Kelly Chandler and Monica Swartzentruber

Nature Awareness and Science Achievement

Purpose- determine if there is a connection between students’ experiences in nature and their science achievement in the classroom

Theory- knowledge transferBackward reaching high-road transfer

Relationship between purpose and theory

Introduction

Last year’s results (significance in correlation)

Continuation of pilot studyRecommended to develop the attitudes

portion of the survey- refine an instrument

Cause for Study

Perkins and Salomon (1988)- Theory of transferKellert (2002)- Survey categoriesNational Environmental Education Advisory Council

(NEEAC) (2005)- Environmental Education encourages problem solving and critical thinking.

Crim, Desjean-Perrotta, & Moseley (2008)- The students are able to integrate curriculum more effectively.

Brahn and Reece (2006)- Informal LearningCorbit (2008)- Prior KnowledgeBallantyne and Packer (2009)- Learning in natural

environments

Literature Review

56 4th graders in one suburban school/ one urban school

TCAP scores from last year- compared classes (T-Test)

Students completed the Nature Awareness Survey in January and February (validity)3 categories: Direct, Indirect, Vicarious

(Kellert, 2002)Nature Awareness Survey scoring

Gathered the 3rd nine week science averagesPearson Correlation to determine significance

Study Design

Results

Class comparison

An independent sample T-test suggests the mean difference between the two schools was not significant, t(54) = .71, p > .05, d = .48

Survey InstrumentA Pearson Correlation and a Spearman’s rho

for the data revealed a significant test retest reliability between the two surveys, r = +.83, n = 55, p < .01, two tails.

Cronbach’s Alpha shows internal reliability of the survey, (21 items; α = .75).

Spearman-Brown and a Guttman Split-half test revealed significant internal reliability for the Nature Awareness Survey, r = .79.

Results cont.

Correlation between Nature Awareness and science averages

A correlation for the data revealed a student’s awareness of the natural world and his/her science grades were significantly related, r = +.34, n = 56, p < .05, two tails. These findings led to the acceptance of the hypothesis

H1: Nature awareness scores are significantly correlated to science grades.

Results cont.

Other FindingsCorrelation between Nature Awareness and

science TCAP scores

A Pearson correlation and a Spearman’s rho indicate a significant relationship between nature awareness scores and science TCAP scores, r = +.39, n = 54, p < .01, two tails.

Survey conclusionsCorrelations between indirect and direct (r

= .679 n = 56, p < .01, two tails)Correlation between indirect and vicarious (r =

.606 n = 56, p < .01, two tails)Correlation between vicarious and direct (r

= .477 n = 56, p < .01, two tails)

Other Findings

Educational Implications

This research should encourage educators to promote and facilitate direct, indirect, and vicarious student interactions with nature in order to foster backward-reaching high road transfer of science understanding.

Recommendations for Further ResearchWe suggest the exploration of a possible

correlation between students’ nature awareness scores and their averages in other subject areas such as English or Math.

We advise more research on the possible correlation between students’ nature awareness scores and parental involvement.