-
Title
-
Eng
Evaluating Equity Within Outdoor Environmental Education Programs: A Case Study of the Nisqually River Education project
-
Date
-
2018
-
Creator
-
Eng
Lovelett, Katherine M
-
Subject
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text
-
Evaluating Equity within Outdoor Environmental Education Programs:
A Case Study of the Nisqually River Education Project
by
Katherine M. Lovelett
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
January 2018
©2017 by Katherine Lovelett. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Katherine Lovelett
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Kevin Francis
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
Evaluating Equity within Outdoor Environmental Education Programs:
A Case Study of the Nisqually River Education Project
Katherine Lovelett
Environmental education is key to shaping attitudes and behaviors towards
ecosystems at all scales. Many organizations seek to fulfill the environmental-educational
needs of communities in order to provide appropriate experiential environmental
programs for students and the local population. In addition, interest in equity is growing.
While little research has been done to evaluate equity goals and effects in environmental
education programs, there is concern that a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to
consider differing backgrounds such as race, family, income, gender, and ethnicity
hinders learning.
The following case study focuses on the Nisqually River Education Project
(NREP), a non-profit organization through the Nisqually River Foundation that conducts
environmental education programs in Thurston County, Washington. As is the case with
many environmental education programs, the NREP seeks to serve the needs of a diverse
community. This thesis uses survey responses from students in both a rural and an urban
school participating in NREP to ascertain differences in environmental attitudes and
behaviors, as well as determine how the impacts of an environmental program such as
NREP differ between the two. The results indicate that there are some differences
between environmental attitudes and behaviors between students from the two schools.
While the NREP had different effects in each of the schools, overall the program was
effective in increasing student perception and interest in environmental behaviors and
activities. Further, this perception and interest increased for some of the survey responses
throughout the school year, and did not appear to dissipate after the program activities
had ended, indicating a lasting effect of the NREP on the students. This thesis will
contribute to the larger body of knowledge on equity within environmental education,
and it will inform future environmental education programs.
Table of Contents
Page
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………vii
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………viii
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………ix
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..1
Nature Deficit and Environmental Education……………………………………..1
Nisqually River Education Project…….…………………………………………2
Study Design and Methods……………………………………………………..3
Literature and Background……………………………………………………………...5
What is Nature?…………………………………………………………....7
Physical and Mental Health……………………...……………………………….8
Nature Deficit Disorder…………………………………………………………..10
Cultural Assumptions and Critiques……………………………………………..11
One-Citizen, One-Vote…………………………………..…………………….13
Critiques of Environmental Education……………………………………..14
Academic Merit of Programs………………………………………………..16
Nisqually River Watershed Natural History……………………………………..17
Nisqually Social History………………………………………………………..19
Nisqually River Education Project……………………………………………..22
Methods…………………………………………………………………………………..25
Study Area…………………………..…………………………………………25
School Profiles……………...……………………………………………………27
Survey Methods…………...……………………………………………………..28
Data from Surveys and Analysis………………………………………………..30
Results and Discussion…………………………………………………..........................33
Student Survey Results: Comparing Mill Pond and Prairie Elementary……….33
Correlations with Test Scores…………………………………………………....48
Teacher and Other Survey Results……………………………………………..48
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………60
Effectiveness of the NREP in Addressing Nature Deficit……………..………..60
Other Schools Taking Part in the NREP……………………………………….60
Generalizability and Application to Other Programs……………………………61
v
Caveats and Limitations of this Study…………………………………………..61
Future Studies……………….…………………………………………………64
References……………………………………………………………………………..66
Appendix A: School Demographics...…………………………………………………70
Appendix B: Sample Student and Teacher Surveys………………………………….….72
vi
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Nisqually River Watershed
Mill Pond Elementary and Prairie Elementary school boundaries
Survey results for Prairie and Mill Pond Elementary showing
averaged before, during, and after responses for question 1
Survey results for Prairie and Mill Pond Elementary showing
averaged before, during, and after responses for question 2
Survey results for Prairie and Mill Pond Elementary showing
averaged before, during, and after responses for question 3
Survey results for Prairie and Mill Pond Elementary showing
averaged before, during, and after responses for question 4
Survey results for Prairie and Mill Pond Elementary showing
averaged before, during, and after responses for question 5
Survey results for Prairie and Mill Pond Elementary showing
averaged before, during, and after responses for question 6
19
26
34
36
38
41
44
46
vii
List of Tables
Page
Table A1:
Table A2:
Demographic data for Prairie Elementary
Demographic data for Mill Pond Elementary
70
71
viii
Acknowledgements
This study would not be possible without the participation of the Nisqually River
Education Project’s Director, volunteers, and Prairie Elementary and Mill Pond
Elementary’s 5th grade students and teachers. I also could not have done without the
endless love and encouragement of numerous friends, family, co-workers, and cohort
members.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for my thesis advisors, Professors
Kevin Francis and Miranda Mellis, for providing me with the support and scaffolding
necessary at various points in order to move forward in this process.
ix
INTRODUCTION
Nature Deficit and Environmental Education
Nature-deficit disorder (NDD), though not an official diagnosis (Driessnack,
2009), is the main behavioral disorder associated with the personal and cultural
symptoms of nature dissociation. It describes the “diminished use of the senses, attention
difficulties, and higher rates of physical and emotional illnesses. The disorder can be
detected in individuals, families, and communities” (Louv, 2005). To combat the
symptoms of NDD, environmental education activity is proposed as a solution to cure
nature-deficit disorder in today’s youth.
Significant contributing factors to NDD, such as technology-dependent lifestyles
and industrial development, are on the rise (Dwyre, 2015). However, recent research
attests to the positive benefits of time spent in nature to developmental health in children,
both physical and mental. Allowing children to apply their learning outside of the
classroom will increase their ability to gain appreciation for nature and make intimate
connections with people and places through exposure to their environment. (Louv 2005)
This connection to nature and environment is also considered vital to
understanding what is thought to be the source of many of the environmental problems
that are currently faced by society. When individuals have an intimate understanding and
appreciation of their local environment, it is believed that they will be motivated to make
choices in election of representatives and community issues that will benefit the
continuity and preservation of the environment, which affects everyone. (Stapp, William,
et al. 1969)
1
Critics of a proposed solution of place-based environmental education (EE) to
NDD and environmental awareness call into question the quality and effectiveness of EE
and how different demographics respond to EE (Dickenson, 2013; Cardozo, 1994; Adler,
1993; Sanera 1998; ICEE 1997). However, in terms of compulsory content areas like
social studies, science, language arts and math, research does show that students who
participate in outdoor, or placed-based, education programs tend to outperform their
traditionally educated peers (American Institutes for Research, 2005; Lieberman &
Hoody, 1998).
Which leaves the question: does a one-size-fits-all approach in EE effectively
bring about a positive increase in environmental knowledge, behaviors, and attitude in
children from different backgrounds? Arcury and Christenson argue that this awareness
of group variation in environmental knowledge and attitudes forms a basis for improving
the quality of environmental education (2010). This thesis focuses on the Nisqually River
Education Project, in order to understand whether EE addresses NDD more so within
students who are from urban areas than rural areas.
Nisqually River Education Project
One organization attempting to address NDD is the Nisqually River Education
Project (NREP), which was established in 1991 to promote environmental education and
connection to place. Since it was established, NREP has introduced students and
volunteers throughout the Nisqually Watershed to the ecological and cultural importance
of the river and its many tributaries. Today, the program’s activities include water quality
2
testing, tree plantings, salmon tosses, nature walks, and even a student-led “Green
Congress,” which brings participating students together at the end of the school year to
present their water quality data and attend workshops related to culture and the
environment. Almost 1000 students participate in NREP’s diverse activities annually.
Study Design and Methods
To assess the effectiveness of environmental programs like NREP and to
determine differences in environmental attitudes and behaviors between students in a
rural setting versus a more urban setting, surveys were given at the end of the 2016-2017
school year to 5th grade students at Prairie Elementary and Mill Pond Elementary, two
adjacent elementary schools located in Yelm, Washington. Prairie Elementary was
considered to be in a rural setting, while Mill Pond Elementary was considered to be in a
more urban one. Prairie Elementary has mandatory participation in NREP for 5th grade
students, while Mill Pond Elementary has only one class voluntarily participating in the
program.
The qualitative surveys given to the students included six questions designed to
ascertain the dependent variables: students’ perception of their environmental behaviors,
knowledge, and attitude. These questions (in the form of statements) were: “I protect
water quality,” “I help restore natural habitats and protect wildlife,” “I know about
wildlife and native plants,” “I pick up trash and recycle at school and at home,”
“Spending time in nature is important to me,” and “I talk with friends and family about
all these things” The students had the option to answer with “not at all,” “a little,”
3
“some,” and “a lot.” There was no neutral option, as that can cause a survey to be
ineffective. In this one-time survey at the end of the school year, students answered
questions about their self-assessment of attitudes and knowledge for “before,” “during,”
and “after” the school year. To determine significant results from the surveys, a
comparison was done between the independent variables to determine the mean
responses of students from each school by question and change in question response from
before, to during, to after the school year.
4
LITERATURE AND BACKGROUND
Introduction
In a time when technological advances have meant a greater disconnect with
nature in exchange for time spent with electronic devices indoors, understanding the costs
to emotional, physical, and cognitive health and our need for a connection with the
natural world have become increasing important. Studies regarding human-nature
relationships have given way to the popular theory of Nature Deficit Disorder, as new
understandings and support for this connection are on the rise. As outdoor environmental
education programs seek to fill the gaps between human-nature and classroom-nature
relationships, questions have begun to arise concerning the equity of such programs.
Critiques have arisen to address concerns that experiential outdoor education
programs lack the ability to reach out to students from various demographic backgrounds.
However, due to a multitude of variables, studying the effect of these programs on
environmental behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes within students of differing
backgrounds is a difficult and complicated task. Although NGOs, such as the Nisqually
River Education Project, seek to provide outdoor environmental education programs to
all students within the Nisqually River Watershed and beyond, critiques have emerged to
challenge the intent and purpose of such activities (Dickenson, 2013; Adler, 1993;
Cardozo, 1994; Sanera, 1998).
Despite the critics, evidence continues to shed light on the benefits of outdoor
learning programs. Research has shown that providing students with the opportunity to
get out of the classroom and connect their learning with their local environment supports
5
mental, emotional, and physical development in children, as well as student learning and
success, in comparison to their traditionally educated peers (American Institutes for
Research, 2005; Lieberman & Hoody, 1998; Louv 2005; Louv 2010).
Few recent studies have researched the difference in the environmental behaviors,
knowledge, and attitudes between rural and urban residents. However, Leftridge and
Robert (1980) conducted a study of the perceptions of environmental issues of high
school students attending rural and urban schools. Their findings concluded that urban
students appeared to be less perceptive of environmental issues than rural students.
Therefore, the expectation for the included surveys in this case study is that there will be
significant differences in the students’ perceived knowledge of nature and environmental
attitudes, as indicated by their survey answers, between the rural school (Prairie
Elementary) and the more urban school (Mill Pond Elementary).
In this literature review, I seek to provide research relating to the nature-human
and the different components of outdoor education programs, as they seek to fill the gap
between the two. First of all, it is important to give a specific definition for the term
“nature” as it can have many connotations, depending on one’s personal background and
lifestyle. What is known as “nature” to one living amongst an urban sprawl may be
brushed aside and minimalized by another, based on their cultural or outdoor experiences
in larger, less manicured settings. Next, it is important to understand the relationship
nature has with our mental and physical health in order to understand the need for
children to participate in outdoor activities. I will outline some major studies and sources
6
that support this correlation and the importance of time spent in nature. Then, Louv’s
Nature Deficit Disorder theory will be introduced as a means of explaining the increasing
disconnect between humans and nature in our modern, technically advanced world. As
children spend more time outdoors and more time indoors in front of phone, television,
and computer screens, they spend less time in nature. Despite the provided criticisms of
environmental programs in general, research lends its support to the benefits of such
programs. I will discuss the importance of field trips taken out of the classroom to
connect environmental education to the outdoors.
What is Nature?
The concept of what constitutes as “nature” or being “natural” changes based on
where or who you ask; indeed, the best definition would likely come from an
international coalition, like the World Health Organization (WHO), as they are comprised
of individuals, governments and organizations representing various demographics and
have come to a general agreement of what it is and why it is important. In 1986, the
WHO signed an international agreement at the First International Conference on Health
Promotion, called the Ottawa Charter for Public Health Promotion. This agreement was
signed in Ottawa, Canada, and laid the foundation for local communities, national
governments, and international organizations to achieve the goal of “Health for All.”
Through the international collaboration of these groups, and better health promotion by
the year 2000, they hoped to enable individuals to increase control over, and to improve,
their health (WHO, 1986).
7
According to the Charter, nature exists on large and small scales. The definition
of nature includes a wide range of organic locales as large as forests and savannahs to
ones as small as lawns and garden plots. A sterile environment that doesn’t include the
processes of life, such as death of species, reproduction, and species interrelationships,
falls outside the definition. Dirt, water, air, plants, and animals are also incorporated into
the definition of nature. Nature is composed of the large processes of geology and the
small processes of genetics and biology that have shaped the terrestrial and zoological
landscapes of the present (WHO 1986).
The charter suggests that every effort should be made by man to preserve these
natural spaces. The environment humans live in is directly linked with a holistic approach
to health and extends into every single aspect of everyday life. Therefore, it is important,
in the pursuit of health and longevity, to preserve and conserve nature in its many forms.
Parks are necessary to preserve natural and cultural landscapes. Without parks, many
individuals would have zero access to nature. There is endless utility for education and
recreation possible through parks; while conservation helps maintain, through public
institutions, a richly diverse biome and heritage otherwise unattainable (WHO, 1986).
Physical and Mental Health
Drastic changes in human environments have been shown to have serious
implications for both physical and mental health. Humans have spent many thousands of
years adapting to natural environments, yet have only inhabited urban ones for relatively
few generations (Glendinning 1995; Roszak et al., 1995; Suzuki 1997; Gullone 2000).
8
Never in history have humans spent so little time in physical contact with animals and
plants, and the consequences are unknown (Katcher and Beck, 1987). Already, some
research has shown that too much artificial stimulation and an existence spent in purely
human environments may cause exhaustion and produce a loss of vitality and health
(Katcher and Beck, 1987; Stilgoe, 2001). Modern society, by its very essence, insulates
people from outdoor environmental stimuli (Stilgoe, 2001) and regular contact with
nature (Katcher and Beck, 1987).
Many studies have sought to research the correlation between health and nature.
Among the most intriguing studies are those conducted at the University of Illinois,
where their Human-Environment Research Laboratory has found that symptoms of
attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder were significantly decreased when children as
young as 5 engaged with nature (Faber and Kuo, 2001; 2004; 2009). Another study found
an association between more green areas within inner-city neighborhoods and slower
increases in the average body mass of children within those areas over a two-year study.
Both of these studies suggest a need for an increase in child-nature interactions, not only
in educational programs, but in inner-city green spaces, in order to provide access to
more children and the increased physical and psychological benefits of time spent in
nature (Bell, et al., 2008).
Driessnack, a pediatric nurse, summarizes Richard Louv’s theory of nature-deficit
disorder and discusses the implications of nature-deficit disorder from a medical
prospective, focusing on the effects of sedentary lifestyles (obesity, diabetes,
hypertension, and depression). As a review article, she brings in and discusses numerous
secondary studies and surveys supporting the notion of the new “backseat generation”
9
(Karsten, 2005) and presents suggestions and ways in which both pediatric nurses and
parents can mitigate some of these factors. Driessnack encourages her peers in the
medical field to communicate with parents the benefits of “unstructured play out-of-doors
for children and the importance of reconnecting children with nature and its impact on
growth, development, learning, and long-term health.” She recommends several books
which outline various outdoor activities for children, such as I Love Dirt: 52 Activities to
Help You and Your Child Discover the Wonders of Nature (Ghahremani, 2008).
Nature Deficit Disorder
In his book, Last Child in the Woods (2005), Richard Louv warned that
frequent contact with the natural world is important for a child’s physical, emotional and
mental development. It is here, in his book, that he first introduced the term Nature
Deficit Disorder (NDD). However, it is not intended as an official diagnosis. It simply
seeks to address the costs to children as they are increasingly deprived of direct contact
with nature and play in the outdoors (Driessnack 2009). Louv argues that children are
better able to deal with fear, learn their strengths, and build skills necessary for sustained
intellectual development when they come in contact with nature, and he strongly argues
the correlation between experiences in nature and children’s physical and mental
development (2005).
Emerging studies provide further support for Louv’s backseat generation
(Karsten, 2005). Today, children are driven from place to place. Between 8 and 18 years
of age, they average approximate 6.5 hours watching TV, on their phones, or playing
10
video games, which leads to a diminished capacity to relate verbally and somatically to
their community and local environment (Driessnack, 2009). These children often have
little knowledge of what plants grow in their neighborhood, or which watershed their
house is located in. One study revealed that children more easily identified Pokémon
characters than common flora or fauna (Balmford, Clegg, Coulson, & Taylor, 2002).
Cultural Assumptions and Critiques
Despite his findings, critiques of his theory have emerged that call into question
Louv’s cultural bias, arguing that Louv romanticizes his white, middle-upper class youth,
as he encourages the masses to return to his idea of a “normal” past that “obscures race,
class, and gender politics” (Dickenson, 2013). This means that the modes by which he
encourages children to return to a “normal” childhood experiences consists of ways of
“relating to nature that are guided by cultural assumptions” (Dickinson, 2013). This
suggests that the assumption of outdoor play and environmental education programs may
not account for the needs of children from various demographic backgrounds, who suffer
from nature-deficit disorder.
Elizabeth Dickinson provides a critical review of Richard Louv’s theory of
nature-deficit disorder. She acknowledges that the little contact students have these days
with their natural surroundings often takes place in the form of fieldtrips, and that, even
within the sphere of academia, students are experiencing less and less contact with the
outdoors. To reconnect students with the outdoors, Louv (2005) prescribes outdoor
activities such as: exploring, building forts, cataloging, playing in tree houses, and
11
collecting (e.g. leaves, insects, etc.). However, these are all ways, Dickenson claims, of
relating to nature that could be considered to be “guided by cultural assumptions,”
because not all individuals have access or means to participate in these activities
(Dickenson 2013).
Beyond this, Dickenson also points out that, although Louv briefly discusses
pressures on parents, he fails to address the specific burdens of “low-income households,
and cultural conventions,” which could have a significant impact including reduced
access to natural areas. She suggests that researchers could even be considered to have
unconscious environmental education messages because they ignore race, class, and
gender politics and tend to speak to and for affluent, white audiences.” Dickinson calls
for further research to “dig deeper” into nature-deficit disorder’s cultural roots.
Dickenson makes a powerful argument; the strength of which is grounded in
concern for equity and access to natural areas, so that children from various backgrounds
might reconnect and enjoy nature as much as any other. However, one could argue that
Louv merely sought to make some suggestions for parents and children to connect with
the outdoors by recalling enjoyable activities from his own childhood. In this case, it
would be prudent for Louv to connect with individuals from various demographic
backgrounds in order to compile a broader, more equitable list of suggestions for outdoor
play.
12
One-Citizen, One-Vote
Since its conception, environmental education could be considered a field with
political ends. The Supreme Court ruling on the one-citizen, one-vote concept puts
pressure on all individuals to become active, voting members of society (Baker v. Carr;
Reynolds v. Sims). Individuals are tasked with making decisions that affect their
environment; specifically, they cast votes on community issues, elect representatives, and
as they come into direct contact with the environment itself (Stapp, 1969). In his article,
The Concept of Environmental Education, Stapp cites three major objectives for
environmental education to achieve the greatest impact: “1) provide factual information
with will lead to understanding of the total biophysical environment; 2) develop a
concern for environmental quality which will motivate citizens to work toward solutions
to biophysical environmental problems; and 3) inform citizens as to how they can play an
effective role in achieving the goals derived from their attitudes.”
Educational programs play a vital role in preparing the public to be informed
voters. In order to prepare each citizen to actively participate in the decision-making
process, it is imperative that all individuals, regardless of their demographic background,
gain a full understanding of the problems that confront the environment and its
interrelationship with the community. What is, for adults, yet another technological
paradigm shift, may be causing irreparable damage to the youngest and most vulnerable
members in our communities. This is vitally important for environmentalism. If younger
generations feel no connection to their local environment, then it is unlikely they will
make decisions in the future to protect it. Without equity within environmental education
13
programs, it is questionable that all members of the public will develop the tools required
to make sound and rational legislative decisions.
Critiques of Environmental Education
“As if children don’t have enough to worry about these days—AIDS,
wars, starving people—environmentalists are teaching them that their very
planet is at risk. The pressure is on, and it’s taking its toll. The sight of an
active smokestack brings tears to their eyes. Any tank truck could be
carrying the load that will do in their neighborhood. No TV show about
animals is complete without a moody scene of predation and the
obligatory drone of doom… but man is this animal’s worst enemy.”
(Cardozo, 1994)
Cardozo posits that “overly hostile environmental education that treats humans as
willful pillagers of Gaia” may cause children to feel like intruders in nature, destined to
destroy their world. He writes that their hopelessness is misplaced; he explains that the
earth is tough, and it is humans who are fragile. Despite any human impacts, the earth
will still likely remain in its place, orbiting the sun. Cardozo is concerned that, in the end,
we will be the ones to be extinct, like the dodo bird. His argument could be true, that
“save ourselves” is less resonant than “save the earth,” but Cardozo feels that
environmental education is not providing the whole story to children (Cardozo, 1994).
14
There is some concern about the amount of environmental misinformation taught
through environmental education. “If teachers aren’t prepared to challenge or correct
information that is wrong or mischaracterized, the inevitable result is that children learn
an unhealthy dose of environmental fiction” (Adler, 1993). One recent Roper Poll found
that American children are grossly misinformed about the environment. America’s
“Green Point Average,” according to this poll, was only 31%, a failing grade by any
measure.
There is a big gap between intent and performance when students are taught about
environmental issues (Sanera, 1998). The review of environmental education materials by
the Independent Commission on Environmental Education (ICEE) back in 1997 found
evidence of this disparity. For example, the ICEE report states that environmental
education materials often do not provide a framework for progressive building of
knowledge; fail to prepare students to deal with controversial environmental issues; and
fail to help students understand tradeoffs in addressing environmental problems. Many
high school environmental science textbooks have serious flaws (Sanera, 1998) as there
have been concerns over whether students are able to make direct connections outside of
the classroom. Despite the ubiquity of environmental messages aimed at kids, there is
increasing evidence that children are not learning much of anything about the
environment, save for simple platitudes and a blind faith in environmental causes (Adler,
1993).
Another critic posits that the focus on the environment increasingly comes at the
expense of basic instruction in important subjects, such as science and history. Adler
writes that, without an adequate grounding in these disciplines, children will understand
15
little about the world around them, let alone the environmental concerns that are now en
vogue (Adler, 1993). It is, therefore, understandable that some critics worry that the
allocation of resources will cause basic education to suffer. Some disagree with Adler in
this assessment that environmental education comes at the expense of basic instruction,
as it is possible that science, history, and environmental education can be taught as
interdisciplinary subjects and should not considered to be mutually exclusive (Pearce et
al., 2005; Semerjian et al., 2004; Vincent et al., 2011).
Academic Merit of Programs
Finances, time, and efforts are invested into each environmental program in an
effort to provide this type of experiential education and Louv himself believes that
learning experiences confined to classrooms tend to limit opportunities for students to
have firsthand exposure and make connections between what they learn in a classroom
with people or places (2005). Today, what little contact students these days have with
their natural surroundings often takes place in the form of fieldtrips. However, in the
wake of No Child Left Behind budget cutbacks and assessment testing, educators must
justify fieldtrips as having educational merit (Dickinson, 2013).
Not only do fieldtrips assist students in making meaningful connections to their
community and local ecosystems, these opportunities have also been found to play a role
in their academic performance in other content areas. Richard Louv (2010) expands on
his earlier concept of nature-deficit disorder in the article, “Do Our Kids Have NatureDeficit Disorder?” which explores how educators can incorporate nature and outdoor
16
education into the curriculum. This article is particularly noteworthy, as Louv presents
several secondary studies that back up the significance of fieldtrips and outdoor
programs. Among the most notable are the recent studies in California and other
participating states have shown that, in terms of compulsory content areas like social
studies, science, language arts and math, students who participate in outdoor, or placedbased, education programs tend to outperform their traditionally educated peers
(American Institutes for Research, 2005; Lieberman & Hoody, 1998). This data not only
lends support to the merit of fieldtrips, but to Louv’s theory of nature-deficit disorder,
which suggests that more time out in nature as children can result in increased cognitive
and emotional health.
Nisqually River Watershed Natural History
The continued health of the Nisqually River plays is vital within the Pacific
Northwest’s ecosystem. The river travels 78 miles through the forested, mountainous
terrain of Pierce, Lewis, and Thurston counties, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, and the
Nisqually Indian Reservation before it empties into the Puget Sound (Robinson and
Alesko, 2011). It is, therefore, interesting that the Nisqually is the only watershed in the
United States with its headwaters in a national park and its delta in a national wildlife
refuge, and also finding itself located within an hour’s drive of three metropolitan areas,
while it continues to be one of the least developed and healthiest major rivers in the
region Robinson and Alesko, 2011).
17
Mount Rainier, considered to be the most prominent feature of the Nisqually
River watershed, is a geologically recent addition to the landscape. Rising more than
14,000 feet, this snow-capped volcano is believed to be no more than a million years old.
Resting on layers of basalt and sandstone, dating back 40 million years to the newly
formed region of the Pacific Northwest, Rainier’s frequent eruptions spread hot volcanic
rock, pumice and molten lava across the Pacific Northwest, carving out today’s valleys
and plains.
Over the course of thousands of years, incited by their sheer weight, the
successive layers of snow on Rainier were packed into glaciers. The Nisqually Glacier
covers more than nearly two square miles of the mountainside at more than 400 feet. As
the heat from the sun warms the frozen mass, small, liquid beads find their way through
the vast network of channels and tunnels within the interior of the glacier. It is the
convergence of these small beads which begin the 78-mile-long journey of the Nisqually
River’s route down Mount Rainier’s mountainside and out towards the ocean.
Much of the surface water in Western Washington finds its way to the Puget
Sound, the result of glacial activity 15,000 years ago in the late Pleistocene, which acts as
a mixing bowl as fresh water unites with the salt water from the Pacific. It is estimated
that 140 billion cubic feet of fresh water converges within the Puget Sound annually. The
Nisqually River (Figure 1) is responsible for approximately half of the volume of fresh
water that spills into the southern Puget Sound (Gordon and Lembersky. 1995).
18
Figure 1: Nisqually River Watershed
Nisqually Social History
In the documentary, As Long as the Rivers Run, Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission Chairman Billy Frank Jr’s late father, Willy Frank Sr., described the
Nisqually watershed as paradise before the arrival of settlers. In the 1850s settlers molded
the watershed to conform to their own needs. They diked the estuary area for agricultural
purposes, channelized the river in other areas, and greatly altered the natural habitat,
damaging the whole ecosystem. But over the past five decades, a collective effort has
been undertaken involving a range of jurisdictions and partners from many vocations and
19
ethnic backgrounds working with the Nisqually Tribe at the helm to return the Nisqually
estuary to its natural condition. Recognized as a river of Statewide Significance under the
1972 Washington State Shore lands Management Act, the Nisqually supports extensive
salmon runs, timber and agricultural resources, and hydropower generation. It is also
home to several threatened and endangered species, and offers many recreational
opportunities. Preserving this beautiful river has long been a focus of the community
along with tribal, state, and local governments (Robinson and Alesko, 2011).
Prior to the arrival of settlers in the Pacific Northwest, the Nisqually river
ecosystem flowed with clean, clear water and lush riparian zones, wetlands, and other
natural habitats. With the intention of making the river more stable for construction along
its banks, settlers built embankments in order to impede the erosion of the land and block
the Nisqually from its natural course. Banks previously lined with fallen trees which had
kept the water cool and provided habitat for both adult and juvenile salmon, including
areas for hiding and resting throughout the course of their migration, were cleared for
crops. Not only did the destruction of the river’s riparian areas and its natural course put
strain on the journey of the salmon to and from the ocean, it also degraded their historic
spawning habitats, leading to even further declines in the salmon population (Robinson
and Alesko, 2011).
With the steady increase in the arrival of the settlers, the Europeans began to
require even more prime riverfront land in order to build homes, farms, ranches, and
towns and they sought to attain this from the local tribe. The Nisqually tribe has made the
Nisqually river watershed its home for thousands of years. The River has afforded
immense wealth to the tribe in the form of shellfish, salmon and other fish. Among the
20
aquatic life afforded by the river, it also attracted deer and other game, and provided
nutrients to the surrounding temperate forests, rich with berries, roots, and herbaceous
plants (Robinson and Alesko. 2011).
As the population continued to grow rapidly, the strains on the watershed
increased as well. Large-scale farming, forestry and hydroelectric technologies amplified
the anthropogenic effects on the watershed (Carpenter. 1994). Cities beyond the
watershed’s boundaries began to emerge. Vacation cabins and residential areas began to
replace farmland and woodlots, further burdening the region’s resources. Both wildlife
habitats and water quality were degraded. A lack of adequate plans for shoreline
protection and building codes proved the rapid development of the region to be
detrimental to the health of the river and its riparian zone. (Gordon and Lembersky,
1995).
However, the Nisqually River watershed isn’t the only watershed to lay claim
these challenges. Throughout the Pacific Northwest, nearly every watershed in the Puget
Sound region face similar problems. It is not surprising that the Puget Sound Water
Quality Management Plan of 1987 called to the region’s local governments to introduce
pollution control plans for the “top-ranked watersheds” within the 12 Puget Sound
counties (Gordon and Lembersky, 1995).
Signs of the current vitality of the watershed include the rich timberlands,
producing both lumber and jobs both in and out of the industry, and healthy salmon runs
that consistently return to the river and its tributaries each year (Carpenter. 1994). Today
the Nisqually’s thriving state of health can be attributed to the fervent commitment of
21
members within the Nisqually watershed’s community. The efforts to protect the 720square-mile area of both public and private land was motivated by the desires and
concerns of private and public stakeholders alone to conserve this highly valued region
(Gordon and Lembersky. 1995).
In 1985, in recognition of the importance of the watershed and the support for its
conservation, The Washington State Legislature voted to “initiate a process that
emphasizes the natural and economic values…and that will bring about a stewardship
program for the Nisqually River…to assure enhancement of economic and recreational
benefits for this generation as well as those to come.” Among the first steps was forming
the Nisqually River Task Force, a regional planning body of representatives from the
Nisqually Tribe, private citizen groups, public resource management agencies, individual
land owners, and various interest groups, such as the hydropower, agriculture, and timber
industries (Carpenter. 1994). The task force reviewed the supplied information regarding
the Watershed, and followed up by drafting a set of policy recommendations. The plan
was finally adopted by the Legislature two years later, in 1987, and addresses public
access, natural resource enhancement and protection, and flood control issues (Gordon
and Lembersky. 1995).
Nisqually River Education Project
The Nisqually River Education Project (NREP) was established in 1991 following
the Nisqually River Management Plan (NRT Force and NR Council, 1987). The 12th key
element of the management plan states that:
22
“All interpretive and education programs involving the Nisqually River
basin should: emphasize the Nisqually River as a whole system with
particular focus on the natural resources, archaeological and cultural
history and economic values; utilize existing programs, facilities,
resources, and materials to the extent that they support the whole river
system concept; be coordinated by an interagency and private consortium,
or board, of interested and involved persons; and be supported by adequate
funds enabling the consortium to implement the program” (NRT Force
and NR Council, 1987).
In this sense, the NREP has striven to bring an integrated educational experience
to students and volunteers living within the Nisqually Watershed. The Nisqually River
Council, the collective under which NREP operates, aims to connect agencies and people
to work together towards sustainability within the Nisqually River watershed, while the
goal of the NREP is to connect people with nature and give a sense of place and a feeling
of responsibility towards their local environment. The NREP does this by organizing
class field trips and larger events throughout the watershed (NREP website).
Major NREP activities include: water quality monitoring, tree plantings, salmon
tosses, “Eye on Nature” field trips, and GREEN Congress. Water quality monitoring is
the most widely attended activity. Almost 1000 students participate annually, testing
water quality at over 35 sites (NREP website). This activity serves to educate students
about the scientific process as they spend time at local sites throughout the watershed.
The results of the water quality testing are also used to determine if there are any pressing
issues with water quality that are less likely to be caught if only a small number of
23
scientists were able to conduct the testing. Student GREEN Congress is held towards the
end of the school year for a portion of the students to present their findings and attend
environmental workshops. These activities further connect students to each other, to the
scientific process, and to their local environment.
Tree plantings, salmon tosses, and “Eye on Nature” field trips are less-attended,
but still thoroughly enjoyed by students and volunteers. Tree plantings are held in fall and
are located throughout the watershed all the way down to the river delta. The goal of
these trips is for students to get their hands dirty and learn about the importance of
riparian vegetation to watershed health. Salmon tosses, possibly the most popular of the
field trips, are held in winter. For these field trips, students toss frozen salmon carcasses
into the Nisqually River and its tributaries. The students have great fun getting salmon
guts on their hands while they learn about returning marine derived nutrients into the
river and watershed food chain. “Eye on Nature” is held in the spring, and takes students
to the Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge to take nature walks, observe
wildlife, and learn about the cultural and historical background of the refuge.
Overall, the NREP has diverse activities for a range of students within the
Nisqually watershed, meant to bring them in touch with nature and participate in the
scientific process in a meaningful way as part of their community.
24
METHODS
Study Area
Of the schools participating in the NREP, two were selected for this case study.
These were Prairie Elementary and Mill Pond Elementary, two adjacent schools located
in Yelm (Figure 2). They were chosen as they represent an urban area (Mill Pond) and a
rural area (Prairie). Demographically, the two schools are very similar, with Mill Pond
being slightly more diverse than Prairie (Tables A1 and A2; Washington State Report
Card). As they are located adjacent to each other and have similar demographics, these
schools presented an opportunity to study nature deficiency—and the effects of an
environmental education program—between an urban and a rural area. It is important to
note that Prairie Elementary 5th grade classes participated in NREP’s creek observations
twice a year, fall and winter water quality testing, and Green Congress towards the end of
the school year; whereas Mill Pond Elementary participated in the fall and spring water
quality testing program.
25
Figure 2: Mill Pond Elementary and Prairie Elementary school district boundaries.
26
School Profiles
Prairie Elementary School
Prairie Elementary School is located in the eastern part of Yelm, and its
boundaries encompass about 110 square miles of suburban and rural farmland. The
school had 526 to 562 students enrolled in the 2015-16 school year. Prairie Elementary is
majority white, with white students making up 72.4% of students in the school, while
different minority groups make up 0-14.4% of students, and students of mixed race are
9.9%. (Table A1; Washington State Report Card)
Currently, all 5th grade classes in Prairie Elementary are required to participate in
the NREP. There are three classes in total participating in the program. Prairie
Elementary is one of the few schools where participation in the NREP is mandatory. The
Prairie Elementary student surveys used in this thesis were taken from two of the three
participating classes.
Mill Pond Elementary School
Mill Pond Elementary School is located in the western part of Yelm, and takes
students from an area of 10 square miles, mostly in the downtown area of Yelm. The
school had 549 to 563 students enrolled in the 2015-16 school year. Mill Pond
Elementary is also majority white, with white students making up 66.6% of students in
the school, while different minority groups make up 1.4-15.1% of students, and students
of mixed race are 10.1%. (Table A2; Washington State Report Card)
27
Currently, there is only one 5th grade class at Mill Pond Elementary participating
in the NREP. This is more customary for the program, as most schools in the area do not
require classes to participate, so participation depends on the individual teachers. The
Mill Pond Elementary student surveys used in this thesis were taken from the single class
participating in the NREP.
Standardized Testing
In terms of standardized testing, 5th graders at Prairie Elementary performed
better in science, English, and math than those in Mill Pond Elementary (Measurements
of Student Progress). The greatest difference in test scores for these students was in the
subject of science. Prairie Elementary had 81.9% of students meeting standards, whereas
Mill Pond Elementary only had 37.9% meeting standards (Washington State Report
Card). These standardized tests are conducted in the spring, towards the end of the school
year.
Survey Methods
Surveys have been used by many researchers as a means to measure the different
components of environmental education (Alekseeve 1998, Eagles and Demare 1999,
Musser and Diamond 1999, Palmer et al. 1999, and Subbotina 2000). A majority of these
have been used to gauge people’s environmental values and attitudes towards the
environment. Generally, it has been agreed that the complexity in nature of all the
components of environmental education and “human” dimension can prove to be a
difficult task to accurately assess (Bartosh 2003).
28
The development of environmental education components, such as enforcement
of responsible behaviors, knowledge, and skills are affected by various external factors.
Among these external factors are: attitudes of family, friends, and community, family
social status, education, living environment, knowledge, culture and traditions. Therefore,
it can be difficult to effectively portray this range of complex components through
statistical functions. In that sense, it is my belief that a mix of quantitative, statistical
results, mixed with qualitative interpretation, would provide a more complex
interpretation of the findings. Sogunro (2001) suggests that environmental education
researchers should utilize various combinations of these methods in order to produce a
much more nuanced and in-depth interpretation of the results.
I identified six survey points to pose to students about their interest, knowledge,
and involvement in environmental education and behaviors: I protect water quality, I help
restore natural habitats, I know about wildlife and native plants, I pick up trash and
recycle at school and at home, spending time in nature is important to me, and I talk with
family and friends about these things (Appendix B). With these, I sought to determine
how students’ environmental attitudes and behaviors had changed throughout the school
year based on their self-assessments at the end of the year. Short answer surveys were
also provided to teachers and volunteers to determine their perspectives through a
qualitative approach. Survey participants were identified through email correspondence
with the NREP director, school principals, and teacher volunteers. The surveys were
either emailed to the teachers, or presented to the school principals.
Garland (1991) argued that the presence or absence of mid-points within Likert
scales can produce distortions within the results. The optimal number of rating scale
29
points to use has generated much debate within the social research community. Survey
participants are to express both the strength and direction of their opinion about a
particular topic, and rating scales are meant to limit any bias as effectively as possible.
There is evidence that the presence of mid-points within scales produce distortions within
the results of the survey. Therefore it is desirable that participants make a definite choice,
opposed to neutral responses. In this sense, a scale which lacks a midpoint is preferable
(Garland, 1991).
To this end, I decided to create and distribute my survey without the presence of a
mid-point in order to encourage the participating students to refrain from neutral
responses. Each survey point includes a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from “a lot” to
“none,” as participants were to rate their environmental behaviors and attitudes “before
this school year”, “during this school year”, and “after this school year”. The teachers
were then instructed to distribute the surveys towards the end of the school year (MayJune) in order to get a fuller picture of the changes of environmental attitudes and
behaviors of the students after participation in the NREP’s environmental programs.
Data from Surveys and Analysis
To obtain quantitative data from the school surveys, student answers were graded
from 0 to 3, where 0 corresponded to the “not at all” survey response, 1 to “a little”, 2 to
“somewhat”, and 3 to “a lot”. This allowed separate data points for each student, with the
two schools as different survey groups.
30
In order to find out whether the change depicted in the retrospective assessment,
administered at the end of the school year, of environmental attitudes and knowledge at
various points earlier in the year were temporary, or if they had effects lasting past the
program, two values were calculated from the graded survey. The first value was the
difference between “Before this School Year” and “During this School Year.” This value
represents the immediate change in attitude toward the environment as a result of the
program. The second value was the difference between “Before this School Year” and
“After this School Year.” This value represents a more lasting effect of the program. The
change in attitude from the beginning of the school year to the end of the school year
indicates an overall change in attitude about the environment and environmental
behaviors. For statistical analysis, Student’s T test was used to determine the mean
responses of students from each school by question and change in question response as
described above. The tests were also divided into “before,” “during,” and “after” to
examine differences in attitudes between schools at different times in the school year.
Analyzing ordinal data parametrically
There has been an enduring argument over the treatment of ordinal data as
interval data for data analysis (Sullivan and Artino, 2013). With ordinal data, the
differences between “a lot,” “some,” “a little,” or “none” on a frequency response Likert
scale are not measurable. In contrast, the difference between responses with interval data
do have the capacity to be calculated and are, in fact, measurable. In the case of using
mean, it has been considered by some as an invalid parameter when analyzing ordinal
data, and nonparametric procedures such as rank, median, or range should be used to
analyze such data; whereas means and standard deviations are suggested for interval data
31
scales (Boone and Boone, 2012; Allen and Seamen, 2007; Sullivan and Artino, 2013;
Clason and Dormody, 1994).
However, there are those who suggest that analyzing ordinal data as interval data
is a valid and, perhaps, more compelling method of data analysis. Allen and Seamen
(2007) suggest that parametric statistical tests are more powerful, easier to interpret, and
more informative than the alternative nonparametric tests. However, they caution that
analyzing ordinal data as interval data could misrepresent and mislead survey findings.
Norman (2010) addressed this point by arguing that, not only are parametric tests safe to
use with ordinal data, such as in the case of Likert scale data, but that parametric means
of testing provide a generally more robust set of results than nonparametric tests. In other
words, it is plausible for parametric tests to deliver “the right answer,” even when
assumptions are violated, because the parametric tests are sufficiently robust enough to
provide unbiased answers, even in the case of Likert scale responses (Norman, 2010).
The real question is whether or not the data has been analyzed in such a way to
meaningfully answer the research questions (Clason and Dormody, 1994).
32
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Student Survey Results: Comparing Mill Pond and Prairie Elementary
This section exhibits the results of the students’ post-participation surveys and
responses from the teachers, NREP director, and volunteer. Each question is addressed
individually, followed by the results. Responses for student surveys were compared
Before, During, and After the school year to access any change in the students’ perceived
environmental knowledge, attitude, and behavior. These responses were then compared
between the two schools to determine urban or rural residency impacted the student
answers.
33
Question 1:
Question 1
3
2.21
During-After
Before-After
+1.1489
-0.2340
+0.9149
p<0.0001
p=0.3398
p<0.0001
+1.0667
-0.0667
+1.0000
p<0.0001
p=0.9479
p<0.0001
+1.1875
-0.3125
+0.8750
p<0.0001
p=0.3365
p=0.0004
1.98
2
Combined
Before-During
1.06
1
0
Before
During
After
1.93
1.87
3
2
Mill Pond
1
0.87
0
Before
3
During
2.34
After
2.03
2
Prairie
1.16
1
0
Before
During
After
Difference Between Mill Pond and Prairie
Difference
(P-MP)
Before
During
After
Before-During
During-After
Before-After
-0.2896
-0.4104
-0.1646
-0.1208
0.2458
0.1250
p=0.6203
p=0.3519
p=0.6478
p=0.1560 p=0.0656 p=0.4850
Figure 3: Responses to Question 1 (I protect water quality). The first three rows show the μ response for the
schools combined and difference between μ responses at each school. The three far, right columns show
difference between Before μ and During μ, During and After μ, and Before μ and after μ at each school The
bottom row shows the differences in μ, between Mill Pond and Prairie Before μ, During μ, After μ, BeforeDuring μ, During-After μ, and Before-After μ.
34
Results:
For Question 1, “I protect water quality,” students in both schools showed an
improvement in attitude and behavior towards water quality throughout the year, with
both schools having approximately equal responses for before and after the school year.
However, the average response was higher for students at Prairie Elementary than those
at Mill Pond Elementary before, during, and after the school year. For both schools,
responses showed an increase in student behavior between the beginning of the school
year to during the school year. Another trend was noted with the decrease from during the
school year to after the school year.
Discussion:
The fact that responses at Prairie Elementary were higher than Mill Pond
Elementary may indicate that students coming from a more rural setting feel more
engaged in environmental issues and activities surrounding the protection of water
quality, even while students were engaged in the activities. The increase from the
beginning of the school year to after the school year shows that student behaviors and
attitudes towards water quality protection improved while immersed in the NREP
activities. It is interesting to note that, on average, students at both schools noted a
decrease in their attitude and behavior towards water quality after the school year. This
may simply be due to the fact that they were no longer engaging in the water quality
programs for the year. However, when comparing the lower beginning of the school year
response values to the higher after of the school year response values, one can assume
that the program was successful in improving student behaviors towards protecting water
quality.
35
Question 2:
Question 2
BeforeDuring
During-After
Before-After
+0.1087
+0.2391
+0.3478
p=0.8628
p=0.4918
p=0.2257
-0.3333
+0.4667
+0.1333
p=0.6018
p=0.3744
p=0.9211
+0.3226
+0.1294
+0.4519
p=0.4284
p=0.8719
p=0.1936
3
2
Combined
1.80
1.91
2.15
1
0
Before
3
2.27
2
Mill Pond
During
After
2.40
1.93
1
0
Before
During
After
1.90
2.03
3
2
Prairie
1.58
1
0
Before
During
After
Difference Between Mill Pond and Prairie
Difference
(MP-P)
Before
During
After
Before-During
During-After
Before-After
0.6760
0.0301
0.3677
-0.6559
0.3373
-0.3186
p=0.0273
p=0.9271
p=0.2153
p=0.0287
p=0.2331
p=0.2213
Figure 4: Responses to Question 2 (I help restore natural habitats and protect wildlife). The first three rows
show the μ response for the schools combined and difference between μ responses at each school. The three
far, right columns show difference between Before μ and During μ, During and After μ, and Before μ and
after μ at each school. The bottom row shows the differences in μ, between Mill Pond and Prairie Before μ,
During μ, After μ, Before-During μ, During-After μ, and Before-After μ.
36
Results:
For Question 2, “I help restore natural habitats and protect wildlife,” the average
response value at Mill Pond Elementary before the school year was higher than at Prairie
Elementary. The results show that student interest decreased at Mill Pond Elementary
during the school year and increased interest in students at Prairie Elementary. However,
the results were approximately equal at both schools when comparing their
environmental restoration and wildlife protection behaviors at this time. After the school
year shows an increase in response values for students at both schools.
Discussion:
Students at Mill Pond Elementary showed greater concern towards restoring
natural habitats and protecting wildlife at the beginning of the school year. Coming from
a more urban environment, the idea of natural areas and wildlife may seem more
romantic to them, since they do not live in the midst of it. However, their attitudes and
interests decreased during the school year. Perhaps the students did not engage in the
NREP’s natural habitat and wildlife protection programs, or their interest dwindled as
they became immersed in their academic studies. Unlike Mill Pond Elementary, the
response values from Prairie Elementary started lower and increased during the school
year to be approximately equal during the school year. This result indicates that NREP
activities increased the interest of students from rural areas in protecting wildlife and
nature, and that perhaps this interest was lacking more for these students before the
program. Ultimately, both schools showed a positive increase in behaviors and attitudes
towards natural habitat restoration and wildlife protection, which supports the project’s
success.
37
Question 3:
Question 3
3
2
Combined
2.20
BeforeDuring
During-After
Before-After
+0.4783
+0.1087
+0.5870
p=0.0188
p=0.8074
p=0.0028
+0.4667
+0.4000
+0.8667
p=0.1178
p=0.2029
p=0.0014
+0.4838
-0.0323
+0.4516
p=0.0967
p=0.9893
p=0.1295
2.30
1.72
1
0
Before
3
2
Mill Pond
During
2.27
After
2.67
1.80
1
0
Before
During
After
2.16
2.13
3
2
Prairie
1.68
1
0
Before
During
After
Difference Between Mill Pond and Prairie
Difference
(MP-P)
Before
During
After
BeforeDuring
During-After
Before-After
0.1226
0.1054
0.5376
-0.0171
0.4323
0.4151
p=0.5855
p=0.6901
p=0.0112
p=0.9923
p=0.0553
p=0.0568
Figure 5: Responses to Question 3 (I know about wildlife and native plants). The first three rows show the
μ response for the schools combined and difference between μ responses at each school. The three far, right
columns show difference between Before μ and During μ, During and After μ, and Before μ and after μ at
each school. The bottom row shows the differences in μ, between Mill Pond and Prairie Before μ, During
μ, After μ, Before-During μ, During-After μ, and Before-After μ.
38
Results:
For Question 3, “I know about wildlife and native plants,” the average response
value was higher for students at Mill Pond Elementary than those at Prairie Elementary
after the school year, but responses were approximately equal between schools before
and during the school year. Mill Pond Elementary showed an upward trend in their
response values in regards to their knowledge of native plants and wildlife. The students’
response values increased by approximately the same amount between before and during
the school year, and during and after the school year. Students at Prairie Elementary
showed an increase in knowledge between the beginning of the school year and during
the school year, and then remained approximately equal in their responses between
during the school year and the end of the school year.
Discussion:
This result is somewhat counter to Question 2, “I help restore natural habitats and
protect wildlife,” in that student perception of knowledge increased due to the program
for students in the urban setting, as opposed to an attitude change for the students from
the rural setting. This suggests that while students from the more urban area may initially
be more environmentally mindful than students from the rural area, students were,
overall, less confident in their knowledge of nature. On the other hand, their knowledge
continued to increase, even after the school year. Prairie Elementary students showed that
their confidence in native plant and wildlife knowledge increased slightly throughout the
school year. Again, the success of the NREP was upheld as both school show an increase
39
between the response values between the beginning of the school year and after the
school year.
40
Question 4:
Question 4
3
2
Combined
1.96
2.34
BeforeDuring
During-After
Before-After
+0.3830
+0.0851
+0.4681
p=0.0453
p=8541
p=0.0105
+0.5333
+0.0667
+0.6000
p=0.0762
p=0.9578
p=0.0406
+0.3125
+0.0938
+0.4063
p=0.2759
p=0.8888
p=0.1166
2.43
1
0
Before
3
During
After
2.60
2.67
2.07
2
Mill Pond
1
0
Before
3
2
Prairie
1.91
During
After
2.22
2.31
1
0
Before
During
After
Difference Between Mill Pond and Prairie
Difference
(MP-P)
Before
During
After
BeforeDuring
During-After
Before-After
0.1604
0.3813
0.3542
0.2208
-0.0271
0.1937
p=0.5023
p=0.0854
p=0.1020
p=0.2438
p=0.8982
p=0.4198
Figure 6: Responses to Question 4 (I pick up trash and recycle at home and at school). The first three rows
show the μ response for the schools combined and difference between μ responses at each school. The three
far, right columns show difference between Before μ and During μ, During and After μ, and Before μ and
after μ at each school. The bottom row shows the differences in μ, between Mill Pond and Prairie Before μ,
During μ, After μ, Before-During μ, During-After μ, and Before-After μ.
41
Results:
The average response of Question 4, “I pick up trash and recycle at home and at
school,” was slightly higher for students at Mill Pond Elementary than those at Prairie
Elementary during the school year. The response trends at both schools were similar
when students considered their recycling behaviors throughout the school year. Mill Pond
Elementary’s response values increased from the beginning of the school year to during
the school year, and remained constant through the end of the school year. Although the
response values were slightly lower at Prairie Elementary, the more rural students’
responses exhibited the same trend as the more urban students. Both schools showed an
increase in their recycling attitudes and behaviors between the beginning of the school
year and after the school year.
Discussion:
Higher responses at Mill Pond Elementary would indicate that students in the
urban area were slightly more inspired to pick up trash and recycle before, during, and
after the program than students in the rural area. However, the students from both schools
showed an increase between the beginning of the school year to during the school year.
This trend supports the claim that, regardless of rural or urban living, student interest in
environmental concerns, in this case recycling, increases while they engage and are
immersed in environmental activities. Similar to the results of the previous three
questions, students at both schools showed an increase in their recycling attitudes and
behaviors between the beginning of the school year and after the school year. From this
42
we see the continued trend that supports the success of this environmental education
program.
43
Question 5:
Question 5
Combined
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
2.48
Mill Pond
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
Prairie
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
During
After
2.60
2.67
2.33
Before
2.29
Before
During
2.42
During
During-After
Before-After
+0.1739
+0.0870
+0.2609
p=0.4623
p=0.8235
p=0.1794
+0.2667
+0.0667
+0.3333
p=0.4754
p=0.9537
p=0.3169
+0.1290
+0.0968
+0.2258
p=0.7735
p=0.8653
p=0.4583
2.57
2.30
Before
BeforeDuring
After
2.52
After
Difference Between Mill Pond and Prairie
Difference
(MP-P)
Before
During
After
BeforeDuring
During-After
Before-After
0.0430
0.1806
0.1505
0.1377
-0.0301
0.1075
p=0.8553
p=0.3924
p=0.4109
p=0.5417
p=0.8448
p=0.5755
Figure 7: Responses to Question 5 (spending time in nature is important to me). The first three rows show
the μ response for the schools combined and difference between μ responses at each school. The three far,
right columns show difference between Before μ and During μ, During and After μ, and Before μ and after
μ at each school. The bottom row shows the differences in μ, between Mill Pond and Prairie Before μ,
During μ, After μ, Before-During μ, During-After μ, and Before-After μ.
44
Results:
The average response value at Mill Pond Elementary was slightly higher than that
of Prairie Elementary’s response values for question 5, “spending time in nature is
important to me.” Student responses at Mill Pond Elementary increased a fair amount
between before and during the school year, and then only slightly increased between
during and after the school year. The trend at Prairie Elementary for the school year
shows that, since the start of the school year, student attitudes about spending time in
nature increased incrementally. Both elementary schools showed an increase in their
interest in spending time in nature.
Discussion:
The fact that the average response value at Mill Pond Elementary was higher than
at Prairie elementary, suggests that students who live in a more urban area might have a
greater appreciation for the benefits of spending time in nature than the students that live
in a more rural setting. This is further supported by the fact that the average response
value between before the school year and during the school year increased by a greater
rate at the urban school than at the more rural school. The data supports the idea that
students in more urban areas initially feel more strongly about spending time in nature,
even while immersed in activities, than those in more rural areas. However, results from
both schools show a positive increase in student attitudes in regards to spending more
time in nature, reinforcing the success of the NREP.
45
Question 6:
Question 6
2
1.5
Combined
1.46
BeforeDuring
During-After
Before-After
+0.3696
0.0000
+0.3696
p=0.1357
p=1.000
p=0.1357
+0.4000
+0.0667
+0.4667
p=0.3448
p=0.9700
p=0.2382
+0.3548
-0.0322
+0.3226
p=0.3423
p=0.9910
p=0.4113
1.46
1.09
1
0.5
0
Before
During
After
1.40
1.47
2
1.5
Mill Pond
1.00
1
0.5
0
Before
2
1.5
Prairie
During
After
1.48
1.45
1.13
1
0.5
0
Before
During
After
Difference Between Mill Pond and Prairie
Difference
(MP-P)
Before
During
After
BeforeDuring
During-After
Before-After
-0.1290
-0.0839
0.0150
0.0452
0.0989
0.1441
p=0.6334
p=0.7420
p=0.9580
p=0.7864
p=0.6869
p=0.5579
Figure 8: Responses to Question 6 (I talk with family and friends about these things). The first three rows
show the μ response for the schools combined and difference between μ responses at each school. The three
far, right columns show difference between Before μ and During μ, During and After μ, and Before μ and
after μ at each school. The bottom row shows the differences in μ, between Mill Pond and Prairie Before μ,
During μ, After μ, Before-During μ, During-After μ, and Before-After μ.
46
Results:
The average survey results at both schools were approximately equal before,
during, and after the school year for Question 6, “I talk with family and friends about
these things.” Mill Pond Elementary showed an increase from before the school year to
during the school year, and a slight increase from during the school year to after the
school year. Students at Prairie Elementary exhibited a slightly different trend, where
student interest in discussing environmental matters increased from before the school
year to during the school year, and then maintained through to after the school year.
Students at both schools showed a positive increase in environmental behaviors when
comparing the before the school year values to after the school year values.
Discussion:
Out of all 6 questions, Question 6 received the lowest response values from
students at both schools. This is unfortunate because it suggests that students at both rural
and urban schools were less interested in sharing their experiences, attitudes, and
behaviors with family and friends, even while immersed in the NREP’s activities. This
could be due to a number of different reasons, such as preference to discuss other matters,
to fear of exhibiting different interests than their family and friends, thereby setting
themselves up to be ridiculed or made an outcast. Although this behavior received the
lowest response values from both schools, it did show an increase when before the school
year was compared to after the school year, providing further support for the claim that
the NREP has a positive impact on student environmental attitudes and behaviors.
47
Correlations with Test Scores
While standardized tests do not fully reflect a student’s comprehension of a given
a subject, they can be used as a supplemental indicator of their interest and performance.
In the example of this thesis study, Prairie Elementary has a much higher percentage of
students meeting standards for science than Mill Pond Elementary. This may be caused
by a variety of factors, which could include teacher involvement, accessibility to scienceoriented programs such as the NREP, and general student interest. For instance, Mill
Pond’s low science test scores may be due to the fact that hands-on science education
programs, like NREP, are not mandatory, and therefore may indicate a disconnect where
students are not performing well in the sciences due to low interest because of lack of
exposure. Certainly, nature deficit could contribute to student lack of interest in the
natural world, and consequentially, in the sciences. It is also telling that the school with
mandatory participation environmental science education program has much higher test
scores in science. Further research into this subject would benefit by investigating the
contrast between the two schools’ science curriculums.
Teacher and Other Survey Results
Of the short-answer surveys given to teachers and volunteers, three were returned
from teachers, one from the director of the NREP, and one from a volunteer of the
program. The responses were pooled together, attempts were made to not distinguish
between roles when reporting responses.
48
Question 1:
What drew you to the NREP’s Programs?
Results:
For Question 1, five of the five individuals who responded appear to have been
drawn to the NREP through some form of introduction, either through their school,
school district, or a program at The Evergreen State College. One participant appreciated
the unique opportunity the NREP offers students. They described it as “[connecting] the
classroom to the real world, and [having] the students doing real citizen science.” Three
responders saw the benefit such a program could bring through their own passions. For
instance, one teacher was drawn by their personal “interest[s] in environmental
education;” another was attracted to the practical “hands on [application] inquiry and
learning.” A further example of this was a respondent’s personal enjoyment of “helping
younger students learn about science and the environment.”
Discussion:
It seems clear that 3rd party introductions between the NREP, teachers and
volunteers are vital to the project’s success and community engagement. Moreover, the
participants’ personal passions and interests in hands-on learning, citizen science, and
concern for the environment appear to be the primary drivers for continued involvement
in the programs. One might conclude that passionately engaged teachers everywhere
would understandably jump at the chance to extend their student’s thirst and search for
knowledge into the real world.
49
Question 2:
Do you feel that outdoor education is important for students to make connections
between what they are learning and the local community/environment? Why?
Results:
All participants were in agreement in their responses to Question 2 towards the
importance of the aims of the NREP providing an opportunity. An example of this is one
participant’s response in regards to the importance “for students to make connections
between what they are learning and the local environment.” One responder compared it to
being “what scientists do.” Two out of the five responders agreed that the connection to
the environment would influence the students’ attitudes and behaviors. For instance, “If
they are more connected and more involved they are more likely to actually care about
the environment and what’s going on around them and be involved in their community in
the future.” Another illustration of this was a participant’s hope that students will “realize
that the learning they are taking part of is part of a bigger picture and that they can make
a positive impact on the world.”
Discussion:
Besides children being more involved and understanding their natural
environment, the programs aim to provide them with applicable real-world experiences in
order to enrich and extend their knowledge base, and the participant responses are
supportive of this goal and the success of the NREP in working towards it. One might
theorize that the more senses students engage in their pursuits, the easier it is for them to
connect their learning to the bigger picture. Therefore, not only do the NREP’s programs
50
support student learning, they also encourage participation of citizen science as they
develop future scientists.
Question 3:
Do you feel that spending time in nature is important to a child’s
mental/emotional/physical development? Why?
Results:
Every participant was in agreement to the importance of spending time in nature to a
child’s mental/emotional/physical development in Question 3. One participant described
nature as having a “calming” effect on the students and explains that it is “important to
understand and explore the world that we live in.” Another responder suggested that the
students are “at home in nature.” Nature provides “fresh air, exercise, and experiences,”
and that children “do not get enough time in” it. Another participant suggested that there
is too much “focus nowadays on standardized testing—I think schools are even cutting
back on outdoor time in general—and that can take a toll on mental/emotional/physical
health.”
Discussion:
While all participants were in agreement to the importance of spending time in nature to a
child’s mental/emotional/physical development in Question 3. The response of the
teachers is interesting in regards to the effect nature has on children. Recess has always
been a time for children to engage with the outdoors, but even then exposure to nature is
51
limited when artificial jungle gyms are used. As children progress upwards towards high
school graduation such potentially calming breaks and experiences, which help tie
together the mental, physical and emotional developments of children, are waylaid
completely in the academic setting.
Question 4
Which of the NREP’s activities do you feel are the most successful at engaging students?
Why?
Results:
Overall, the responses to Question 4 were quite varied toward which activities were the
most successful and engaging to the students. Three out of the five responders agreed that
water quality testing was the most successful. Another felt that “In terms of reaching the
broadest range of students, tree planting and habitat restoration was most successful.”
One even found the salmon tosses to be a personal favorite and suggested that it was a
student favorite as well, based on their observed participation. They noted that “almost all
the students end up participating.” Another participant surmised that tree planting and
restoration potentially reach those who are weaker at class work. “It reinforces what they
have learned about water quality and gives them an opportunity to positively impact the
streams and rivers they are studying. Often students who struggle in school excel at tree
planting! Many, many teachers comment at the pleasant surprise of seeing students who
normally are not successful in the classroom jump into the tree planting with
enthusiasm.”
52
Discussion:
Implementation and involvement by the teachers possibly has an effect depending
on their own preferences, like that of the respondent who preferred the salmon tosses.
Although the water quality testing was stated to be the most popular, according to the
majority of responders, the other two participants gave cause to suggest that the students,
and adults have varied interests and passions that one activity alone could not serve.
Happily, the NREP includes a number of activities which would likely appeal to different
demographics at different levels.
Question 5:
Do any other classes in your school/grade participate in the NREP’s programs? Why?
Results:
Like the responses to Question 4, Question 5 received mixed responses. While
two responders stated their school district requires that all 5th grade classes participate in
the NREP’s programs, another school only had one class participating. This participant
explained it was “due to time constraints.”
Discussion:
It is clear that not all school principals or districts require each 5th grade
classroom to participate in the NREP’s activities. This may be due to the fact that the
teachers, principals, or school districts have differing priorities, which could be a
53
reflection of nature disassociation within the authority figure(s) presiding over the
schools or classes themselves. This disassociation is suggested due to the fact that the 5th
grade classes in the more rural school were required to participate in the activities,
whereas only one 5th grade class from the more urban school participated because the
other teachers had other priorities.
Question 6:
How would you describe the students’ level of engagement on the NREP fieldtrips? Does
this transcend across demographic backgrounds (socio-economic status, race, culture,
gender)?
Results:
In response to Question 6, two out of the four responders agree that the fieldtrips
appeal to all the students. This is evident in the following responses: “all students enjoy
the fieldtrips,” and “they all loved it.” However, the other two responders stated that it
only appealed to most of the students. For example, one participant reported that
“students mostly participate evenly across demographic backgrounds;” similarly, the
other stated that “Most of the engagement is very high.” These two described engaging
and keeping students focused as being more difficult. “Girls generally seem a little more
focused than the boys” on the tasks at hand and “sometimes it’s like herding cats,” and
“if there aren’t enough adults present to staff the different stations [then student
engagement will be lower].”
54
Discussion:
The two participants that described engaging and keeping students focused as
being more difficult suggest that there are several factors that come into play, such as
gender. If the girls were more engaged in the activities, then this could possibly be due to
gender roles or the simple fact that the girls might find certain technical activities more
engaging than the boys. Apart from gender, it seems that parent support and participation
is key to the success of the NREP. While the first two responders did not go into detail
about as to why or how all of the students enjoyed and loved the programs, they agreed
that the fieldtrips do appeal to all the students, regardless of demographic backgrounds.
Perhaps these were classes where there was more parental support in terms of
chaperoning the fieldtrips.
Question 7:
How, if at all, have student behaviors changed after participating in the program? Does
this transcend across demographic backgrounds (socio-economic status, race, culture,
gender)?
Results:
Four out of the five responders agreed that it changes behaviors at least some,
while one reported that behaviors did not change, yet did not provide any details. One of
the responders who saw a change in behavior suggested that “[students] are proud of
themselves and know they are doing important work”. Another participant supported this
change by citing previous studies; “according to our end of the year survey from previous
55
years, yes.” Further responses claimed that prior experience with the NREP can
determine student maturity when participating in activities. For example, “students have a
different attitude about it than students with minimal background or previous
involvement. They take it a little more seriously and sometimes even take on leadership
roles in highly involved activities like water quality testing.”
Discussion:
According to a majority of the responses, it seems that the NREP’s activities give
children pride and a sense of accomplishment, because they understand the importance of
what they are doing. It’s clear that, for the most part, the more students have
opportunities to participate in activities, like those of the NREP, the more students grow
and come to understand and respect the importance of what they are learning and
participating in. Although not every class sees the same level of success in behavioral
changes, one might speculate that, perhaps, these were among the classes that had limited
parent involvement in the form of chaperones.
Question 8:
Do you feel that the NREP successfully reaches out to all students, regardless of
economic status, race, or cultural association? Why/Why not?
Results:
Responses to Question 9 indicate that all five of the five participants agree that the
program successfully reaches out to all students. For example, one stated that “it is paid
56
for by them and available to everyone. However, another participant noted a potential
issue: “It really depends on the teachers who decide to participate, though. Since the
program isn’t mandatory, not all schools participate, and sometimes only a few teachers
in each school participate, so there are potentially a lot of students the program isn’t
reaching, but demographic groups within the area are generally represented in the
students who are able to participate.”
Discussion:
Consensus among all five participants indicates that the program, where available
and funded by the public, successfully reaches out to all students, regardless of economic
status, race, or cultural association. The nature of the setting seems to suggest it is
conducive towards positively breaking down demographics. The issue is that the program
isn’t mandatory. It comes down to the schools or school districts where, at times, only a
few teachers in each school decide to participate. This means that there could be a
significant number of students that don’t have access, simply because their teacher chose
to opt out of the opportunity, which may make it difficult for those involved closely to
gauge the impact.
Question 9:
Do you have any suggestions that could improve the NREP’s ability to equitably reach all
students?
57
Results:
Taking the previous questions and answers into consideration, generally the teachers
agree that “the support and the Green Congress are fantastic.” However, there was only
one suggestion for improvement: “The program does outreach and festivals and whatnot,
so I think trying to get more and more teachers involved is the best way to reach out.”
Discussion:
Taking the previous questions and answers into consideration, generally the
teachers agree that the support given by the NREP was sufficient, so it’s not too
surprising that there’s only one real suggestion for improvement. Given some of the
responses from this and the other questions, it’s not surprising that it be for more teacher
involvement from the surrounding communities. Teachers can be considered as the gate
keepers to the hearts and minds of children. If they can be helped to see the benefits that
taking the time out to participate in preservation of resources and develop a passion for
these things, then uncountable children will be given the opportunity for awareness and
participation in the activities as well.
Summary
The two participants that described engaging and keeping students focused as
being more difficult suggest that there are several factors that come into play, such as
gender. If the girls were more engaged in the activities, then this could possibly be due to
gender roles or the simple fact that the girls might find certain technical activities more
engaging than the boys. Apart from gender, it seems that parent support and participation
is key to the success of the NREP. While the first two responders did not go into detail
58
about as to why or how all of the students enjoyed and loved the programs, they agreed
that the fieldtrips do appeal to all the students, regardless of demographic backgrounds.
Perhaps these were classes where there was more parental support in terms of
chaperoning the fieldtrips.
59
CONCLUSIONS
Effectiveness of the NREP in Addressing Nature Deficit
The student survey results indicate that students feel they gain knowledge and
experience from participating in environmental learning activities led by the NREP.
Whether or not they continue to pursue studying environmental sciences, it is clear that
their environmental attitudes and behaviors are positively altered by the program, and
they feel more connected to and responsible for their natural environment.
This improvement in student attitudes appears to be similar for students in both
urban and rural schools. In some cases, it even appears that the students in Mill Pond
Elementary (the urban school), gained more from the program. This supports the idea that
such a program addresses nature deficiency in students from areas where access to nature
is limited.
Other Schools Taking Part in the NREP
Although this study focused on schools with similar demographics, it is important
to note that the NREP reaches out to more diverse groups of students as well. For
example, Wa He Lut Indian School located in the lower watershed has at least one class
participating in the program, as does Shining Mountain Elementary School, a special
needs school. Although there is a standard procedure for any testing (like water quality),
the approaches to environmental education outside of these procedures are up to
60
individual teachers. For instance, teachers may choose to invite volunteer experts in
different fields to help with field trips and to contribute to cultural experience.
Generalizability and Application to Other Programs
The model of the Nisqually River Education Project is to bring different agencies
and groups together to educate as many students as possible in their local natural
environment, using a shared resource (the Nisqually River Basin) as a teaching tool. Such
a tool provides diverse opportunities for students to experience nature and feel more
connected to their community. The main limitation of environmental education programs
like the NREP is that they are not mandatory in every school or every district and
therefore, participation is based on teacher involvement. If school districts or principals
were to implement mandatory participation of an outdoor environmental education
program, as in the case of Prairie Elementary, environmental learning would not be
limited to the few teachers who take the initiative to implement them. Additionally,
continued focus on standardized testing limits the time available for students to
participate in these programs.
Caveats and Limitations of this Study
For the sake of respecting the privacy and identities of the teachers participating
in the NREP’s activities, the director of the project and her superiors felt it appropriate to
send an email to the teachers to introduce the thesis study and request volunteers, rather
61
than disclose contact information. From this email communication, three 5th grade
classrooms in Yelm, Washington agreed to participate in the study. These teachers were
given the option of administering the survey themselves, or inviting the researcher into
their classroom to administer the survey to the students. They unanimously agreed that, in
the interest of time, they felt more comfortable administering the survey themselves,
rather than organizing a time and date with a third party. It was decided that one survey
would be conducted at the end of the school year, rather than three separate surveys
(beginning, middle, and end), in an effort to ease the burden on the teachers and maintain
participation levels. This would be much like a similar survey conducted in previous
years by the NREP in order to evaluate their program.
Of course, the one-time nature of the test poses some methodological issues
associated with the students assessing their own attitudes and knowledge for all three
moments and the end of their experience, rather than at each stage of the process. Asking
participants to assess their attitudes and knowledge over the course of the year is less
advantageous than thoughout the course of their particpation in the program, which
would garner more accurate results without the limitations of memory distortion.
However, an end of the year assessment does provide an opportunity for each participate
to reflect on the change of their attitudes and knowledge over the course of the school
year. In the future, a more accurate assessment would be obtained from surveying
students at three points; at the beginning, middle, and end of the year.
62
While the teachers volunteered to administer the tests themselves, the students
were required to obtain parental approval before participating in the study. Two of the
participating classes were from Prairie Elementary and one of these classes was from
Mill Pond Elementary, resulting in unequal sample sizes from each school. However, not
all of the students in the classes submitted surveys, resulting in lower sample sizes; a total
of 32 paticipating students from Prairie Elementary and 15 particpating students from
Mill Pond Elementary. According to the National Center for Education Statistic’s Digest
of Education Statistics, the average class size of elementary schools in Washington State
is 23.7 (2016). This suggests there was 63% of student survey participation at Mill Pond
Elementary and 68% of student survey participation at Prairie Elementary. It is unknown
as to whether the difference could be chocked up to a lack of parental or student interest
in participating in the study.
Due to the fact that the students were not asked to self identify for ethical reasons,
and because there were only two schools surveyed, there could not be correlations made
between the effects of the program and equity in other areas such as race, ethnicity, or
socio-economic status. This was partially remedied by the teacher and volunteer survey
results, which indicated that that students across different backgrounds benefit from the
program.
The teachers were then instructed to distribute the surveys towards the end of the
school year (May-June) in order to get a fuller picture of the changes of environmental
attitudes and behaviors of the students after participation in the NREP’s environmental
programs.
63
Future Studies
To determine the effectiveness of outdoor environmental education programs at
equitably reaching out to students of various backgrounds, long-term studies are needed.
The data provided by this study and past research can help to inform future evaluations as
to the demographics that should be targeted by these programs. The data can also help to
pinpoint where connections made between nature and the classroom benefit student
environmental attitude and behaviors. Future research should incorporate opportunities to
observe actual students engagement in these activities throughout the school year to make
direct connections as to how these variables act in relation to student backgrounds.
Additional efforts should focus on long-term effects of these students’ exposure to
programs.
Comparative studies should be undertaken to determine how generalizable the
conclusions of this research are. Do 5th grade students in rural and urban areas in different
parts of the United States reflect similar environmental knowledge, behaviors, and
attitudes? Understandably, students residing in a major metropolitan area, or in a small,
Midwestern town might offer different results. It can be theorized that students who
participate in a similar environmental education program and live in more extreme
conditions of rural and urban living would provide different results. Researching a
nationwide program, such as Project WILD, or a network of smaller programs across the
nation, might be more effective at providing a comprehensive array of results from
various demographics across the country. By conducting further inquiry of more diverse
populations and areas, including specialty schools such as the Wa He Lut Indian School
64
and Shining Mountain Elementary, common themes might be revealed that could apply
to equity within environmental education programs on a larger scale.
65
References
Allen, I. E., and Seaman, C. A. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress,
40(7), 64–65.
American Institutes for Research. (2005). Effects of outdoor education programs for
children in California. Outdoor School Report.
"Baker v. Carr 1962." Supreme Court Drama: Cases That Changed America. . Retrieved
December 22, 2017 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legaland-political-magazines/baker-v-carr-1962
Bell, J., Wilson, J. and Liu, G (2008) Neighborhood Greenness and 2-Year Changes in
Body Mass Index of Children and Youth. American Journal of Preventative Medicine,
35.
Carpenter, Cecelia Svinth (1994). Where the Waters Begin. 1st ed. Seattle, Washington:
Northwest Interpretive Association. Print.
Clason, D. L., & Dormody, T. J. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likerttype items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35, 4.
Dickinson, Elizabeth. (2013). The Misdiagnosis: Rethinking “Nature-Deficit Disorder”.
Environmental Communication. Volume 7, No 3. Pgs. 315-335.
Driessnack, Martha. (2009). Children and Nature-Deficit Disorder. Journal for
Specialists in Pediatric Nursing. Volume 14, Issue 1. Pgs. 73-75.
Faber, Taylor, Kuo, F.E., and Sullivan, W.C. (2001) Coping with ADD: The surprising
66
connection to green play settings. Environment and Behavior, 33
Faber, Taylor, and Kuo, F.E. (2009). Children with attention defecits concentrate better
after walk in the park. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12.
Ghahremani, Susie, Ward, Jennifer, and Louv, Richard (2008) I Love Dirt: 52 Activities
to Help You and Your Child Discover the Wonders of Nature. Published by
Trumpeter Books in Boston.
Gordon, David G and Mark R Lembersky (1995) Nisqually Watershed. 1st ed. Seattle,
WA: Mountaineers. Print
Kuo, F.E. and Faber, Talor (2004) A potential natural treatment for AttentionDefecit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Evidence from a national study. American
Journal of Public Health, 94.
Lieberman, G. A., and Hoody, L. L. (1998). Closing the achievement gap: Using the
environment as an integrating context for learning. Poway, CA: Science Wizards
Louv, Richard. Last Child In The Woods. 1st ed. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of
Chapel Hill, 2005. Print.
Louv, Richard. (2010). Do Our Kids Have Nature-Deficit Disorder? Educational
Leadership. Volume 67. Pgs. 24-30
Louv, Richard. The Nature Principle. 1st ed. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of
Chapel Hill, 2012. Print.
Maller, Cecilly, Townsend, Mardie, Pryor, Anita, Brown, Peter, St Leger, Lawrence;
67
Healthy nature healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health
promotion intervention for populations. Health Promot Int 2006; 21: 45-54.
McCrea, Edward. (2005). The Roots of Environmental Education: How the Past Supports
the Future. Environmental Education and Training Partners
Measurements of Student Progress (Grades 3-8). (n.d.). Retrieved August 20, 2017, from
http://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/StateTesting/MSP.aspx
Nces.ed.gov. (2017). Digest of Education Statistics-Advance Release of Selected 2016
Digest tables. [online] Available at:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2016menu_tables.asp [Accessed 3 Nov. 2017].
N.R.T. Force, & N.R. Council, (1987). Nisqually River management plan. Shorelands
and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology,
Olympia, WA.
Nisqually River Education Project – Connecting kids with nature. (n.d.). Retrieved
August 15, 2017, from http://nrep.nisquallyriver.org/
Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv Health
Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010;15(5):625–632.
Pearce, Joshua M., and Russill, Chris. (2005) Interdisciplinary Environmental Education:
Communicating and applying energy efficiency for sustainability. Applied Environmental
Education and Communication, V. 4.
"Reynolds v. Sims." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. . Retrieved December 22,
2017 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/law/encyclopedias68
almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/reynolds-v-sims
Robinson, Steve, Alesko, Michael. (2011). The Return of a River: a Nisqually Tribal
Challenge. Enduring Legacies: Native Case Studies.
Semerjian, L., El-Fadel, M., Zuarayk, R., Nuwayhid, I. (2004). Interdisciplinary
Approach to Environmental Education. Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 30, Issue 3.
Stapp, William, et al. (1969). The Concept of Environmental Education. EE Reference
Collection. Pgs. 22-24.
Sullivan, Gail M. and Artino, Anthony R. (2013) Analyzing and Interpreting Data from
Likert-Type Scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. December 2013,
Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 541-542.
Washington
State
Report
Card.
(n.d.).
Retrieved
August
20,
2017,
from
http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx
Vincent, S. and Focht, W. (2011). Interdisciplinary environmental education: elements of
field identity and curriculum design. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences
69
Appendix A: School Demographics
Table A1: Demographic data for Prairie Elementary
Enrollment
October 2015 Student Count
526
May 2016 Student Count
562
Gender
Male
287
54.6%
Female
239
45.4%
Hispanic/Latino
76
14.4%
American Indian/Alaskan Native
12
2.3%
Asian
3
0.6%
Black/African American
1
0.2%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
1
0.2%
White
381
72.4%
Two or more races
52
9.9%
Free or Reduced-Price Meals
221
39.3%
Special Education
93
16.5%
Transitional Bilingual
34
6.0%
Migrant
0
0.0%
Section 504
7
1.2%
321
0.4%
Race/Ethnicity
Special Programs
Other Information
Unexcused Absence Rate
70
Table A2: Demographic data for Mill Pond Elementary
Enrollment
October 2015 Student Count
563
May 2016 Student Count
549
Gender
Male
299
53.1%
Female
264
46.9%
Hispanic/Latino
85
15.1%
American Indian/Alaskan Native
12
2.3%
Asian
10
1.8%
Black/African American
16
2.8%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
8
1.4%
White
375
66.6%
Two or more races
57
10.1%
Free or Reduced-Price Meals
232
42.3%
Special Education
97
17.7%
Transitional Bilingual
12
2.2%
Migrant
5
0.9%
Section 504
16
2.9%
288
0.4%
Race/Ethnicity
Special Programs
Other Information
Unexcused Absence Rate
71
Appendix B: Sample Student and Teacher Surveys
Student Survey:
72
Interview questions for NREP Director, Volunteers, and Teachers:
What drew you to the NREP’s programs?
Do you feel that outdoor education is important for students to make connections
between what they are learning and the local community/environment? Why/Why not?
Do you feel that spending time in nature is important to a child’s
mental/emotional/physical development? Why/Why not?
Which of the NREP’s activities does your class participate in?
Do any other classes in your school/grade participate in the NREP’s programs?
Why/Why not?
How would you describe the students’ level of engagement on the NREP fieldtrips?
Does this transcend across demographic backgrounds (socio-economic status, race,
culture, gender)?
How, if at all, have student behaviors changed after participating in the program?
Does this transcend across demographic backgrounds (socio-economic status,
race, culture, gender)?
Do you feel that the NREP successfully reaches out to all students, regardless of
economic status, race, or cultural association? Why/Why not?
Do you have any suggestions that could improve the NREP’s ability to equitably reach all
students?
73
74
