE 207

194 Zeidler, D.L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Si mon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument and fallacies during discourse a bout socioscientific issues. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on soci oscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97-116). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E.V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for so cioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377. Zelezny, L. (1999). Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 5-14. Zelezny, L., Poh-Pheng, C., & Aldrich, C. ( 2000). Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism Stat istical Data Included. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 14 pages. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering st udents’ knowledge and ar gumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.

PAGE 208

195 Appendices

PAGE 209

196 Appendix A: Description of the Centers of Ocean Sciences Education Excellence (COSEE) The ten Centers for Ocean Scienc es Education Excellence (COSEE): promote partnerships between rese arch scientists and educators, disseminate best practices in ocean sciences education, and promote ocean education as a charismatic, interdisciplinary vehicle for creating a more scientifically literate workforce and citizenry. ocean literacy COSEE's work on ocean literacy is already guiding many local, state and national efforts to develop science st andards, instructional materials, assessments, teacher professional development programs, museum and aquarium exhibits, free choice l earning opportunities, and state and federal ocean policy. ocean careers What are your interests ? Visit OceanCareers.com for an overview of dozens of careers, learn about how to prepare for these careers, locate career guidance, and much, much more. scientist partners COSEE has ideas, inspiration, and to ols to assist scientists in becomming effectively involved in education and outreach. Visit these COSEE websites for more information: COSEE New England and COSEE California The COSEE network promotes a better understanding of the key role the ocean plays in global environmental cycles and pro cesses. COSEE activities highlight the contributions ocean science researchers make to scientific knowledge in these important areas. NSF is encouraging the ocean-science research community to become more involved in education at all le vels." (Larry Clark, acting di rector of NSF's Division of Ocean Sciences, NSF press release January 3, 2006 ) Each COSEE represents one or more ocean science research institutions, an informal

PAGE 210

197 science education organization, and at least one affiliate organization representing the formal education community. Center activities include: establishing links between people and or ganizations conducting ocean science research and those providing educationa l leadership or outreach among diverse communities providing expertise and guidance for resear ch scientists involved in education, such as conducting workshops to encour age scientists to develop collaborative grant proposals with educators or to experiment with various education and teaching strategies providing incentives and assistance for school districts and teac hers to integrate ocean sciences into their curricula facilitating the integration of research results into high-quality educational materials, as well as fostering the development and dissemination of those materials both regionally and nationally View summary information about NSF's COSEE awards here The Consortium for Oceanographi c Research and Education (CORE) in Washington D.C. coordinates the network and promotes the pr ogram, including outre ach to professional societies and organizations. Other partners at the na tional level include the Bridge project at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science the National Sea Grant College Program and the Office of Program Evaluation at the University of South Carolina.

PAGE 211

198 Appendix B: A Description of the Oceanography Camp for Girls Education Program Oceanography Camp especially for Girls http://www.marine.usf.edu/girlscamp The Oceanography Camp is a three-week summer educational program for teenaged girls who are poised to enter high school. The primary goals are to retain young womens interests in science and to encourage their pursuit of science careers by sparking their curiosity about th e natural world around them. The program provides a multidisciplinary, hands-on, inquir y learning experience in both laboratory and field environments. The camp takes place in an ocean setting at USF's marine science laboratories where students actively use the knowledge they ac quire to understand local and glob al environments. Bridging the gap between the real world and the classroom is accomplished by taking students on cruises aboard a research vessel to collect real-time data, taking them on fi eld trips to provide outdoor ecology classrooms, and engaging them in practi cal laboratory research. The Oceanography Camp seeks to actively recruit, educate and inspire all students. Under the intrinsically interdisciplinary umbrella of oceanography participants are directly involved in those disciplines in which women and minorities are most often underrepresented: chemistry, geol ogy, and physics. To date, over 800 young women have participated and include minority and non-minority girls inclusive of all learning abilities (e.g. high achieving, average, and high potential). Short-term evaluation of this program indicates that interv ention has made a difference. Alumni have: 1) taken more math and science courses in high school; 2) gained a realis tic and positive image of science and scientists; 3) improved their understanding of the research proce ss; and, 4) strengthened their commitm ent to pursue careers in math, science or engineering. Nearly 20% of alumni in colleg e are pursuing science-related degrees. Other results 93% increased interest in doing science 93% increased confidence in ability to excel in science 93% more science courses 97% understanding of research process 83% > 50% chance will become a scientist 96% participate in a similar project The uniqueness of this educational outreach lies not only in its real world environmental studies but also in its ability to provide one-to-one mentoring be tween teenaged girls and scientifically accomplished women. Participants work directly with female prof essors and graduate students from USF's College of Marine Science, as well as professionals from indu stry and governmental agencies. Community partners include the United States Geologic al Survey, Florida Wildlife Resear ch Institute, Center for Ocean Technology, and Pinellas County Schools. The OCG presents an outstanding opportunity to educate young women about the ocean environment and inspire them to assume leadership roles in the scientific fields that will alleviate some of the Earths environmental stresses. The enthusiasm expressed by new and alumni campers each year is a testament to their willingness to be involved in the ongoing process of environmental problem solving; campers provide the energy and the camp provides direction. It is our hope that the OCG will continue to inspire young women to continually learn so they are well prepared to make informed, societally relevant decisions. We are grateful for support from the United States Geol ogical Survey Center for Coastal and Watershed Studies, Progress Energy Foundation, and contributors to Camp Endowments.

PAGE 212

199 Appendix C: Three Quantitative Instru ments Developed to Measure Ocean Literacy Survey of Ocean Literacy and Experience (SOLE) Instrument Question Answer Answer Answer Answer Answer Answer 1. Approximately how much of the earth is covered by ocean? a. 30% b. 50% c. 60% d. 70% e. 90% f. 97% 2. There is one big ocean. The continents divide the ocean into basins. Which of the following are major ocean basins? a. Arctic, Red Sea, Atlantic, Pacific b. Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea c. Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Bering Sea d. Arctic, Pacific, Atlantic, Indian e. Pacific, Caribbea n Sea, Atlantic 3. Rivers supply most of the salt to the oceans, which comes from a. seafloor reactions b. eroding land c. volcanic emissions d. atmosphere e. all of these f. none of these 4. The movement of the earth's lithospheric plates influences an ocean basin's a. shape b. features (islands, trenches) c. color d. size e. answer a, b & d 5. The ocean's circulation (currents) is powered by a. tides b. winds c. earth's rotation d. both a and b e. answer a, b & c 6. What processes cause sea level changes? a. plate tectonics b. ice caps melt & grow c. seawater expands & contracts d. sea level does not change e. answer a, b & c 7. Approximately how much of the earth's water is fresh and unfrozen (neither ice nor ocean)? a. >50% b. 40-50% c. 20-30% d. 10-20% e. 3% f. 1% 8. The ocean is connected to all the earth's water reserves (supplies) via a. condensation b. precipitation c. evaporation d. both b and c e. none of these f. all of these

PAGE 213

200 Appendix C (continued) 9. Which of these statements best describes the depth of the ocean? a. less than 1/100th the diameter of the earth b. about 1/100th of the diameter of the earth c. about 1/10th the diameter of the earth d. about 1/2 the diameter of the earth e. none of these describe the depth of the ocean 10. The ocean contains the earth's a. flattest plains b. highest mountains c. deepest valleys d. all are in the ocean e. none are in the ocean 11. The path of ocean circulation is influenced by a. satellites b. shape of ocean basins c. adjacent land masses d. both b and c e. none of these 12. Many earth materials originated in the ocean. Which rock type now exposed on land in the Southwest U.S. formed in the ocean? a. igneous b. metamorphic c. sedimentary d. all of these e. none of these 13. The ocean is large and finite. It's resources are a. unlimited b. all renewable c. all nonrenewable d. limited e. answer a and b 14. Approximately what fraction of the total water on earth is in the ocean? a. 42% b. 34% c. 52% d. 72% e. 97% f. 99% 15. Which of the following are transported by rivers from watersheds to estuaries and to the ocean? a. nutrients b. salts c. sediments d. pollutants e. all of these f. answer b and d 16. In nature, which factors redistribute sand along a beach? a. wave motion b. coastal currents c. tectonics d. birds e. plants f. answer a and b 17. Sea level changes over time have a. increased and decreased continenta l shelves b. created and destroyed inland seas c. shaped the surface of land d. all of these e. none of these 18. Sediments are formed from erosion of land based earth materials. These include a. rocks b. minerals c. soils d. plants and animals e. all of these f. none of these

PAGE 214

201 Appendix C (continued) 19. Climatic conditions constantly change and erode the landscape of barrier islands (beaches). Climatic changes occur in the form of a. heavy winds b. wave action c. tidal surges d. coastal storms e. all of these f. none of these 20. Water moves from the ocean to the atmosphere to the land and back again to the ocean by a process called a. water shed b. hurricane c. water cycle d. tsunami e. cyclone f. perfect storm 21. The physical structure and landforms of the coast are naturally influenced by a. sea level changes b. force of waves c. gopher tortoises d. tectonic activity e. answer a, b and d f. none of these 22. If our planet were without its ocean but otherwise the same as it is today, would surface temperatures be more extreme than they are now (warmer summers and colder winters) or less extreme, or what? a. more extreme b. less extreme c. no change in temperature s 23. Which sources put the most oil in the ocean? a. oil spills from ships b. leaks from refineries and pipelines c. used motor oils washed into storm drains d. leaks from offshore oil rigs e. none of these sources put oil in the ocean 24. What is the source of most trash on the beaches in the U.S.? a. municipal garbage dumped at sea b. people playing on the beach and leaving trash c. people smoking on the beach d. cruise ships dumping trash at sea d. none of these are sources put trash on beach 25. The ocean dominates the earth's carbon cycle. Approximately how much of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean? a. 30% b. 50% c. 60% d. 70% e. 90% f. 97%

PAGE 215

202 Appendix C (continued) 26. What is the essential nature of barrier islands? a. static and stability b. motion and change c. none of these 27. All but one of the following decompose in ocean water a. sewage b. tin cans c. plastic bags d. chemical fertilizers 28. The ocean controls weather and climate by dominating which of the earth's systems? a. energy b. plants c. water d. carbon e. answer a, c, & d f. none of these system s 29. By which process does the ocean lose heat that it absorbs from solar radiation? a. precipitati on b. condensation c. evaporation d. both a and c e. both a and b f. all of these 30. Most rain that falls on land originally evaporated from the a. tropical ocean b. polar ocean c. temperate ocean d. rain does not begin in ocean e. none of these 31. Global weather is changed by the El Nino Southern oscillation by changing the way heat is released in the atmosphere over which ocean basin? a. Atlantic b. Pacific c. Gulf of Mexico d. Indian e. Arctic f. Red Sea 32. The ocean dominates the earth's carbon cycle. Approximately how much primary production on earth takes place in the sunlit areas of the ocean? a. 30% b. 50% c. 60% d. 70% e. 90% f. 97% 33. The ocean has and will continue to have a significant influence on climate change by storing, absorbing, and moving a. salts b. carbon c. heat d. water e. plants f. answer b, c & d

PAGE 216

203 Appendix C (continued) 34. The uneven heating of the earth's surface causes the ocean's temperature to vary with latitude. Which of the following is ordered from warmest ocean water to coldest ocean water? a. temperate to equator to poles b. equator to poles to temperate c. poles to temperate to equator d. temperate to poles to equator e. equator to temperate to poles 35. Most of the living space on earth is found a. on the land b. in the ocean c. in the atmosphere d. equally in all areas 36. Pressure in the ocean increases with depth. What happens to temperature? a. increases with depth b. decreases with depth c. stays the same d. increase & decrease e. none of these 37. What happens to sunlight in the ocean as depth increases? a. increases with depth b. decreases with depth c. stays the same d. increase & decrease e. none of these 38. Where is a greater diversity of living organisms found? a. on the land b. in the ocean c. both equally 39. What produces most of the earth's oxygen? a. forests b. plants (algae) in the ocean c. both equally d. none of these 40. Which of the following groups of organisms would be more closely related? a. bony fish, jelly, seastar, crayfish b. spider, crab, insect, mouse c. human, cat, dog, manatee d. alligator, shark, bony fish, pelican 41. Ocean life ranges in size from the smallest virus to the largest animal that has lived on earth, called the a. giant squid b. basking shark c. blue whale d. sperm whale e. Locness monster 42. The most abundant life form in the ocean is a. phytoplankton b. fishes c. shrimp d. microbes e. zooplankton 43. In the ocean living spaces and habitats are found a. at the surface b. in the water column c. on the seafloor d. all of these e. none of these

PAGE 217

204 Appendix C (continued) 44. Ocean habitats are defined by environmental factors. Life is not evenly distributed due to interactions of abiotic factors such as a. nutrients b. sunlight c. pH d. oxygen e. substrate f. all of these 45. Which of the following causes vertical zonation patterns along the shore that influence the distribution and diversity of organisms? a. predation b. waves c. tides d. both a and c e. all of these f. none of these 46. Marine habitats that have brackish water and provide productive nursery areas for many marine species are a. seas b. estuaries c. rivers d. open ocean e. lagoons 47. Deep ocean ecosystems that are independent of energy from sunlight and photosynthetic organisms are a. hydrothermal vents b. submarine hot springs c. methane cold seeps d. both b and c e. all of these 48. Which ocean ecosystem provides habitat for one-third of all marine species? a. coral reef b. seagrass meadow c. mangrove forest d. open ocean e. estuary 49. The ocean is the last and largest unexplored place on earth. How much of the ocean remains unexplored? a. 30% b. 50% c. greater than 90% d. less than 5% e. 65% 50. Why is it important to study the ocean? a. better understan d ocean systems b. satisfy our curiosity c. understand ocean processes d. not important to study the ocean e. answer a, b & c 51. Over the last 40 years, use of ocean resources has significantly increased. Why is it important to know this? So that we a. can do our part to sustain the resources b. will discontinue ocean recreational activities c. will better understand ocean resources and limitations d. answer a, b & c e. both a and c

PAGE 218

205 Appendix C (continued) 52. Which of the following statements are true about the ocean? a. It provides food and medicine b. It provides mineral and energy resources c. It provides transportatio n and jobs d. It benefits our economy and national security e. All of these f. both c and d 53. Ocean scientists are relying more and more on which of the following technology tools to explore the ocean? a. buoys b. satellites c. subsea observatories d. unmanned submersibles e. all of these f. both c and d 54. What does the statement, the ocean and humans are inextricably connected mean? Humans need the ocean a. for freshwater b. for oxygen c. to regulate the temperature d. for new health cures e. all of these 55. Humans affect the ocean in a variety of ways. Human development and activity often leads to a. pollution (point, non-point, noise) b. physical changes to beaches c. removal of most large vertebrates d. answer a, b & c e. humans do not affect the ocean 56. Which natural hazards can impact coastal regions? a. bird migrations b. hurricanes c. storm surges d. both b and c e. none of these 57. Which of the following statements is most relevant to ocean literacy? Much of the world’s population lives a. near rivers b. in rural areas c. in coastal areas d. in mountain areas e. in wooded areas

PAGE 219

206 Appendix C (Continued) Survey of Ocean Stewardship (SOS) Instrument Here are a number of statements that may or may not describe your beliefs about learning oceanography (Cudaback, 2006). You are asked to rate each statement by selecting a number between 1 and 5 where the numbers mean the following: 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neutral 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree Choose one of the above five choices that best expr esses your feelings about the statement. If you dont understand a statement, leave it blank. If you have no strong opinion, choose 3. 1. Thinking like a scientist helps me understand the ocean.3 2. The topics I study in oceanography are not related to each other. 3 3. I cannot learn oceanography if the t eacher does not explain things well in class.1 4. I study oceanography to lear n knowledge that will be usef ul in my life outside of school.1 5. Nearly everyone is capable of understanding oceanography if they work at it.1 6. To understand oceanography I discuss it with friends and other students.1 7. The subject of oceanography has little relation to what I experience in the real world. 3 8. To understand oceanography, I sometimes think about my personal experiences and relate to the topic being analyzed. 1 9. When studying oceanography, I relate the important information to what I already know rather than just memorizing it the way it is presented. 1 10. A significant problem in learning oceanog raphy is being able to memorize all the information I need to know. 2 11. I can usually make sense of how the ocean works. 2 12. Spending a lot of time understanding why the ocean behaves and reacts the way it does is a waste of time. 2 13. Learning oceanography changes my ideas about how the world works. 2 14. Reasoning skills used to understand oceanography can be helpful to me in my everyday life. 2 1CLASS 2CLASS-Geosciences 3 Cudaback, C. (2006). What do college students know about the ocean? Eos, 87, 418-421.

PAGE 220

207 Appendix C (Continued) Here are a number of statements that may or may not describe your beliefs about protecting the ocean (Cudaback, 2006). You are asked to rate each statement by selecting a number between 1 and 5 where the numbers mean the following: 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neutral 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree Choose one of the above five choices that best expr esses your feelings about the statement. If you dont understand a statement, leave it blank. If you have no strong opinion, choose 3. 15. My actions can have a significant effect on the health of oceans and coastal areas. 3 16. I have a personal responsibility to work for the health of oceans and coastal areas. 3 17. I know some specific things I could do to help the ocean. 3 18. I am familiar with the environmental issu es facing the coastal areas in my home state. 3 19. I am familiar with the issues facing the global ocean. 3 20. I have enough background knowledge to write a substantive letter to my congressional representative about an issue affecting the ocean. 3 21. The ocean and coastal regions overall are so vast and healthy that th ey can continue to absorb pollution and other kinds of man-made stresses for the foreseeable future.4 22. Human-made stresses are endangering coastal regions and the oceans ability to sustain itself and may well be leading to long-term damage and serious problems. 4 23. The health of the ocean is important to human survival. 5 24. We do not need to worry about the health of the oceans, because we will develop new technologies to keep them clean. 5 25. What I do in my life do esnt impact the ocean at all? 3 26. Business and industry should be responsible for protecting marine environments.6 27. Government should be responsible for protecting marine environments.6 28. Individual citizens should be responsible for protecting marine environments. 6 29. Agriculture and forestry should be responsible for protecting marine environments.6 4AAAS Public Opinion Survey 5Ocean Project Public Opinion Survey 6Based on questions used for Minnesota Environmental Literacy Report Card

PAGE 221

208 Appendix C (Continued) Here are a number of statements that may or ma y not describe your beliefs about the relationship between humans and the environment (Cudaback, 2006). For each one, please indicate your agreement by selecting a number between 1 and 5 where the numbers mean the following: 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neutral 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree 30. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support. 7 31. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. 7 32. When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences. 7 33. Human ingenuity will ensure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable.7 34. Humans are severely abusing the environment. 7 35. The earth has plenty of natural resour ces if we just learn how to develop them. 7 36. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. 7 37. The balance of nature is strong enoug h to cope with the impact of modern industrial nations. 7 38. Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature. 7 39. The so-called ecological crisis f acing humankind has been greatly exaggerated. 7 40. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. 7 41. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature. 7 42. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. 7 43. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. 7 44. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. 7 7New Ecological Paradigm: Dunlap & Van Liere (2000). Journal of Social Issues 56 (3), 448-442.

PAGE 222

209 Appendix C (Continued) Scenarios of Ocean Environmenta l Morality (SOEM) Instrument Section A: This section asks a few questi ons about yourself, your family &your friends 1 What is your age? _____ 2 What is your gender? ____ Female _____Male 3. Which of the following categories best describes the area where you currently live? (Circle one). o Farm or rural area o Small town (fewer than 10,000 people) o Large town or small city (at least 10,000 people but less than 50,000) o Medium-sized city, including suburbs (at least 50,000 people but less than 250,000) o Large city, including suburbs (250,000 people or more) 4. Which category best describes the area where you grew up? o Farm or rural area o Small town (fewer than 10,000 people) o Large town or small city (at least 10,000 people but less than 50,000) o Medium-sized city, including suburbs (at least 50,000 people but less than 250,000) o Large city, including suburbs (250,000 people or more) 5. Over the past year, how often have you talked with your family about environmental issues like air and water pollution, recycling, buying environmentally-fri endly products, and carpooling? (circle one) never only a few times a few times a month a few times a week once or twice a year 6. Over the past year, how often have you talked with your friends about environmental issues like air and water pollution, recycling, buying environmentally-fri endly products, and carpooling? (circle one) never only a few times a few times a month a few times a week once or twice a year 7. Over the past year, how often have your family recycled things like cans, bottles, plastics and newspapers? (circle one) never only a few times a few times a month a few times a week once or twice a year 8. Over the past year, how many of your friends do you think have recycled things like cans, bottles, plastics and newspapers? (circle one) none one or two some most all 9. Over the past year, how often has your family bo ught environmentally-friendly products like organic foods, dolphin-safe tuna, or all-natural cleaning products? (circle one) never only a few times a few times a month a few times a week once or twice a year 10. Over the past year, how many of your friends do you think have bought environmentally-friendly products like organic foods, dolphin-safe tuna, or all-natural cleaning products? (circle one) none one or two some most all

PAGE 223

210 Appendix C (Continued) Section B SCENARIO 1: BEACH WALK Imagine that you are WALKING along an undeveloped beach. The beac h is in a state park public land, meaning that it is owned by the state of Florida for everyone to use. You come to a sand dune covered with sea oats (tall grasses that are protected in Florida) You notice that some people have walked through the dune. Some of the sea oats have been trampled and crushed where they walked. The beach has signs along the way saying “stay off the sand dunes and no picking sea oats.” It looks like it might be fun to walk through the dunes and sea oats. 11. How much do you agree that it O.K. for a person to walk through the sand dunes? (circle one) Strongly agree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Strongly disagree 12. Some people say it is all right because the sea oats w ill grow back. How much do you agree with these people? (circle one) Strongly agree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Strongly disagree 13. Imagine that you really are in this situation. What would you do? (circle one) I would walk through the sand dune. I would not walk through the sand dune. Suppose you are thinking about not walking through the sand dune. Read the following statements and then circle the statement that indicates how important each reason would be in making a decision to not walk through the dune. I would not walk through the sand dune because: 1) Extremely important to me 2) Somewhat important to me 3) Neither Important nor Unimportant 4) Somewhat not important to me 5) Not at all important to me 14) It could destroy the dunes and then the park officials might close the beach to beach combers. 15) There are some parts of nature that should remain as they are and not be disturbed. 16) The sand dunes don’t have a trail through it and if people started walking through the dunes they could fall and get hurt. 17) All plants and animals in the dunes are living beings just like us and walking through the dunes may hurt them. 18) There wouldn’t be as many sea oats for me to enjoy viewing. 19) It is important to live in balance with nature and not harm more than we need to. 20) I want to leave the dunes pretty and attractive for others to enjoy viewing. 21) The beach belongs to everyone and nobody has the right to ruin it for others. 22) I should be responsible to the places I enjoy so I can continue to enjoy them. 23. With which one of the above reasons do you most agree with? (a, b, c, d, e, f ,g, h, or i) ______ 24. Based on the reason you most agree with, how likely are you to stay on the beach. (circle one) not at all not very a little bit somewhat very likely likely likely likely likely

PAGE 224

211 Appendix C (Continued) Section B SCENARIO 2: PICNICKING SCENARIO Imagine that you are having a PICNIC in a state park located along the bay or ocean with your family After finishing your picnic, you notice that all of the trash cans are full and there is no room in them for your garbage. You did not bring any garbage bags of your own and it would be easy to just leave garbage there for someone else to clean up. There is no one else at the picnic area to see what you do. 25. How much do you agree that it is O.K. for a person to leave their garbage? (circle one) Strongly agree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Strongly disagree 26. Some people say it is all right because someone will clean it up. (circle one) Strongly agree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Strongly disagree 27. Imagine that you really are in this situation. What would you do? (circle one) I would leave the garbage. I would not leave the garbage. Suppose you are thinking about not leaving your garbage Read the following stat ements and then circle the statement that indicates how important each reason would be in making a decision not to leave your garbage at the picnic site. 1) Extremely important to me 2) Somewhat important to me 3) Neither Important nor Unimportant 4) Somewhat not important to me 5) Not at all important to me 28 ) If the picnic area is left dirty, people like myself will not want to visit again. 29) The plants and animals in the ar ea are living creatures just like us and they have a right to live in a clean area just like we do. 30) Nobody has the right to litter the picnic area, it is there for everyone to enjoy. 31) The picnic area is a part of nature and should be preserved for its own sake. 32) I want it to be kept clean for the next time I visit. 33) No one wants to see litter and garbage when are out on a picnic. 34) It is important for people to live in balance with nature. 35) If people litter, it costs money to clean it up and the people who use the picnic area are the ones who will end up paying for it. 36) I should be responsible to the places I en joy so that I can continue to enjoy them. 37. With which one of the above reasons do you most agree with? (a, b, c, d, e, f ,g, h, or i) ______ 38. Based on the reason you most agr ee with, how likely are you to take your garbage home. (circle one) not at all not very a little bit somewhat very likely likely likely likely likely

PAGE 225

212 Appendix C (Continued) Section B SCENARIO 3: BAY FISHING Imagine that you are FISHING at a bay. The bay is on public land, meaning that it is owned by the state of Florida for everyone to use. The bay is “catch and release” only, m eaning that you cannot keep any of the fish that you catch. You have just caught the biggest fish of your life and wo uld really like to take it home to show all of your friends. 39. How much do you agree that it O.K. for a person to keep the fish? Strongly agree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Strongly disagree 40. Some people say it is all right because it’s only one fish and there are many others in the bay. Strongly agree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Strongly disagree 41. Imagine that you really are in this situation. What would you do? (circle one) I would leave the fish. I would not leave the fish. Suppose you are thinking about leaving the fish Read the following statements and then circle the statement that indicates how important each reason would be in making a decision to leave the fish in the bay? 1) Extremely important to me 2) Somewhat important to me 3) Neither Important nor Unimportant 4) Somewhat not important to me 5) Not at all important to me 42 ) We can live in harmony with nature without taking fish we don’t need. 43) Nobody has the right to break the rule because the bay is there for everyone. 44) I like to see a lot of big fish in the bay. 45) Fish belong in the bay, it is their home 46) People want to see a bay full of fish. 47) Fish are living creatures just like us and have a right to live. 48) Other people come to the bay to fish and would like the opportunity to catch big fish. 49) If it is over fished (too many fish taken) I cannot fish there anymore. 50) I should be responsible to the places I en joy so that I can continue to enjoy them. 51. With which one of the above reasons do you most agree with? (a, b, c, d, e, f ,g, h, or i) ______ 52. Based on the reason you most agree with, how lik ely are you to put the fish back in the ocean. (circle one) not at all not very a little bit somewhat very likely likely likely likely likely

PAGE 226

213 Appendix C (Continued) Section B – SCENARIO 4: OCEAN SWIMMING SCENARIO Imagine that you are SWIMMING at this ocean in a state park with so me of your friends. It is a hot day and you are sitting on the beach eating lunch. As yo u get your sandwich out of the cooler, you notice the freezer pack keeping your sandwich cold has leaked all over the bottom of the cooler. You want to wash out the cooler and the ocean is a closer sour ce of water to you than the showering area. You remember that the freezer pack co ntains chemicals that may or may not be harmful to the ocean and all the things that live and swim in the ocean 53. How much do you agree that it O.K. for a person to wash the cooler in the ocean? Strongly agree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Strongly disagree 54. Some people say it is all right because it is only one small amount of pollution and it’s no big deal. Strongly agree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Strongly disagree 55. Imagine that you really are in this situation. What would you do? (circle one) I would wash the cooler in the ocean. I would not wash the cooler in the ocean. Suppose you are thinking about not washing the cooler in the ocean. Read the following statements and then circle the statement that indi cates how important each reason woul d be in making a decision not to wash the cooler in the ocean? 1) Extremely important to me 2) Somewhat important to me 3) Neither Important nor Unimportant 4) Somewhat not important to me 5) Not at all important to me 56 ) The ocean and the fish have value for their own sake and deserve respect. 57) If we pollute the water it could cause people to get sick if they swim in it. 58) The ocean is a living thing with fish and plants that have the right to live and be healthy just like us 59) People want to see clean water when they go swimming, not dirty, gray water. 60) I want it to be kept clean for the next time I visit. 61) We are part of nature and so we must learn to live in balance with it. 62) If the ocean got polluted I wouldn’t swim in it anymore. 63) The ocean is for everyone to enjoy and we should keep it clean for everyone. 64) I should be responsible to the places I en joy so that I can continue to enjoy them. 65. With which one of the above reasons do you most agree with? (a, b, c, d, e, f ,g, h, or i) ______ 66. Based on the reason you most ag ree with, how likely are you to wa sh the cooler somewhere else. (circle one) not at all not very a little bit somewhat very likely likely likely likely likely

PAGE 227

214 Appendix C (Continued) Section C: This section asks abou t your favorite outdoor activities. Over the past year, about how often have you participated in these activities when in season? (Place an X in the answer of your choice) Never Once or twice Few times Year Few times a month Few times a week Fishing Hiking Ocean Swimming Jet-Skiing Picnicking Canoeing/Kayaking Bird Watching Bicycling Boating on the bay or ocean Surfing/boogey boarding Snorkeling/scuba diving Walking along the beach Sunbathing on the beach Sail boating Water Skiing Others (list) Others (list) Others (list)

PAGE 228

215 Appendix D: Description of Ocean Soci oscientific Issue Case Studies and Questions for Written Responses Description of Turtle Hurdle (Case Study I), a marine species and habitat protection role playing activity (Turtle Hurdle 1987 Western Regional Environmental Education Council) The objectives of Turtle Hurdle are that students will be able to: 1) describe the life cycle of sea turtles; 2) identify sp ecific mortality factors related to sea turtles; 3) make inferences about the effects of limiting factors on sea turtle populations; and 4) make recommendations for ways to minimize the factors which contribute to the possible extinction of sea turtles. The methods are th at students become sea turtles and limiting factors in a highly ac tive simulation game. After completing the activity, enc ourage the students to discuss the results. It is likely that some students will be disturbed by the high mort ality of the turtles and will benefit from the realization that there ar e groups actively trying to dimi nish human contributions to such high mortality. However, it is also im portant to emphasize that natural limiting factors are built into the scheme of things. If all sea turtle eggs survived, there might well be an overabundance of these creatures. Many animals produce more young than will survive, serving as food for other species as a part of nature’s dynamic balance. Following the activity, participants provided written responses to the following six questions. 1. Describe and illustrate the major stages of sea turtles’ life cycle, beginning with the egg. 2. Summarize the importance of the high num bers of turtles that result from one reproduction cycle. Identify and discuss the f actors that limit the turtles’ survival. 3. Since sea turtles are threatened with extin ction, the limiting f actors affecting their survival seem to be out of balance. What specific recommendations would you suggest to increase the successful reproduction and survival of sea turtles? 4. Name at least four limiti ng factors that prevent sea tu rtles from reaching the adult breeding stage. 5. Write a law that would help to protect s ea turtles. What would the law include? Who would enforce it? 6. Write a persuasive letter to your state legi slature describing an ocean socioscientific issue of importance to you and why and what legislation should be put in place to address the issue.

PAGE 229

216 Appendix D (Continued) Description of Fish Banks (Case Study II), a natural marine resource deci sion making role-playing activity (Fish Banks 1992 University Massachusetts) How to introduce the game: We are going to play a game with several team s. It will take seve ral hours to play this game. To play this game succe ssfully, each team will need to 1. work well together as a team 2. formulate and stick to a long-term strategy. If a team accomplishes both 1 and 2, they will prosper. If they fail in either criterion, they will go broke (bankrupt). Congratulations! You and the other teams ha ve just bought fishing companies. You and the other teams will be in competition to maximize assets by buying and selling fishing boats and by deciding where to send them fishing. You have bought into an extremely successful industry. As you can see, the catch has been going up with time and so has the number of fishing boats. The “wiggles” in the catch through time are due to the weather (overhead B13). Some years have good w eather and bigger catches; some have bad weather and smaller catches. But overall the catch has been increasing through time. This game has several parts (overhead B14). The ocean is divided into three areas: the deep sea, the coastal area, and the harbor. Th ere is also a bank and a shipyard where new fishing boats are constructed. During this game, each team will need to make team decisions about Whether to or not to expand your fishing boat fleet and Where to send the boats fishing. To help structure decision making by each team we have given you a decision sheet. It has three areas: Annual Report: It has 7 lines Each team will get a co mputer printout for each fishing year that will help you fill this out. Auctions, trades and orders: This lets each team keep track of how many boats they have. Remember, building new boats takes a year! Where you send your boats to fish each year. Play game for 10 years. Keep a running tally of each year’s results including catch/unit effort, total fish caught/area, total profits and expenses.

PAGE 230

217 Appendix D (Continued) Following the activity, participants provided written responses to the following nine questions. 1. What natural factors influence th e number of fish in the sea? 2. What human factors influence the number of fish in the sea? 3. Fish catch is the principal determinant of success in the game. What 3 factors influenced the number of fish that are caught each year? 4. What is sustainable management of a natura l resource, like fishes? On the back of this page, write a law that would help to protect fisheries st ocks. What would the law include? Who would enforce it? 5. Should fisheries be managed by gove rnment agencies like NOAA National Marine Fisheries and state agencies like the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission? Why or why not (support your position)? 6. Are fish populations a limited or non-limited resource in the ocean? 7. How do you suggest humans decide between coastal development for places to live and protecting coastal marine habitats (sea grass meadows, mangrove forests, and open beaches) for fishes to grow and develop? 8. List up to five questions that you would like to consider before making decisions about managing a natural ocean resource (living or non-living)? 9. On the back of this page, write a pers uasive letter to your state legislature describing an ocean socioscientific issue of importance to you and why and what legislation should be put in place to address the issue.

PAGE 231

218 Appendix D (Continued) Description of Marine Pollution and Coas tal Clean-up Activity (Case Study III), a participatory ocean stewardship activity (Oceanography Camp for Girls 1992 University of South Florida) The objectives of Coastal Clean-up Activity are th at students will be able to: 1) identify the sources of marine pollution and debris; 2) identif y specific types of marine pollution and debris; 3) make inferences about the effects of marine pollution and debris; on the ocean environment; and 4) make recommendations for ways to mini mize the factors which contribute to marine pollution and debris. The methods are for students to first view two vide os related to marine pollution. The first video titled, Saving Inky, demonstrates the effects of marine debris (plastic bags) on a pygmy sperm whale rescued and rehabilitated by NOAA and the Baltimore Aquarium. The second video titled, Marine Debris, is a visual overview of the sour ces, types, and impacts of marine debris on the ocean and coastal environments. The impacts on the living and non-living resources in the ocean are emphasized. After viewing the videos, students are encouraged to openly dialogue about what they heard and saw, how they felt, and to put forth recommendations to diminish human contributions to marine debris. All marine debris is from human origins. The number one source of marine debris is from recreational activities. Following the dialogue session, students are invited to participate in a Coastal Clean-up and divided into teams. Data sheets, safety gear (g loves, trash pickers), collection receptacles, and pencils are distributed. Data sheets are provided by the Ocean Conservancy. All data collected by participants is then given to the Ocean Conservanc y and is incorporated into an international data set on marine debris. Statistics are published from this data set annually from coastal clean-up events that take place throughout the year nationa lly and internationally. Participants record the debris items collected and count the number of each item collected. After completing the activity, participants are enc ouraged to discuss the results. It is likely that some students will be disturbed by the amount of marine debris readily collected within the 30minutes of the clean-up. However, most benefit fro m the realization that there are groups actively trying to diminish human contributions to marine pollution and that they can volunteer for these activities after the camp. The activity is closed by emphasizing that marine pollution is an issue that we can all contribute to bettering by ac tively acting and helping others to act in environmentally sensitive ways with our indivi dual debris. The impact of marine debris on nature’s dynamic balance is also highlighted. Participants complete Ocean Con servancy data sheets and compare data with other teams for the most abundant debris item, most unusual, and most overall debris collected by weight by a team.

PAGE 232

219 Appendix D (Continued) Following the activity, participants provided written responses to the following eight questions. 1. List ten types of ocean pollution. 2. What human factors influence the pollution in the ocean? 3. Should ocean pollution be managed by fe deral and state government agencies? Why or why not? 4. Would you be willing to vote for tax dollars to be used to enforce and clean-up ocean pollution? Why or why not? 5. How do you suggest humans manage po llution and keep it from entering the ocean? 6. List up to five questions that you would like to consider before making decisions about managing ocean pollution. 7. Write a law that would help to protec t fisheries stocks. What would the law include? Who would enforce it? Use the back of this page as needed. 8. On the back of this page, write a pers uasive letter to your state legislature describing an ocean natural resource of importance to you. Why and what legislation should be put in place to address the issue?

PAGE 233

220 Appendix E: Informal Reasoning Ocea n Socioscientific Issues Reading and Interview Questions (Participants read these prior to answering any questions) Ocean as Context for OSSI The ocean shapes our weather, links us to other nations, and is crucial to our national security. From the life-giving rain that nourishes crops a nd our bodies, to lifesaving medicines; from the fish that come fr om the ocean floor, to the goods that are transported on the sea’s surface--the ocean pl ays a role in our life in some way everyday (NOAA, 1998). The ocean more than any othe r single ecosystem, has social and personal relevance to all persons. In the 21st century we will look increasingly to the ocean to meet our everyday needs and future sustainability.

PAGE 234

221 Appendix E (Continued) Sea Turtle Reading (Case Study I) (Participants read this prio r to answering any questions) Scenario: Protection of Endangered Ma rine Animals and Their Habitat Sea turtles are survivors of the great age of dino saurs and yet at this time are threatened with extinction. They live in nearly all the oceans of the world and l eave the water only during nesting periods. It is during these nesting periods that tur tles and their offspring are the most vulnerable. As with most reptiles, turtles lay eggs. The eggs look somewhat like wet, pliable, table tennis balls. Female sea turtles dig deep holes on beaches with their rear flippers. They lay and bury their eggs in these holes. Sometimes the females make repeated nesting visits in one season. Mature female sea turtles may deposit several hundred eggs in one season. Once the eggs are buried, the female returns to the sea or seeks new nest sites. The eggs are left alone for nearly two months. If the eggs survive predation by raccoons ghost crabs, foxes, dogs, and humans—the sea turtles hatch, dig their way upward through th e sand, and promptly head toward the sea. The hatchlings’ journey across the beach is t ypically accompanied by predatory crabs, raccoons, and dogs, with gulls and frigate birds joining in. Once hatched, only about one to five percent of the turtles survive the first year In the sea the turtles must matu re for nearly a decade before returning to nesting sites as a natural part of th eir life cycle. Biologists are uncertain how long sea turtles reproduce and live. They are preyed upon by fish, sharks, killer whales, and humans. The motives for human predation are based predomin antly on products that are outlawed in many countries. Jewelry, leather, oil, and food are the pr imary uses. Turtle eggs are seen by some as a boost to longevity and vigor; tens of thousands of eggs are illegally harvested for vanity sales, Evidence suggests that a serious human threat to th e turtles is the poaching of their eggs in their nesting sites. There are other, human-caused factors. Dune buggies may break the eggs buried in the sand. More damaging, given the scope of the imp act, is commercial and private construction (condominiums, private homes, hotels, etc.) on coast al sites. This may create a barricade that prevents the turtles from reaching their traditional nesting sites and eliminate many nest sites. Entanglement in discarded fishing gear and plastic waste cast into the oceans is a serious hazard, killing many sea turtles each year. Many turtles fall accidental victims to the nets of large fishing trawlers. Once caught in the nets, they drown. Efforts are being made to popularize special trawling devices that will prevent turtles form getti ng into the nets. Tone of the turtles’ favorite foods is jellyfish. Many turtles mistake the human -produced litter of floating plastic bags for this food. The result is that their digestive tracts b ecome blocked with the discarded plastic and they perish. Six of the seven known sea turtle species are officially designated either endangered or threatened. The leathery of Leatherback, Olive Ridley, Kemp’s Ridley, Hawksbill, Green, and Loggerhead are all either officially endangered or threatened. Only the Australian Flatback is not so designated. If laws are obeyed protecting the turtles from use for commercial and personal products, they are more likely to survive.

PAGE 235

222 Appendix E (Continued) Interview Questions for the Turtle Hurdle Activity 1. When you hear something about sea turtles or other marine animals threatened with extinction, do you have an immediate reaction or initial feelings regarding this issue? 2. Should society attempt to protect marine animals threatened with extinction such as sea turtles and the West Indian Ma natee over the needs of people? Please explain your response and provide justification for your answer. 3. Do you think that decisions regarding pr otection of marine animals and their habitat (beaches, sea grasses, or mangr oves) should involve moral principles (religious or others), ethi cal guidelines or values? If so, please describe those guidelines or values and how they influence the issue. 4. Imagine a situation in which a species of sea turtle (Kemp Ridley) only nests on three beaches in Florida. Two of the beach locations are protected by the state of Florida as State Parks. The third beach is in a county that is growing in human population and thus, demand for more hom es has increased. Economically the county really needs the growth of new people and businesses. The beach area where Kemp Ridley sea turtles have ne sted for over 100 years is now being considered for development by buildi ng 500 new condos on the turtle nesting beach. Should sea turtle protection be us ed to stop humans from development (building homes or businesses) on beach front property? Please explain your response and provide justif ication for your answer. 5. How would you convince a friend or acquain tance of your position on this issue? 6. ( If necessary ) Is there anything else you mi ght say to prove your point? 7. Can you think of an argument that coul d be made against the position that you have just described? How coul d someone support that argument? 8. If someone confronted you with that ar gument, what could you say in response? How would you defend your position against that argument? 9. ( If no counter-position is articulated ) If someone said _________, how would you respond? How would you defend your pos ition against his/her argument? 10. ( If necessary ) Is there anything else you might say to prove that you are right?

PAGE 236

223 Appendix E (Continued) Fish Banks Reading (Case Study II) (Participants read this prio r to answering any questions) Scenario: Marine Fisheries Management for Sustainability (Living Natural Resource) Marine resources such as finned fishes (g rouper, tuna, redfish, flounder, shrimp), shell fish (oyster, clams), natu ral gas, crude oil, sand, live rock and cora ls, algae, dolphins for captivity, sharks for biomedical/cancer research, horseshoe crabs for biomedical research, and rare minerals are just a fe w of the natural marine resources fished, harvested or mined by humans all around the wo rld. In some countries like the United States fishing, harvesting and mining of o cean resources are mana ged and regulated by laws to control how much of a natural resource can be taken from the ocean. In many other countries laws or enforcements are in place to regulate the amounts of natural resources taken from the ocean. Many natura l resources harvested from the ocean are used in your everyday activities, such as cosmetics (make-up), toothpaste, medicines (prescription drugs), supplements (fish oil ca psules, shark cartilage, calcium from sea shells, kelp), and pet food (fish by products). You played a decision making role-playi ng activity called Fish Banks during the Oceanography Camp for Girls. This activity simulated the management of a natural resource harvested from the ocean, fishes. Tr y to think about the Fish Banks activity and the decisions you made as a team to manage your fishing company. Interview Questions for Fish Banks Activity 1. Should society attempt to manage natu ral resources such as fisheries for sustainability over needs/demands of peopl e? Please explain your response and provide justification for your answer. 2. Do you think that decisions regarding protection and management of marine animals and their habitat (beaches, sea grasses, or mangroves) should involve moral principles (religious or others), ethical guidelines or values? If so, please describe those guidelines or values and how they influence the issue. 3. Should fish (for food) and other natural resources (crude oil for energy) in the ocean be harvested or drilled as much as needed to support the needs of humans? Why or why not? (Suppo rt your position) 4. How would you convince a friend or acquain tance of your position on this issue? 5. ( If necessary ) Is there anything else you mi ght say to prove your point?

PAGE 237

224 Appendix E (Continued) 6. Can you think of an argument that coul d be made against the position that you have just described? How coul d someone support that argument? 7. If someone confronted you with that ar gument, what could you say in response? How would you defend your position against that argument? 8. ( If no counter-position is articulated ) If someone said _________, how would you respond? How would you defend your pos ition against his/her argument? 9. ( If necessary ) Is there anything else you might say to prove that you are right?

PAGE 238

225 Appendix E (Continued) Ocean Pollution Reading (Case Study III) (Participants read this prio r to answering any questions) Scenario: Marine Pollution and Human Impacts on the Ocean Imagine a situation in which the canal near your home is covered with floating marine debris (plastic bottles, clear food storage bags, balloons, ci garette butts, and Styrofoam coolers). The number one source of marine debris is from hu man recreational activities. You notice an oil slick in the area where the marine debris has accumulated in the canal. Several days later you see many dead fish fl oating in the debris. Economically, cleaning marine debris from coastal and oceanic wate rs is expensive. Given the large number of waterways within the area, the local government can only clean canals on average of once every few years. You can choose to act by cleaning up the marine debris yourself or wait for the local officials to do so. How will you likely respond to the marine pollution in your neighborhood? Should ocean protection policie s include imposing littering fines on humans for disposing of trash in or near the ocean during recr eational activities? Washing used oil down the storm drain? Please explain your response a nd provide justification for your answer. Interview Questions for Ocean Pollution 1. What factors were influential in determ ining your position regarding protection of the ocean against human imposed marine pollution? 2. How would you convince a friend or acquain tance of your position on this issue? 3. ( If necessary ) Is there anything else you mi ght say to prove your point? 4. Can you think of an argument that coul d be made against the position that you have just described? How coul d someone support that argument? 5. If someone confronted you with that ar gument, what could you say in response? How would you defend your position against that argument? 6. ( If no counter-position is articulated ) If someone said _________, how would you respond? How would you defend your pos ition against his/her argument? 7. ( If necessary ) Is there anything else you might say to prove that you are right?

PAGE 239

226 Appendix F: Matrix 1, Constr uct Map of Ocean Literacy (Using Essential Principles of Ocean Scien ces and KIDS Organiza tional Framework to Examine Conceptual Understanding, Attitudes, and Reasoning) ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES OF OCEAN SCIENCES (OCEAN LITERACY, OL 1-7) OL 1. there is one big ocean OL 2. ocean & it’s life shape Earth features OL 3. ocean major influence weather & climate OL 4. ocean makes Earth habitable OL 5. ocean support diversit y of life & ecosystems OL 6. ocean & human s inextricably linked OL 7. ocean is largely unexplored KNOWLEDGE (science content standards & literacy) 1. NSES Content Standards a. physical science & chemistry b. life science c. earth & space science d. science & technology e. personal & social f. history & NOS g. science as inquiry h. unifying concept & processes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2. Environmental Education (EE) Knowledge a. basic understanding of environment b. associated problems X X X X X X X X X X

PAGE 240

227 Appendix F (Continued) ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES OF OCEAN SCIENCES (OCEAN LITERACY, OL 1-7) OL 1. there is one big ocean OL 2. ocean & it’s life shape Earth features OL 3. ocean major influence weather & climate OL 4. ocean makes Earth habitable OL 5. ocean support diversit y of life & ecosystems OL 6. ocean & human s inextricably linked OL 7. ocean largely unexplored IMPACT (expected change in behaviors) 1. Environmental Education (EE) Participation a. opportunity to be actively involved toward environmental problems b. opportunity to be actively involved ocean stewardship X X X X X 2. Environmental Education (EE) Awareness a. awareness and sensitivity to environment b. awareness and sensitivity to environment’s allied problems X X X X X X X X X X 3. Likelihood to Act X

PAGE 241

228 Appendix F (Continued) ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES OF OCEAN SCIENCES (OCEAN LITERACY, OL 1-7) OL 1. there is one big ocean OL 2. ocean & it’s life shape Earth features OL 3. ocean major influence weather & climate OL 4. ocean makes Earth habitable OL 5. ocean support diversit y life & ecosyste ms OL 6. ocean & human s inextricably linked OL 7. ocean largely unexplore d DISPOSITIONS (moral development; environmental attitudes and environmental morality) 1. Moral development (Rest) a. Sensitivity (caring) b. Reason (judgment) c. Commitment (motivation) d. Courage (character) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2. Environmental Education (EE) Attitudes a. set of values and feelings of environmental concern b. motivation for actively participating in improvement and protection X X X X X X X X X X 3. Environmental Morality a. biocentric b. anthropocentric c. egocentric X X X X X X X X X

PAGE 242

229 Appendix F (Continued) ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES OF OCEAN SCIENCES (OCEAN LITERACY, OL 1-7) OL 1. there is one big ocean OL 2. ocean & it’s life shape Earth features OL 3. ocean major influence weather & climate OL 4. ocean makes Earth habitable OL 5. ocean support diversit y life & ecosystems OL 6. ocean & human s inextricably linked OL 7. ocean largely unexplored SKILLS (process, reason, affect) 1. EE Skills a. identify envir. problems b. solving envir. problems X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2. Reasoning Patterns a. rationalistic b. emotive c. intuitive X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 3. Stewardship Actions a. coastal cleanup b. habitat restoration c. catch and release fishing d. seabird counts e. contains used oil f. purchased only sustainable seafood on watch list g. bagged trash recreation h. bagged lawn clippings i. sea turtle monitoring j. served on environmental group, team, council, club k. told friend/family how to help the ocean X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

PAGE 243

230 Appendix G: Matrix 2, Items Matr ix for Ocean Literacy Using Essential Principles of Ocean Sciences ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES OF OCEAN SCIENCES (OCEAN LITERACY, OL 1-7) OL 1. there is one big ocean OL 2. ocean & it’s life shape Earth features OL 3. ocean major influence weather & climate OL 4. ocean makes Earth habitable OL 5. ocean support diversit y of life & ecosystems OL 6. ocean & humans inextric ably linked OL 7. ocean is largely unexplored KNOWLEDGE (science content & literacy) 1. Survey of Ocean Literacy and Engagement 2. Survey of Ocean Stewardship IMPACT (expected change in behaviors) 1. Turtle Hurdle, Fish Banks, Coastal Clean-up (participation) 2. OSSI Written & Verbal Responses (awareness) 3. SOEM Items (likelihood to act) DISPOSITIONS 1. SOEM Items Responses (moral development) 2. SOS Items (environmental attitudes) 3. SOEM Responses (environmental morality) SKILLS (process, reason, affect) 1. OSSI Responses (position about enviro issue) 2. OSSI Responses (reasoning patterns) 3. SOEM items (stewardship actions)

PAGE 244

231 Appendix H: A Rubric to Analyze Types of Moral Development and Environmental Reasoning Component Definition Cognitive & Affective Processes SOEM Metric for present study moral sensitivity Requires the individual to be able to interpret the situation by role taking how various actions may affect the parties involved and thinking in terms of cause and effect Grounded in the research on empathy in which an individual, even at a very early age is able to recognize distress in others as a primary affective response (Hoffman, 1981) Moral environmental reasoning: 9-items/scenario; 3 anthropocentric items (welfare, aesthetic, justice); 3 biocentric items (intrinsic, justice, harmony); 3 egocentric items (aesthetic, justice, personal); each item measured on a 5-point Likert scale moral judgment Involves the individual’s ability to judge which action is most justifiable from a moral perspective Concepts of justice, fairness, and care Deontological judgment : 1-item/scenario; yes or no response to commit a specific act that has a potentially negative environmental consequence. Responsibility judgment ; 1-item/scenario; asked if they would or would not engage in above behavior. moral motivation The degree of commitment an individual has in taking the moral course of action; competing nonmoral values may play a role in whether the individual is able to redirect these alternatives and persist in the moral course Entails the imagining of a desired goal and implies both cognition (the imagining) and affect (the desiring) Moral motivation: 1-item/scenario; asked to select the moral reason they most agree with in guiding their decision to not act in an environmentally harmful way. moral character Involves the execution of a particular action; requires an individual to persevere and overcome the temptation of competing values and goals to achieve the moral task Manipulation of selfregulatory processes has suggested that how an individual feels while in the course of helping someone else may influence the level of persistence and effort in that action (Rest, 1986) Moral justification: 1-item/scenario; contingent upon specified societal rules or conventions Likelihood to act: 1-item/scenario; asked how likely they are to act in a morally sensitive way towards the environment based upon the moral motivation reasoning type selected. (Adapted from the four-component model of Rest and colleagues (1986, 2000), which describes moral behavior based on four psychological processes)

PAGE 245

232 Appendix I: Output Data for SOLE Item Analysis (column labeled measure provides difficulty indices) INPUT: 105 Persons 57 Items MEASURED: 105 Persons 57 Items 2 CATS 3.66.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Person: REAL SEP.: 2.82 REL.: .89 ... Item: REAL SEP.: 4.15 REL.: .95 Item STATISTICS: ENTRY ORDER ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|ENTRY TOTAL MODEL| INFIT | OUTFIT |PT-MEASURE |EXACT MATCH| | |NUMBER SCORE COUNT MEASURE S.E. |MNSQ ZSTD|MNSQ ZSTD|CORR. EXP.| OBS% EXP%| Item | |------------------------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+----| 1 93 104 27.78 3.39|1.25 1.1|1.71 1.6| .06 .32| 88.5 89.4| I0001| | 2 66 105 46.68 2.24| .92 -.8| .86 -1.1| .51 .43| 70.5 71.7| I0002| | 3 46 102 55.35 2.18|1.32 3.9|1.51 3.7| .08 .40| 51.0 66.5| I0003| | 4 75 104 41.54 2.42| .91 -.7| .79 -1.2| .52 .42| 75.0 77.1| I0004| | 5 59 103 49.66 2.20|1.16 1.8|1.18 1.6| .27 .42| 63.1 69.5| I0005| | 6 51 104 53.63 2.16|1.01 .1|1.08 .7| .39 .41| 67.3 67.2| I0006| | 7 14 105 74.52 2.98|1.01 .1| .99 .1| .24 .25| 86.7 86.6| I0007| | 8 46 97 54.17 2.23|1.10 1.3|1.09 .8| .32 .41| 60.8 66.9| I0008| | 9 22 103 68.20 2.55|1.06 .5|1.95 3.0| .16 .31| 78.6 79.0| I0009| | 10 76 105 41.32 2.41| .98 -.1| .92 -.4| .44 .42| 77.1 77.2| I0010| | 11 57 104 50.72 2.18|1.07 .8|1.08 .8| .36 .42| 65.4 69.0| I0011| | 12 37 104 60.24 2.22|1.29 3.3|1.23 1.5| .13 .37| 55.8 68.8| I0012| | 13 62 100 47.31 2.28|1.05 .5|1.11 .9| .38 .43| 69.0 71.5| I0013| | 14 41 105 58.41 2.17|1.13 1.7|1.29 2.0| .25 .39| 58.1 67.5| I0014| | 15 80 105 38.89 2.53| .78 -1.7| .77 -1.1| .59 .41| 85.7 79.5| I0015| | 16 76 104 40.89 2.45| .97 -.2| .91 -.4| .45 .42| 79.8 77.7| I0016| | 17 63 105 48.16 2.21| .90 -1.1| .84 -1.3| .53 .43| 73.3 70.7| I0017| | 18 76 105 41.32 2.41| .84 -1.4| .83 -.9| .55 .42| 84.8 77.2| I0018| | 19 79 105 39.51 2.50| .70 -2.5| .62 -2.2| .67 .41| 89.5 78.9| I0019| | 20 90 104 30.49 3.10| .91 -.4| .61 -1.2| .47 .35| 86.5 86.7| I0020| | 21 65 102 45.93 2.28| .75 -2.7| .69 -2.6| .66 .43| 84.3 72.1| I0021| | 22 80 104 38.40 2.57| .81 -1.4| .64 -1.8| .60 .41| 82.7 79.9| I0022| | 23 32 103 62.53 2.29|1.07 .8|1.25 1.4| .27 .36| 71.8 71.6| I0023| | 24 30 102 63.65 2.33|1.22 2.2|2.09 4.5| .03 .35| 68.6 72.6| I0024| | 25 15 103 73.44 2.91|1.13 .7|2.88 3.8| -.01 .26| 84.5 85.4| I0025| | 26 56 104 51.26 2.17|1.18 2.1|1.17 1.5| .27 .42| 57.7 68.7| I0026| | 27 67 104 45.88 2.27|1.08 .8|1.06 .5| .37 .43| 67.3 72.6| I0027| | 28 49 103 54.29 2.17|1.08 1.1|1.05 .5| .34 .41| 62.1 67.1| I0028| | 29 37 102 59.63 2.23|1.14 1.6|1.32 2.0| .22 .38| 68.6 68.4| I0029| | 30 39 104 59.23 2.20|1.03 .4|1.03 .2| .35 .38| 67.3 68.0| I0030| | 31 31 102 62.74 2.31|1.20 2.0|1.50 2.4| .13 .36| 69.6 72.1| I0031| | 32 35 103 60.99 2.25|1.33 3.5|1.75 3.8| .02 .37| 59.2 69.8| I0032| | 33 63 102 47.45 2.25| .74 -2.9| .68 -2.9| .66 .42| 82.4 71.1| I0033| | 34 63 101 47.05 2.28| .71 -3.1| .64 -3.1| .69 .43| 82.2 71.9| I0034| | 35 66 103 46.26 2.27|1.00 .0| .97 -.2| .44 .43| 68.0 72.2| I0035| | 36 84 103 34.88 2.78| .84 -1.0| .64 -1.5| .55 .39| 84.5 82.8| I0036| | 37 84 104 35.61 2.73| .63 -2.6| .42 -2.9| .73 .40| 88.5 82.3| I0037| | 38 72 101 41.65 2.43|1.02 .2| .95 -.2| .41 .42| 72.3 76.5| I0038| | 39 51 104 53.60 2.16|1.17 2.1|1.35 2.8| .24 .41| 55.8 67.3| I0039| | 40 54 104 52.20 2.16|1.01 .2| .98 -.1| .42 .42| 66.3 68.1| I0040| | 41 54 104 52.20 2.16|1.08 1.1|1.13 1.2| .34 .42| 66.3 68.1| I0041| | 42 15 101 73.16 2.92| .97 -.1|1.34 1.0| .26 .27| 86.1 85.1| I0042| | 43 79 104 39.05 2.53| .82 -1.4| .68 -1.7| .59 .41| 83.7 79.4| I0043| | 44 68 102 44.58 2.33| .67 -3.4| .59 -3.3| .73 .43| 86.3 73.8| I0044| | 45 35 101 60.61 2.26| .94 -.6| .86 -.8| .44 .38| 67.3 69.5| I0045| | 46 82 102 36.02 2.73| .81 -1.2| .63 -1.6| .58 .40| 85.3 82.1| I0046| | 47 22 100 67.91 2.56|1.02 .2|1.50 1.8| .24 .31| 78.0 78.4| I0047| | 48 59 101 49.38 2.23|1.25 2.6|1.33 2.6| .19 .42| 59.4 70.0| I0048| | 49 61 103 48.83 2.21|1.29 3.0|1.37 2.9| .14 .42| 61.2 70.2| I0049| | 50 82 104 37.05 2.64| .75 -1.8| .52 -2.4| .65 .40| 85.6 81.1| I0050| | 51 65 104 46.90 2.25| .85 -1.5| .83 -1.4| .56 .43| 78.8 71.7| I0051| | 52 73 103 42.31 2.41| .71 -2.6| .60 -2.7| .69 .43| 84.5 76.4| I0052| | 53 42 104 57.80 2.18| .99 -.2| .94 -.4| .41 .39| 66.3 67.1| I0053| | 54 59 102 49.38 2.22| .88 -1.3| .82 -1.6| .55 .43| 73.5 70.3| I0054| | 55 70 103 44.04 2.34| .95 -.4| .89 -.7| .48 .43| 74.8 74.6| I0055| | 56 56 103 50.93 2.19| .93 -.8| .90 -.9| .49 .42| 72.8 68.9| I0056| | 57 69 103 44.39 2.33| .79 -2.0| .74 -1.9| .62 .43| 82.5 73.9| I0057| |------------------------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+------| | MEAN 57.4 103.1 50.00 2.39| .99 .0|1.06 .1| | 73.7 74.0| | | S.D. 20.0 1.5 10.58 .26| .18 1.7| .43 2.0| | 10.3 6.0| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PAGE 246

233 Appendix J: Output Data for SOS Item Analysis (column labeled measure provides difficulty indices) INPUT: 119 Persons 44 Items MEASURED: 119 Persons 44 Items 5 CATS 3.66.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Person: REAL SEP.: 2.68 REL.: .88 ... Item: REAL SEP.: 4.69 REL.: .96 Item STATISTICS: ENTRY ORDER ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|ENTRY TOTAL MODEL| INFIT | OUTFIT |PT-MEASURE |EXACT MATCH| | |NUMBER SCORE COUNT MEASURE S.E. |MNSQ ZSTD|MNSQ ZSTD|CORR. EXP.| OBS% EXP%| Item | |------------------------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+----| | 1 427 119 51.75 .95|1.04 .4|1.03 .3| .50 .45| 41.2 38.1| I0001| | 2 479 118 45.98 1.09|1.05 .4|1.08 .6| .23 .39| 49.2 42.9| I0002| | 3 271 119 64.78 .94|1.27 2.2|1.27 2.1| .33 .48| 31.9 33.9| I0003| | 4 456 119 48.97 1.01|1.03 .3| .98 -.1| .54 .42| 47.1 40.4| I0004| | 5 473 119 47.16 1.05|1.05 .4|1.09 .7| .39 .41| 42.0 41.5| I0005| | 6 353 119 57.98 .90| .80 -1.9| .79 -1.9| .53 .49| 36.1 35.2| I0006| | 7 441 119 50.45 .98|1.14 1.2|1.15 1.2| .48 .44| 40.3 39.2| I0007| | 8 402 119 53.95 .92| .84 -1.4| .84 -1.4| .41 .47| 44.5 36.5| I0008| | 9 434 119 51.11 .96| .73 -2.3| .76 -2.1| .46 .44| 55.5 39.0| I0009| | 10 327 118 59.78 .90|1.03 .3|1.07 .7| .25 .49| 29.7 34.6| I0010| | 11 454 119 49.17 1.00| .80 -1.7| .77 -1.9| .42 .43| 47.9 39.8| I0011| | 12 490 119 45.17 1.11|1.24 1.6|1.16 1.1| .52 .39| 39.5 43.9| I0012| | 13 428 119 51.66 .95| .79 -1.9| .79 -1.8| .53 .45| 47.1 38.4| I0013| | 14 455 119 49.07 1.01| .62 -3.4| .61 -3.4| .65 .43| 53.8 40.2| I0014| | 15 500 119 43.89 1.16|1.09 .7|1.08 .6| .56 .37| 46.2 45.1| I0015| | 16 458 119 48.76 1.01| .74 -2.2| .75 -2.0| .61 .42| 52.1 40.4| I0016| | 17 479 119 46.48 1.07| .56 -3.9| .56 -3.8| .64 .40| 52.9 42.4| I0017| | 18 446 119 49.96 .99| .79 -1.8| .77 -1.9| .53 .43| 44.5 39.3| I0018| | 19 460 119 48.56 1.02| .73 -2.2| .74 -2.2| .47 .42| 52.9 40.8| I0019| | 20 372 119 56.44 .90| .97 -.3| .99 -.1| .51 .48| 35.3 35.5| I0020| | 21 460 119 48.56 1.02|1.47 3.3|1.54 3.6| .41 .42| 30.3 40.8| I0021| | 22 500 119 43.89 1.16| .94 -.4| .89 -.8| .58 .37| 52.1 45.1| I0022| | 23 524 119 40.30 1.30|1.23 1.4|1.37 2.2| .41 .33| 56.3 50.2| I0023| | 24 522 119 40.63 1.28|1.31 1.9|1.08 .6| .54 .34| 47.1 49.7| I0024| | 25 517 118 40.70 1.29|1.19 1.2| .97 -.1| .53 .34| 52.5 49.1|

PAGE 247

234 Appendix J (Continued) I0025| | 26 427 119 51.75 .95|1.14 1.2|1.20 1.5| .43 .45| 35.3 38.1| I0026| | 27 459 119 48.66 1.02| .92 -.6| .88 -.9| .59 .42| 45.4 40.8| I0027| | 28 478 119 46.60 1.07| .82 -1.3| .78 -1.7| .61 .40| 46.2 41.9| I0028| | 29 443 118 49.97 .99| .57 -4.0| .62 -3.4| .54 .43| 51.7 39.4| I0029| | 30 313 119 61.21 .90|1.73 5.4|1.87 6.2| -.25 .49| 25.2 34.0| I0030| | 31 427 119 51.75 .95| .71 -2.6| .70 -2.6| .69 .45| 47.1 38.1| I0031| | 32 458 119 48.76 1.01| .88 -.9| .92 -.6| .33 .42| 45.4 40.4| I0032| | 33 339 114 57.87 .92|1.22 1.8|1.43 3.3| -.15 .49| 36.0 35.2| I0033| | 34 485 119 45.78 1.09|1.04 .3| .96 -.3| .48 .39| 44.5 43.5| I0034| | 35 409 118 53.04 .94|1.54 3.9|1.85 5.6| .08 .46| 30.5 37.3| I0035| | 36 517 119 41.44 1.25|1.49 2.9|1.24 1.5| .53 .34| 50.4 48.5| I0036| | 37 428 119 51.66 .95|1.32 2.4|1.39 2.8| .29 .45| 37.0 38.4| I0037| | 38 465 117 47.17 1.06| .63 -3.1| .66 -2.8| .51 .41| 51.3 41.5| I0038| | 39 415 116 51.79 .96|1.14 1.1|1.12 1.0| .49 .45| 37.9 38.1| I0039| | 40 394 119 54.62 .91|1.22 1.8|1.22 1.8| .29 .47| 27.7 35.9| I0040| | 41 431 118 51.05 .97|1.69 4.7|1.86 5.5| .36 .44| 22.9 39.1| I0041| | 42 449 119 49.67 .99| .99 .0|1.04 .3| .45 .43| 42.9 39.5| I0042| | 43 410 118 52.94 .94|1.12 1.0|1.19 1.5| .27 .46| 41.5 37.3| I0043| | 44 446 117 49.12 1.01|1.08 .7|1.02 .2| .48 .42| 43.6 40.2| I0044| |------------------------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+----| | MEAN 439.1 118.6 50.00 1.02|1.04 .1|1.05 .2| | 43.0 40.2| | | S.D. 55.0 1.0 5.24 .10| .28 2.2| .32 2.3| | 8.5 4.0| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PAGE 248

235 Appendix K: Output Data fo r SOEM Item Analysis (column labeled measure provides difficulty indices) TABLE 10.1 SOME Greely ZOU154WS.TXT Oct 26 1:15 2008 INPUT: 95 Persons 56 Items MEASURED: 95 Persons 56 Items 5 CATS 3.66.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Person: REAL SEP.: 3.94 REL.: .94 ... Item: REAL SEP.: 3.34 REL.: .92 Item STATISTICS: MISFIT ORDER ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|ENTRY TOTAL MODEL| INFIT | OUTFIT |PT-MEASURE |EXACT MATCH| |NUMBER SCORE COUNT MEASURE S.E. |MNSQ ZSTD|MNSQ ZSTD|CORR. EXP.| OBS% EXP%| Item | 39 242 93 45.79 .98|1.06 .5|1.25 1.3|T .65 .68| 31.2 34.9| 3AR1Canthro3 | 18 240 92 45.70 .99| .79 -1.4| .98 .0|V .66 .69| 41.3 35.0| 2BR1Abio2 | 6 257 94 44.52 .97| .88 -.8| .97 -.1|W .65 .70| 35.1 33.7| 1BR1Bbio1 | 52 216 91 47.68 1.01| .72 -2.0| .88 -.6|X .74 .66| 39.6 37.3| 4ER1Bego4 | 32 219 92 47.76 1.00| .84 -1.1| .71 -1.6|Y .76 .66| 33.7 37.1| 3BR1Abio3 | 36 233 93 46.65 .98| .77 -1.6| .68 -1.8|Z .71 .67| 41.9 36.1| 3BR1Cbio3 | BETTER FITTING OMITTED +----------+----------+ | | | 38 239 93 46.07 .98| .68 -2.4| .74 -1.5| .74 .68| 40.9 35.7| 3ER1Bego3 | 4 230 95 47.27 .98| .68 -2.4| .72 -1.6| .73 .66| 45.3 36.5| 1BR1Abio1 | 8 261 94 44.15 .97| .64 -2.7| .71 -1.7| .71 .70| 45.7 32.5| 1BR1Cbio1 | 25 239 92 45.80 .99| .71 -2.0| .66 -2.0|z .75 .69| 37.0 35.0| 2AR1Canthro2 | 48 211 91 48.19 1.01| .64 -2.6| .55 -2.7|y .84 .65| 40.7 37.7| 4BR1Bbio4 | 35 211 92 48.67 1.01| .63 -2.9| .54 -2.8|x .80 .64| 45.7 38.7| 3AR1Banthro3 | 22 233 92 46.38 .99| .61 -2.9| .58 -2.6|w .78 .68| 45.7 36.2| 2BR1Cbio2 | 37 226 93 47.34 .99| .60 -3.0| .54 -2.8|v .83 .66| 36.6 36.6| 3ER1Aego3 | 19 208 92 48.89 1.01| .60 -3.1| .53 -2.8|u .82 .64| 46.7 39.9| 2AR1Aanthro2 | 7 227 93 47.26 .99| .60 -3.1| .54 -2.9|t .83 .66| 34.4 36.2| 1AR1Banthro1 | 9 229 92 46.88 .99| .60 -3.1| .53 -3.0|s .83 .67| 38.0 36.6| 1ER1Aego1 | 10 253 93 44.74 .97| .60 -3.1| .58 -2.7|r .79 .70| 39.8 33.9| 1ER1Bego1 | 50 214 91 47.88 1.01| .60 -3.1| .53 -2.9|q .81 .65| 40.7 37.3| 4BR1Cbio4 | 40 226 93 47.34 .99| .59 -3.2| .51 -3.1|p .83 .66| 47.3 36.6| 3ER1Cego3 | 5 218 94 48.28 1.00| .58 -3.3| .53 -2.9|o .81 .65| 44.7 37.7| 1AR1Aanthro1 | 53 214 91 47.88 1.01| .58 -3.2| .51 -3.0|n .83 .65| 41.8 37.3| 4AR1Canthro4 | 51 218 91 47.48 1.01| .58 -3.2| .51 -3.1|m .84 .66| 39.6 37.0| 4ER1Aego4 | 47 215 91 47.78 1.01| .58 -3.3| .53 -2.9|l .80 .66| 46.2 37.3| 4AR1Aanthro4 | 24 215 92 48.18 1.01| .56 -3.4| .52 -2.9|k .83 .65| 41.3 37.5| 2ER1Bego2 | 33 227 93 47.24 .99| .56 -3.4| .49 -3.2|j .83 .66| 47.3 36.6| 3AR1Aanthro3 | 12 229 93 47.04 .99| .56 -3.4| .49 -3.3|i .83 .67| 46.2 36.6| 1ER1Cego1 | 49 210 90 48.16 1.01| .56 -3.4| .55 -2.7|h .77 .65| 44.4 37.3| 4AR1Banthro4 | 26 222 91 47.25 1.00| .55 -3.5| .49 -3.2|g .83 .67| 40.7 36.8| 2ER1Cego2 | 54 224 91 46.87 1.00| .54 -3.5| .55 -2.8|f .83 .67| 49.5 36.9| 4ER1Cego4 | 11 231 93 46.85 .98| .54 -3.6| .50 -3.2|e .84 .67| 37.6 36.5| 1AR1Canthro1 | 23 224 92 47.27 1.00| .53 -3.7| .54 -2.9|d .79 .67| 45.7 36.8| 2ER1Aego2 | 21 218 91 47.72 1.00| .51 -3.9| .46 -3.4|c .84 .66| 47.3 37.2| 2AR1Banthro2 | 20 219 91 47.50 1.01| .51 -3.9| .48 -3.3|b .83 .67| 45.1 37.0| 2BR1Bbio2 | 46 211 91 48.19 1.01| .51 -3.9| .46 -3.3|a .85 .65| 40.7 37.7| 4BR1Abio4 |------------------------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+------------| MEAN 201.3 92.0 50.00 1.09| .99 -.9|1.19 -.2| | 42.8 43.6| | S.D. 36.8 1.4 4.44 .19| .61 3.2| .92 3.2| | 7.6 10.4| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PAGE 249

About The Author Teresa M. Greely received a Bach elor’s in Natural Sciences from New College in Sarasota, FL in 1985, and a Master’s in Marine Science from USF in St. Petersburg, FL in 1994. Her Master’s research addressed th e age and growth of lantern fish in the Southern Ocean. As a science mentor for the Oceanography Camp for Girls she discovered her passion for teaching science. In 1995 Dr. Greely joined USF’s College of Marine Science as the Coordi nator of Education and Outreac h. With a desire to make ocean sciences more accessible and engaging fo r science teachers, and to promote a more ocean literate citizenry, Dr. Greely entere d the Ph.D. program. Dr. Greely has taught numerous science and educati on courses, authored over twen ty publications, written two book chapters, and made over one hundred pres entations at national and international meetings. Dr. Greely will continue in her f aculty position with USF’s College of Marine Science.