Taking Action Opportunities (TAO) is a curriculum that combines guided reflection, a focus on the local environment, and innovative use of wildlife technology to empower student action toward improving the environment. TAO is experientially based and uses remote cameras as a tool for schoolyard exploration. Through TAO, students engage in research design, implementation, and analysis, and increase participation in environmentally responsible behavior. TAO was tested with fifth-grade students (age 10-11 years) through a pre- and posttest design. Treatment groups (n = 93; 4 classes, 2 years) were compared with control (n = 89; 4 classes, 2 years) and baseline data (n = 458) to measure knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Students in the treatment groups demonstrated significant (p < .01) gain in all categories. These students left fifth grade with experience, skill, and confidence in improving their environment.
BizerrilM. (2004). Children’s perceptions of Brazilian Cerrado landscapes and biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Education, 35, 47-57.
2.
BrooksR. T. (1996). Assessment of two camera-based systems for monitoring arboreal wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24, 298-300.
3.
CarrierS. (2009). Environmental education in the schoolyard: Learning styles and gender. Journal of Environmental Education, 40, 2-12.
4.
ChawlaL. (1998). Life paths into effective environmental action. Journal of Environmental Education, 20, 15-26.
5.
CoyleK. (2005). Environmental literacy in American: What 10 years of report cards say. Washington, DC: National Environmental Education & Training Foundation.
6.
Cronin-JonesL. (2000). The effectiveness of schoolyards as sites for elementary science instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 203-211.
7.
DuitR.TreagustD. F.MansfieldH. (1996). Investigating student understanding as a prerequisite to improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In TreagustD. F.DuitR.FraserB. J. (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 17-31). New York, NY: Columbia University.
8.
ErnstJ. (2005). A formative evaluation of the prairie science class. Journal of Interpretation Research, 10, 9-29.
9.
ErnstJ.StanekD. (2006). The prairie science class: A model for re-visioning environmental education within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11, 1-11.
10.
FismanL. (2005). The effects of local learning on environmental awareness in children: An empirical investigation. Journal of Environmental Education, 36, 39-50.
11.
HannaG. (1995). Wilderness-related environmental outcomes of adventure and ecology education programming. Journal of Environmental Education, 27, 21-32.
12.
HewsonP. W.BeethM. E.ThorleyN. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In FraserB. J.RobinK. G. (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 199-218). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
13.
HigginsP. (2009). Into the big wide world: Sustainable experiential education for the 21st century. Journal of Experiential Education, 32, 44-60.
14.
HinesJ.HungerfordH.TomeraA. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1-8.
15.
HungerfordH.VolkT. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 8-21.
16.
KaplanS. (2000). Human nature and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 491-508.
17.
LeemingF. C.DwyerW. O.BrackenB. A. (1995). Children’s environmental attitudes in elementary school children. Journal of Environmental Education, 26, 22-31.
18.
Lindemann-MatthiesP. (2002). The influence of an educational program on children’s perception of biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Education, 33, 22-31.
19.
Lindemann-MatthiesP. (2006). Investigating nature on the way to school: Responses to an educational programme by teachers and their pupils. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 895-918.
20.
LouvR. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
21.
LuggA. (2007). Developing sustainability-literate citizens through outdoor learning: Possibilities for outdoor education in higher education. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 7, 97-112.
22.
MartinB.BrightA.CafaroP.MittelstaedtR.BruyereB. (2009). Assessing the development of environmental virtue in 7th and 8th grade students in an expeditionary learning outward bound school. Journal of Experiential Education, 31, 341-358.
23.
MonroeM. (2003). Two avenues for encouraging conservation behaviors. Human Ecology Review, 10, 113-125.
24.
MygindE. (2009). A comparison of children’s statements about social relations and teaching in the classroom and in the outdoor environment. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 9, 151-169.
25.
Newhouse BernsG.SimpsonS. (2009). Outdoor recreation participation and environmental concern: A research summary. Journal of Experiential Education, 32, 79-91.
26.
PalmbergI. E.KuruJ. (2000). Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility. Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 32-36.
27.
PergamsO. R. W.ZaradicP. A. (2006). Is love of nature in the US becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies, playing video games, internet use, and oil prices. Journal of Environmental Management, 80, 387-393.
28.
PosnerG. J.StrikeK. A.HewsonP. W.GertzogW. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
29.
RandlerC.IlgA.KernJ. (2005). Cognitive and emotional evaluation of an amphibian conservation program for elementary school students. Journal of Environmental Education, 37, 43-52.
30.
StrikeK. A.PosnerG. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In WestL. H. T.PinesA. L. (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 211-231). New York, NY: Academic Press.
31.
SwannD. E.HassC. C.DaltonD. C.WolfS. A. (2004). Infrared-triggered cameras for detecting wildlife: An evaluation and review. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32, 357-365.
32.
TannerD. (2009a). Analyzing wildlife habitat with Google Earth. Green Teacher, 87, 9-15.
33.
TannerD. (2009b). Taking action opportunities: Connecting kids to wildlife with trail cameras. St. Paul, MN: Department of Natural Resources, State of Minnesota.
34.
TannerD. (2010). Fifth graders’ knowledge, attitudes and behavior toward habitat loss and landscape fragmentation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 15, 418-432.
35.
WilkeR.HungerfordH. R.VolkT. L.BluhmW. J. (1995). The middle school environmental literacy instrument. Carbondale, IL: The Center for Instruction, Staff Development and Evaluation.
36.
ZeleznyL. (1999). Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 5-14.
