Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Connecting children to the ocean : understanding elementary students' changes in ocean literacy during… Kim, Jong-Mun 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_september_kim_jongmun.pdf [ 4.14MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0167241.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0167241-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0167241-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0167241-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0167241-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0167241-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0167241-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0167241-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0167241.ris

Full Text

   CONNECTING CHILDREN TO THE OCEAN:  UNDERSTANDING ELEMENTARY STUDENTS’ CHANGES IN OCEAN LITERACY DURING A MARINE AQUARIUM SUMMER CAMP EXPERIENCE   by JONG-MUN KIM     B.Ed., Seoul National University of Education, South Korea, 1991 M.Ed., Inha University, South Korea, 2004 M.A., The University of Victoria, 2007    A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY    in    THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  (Curriculum Studies)    THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)    June 2014  © Jong-Mun Kim, 2014  ii  Abstract Relatively little research has been carried out on how to increase ocean literacy among students from diverse sociocultural backgrounds in both formal and informal educational contexts. To contribute to the pressing need for research in this important area, this study employed a mixed methods approach and examined changes in elementary students’ (Grades 3 to 5) ocean literacy during a five-day summer camp (AquaCamps) experience provided by the Vancouver Aquarium. A specially developed survey questionnaire, interview protocol, in-camp observations, and document analysis methods were used to collect data on the characteristics of changes in students’ ocean literacy as well as the influences of AquaCamps and other life experiences on the changes in their marine science knowledge and orientations (naturalistic, aesthetic, recreational, utilitarian, and negativistic). Quantitative analysis of the survey data revealed appreciable changes in students’ marine science knowledge and in their orientations. In particular, students’ marine science knowledge and naturalistic, aesthetic, and recreational orientations increased while utilitarian and negativistic orientations decreased after participating in AquaCamps.  Qualitative data analysis elucidated AquaCamps program components that influenced these changes. The analysis also revealed additional sources including family members and multimedia, which affected changes in students’ ocean literacy. A noteworthy finding of this study is students’ limited understanding of their connections to the ocean and marine organisms as a whole.  This study highlights the need for marine education to focus on building individual student’s ocean literacy by (1) helping individual students to explicitly understand how they are connected to ocean/marine organisms and (2) providing individual students with opportunities to iii  build emotional connections to ocean/marine organisms through direct encounters.  This study’s findings have implications for theory and practice in the field of marine education and provide a basis for offering suggestions on ways marine aquarium education might foster students’ ocean literacy.  iv  Preface This dissertation is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, J. Kim.  Ethics approval for this research was provided by the UBC Behavioral Research Ethics Board, certificate number: H12-01249.                   v  Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Learning journey ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 The problem ....................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Research questions ............................................................................................................. 6 1.4 Methodological overview ................................................................................................... 7 1.5 Glossary of terms ............................................................................................................... 8 1.6 Significance ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.7 Organizations of chapters ................................................................................................. 10 Chapter 2 Literature Review and Theoretical Framework .................................................... 12 2.1 Ocean literacy ................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 Need for ocean literacy ........................................................................................... 13 2.1.2 Efforts to build an ocean-literate society ................................................................ 15 2.1.3 Issues related to ocean literacy ................................................................................ 17 2.1.4 Knowledge component of ocean literacy ............................................................... 20 2.1.5 Orientation component of ocean literacy ................................................................ 22 2.1.6 Potential impact of marine aquariums on developing visitors’ ocean literacy ....... 27 2.2 Sociocultural theory ......................................................................................................... 29 2.2.1 Sociocultural theory and learning ........................................................................... 29 2.2.2 Ocean literacy development in a sociocultural context .......................................... 30 2.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 31 Chapter 3 Methodology and Analytical Framework ............................................................... 33 3.1 Context of the study ......................................................................................................... 33 3.2 The study participants ...................................................................................................... 35 3.3 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 37 3.4 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 39 3.4.1 Quantitative methods .............................................................................................. 39 3.4.2 Qualitative methods ................................................................................................ 43 3.5 Data collection procedures ............................................................................................... 44 3.6 Data analysis .................................................................................................................... 46 3.6.1 Quantitative data analysis ....................................................................................... 47 3.6.2 Qualitative data analysis ......................................................................................... 52 3.7 Validity, trustworthiness, and quality of the study ........................................................... 58 vi  3.8 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 61 3.9 Ethical considerations ...................................................................................................... 62 Chapter 4 Changes in Students’ Marine Science Knowledge ................................................. 63 4.1 Changes in marine science knowledge............................................................................. 64 4.1.1 Overall changes ...................................................................................................... 65 4.1.2 Changes in each question ....................................................................................... 66 4.2 Sources of students’ marine science knowledge .............................................................. 86 4.2.1 Influence of AquaCamps on marine science knowledge ........................................ 86 4.2.2 Influence of other life experiences on marine science knowledge ....................... 101 4.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 105 Chapter 5 Changes in Students’ Orientations ........................................................................ 107 5.1 Changes in orientations .................................................................................................. 108 5.1.1 Overall changes .................................................................................................... 108 5.1.2 Categorical changes ...............................................................................................110 5.1.3 Correlation between orientations .......................................................................... 130 5.2. Effect of AquaCamps on students’ orientations ............................................................ 132 5.2.1 Changes in naturalistic (NAT) orientation ............................................................ 132 5.2.2 Changes in aesthetic (AES) orientation ................................................................ 134 5.2.3 Changes in spiritual (SPR) orientation ................................................................. 137 5.2.4 Changes in recreational (REC) orientation ........................................................... 140 5.2.5 Changes in utilitarian (UTL) orientation .............................................................. 141 5.2.6 Changes in negativistic (NEG) orientation ........................................................... 143 5.3. Life experiences affecting orientations ......................................................................... 146 5.3.1 Direct experiences ................................................................................................ 146 5.3.2 Family members ................................................................................................... 149 5.3.3 Friends .................................................................................................................. 152 5.3.4 Seafood preference and culture ............................................................................ 152 5.3.5 Pet experience ....................................................................................................... 154 5.3.6 Movies and books ................................................................................................. 155 5.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 156 Chapter 6 Summary, Discussion, Conclusions, and Implications ........................................ 159 6.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 159 6.2 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 163 6.2.1 Disconnectedness from the ocean ......................................................................... 164 6.2.2 Establishment of localized ocean literacy framework .......................................... 168 6.2.3 Sustainability within the ocean literacy framework ............................................. 169 6.3 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 170 6.4 Implications and suggestions ......................................................................................... 171 6.4.1 Implications for theory and practice ..................................................................... 172 6.4.2 Suggestions for marine aquarium education and future studies ........................... 174 6.4.3 Researcher reflections ........................................................................................... 177 6.4.4 Concluding thoughts ............................................................................................. 177 vii  References .................................................................................................................................. 179 Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 193 Appendix A: AquaCamps schedule of events ...................................................................... 193 Appendix B: Descriptions of AquaCamps activities ............................................................ 194 Appendix B: Description of the AquaCamps activities (cont.) ............................................ 195 Appendix C: Survey questionnaire ...................................................................................... 196 Appendix D: Interview questions ......................................................................................... 201 Appendix E: Demographics of interviewees ........................................................................ 202 Appendix F: Group tables .................................................................................................... 203  viii  List of Tables Table 1 Essential Principles of Ocean Science ............................................................................. 15 Table 2 Orientations toward nature ............................................................................................... 26 Table 3 AquaCamps program sessions ......................................................................................... 34 Table 4 Demographics .................................................................................................................. 37 Table 5 Marine science knowledge statements ............................................................................. 41 Table 6 Data collection strategy .................................................................................................... 45 Table 7 A goodness of fit index for orientations toward the ocean .............................................. 50 Table 8 Construct validity of five-orientation model .................................................................... 51 Table 9 Reliability of each orientation category ........................................................................... 52 Table 10 A priori coding list for marine science knowledge ........................................................ 53 Table 11 A priori coding list for orientations toward the ocean .................................................... 55 Table 12 Marine science knowledge scores in pre- and post-test ................................................. 67 Table 13 Knowledge scores change (question 1) .......................................................................... 68 Table 14 Knowledge scores change (question 2) .......................................................................... 70 Table 15 Knowledge scores change (question 3) .......................................................................... 72 Table 16 Knowledge scores change (question 4) .......................................................................... 74 Table 17 Knowledge scores change (question 5) .......................................................................... 75 Table 18 Knowledge scores change (question 6) .......................................................................... 77 Table 19 Knowledge scores change (question 7) .......................................................................... 79 Table 20 Knowledge scores change (question 8) .......................................................................... 80 Table 21 Knowledge scores change (question 9) .......................................................................... 82 Table 22 Knowledge scores change (question 10) ........................................................................ 84 Table 23 Ocean literacy components in the galleries .................................................................... 87 Table 24 Ocean literacy components in the activities ................................................................... 90 Table 25 Sources of marine science learning and knowledge .................................................... 102 Table 26 Orientation scores in pre- and post-test .........................................................................110 Table 27 Naturalistic orientation pre- and post-test scores .......................................................... 111 Table 28 Change in naturalistic orientation by sociocultural backgrounds .................................113 Table 29 Aesthetic orientation pre- and post-test scores .............................................................115 Table 30 Change in aesthetic orientation by sociocultural backgrounds .....................................118 Table 31 Recreational orientation pre- and post-test scores ........................................................119 Table 32 Change in recreational orientation by sociocultural backgrounds ............................... 121 Table 33 Utilitarian orientation pre- and post-test scores ........................................................... 122 Table 34 Change in utilitarian orientation by sociocultural backgrounds .................................. 124 Table 35 Negativistic orientation pre- and post-test scores ........................................................ 125 Table 36 Change in negativistic orientation by sociocultural backgrounds ............................... 128 Table 37 Pearson correlation ....................................................................................................... 130 ix  List of Figures Figure 1. Encountering marine animals in the gallery. ..................................................................35 Figure 2. Model for data collection and analysis. ..........................................................................39 Figure 3. Six-orientation model. ....................................................................................................48 Figure 4. Five-orientation model. ..................................................................................................50 Figure 5. Scoring the responses. ....................................................................................................64 Figure 6. Number of correct answers on pre- and post-test. ..........................................................65 Figure 7. Knowledge score comparison by each question. ...........................................................66 Figure 8. Knowledge score comparison by grade. ........................................................................69 Figure 9. Knowledge score comparison by gender. .......................................................................71 Figure 10. Knowledge score comparison by gender. .....................................................................73 Figure 11. Knowledge score comparison by gender. .....................................................................78 Figure 12. Knowledge score comparison by grade and ethnicity. .................................................81 Figure 13. Knowledge score comparison by grade and ethnicity. .................................................85 Figure 14. A panel of the Strait of Georgia (a) and the Canada’s Arctic (b). ................................89 Figure 15. Scoring the responses. ................................................................................................108 Figure 16. Orientation change. ....................................................................................................109 Figure 17. Naturalistic orientation score comparison by ethnicity and pet owning experience. ...... 112 Figure 18. Estimated marginal means of naturalistic orientation. ............................................... 114 Figure 19. Aesthetic orientation score comparison by gender, ethnicity, and beach walk frequency. . 117 Figure 20. Recreational orientation score comparison by gender. ..............................................120 Figure 21. Utilitarian orientation score comparison by ethnicity. ...............................................123 Figure 22. Negativistic orientation score comparison by ethnicity, aquarium visit and beach walk frequency. ..........................................................................................................127 Figure 23. Estimated marginal means of negativistic orientation. ..............................................129 Figure 24. Becoming a jelly. ........................................................................................................136 Figure 25. Utilitarian orientation panel. ......................................................................................142 Figure 26. Different preparations for seafood. ............................................................................154  x  Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. David Anderson and my committee members Dr. Samson Nashon and Dr. Sandra Scott for their support, encouragement, and constructive suggestions. Without their professional and careful guidance, this thesis would not be possible. I extend my thanks to Dr. Gloria Snively who has guided me to the world of marine education since 2001, and Dr. Lisa Loutzenheiser and Dr. Don Krug for enlarging my angle of thought.  Special thanks are owed to the Vancouver Aquarium staff who always responded to my requests for data collection, and the wonderful AquaCamps students who participated in my study and shared their stories. I also thank Basia Zurek, Saroj Chand, and Bob Hapke who helped me remain on-track throughout my PhD program, and Ryan Deschambault, Elizabeth Namazzi, and Jiao Ji for sharing their joy and friendship. Finally my heartfelt gratitude goes to my wife Junghee who has always supported my learning journey with love, encouragement, and trust. Also I would like to thank my sons Changhae and Changmin who fill me with pride.  1  Chapter 1 Introduction Nature-Deficit Disorder describes the human costs of alienation from nature, among them: 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).  1.1 Learning journey I was born and raised in the rural area of Kangwon province in South Korea. My hometown was located in an estuary where the Oship river meets the East coast. I always played at the riverside because there were so many friends there: beautifully colored goby and stickleback fish, hairy crabs, leopard frogs, grasshoppers and a multitude of other fascinating creatures. Every season, I interacted with different friends: golden carp laying eggs in the spring, silvery sweetfish snatching mayflies on the water surface in the summer, huge chum salmon returning from Alaska in the fall, and minnows swimming slowly under the ice in the winter. Even now (35 years later), I vividly remember a huge rock where I never failed to find many red-striped shrimps as well as yellow belly gobies. As I traveled a few steps along the riverside, I often chanced upon surprised-looking leopard frogs which quickly dove into the water upon my approach. I also enjoyed swimming and diving in the sea; sometimes I found very beautiful clamshells on the beach. From early childhood to adolescence, my experiences with wildlife in nature formed the foundation of my environmental identity. Entering the Seoul National University of Education, I moved to the largest city of South Korea. My career as a teacher caused me to settle and reside in Seoul. However, from the first year of my teaching career in 1991, I realized that my students’ lives were totally different from mine. After school, they did not play outside and were pushed to study English and math in private 2  institutions because of extremely competitive university entrance examinations and the pressure of family expectations to succeed academically. Even if my students were given some free time, they preferred playing computer games to going outside and engaging in creative endeavors such as making their own forts. They did not seem to recognize seasonal changes outside the classroom windows such as when the white magnolia tree flowered and the wild roses bloomed. Nor did they appear to care about exploring the spot where a huge black spider and a colony of ants lived in the school garden or discovering what sort of creatures resided in the small pond. These children seemed to have, what I later understood to be, ‘Nature-Deficit Disorder’ (Louv, 2005). With this disorder, students’ disconnection from nature is viewed as a serious problem given the essence of their experience with nature in their maturation and development process (Kellert, 2002). Students’ apparent disconnection with their natural environment however, seemed to be most urgent in relation to the ocean because they (urban city students) were given even more limited exposure to the ocean which as Pyle (1993) warns may result in extinction of experience. This absence of experience can lead to a lack of concern and contribute to further diminishment in children’s interactions with the ocean. My students seemed to be completely unaware of the extent to which they (and all human kind) relied on the ocean. Indeed, Lee (2010) documented Korean students’ limited experience with marine organisms and more generally with the ocean. When I transferred to another school in 1996, I took it upon myself to help my students connect to the ocean as part of my role as an elementary school teacher. For that reason, I implemented a specially designed marine summer school (three-day overnight camp) and afterschool marine science programs (year-round program) almost every year. During the programs, I often took my students (Grade 6) to the seashore and marine aquariums in an attempt to halt the cycle of 3  extinction of experience and provide them with more opportunities to interact with the ocean and marine organisms.  However, I was not sure if my attempts to connect my students with the ocean were as successful as I imagined. I constantly struggled to answer the question: “How can I effectively help them connect to nature and the ocean in particular?” This same question propelled me to continue my learning journey at the University of British Columbia, and it played a significant role in the conceptualization of this study. My hope is that likeminded educators and practitioners can make use of my research study to help their own students connect or reconnect with the ocean. Hence this study can be another stepping stone toward building a more ocean-literate society. 1.2 The problem The ocean covers more than 70% of the surface of our planet. As a result, the ocean realm provides not only numerous habitats for marine organisms but also has a tremendous impact on human life because of what it provides in terms of food, oxygen, climate control, a source of fresh water, transportation, and in the development of history and culture (Mayer & Fortner, 1985). Yet, the ocean is constantly threatened by the consequences of human activities such as overfishing, pollution, and destruction of coastal and pelagic (open ocean) marine ecosystems. Consequences of human actions on the ocean include resource depletion, decreasing biodiversity, extinction of marine species, climate change, and habitat loss (World Oceans Network, n.d.).  In this sense, global citizen’s ocean literacy, that is, our understanding of the mutual influences shared by the ocean and humankind, is integral to the Earth’s sustainability (Cava, Schoedinger, Strang & Tuddenham, 2005). However, a series of surveys conducted by the Ocean Project (1999a, 1999b, 2009a, 2009b, 2011) revealed that the general public in the United States is 4  not as knowledgeable as expected about ocean issues, and that the public awareness and understanding of major threats to the ocean has not increased since its first report published in 1999. A limited number of studies reported that this low level of ocean literacy was not specific to adults but was also evident among grade K-12 students in the United States (Brody & Koch, 1990; Fortner, 1978; Plankis & Marrero, 2010) and Canada (Walter & Lien 1985). Hoeberigs and Seys (2005, cited in Evy, Fiona, & Geraldine, 2012) also reported that secondary students and senior citizens in Belgium had insufficient basic comprehension about the ocean. The paucity of information about research studies on ocean literacy in other countries seems to indicate limited ocean literacy levels worldwide. Aiming to increase ocean literacy among learners of all ages, marine education has been implemented in both formal and informal contexts in the United States and a few other countries (Ocean Literacy Network, n.d.). While formal marine education is generally conducted within school curricula (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 1998) through integration with other subjects such as science and social studies (Mayer & Fortner, 1985; Snively, 1989a), informal marine education is conducted beyond the school system in various agencies (NOAA, 1998) such as governmental agencies (e.g., NOAA), non-governmental agencies (e.g., SeaWeb), public institutions (e.g., Mariners Museum) and aquariums, mass media (television programs and films), and social media (e.g., Internet).  Among the variety of sources of informal marine education, marine aquariums and marine science visitor centers are considered powerful and effective venues for both the public and students to obtain information about the ocean and conservation (Ballantyne, 2004; Kelsey, 1991; Lamb, 2004; NOAA, 1988; Ocean Project, 2011; Ohara & Nishi, 2001). Indeed, marine life exhibits and educational programs in aquariums can play the role of and serve as bridges to 5  connecting people to the ocean (Kim, 2007; Schubel, Monroe, Schubel, & Bronnenkant, 2009).  Over the past two decades, there has been a growing body of research regarding visitors' learning in marine aquarium contexts. Topics covered include: gaining knowledge and change in marine organisms (Spotte & Clark, 2004); adult learning through social interaction (Briseño-Garzón, Anderson, & Anderson, 2007); impacts on pre-service teachers (Anderson, Lawson, & Mayer-Smith, 2006); impacts on visitors’ perceptional changes in conservation (Adelman, Falk, & James, 2000; Evans, 1997; Falk & Adelman, 2003; Falk, Reinhard, Vernon, Bronnenkant, Deans, & Heimlich, 2007); and impacts on environmental caring, connection, and advocacy (Ballantyne, Packer, & Sutherland, 2011; Scott, 2007; Wyles, Pahl, White, Morris, Cracknell, & Thompson, 2013). However, only a few studies investigated the effect of marine aquarium education on the visitors’ ocean literacy. Also, previous studies have predominantly been conducted in the United States (e.g., Adelman et al., 2000; Falk et al., 2007), Canada (Anderson et al., 2006; Scott, 2007), Australia (Ballantyne et al., 2011), and the United Kingdom (Wyles et al., 2013). There is a notable lack of similar studies conducted in East Asian contexts. Furthermore, little attention has been paid to the middle childhood demographic (between five and 12 years of age) in East Asian cultural contexts in terms of ocean literacy development (Kim, Anderson, & Scott, 2013). Kim et al. stated that the lack of ocean literacy research in East Asian cultural contexts (e.g., China, Korea and Japan) was a paradox since these countries have a long history of cultural affinity with the ocean. Given the low level of ocean literacy among the public and students as illustrated by the number of limited studies in North America (Plankis & Marrero, 2010; Steel, Smith, Opsommer, Curiel, & Wagner-Steel, 2005) and European contexts (Hoeberigs & Seys, 2005 cited in Evy, Fiona, & Geraldine, 2012), and the lack of research exploring the effect of marine aquarium 6  education on visitors’ ocean literacy development, particularly for the middle childhood students of East Asian cultural backgrounds, there is a need for further research to understand (1) the ways in which marine aquariums effectively design exhibits and develop educational programs to enhance visitors’ ocean literacy (Clayton & Myers, 2009) and (2) the process and outcomes of marine aquarium experiences on middle childhood visitors’ ocean literacy (Schubel et al., 2009). To address this problem, this study explored elementary students’ (Grades 3 to 5) ocean literacy changes from a five-day aquarium summer camp entitled AquaCamps provided by the Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Center (The Vancouver Aquarium) located in Vancouver, a highly multicultural coastal city located in British Columbia, Canada. According to Statistics Canada (www.statcan.gc.ca), Vancouver was home to more than 200 different ethnic groups in 2006. The National Household Survey in 2011 identified that 40 percent of Metro Vancouver residents were foreignborn immigrants, and two-thirds foreignborn residents were originally from Asia including China, the most common source of immigrants in Metro Vancouver. 1.3 Research questions The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of elementary students’ (Grades 3 to 5) changes in ocean literacy during a marine aquarium summer camp (AquaCamps) in a highly multicultural Canadian context, and how these changes are mediated by sociocultural factors. More specifically, the following questions guided this study:  1. What are the characteristics of changes in elementary students’ marine science knowledge after participating in the AquaCamps? 2. How do students’ AquaCamps and other life experiences affect the changes in their marine science knowledge? 7  3. What are the characteristics of changes in elementary students’ orientations toward ocean and marine organisms after participating in the AquaCamps? 4. How do students’ AquaCamps and other life experiences affect the changes in their orientations?  1.4 Methodological overview To answer the research questions, I conducted a case study of elementary students’ experiences at AquaCamps, a five-day marine education program at the Vancouver Aquarium in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada using a mixed methods approach. The data were collected in July and August in 2012 and again during the same time period in 2013. A total of 168 elementary students (Grades 3 to 5) participated in this mixed methods study. I employed an ‘Embedded Experimental Model’ (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) as the best suited approach because quantitative (QUAN) data were used to answer research questions one and three in an experimental design; qualitative (QUAL) data were embedded within the design during the intervention (AquaCamps) in an attempt to answer research questions two and four. The QUAN data obtained through a specially developed survey questionnaire enabled me to examine the characteristics of elementary students’ changes in ocean literacy following their AquaCamps experiences. The QUAL data obtained through interview protocol, observations, and document analysis enabled me to understand the impact of the AquaCamps experiences and the sociocultural factors on the development and changes in the students’ ocean literacy.  In addition to reliability checks and construct validity of the survey instrument, model fit of the orientations I adopted were ensured using a confirmatory factor analysis. Credibility and dependability in the study’s QUAL strand were also ensured by employing triangulation of 8  multiple data sources, member checking, and repeated participation (12 sessions) in AquaCamps. Confirmability was also ensured with the aid of a colleague who acted as a ‘confirmability auditor’. This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3. 1.5 Glossary of terms A number of terms in this dissertation are defined as follows:  Caucasian refers to people from European descent.   Connectedness means the degree to which individuals associate themselves with the objects and it is interchangeably used with interconnectedness.  East Asian refers to people from East Asian descent. In this study, Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, and Korean are included in this ethnic group which shares the Pacific Ocean.  Marine Education refers to formal and informal education that aims to develop ocean literacy (Cava et al., 2005).  Ocean Literacy, extending the definition of ocean literacy by Cava et al. (2005), refers to an individual’s cognitive understanding of and orientations towards mutual impacts and connections between humans and the ocean.   Orientation was defined as "a tendency for an individual to understand and experience the world through an interpretive framework embodying a coherent set of beliefs and values" (Snively, 1986, p. ii). In this study, orientation refers to an individual’s viewpoint/ interpretive framework about the way of connection to the ocean.  Sociocultural Background is defined as an individual’s base on which he/she builds his/her sociocultural identity. It represents the individual’s characteristics within society and culture (e.g., nationality, religion, grade, and gender).    9   Sociocultural Factor refers to the force within an individual’s social and cultural environments that affect his/her beliefs, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., religious beliefs, gender roles, language, ethnicity, and food culture). Grounded on and influenced by sociocultural factors, an individual builds his/her sociocultural identity.  Sociocultural Identity incorporates both social identity and cultural identity of an individual based on the belief that an individual’s identity - a comprehension of him or herself as a distinct entity - is constructed within social and cultural contexts at the same time (Norton, 2006). For example, individuals may construct their social identities on the relationship with larger world as mediated through institutions such as family and schools; however they construct cultural identities on the relationship with members of a particular group (e.g., family and school) who are considered to share a common history, a common language, and similar ways of understanding the world.  Sustainability refers to Environmental Sustainability which can be defined as the maintenance of natural resources such as soil, atmosphere, forest and water (Goodland, 1995).  Value refers to the intrinsic and instrumental worth of the object.  1.6 Significance The significance of this study that examines elementary students’ changes in ocean literacy in a marine aquarium context is as follows.   First, this study provides initial insights into elementary students’ understandings of their connections to the ocean and changes in their understandings in a marine aquarium context.  10   Second, given the lack of research on East Asian students’ ocean literacy, data obtained from East Asian participants may provide a base line for future studies which will make a much needed contribution to the literature on ocean literacy.  Third, using mixed and multiple methods, this study provides practical evidence of how marine aquarium experiences and sociocultural factors can facilitate children’s ocean literacy development.   Fourth, this study will assist marine educators and practitioners to develop better understanding of how to more effectively design educational programs that increase ocean literacy. 1.7 Organizations of chapters This thesis consists of six chapters. Chapter One begins with the story of my learning journey. I describe the background of my personal environmental identity and the reasons why I have been working in the field of marine (environmental/ ecological) education. I then describe the research problem from two perspectives: (1) the need for increased ocean literacy among the general public as well as K-12 students; and (2) the need for more research to understand the ways of enhancing ocean literacy in marine aquarium contexts. After stating my four research questions, I then provide a brief methodological overview, define important terms of reference, discuss the study’s significances, and conclude the chapter by outlining the organization of the thesis. In Chapter Two, I review the literature that situates this study focusing on ocean literacy. I then discuss sociocultural theory as the theoretical framework used in this study. Chapter Three describes the research methodology and methods that I employed. I first describe the study context, participants, data collection tools and procedures, and then follow this description by outlining the 11  analytic frameworks, discussing validity, trustworthiness, and commenting on the limitations and ethical considerations of the study.  In Chapter Four, I present my findings to answer my research questions one and two: the changes in students’ marine science knowledge during the camp and the impact of marine aquarium experiences on the changes. Chapter Five includes the answers to my research questions three and four: the changes in students’ orientations toward the ocean and the impact of marine aquarium experiences as well as sociocultural factors on the changes. Chapter Six includes a summary of the research findings, a discussion of three emergent issues from the data collection corpus, as well as interpretation, conclusions, and several implications and suggestions for future directions of marine education. 12  Chapter 2 Literature Review and Theoretical Framework Given that this study seeks to understand elementary school students’ changes in ocean literacy in an aquarium context, this chapter reviews the literature related to ocean literacy and identifies several elements of interest. These include the need for ocean literacy, efforts to build an ocean-literate society, issues related to ocean literacy, knowledge component and orientation component of ocean literacy, and the potential impact of marine aquariums for developing visitors’ ocean literacy. This review will provide an historical analysis of ocean literacy. In the second part of this chapter, a sociocultural framework (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991a) is discussed to illuminate that the ways people understand the world (ocean in this study) is inherently situated in the learners’ social and cultural contexts. I will also discuss how a gap in the existing literature provides a rationale for this study. I conclude this chapter with a summary of the literature reviewed. 2.1 Ocean literacy The term ocean literacy was defined and stipulated as the goal of marine education nearly 10 years ago, which explains a dearth of research on the key words ‘ocean literacy’. This subsection systematically reviews research studies in marine education focusing on ocean literacy. I begin with the reasons why ocean literacy is required to be a global citizen, what efforts have been made to increase ocean literacy in some countries, and which issues have arisen in the research on ocean literacy. In the context of this thesis, this subsection also reviews the research studies regarding the potential impact of marine aquariums on developing visitors’ ocean literacy.  13  2.1.1 Need for ocean literacy  The ocean provides many of the Earth’s systems including the regulation of climate and the hydrological cycle. Habitats for a rich diversity of organisms, food, materials, and energy for human use are also part of the ocean’s bounty. However, the marine environment is faced with increasing threats such as overfishing, acidification, land and marine-based pollution, and habitat destruction as a result of humans’ negative impact (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2012).  Given humans’ heavy reliance on the ocean (e.g., oxygen, water, food, and transportations), our understanding about the ocean is integral to the Earth’s sustainability (Cava et al., 2005). This dependence provided justification for many marine educators (e.g., Fortner & Wildman, 1980; Goodwin & Schaadt, 1978; Mayer & Fortner, 1985; Picker, 1980; Snively, 1989b) to note that one purpose of marine education is to develop a general understanding of the integral role of the Earth’s water systems and emphasize the consequences of human impact on aquatic environments. This description is directly interlinked with the term Ocean Literacy, which is explained as understanding the mutual impacts and connections between humans and the ocean realm (Cava et al., 2005).  However, a series of surveys conducted by the Ocean Project (1999a, 1999b, 2009a, 2009b, 2011) revealed that the general public in the United States is not as knowledgeable as expected about ocean issues such as overfishing and pollution. According to the Ocean Project report (1999b), when asked five questions to ascertain their knowledge of the oceans and related functions, American adults on average failed to answer half correctly. For example, 75 percent of the respondents answered that most of the Earth’s oxygen is produced by the forests and not the ocean. Hoeberigs and Seys (2005, cited in Evy, Fiona, & Geraldine, 2012) also conducted a study 14  concerning Belgian public’s basic knowledge about the ocean and reported that their basic comprehension about the ocean was insufficient. Of particular importance for this study, a low level of understanding about the ocean among Grade K-12 students was also reported within the North American context. Fortner (1978) assessed 10th Graders’ (in the state of Virginia, US) understanding of the ocean’s role in human culture using a questionnaire survey and reported a low level of understanding. Fortner also identified that mean knowledge scores were significantly different in regard to race, sex, and residence. For example, white males living near coastal areas had the highest scores. Brody and Koch (1990) conducted a qualitative study to investigate 4th, 8th, and 11th Grades American students’ knowledge related to marine science and natural resources issues. Analyzing interview data and concept maps from 182 students revealed that they had a low level of understanding of marine resource management concepts and were not able to make connections between the roles of the marine environment and their state’s socioeconomic status. In Canada, Walter and Lien (1985) also administered a questionnaire to 3890 Canadian students in Grades 5 and 9 and found that students had low levels of knowledge related to marine environment and human impact to the ocean.  The paucity of information regarding research studies on ocean literacy in other countries seems to indicate that the general public as well as students worldwide have a limited level of understanding about the ocean. Considering humans’ heavy reliance on the ocean and the negative impact of our actions upon the ocean coupled with low levels of understanding among children as well as adults, there is a critical need to create a more ocean-literate society.  15  2.1.2 Efforts to build an ocean-literate society To create a more ocean-literate society, the Ocean Literacy Campaign was initiated by a group of marine educators and scientists in 2002 in the United States (Schoedinger, Tran, & Whitley, 2010). In 2004, The National Geographic Society, Centers for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence (COSEE), NOAA, National Marine Educators Association, and the College of Exploration hosted an on-line conference. Approximately 100 people representing various constituencies dedicated to improving ocean literacy attended and reached consensus on a definition for ocean literacy as well as the initial set of ocean literacy concepts (Cava et al., 2005). As a result of a collaborative and systematic process, ocean literacy was defined as “understanding of the ocean's influence on you and your influence on the ocean”. Also, the Essential Principles of Ocean Science K-12, which comprise the seven Essential Principles (EPs) (Table 1) and forty-four Fundamental Concepts (FCs)1 that all people in the United States should understand by the end of high school (Schoedinger et al., 2010), was released in 2005.   Table 1 Essential Principles of Ocean Science Essential Principles of Ocean Science  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Earth has one big ocean with many features. The ocean and life in the ocean shape the features of the Earth. The ocean is a major influence on weather and climate. The ocean makes Earth habitable. The ocean supports a great diversity of life and ecosystems. The ocean and humans are inextricably interconnected. The ocean is largely unexplored.   To incorporate ocean literacy principles into the formal education system, scientists and educators from the Ocean Literacy Campaign group also produced Ocean Literacy Scope and                                                           1 Full descriptions of 44FCs are available at the Ocean Literacy Network website (http://oceanliteracy.net)  16  Sequence for Grades K-12 (OLSS). The OLSS aligns the seven EPs and 44 FCs of Ocean Science with the National Science Education Standards and provides the community with more detailed and useful learning objectives for different grade levels (Schoedinger et al., 2010). These documents are designed to assist educators navigate and better understand the components of formal and informal marine education.  Informal marine education implemented by governmental agencies, non-governmental agencies, public institutions and aquariums, mass media, and social media are also attempting to create an ocean-literate society (National Marine Sanctuary Foundation , 2006). Zoos, aquariums, and museums provide visitors with opportunities to connect with the ocean (Schubel et al., 2009), which may foster their ocean literacy development. Zoos, aquariums, and museums in North America are trying to incorporate ocean literacy principles into their exhibits and educational programs (Spitzer, Taylor, Napoleon, Sloan, Nelson, Stone, et al., 2010). For example, the Smithsonian’s Sant Ocean Hall draws upon the seven EPs of Ocean Science as a guide for all educational programs (Ocean Literacy Network, n.d.). Influenced by ocean literacy work in the United States, several countries including Japan, Australia, Canada, and Belgium began to discuss incorporating ocean literacy principles into their education system (Ocean Literacy Network, n.d.). However, adapting ocean literacy principles to education systems in different countries will require a wide consensus from each country. What people should know about the ocean can differ from country to country based on history, beliefs, economy, and culture. In Europe, a discussion was initiated to generate a framework for European Ocean Literacy by the European Marine Science Educators Association in 2012 considering a wide variety of languages, educational systems, and ways of living with the sea across Europe (http://www.emsea.eu/marine-education/ocean-literacy). 17  Similarly, the concepts of marine mindset (Wyles et al., 2013) and ocean citizenship (Fletcher & Potts, 2007) were proposed with an emphasis on individual responsibilities and actions to make informed lifestyle choices that minimize human impact on the marine environment. However, ocean literacy covers the concepts of marine mindset and ocean citizenship in the sense that ocean-literate persons understand the fundamental concepts about how the ocean functions, are able to communicate about the ocean in meaningful ways, and are able to make informed and responsible decisions regarding the ocean and its resources (Cava et al., 2005). Moreover, awareness is one of the basic components that bring about attitudinal and behavioral changes (Homer & Kahle, 1988). 2.1.3 Issues related to ocean literacy Ocean literacy is essential to solving ocean-related issues and to maintain sustainability of the Earth. However, the question of how to foster global citizen’s ocean literacy still unanswered and necessitates further research in the field of marine education. To date, relatively little research has been conducted to address this question.  Greely (2008) examined 30 American female students’ (Grade 9) ocean literacy development within the context of a three-week marine education program, the Oceanography Camp for Girls. Greely utilized mixed methods to investigate the students’ knowledge about ocean-related concepts, ocean stewardship attitudes, marine environmental morality, and decision making on ocean-related socioscientific issues. The study findings revealed that the participants’ content knowledge and environmental attitudes contributed significantly to their ocean literacy. Greely argued that biocentric environmental reasoning (an appeal that nature has intrinsic value and rights) was most important to teens when solving specific ocean dilemmas. 18  Greely also found that current ocean literacy standards inform people about the ocean but do not prompt them to apply what they know to real world contexts. Thus Greely proposed that ocean literacy include engagement in ocean-related socioscientific issues and stewardship.  Employing mixed methods and an embedded case study approach, Plankis (2009) examined 393 American high school students’ knowledge about ocean literacy concepts as well as their attitudes toward the ocean. Plankis reported the students had a significant increase in both knowledge and attitude components of ocean literacy after participating in a specially designed 18-week program entitled Connecting the Ocean Reefs Aquariums Literacy and Stewardship. Plankis also identified that students’ understanding of the ocean focused on only two out of seven Essential Principles (EPs) of Ocean Science. The most commonly expressed understanding focused on EP #5 (the ocean supports a great diversity of life and ecosystems) and EP #6 (the ocean and humans are inextricably interconnected). The students did not focus on any other principles (EP #1, 2, 3, 4, and 7). Similar to Plankis’s (2009) study, adopting a mixed methods approach, Marrero (2009) examined American secondary students’ (Grades, 7, 11, and 12) conceptions of the ocean and how these can change as a result of participating in an ocean-literacy-focused curriculum entitled Signals of Spring: Animals in Curriculum-based Ecosystem Studies, throughout an academic year (September to June). Marrero reported that the students had a low level of prior knowledge on the subject matter but were able to acknowledge the ocean’s important roles in their lives. The students were also able to apply ocean literacy concepts to decision making related to socioscientific issue-based tasks. Marine education is widely implemented in informal contexts. Marine aquariums, marine science visitor centers, and maritime museums are considered to be as excellent venues for the 19  general public and for students to obtain information about the ocean and ocean conservation (Fletcher & Potts, 2007; Lamb, 2004; NOAA, 1988; Ocean Project, 2011; Wyles et al., 2013). However, a review of the related literature revealed a lack of research regarding ocean literacy development in these contexts. Employing a qualitative case study, Scott (2007) explored Canadian students’ (Grades 4, 5, 6, and 7) development of environmental knowing during a five-day marine aquarium program entitled AquaSchool. Scott concluded that participation in AquaSchool activities led to connection, caring, and concern for other species and in some cases, for the marine environment as a whole.  My literature review related to ocean literacy development in formal and informal contexts revealed three issues. First, despite the importance of ocean literacy for the sustainability of the Earth, a limited number of studies have been explored how to develop ocean literacy, particularly in the field of informal marine education contexts such as marine aquariums. Second, understanding students’ ocean literacy development is drawn almost entirely from studies conducted in a North American context. Few studies took place in Asian contexts. For this reason, there is a need to develop a more balanced understanding of students’ ocean literacy and its development by including studies with participants from ‘Non-Western’, particularly East Asian cultural backgrounds. Third, there is no standardized instrument to measure the level of ocean literacy of both the general public and K-12 students. Although ocean literacy embodies the seven Essential Principles and 44 Fundamental Concepts, test results on these concepts cannot suffice to represent an individual’s ocean literacy level as new awareness based on fresh knowledge and skill is just one part of ‘true literacy’ (Baker, 2004). For these reasons, each study conducted by Greely (2008), Plankis (2009), and Marrero (2009) utilized specially designed tools. However, measuring students’ ocean literacy in the similar context and adopting different tools 20  may bring different interpretations. Also the question of how to measure ocean literacy in informal contexts such as marine aquariums remains one of the issues to be discussed.    There are many kinds of literacies such as language literacy, science literacy, engineering literacy, and music literacy. One commonality of different literacies is “developing mastery and confidence, culminating in a critical transformation or changed relationship with the subject matter” (Baker, 2004, p. 27). Baker also argues that true literacy includes a new awareness of self or world based on new knowledge as well as emotional changes about the subject matter. Hence, examining an individual’s ocean literacy should include at least two components: knowledge about and orientations toward the ocean.   2.1.4 Knowledge component of ocean literacy What kind of knowledge is necessary to become an ocean-literate person? Before Ocean Literacy Network released the seven Essential Principles (EPs) and 44 Fundamental Concepts (FCs) of Ocean Science in 2005, most researchers (in QUAN studies) developed and utilized their own test instruments to examine students’ ocean-related knowledge. For example, Cummins and Snively (2000) assessed Canadian elementary students’ ocean-related knowledge using a 30 item multiple choice questionnaire which consist of physical oceanography, ocean ecology, and human effects on the ocean environment. Giles (1999) developed a 10 item multiple choice questionnaire to assess ocean conservation knowledge of fifth Grade students in US.  However, after the seven EPs and 44 FCs were developed and released by the Ocean Literacy Campaign group in 2005, these 44 concepts have been adopted by secondary schools and taught by secondary teachers across US as key concepts that all high-school students must know. Subsequently, these 44 concepts have also been employed in the ocean-related knowledge 21  questionnaire in several studies. Drawing upon these 44 FCs of Ocean Science, Greely (2008) developed a 57 item multiple choice questionnaire while Plankis (2009) designed a 20 item multiple choice questionnaire, and Marrero (2009) created a 15 item multiple questionnaire to assess American secondary students’ ocean-related knowledge.  In the case of research that investigated ocean-related knowledge of visitors in a marine aquarium context, a limited number of studies employed a questionnaire. The questionnaires that were developed consisted primarily of factual knowledge about marine organisms. For example, Spotte and Clark (2004) developed a 10 item multiple choice questionnaire to examine aquarium visitors’ marine biological knowledge and short-term learning effect (e.g., which of these fish produces electricity?). However, these factual knowledge questions about marine biology may not be able to represent visitors’ awareness of their interrelationship with the ocean.  Since understanding the fundamental concepts about the functioning of the ocean is one of the necessary conditions to be an ocean-literate person (Cava et al., 2005), students are encouraged to construct the seven EPs and 44 FCs of Ocean Science in both formal and informal contexts. Subsequently, examining knowledge component of students’ ocean literacy must include questions about EPs and FCs. However, the definition of ocean literacy, understanding the ocean’s influence on you and your influences on the ocean (Cava et al., 2005), implies the need for each individual student’s self-awareness about his/her connections to the ocean; hence, exploring metacognition about ocean literacy. Self-awareness is one of the key dimensions of metacognition (Anderson & Nashon, 2007) with a central focus on improvement of students’ learning processes and outcomes (Anderson, Nashon, & Thomas, 2009).  22  2.1.5 Orientation component of ocean literacy In addition to the knowledge component, how an individual views, feels, and perceives the relationship with the subject matter is also a part of literacy (Baker, 2004). The term ‘orientation’ in this study is defined as ‘an individual’s viewpoint/ interpretive framework about the way of connection to the ocean’ (section 1.5), which is closely related to an individual’s perceptions of valuing the ocean.  The term ‘value’ has various meanings in different contexts. Dietz, Fitzgerald, and Shwom (2005) provide general definitions: “what something is worth, opinions about that worth, and moral principles” (p. 339). In my study, value means the intrinsic and instrumental worth of the object. An individual’s feelings of human-nature connectedness are related to values (Dietz et al., 2005) because objects (e.g., plants, animals, and other people) are more valued when individuals feel the objects represent themselves (Schultz, 2002). In this sense, the values of nature can be actualized by human-nature relationships (Rolstone, 1981). Nature can be perceived differently by the values we place on it (Lamb, 1996), and this perception will influence humans’ attitudes toward nature, which will impact their actions on behalf of the natural world (Muir, 1901 cited in Goralnik & Nelson, 2011). In congruence with the idea that individuals’ understanding of human-nature connectedness influences their perceptions of valuing nature, literature related to human-nature connectedness (e.g., Cheng & Monroe, 2010; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Nisbet, Zelenski, & Murphy, 2009; Schultz, 2002), and typologies about value of nature (Kellert, 1996, 2003; Snively, 1986) are reviewed below.  In the field of environmental psychology, understanding of human-nature connectedness has been widely explored in cognitive (beliefs), affective (emotional affinity), and behavioral (experiences) domains. The term “connectedness to nature” means the degree to which 23  individuals associate themselves with nature (Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Schultz, 2002). That is, connectedness to nature represents individuals’ sense of ‘oneness’ with the natural world, similar to the deep ecology concept of ecological self or environmental identity (Clayton, 2003). However, Schultz (2002) defines the term with a focus on cognitive connection while Mayer and Frantz focus on affective and experiential connections.  A number of researchers have reported that individuals’ understanding of human-nature connectedness shows strong correlation with the three components (cognitive, affective, and experiential) of connectedness to nature (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Nisbet et al., 2009). That is, individuals’ beliefs about nature and their strong emotional affinity and positive experiences with nature are important components to increasing their understanding of human-nature connectedness. Individuals’ understanding of human-nature connectedness plays a key role to facilitate responsible environmental attitudes and behaviors (Feral, 1998; Goralnik & Nelson, 2011; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Schultz, 2002). In turn, a person who has a higher level of human-nature connectedness will be associated with more caring for nature and a higher rate of commitment to protect nature (Schultz, 2002).  However, all variables linked to human-nature connectedness have bidirectional connections and are mutually associated (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). For example, positive experiences in nature are regarded as a critical variable to develop emotional affinity (Burgess & Mayer-Smith, 2011; Kals, Schumacher, & Montada, 1999; Kellert, 2002; Mayer & Frantz 2004; Vining, Merrick, & Price, 2008). But emotional affinity can also be a starting point for children’s environmental caring (Hart, 1997) and a motive to develop children’s knowledge about humans’ connectedness to nature (Myers & Saunders, 2002). Individuals’ emotional connectedness to nature leads to eco-friendly acts which enable them to feel more connected to the natural world (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). 24  In addition to the three components mentioned above, sociocultural factors such as age group, gender, ethnicity, and area of residence are also proposed as additional indirect factors to influence an individual’s understanding of human-nature connectedness. For example, family members who share their nature values and enjoyment may significantly contribute to developing children’s connectedness to nature (Cheng & Monroe, 2010), particularly to their emotional affinity to nature (Kals et al., 1999) and in motivating their pro-environmental actions (Chawla, 2007).  Regarding human-nature connectedness, Wilson (1984) proposed the notion of biophilia which refers to “the innate tendency to affiliate with life or life-like processes” (p. 1) which includes a wide emotional spectra “from attraction to aversion, from awe to indifference, from peacefulness to fear-driven anxiety” (Wilson, 1993, p. 31). The core of the biophilia hypothesis is that humans’ responsiveness to nature has a genetic basis obtained through repeated experiences. According to Wilson, throughout tens of thousands of years of evolutionary time, humans’ repeated experiences in survival-related natural landscapes involving food, water, security, and fear-relevant animals have been encoded by natural selection and inscribed in the brain as biophilia. In this sense, biophilia explains an additional strand of ‘inherent’ human-nature connectedness. However, biophilic tendency can be modified by conventional learning, experience, and culture (Kahn, 2002; Ulrich, 1993) because the proposition also includes humans’ repeated experiences and learning rules are the source of encoding humans’ positive and negative responses (Ulrich, 1993; Wilson, 1993). Therefore, from the sociocultural point of view, people from different cultural groups may have different biophilic tendencies (Kellert, 1991) as certain biophilic tendencies can either be reinforced or weakened depending on different cultures. The shark, for example, is one of the least preferable animals in the United States (Kellert & Westervelt, 1983), but sharks tend to be highly respected by Polynesians because in their history 25  a spiritual connection with sharks exists. Regarding the values associated with nature, researchers (e.g., Kellert, 1991, 1993; Kellert & Berry, 1980; Kellert & Westervelt, 1983) investigated attitudes toward animals and categorized humans’ biophilic tendencies into nine types. Kellert (1996) later modified and extended his typology to include the values of nature. The nine categories are naturalistic, humanistic, moralistic, aesthetic, utilitarian, dominionistic, negativistic, ecologistic-scientific, and symbolic. Based on the understanding of the value of nature and the human-nature relationship, Kellert’s (1996) typology has been widely used as a framework for demonstrating the diversity in human attitudes toward the natural world and other organisms (Thomson & Mintzes, 2002). However, a review of the literature demonstrates that some of the categories are repetitive or unclear in their meaning (Whitley, 1998). Hence, many researchers have selected only the categories which are relevant to their topic (e.g., Kaltenborn & Bjerke, 2002; Tomažič, 2011). Researchers have also modified the categories by either combining categories (e.g., Frost, 2000) or creating new ones (Whitley, 1998).  Regarding students’ perceptions of the values towards marine environment, Snively (1986) identified the following six orientations of Canadian students of Native and non-Native (British Columbia First Nations) ancestry using both metaphoric and literal interviews: utilitarian; aesthetic; scientific; spiritual; recreational; and health and safety. Snively defines the term ‘orientation’ as "a tendency for an individual to understand and experience the world through an interpretive framework embodying a coherent set of beliefs and values" (p. ii). Snively’s definition of orientation has a commonality with Kellert’s (1996, 2003) biophilic typology in that both deal with specific types of humans’ values of nature, and also, some of the categories are similar (Table 2).  26  Table 2 Orientations toward nature Orientations toward nature   Snively (1986) Definition Kellert  (1996, 2003) Scientific Humans perceive nature as a source for exploring varied wonders and nurturing intellectual curiosity, imagination, and discovery.  Naturalistic Scientific Aesthetic Humans perceive nature as a provider for aesthetic attraction, artistic inspiration, and symbolic communication.  Aesthetic Symbolic Spiritual Humans perceive nature as a source of moral and spiritual inspiration as well as emotional attachment to nature.  Humanistic Moralistic Utilitarian Humans perceive nature as a source for humans’ practical needs such as oxygen, food, medicine, energy, and so on.   Utilitarian  Recreational  Humans perceive nature as a source of refreshment, entertainment, relaxation, and exercise.  Dominionistic Health and Safety Humans perceive nature as a subject of fears and dislike, which can provoke avoidance or destructive responses.  Negativistic   Since values of nature are often constructed early in life through interaction with physical and social environments (Kahn, 2002) and are tied to one’s identity (Schwartz, 2006), in this study I take the position that these values are a relatively stable elements of one’s personality (Jacobs, Vaske, Teel, & Manfredo, 2013; Steg & De Groot, 2012). The value - attitude - behavior hierarchy (Homer & Kahle, 1988) was examined in the environmental domain and confirmed that values are crucial and functional in attitude formation as well as behavior development (Milfont, Duckitt, & Wagner, 2010; Th°gersen & Grunert-Beckmann, 1997; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999). In sum, an individual’s orientation is developed on the basis of potential components of human-nature connectedness and is linked to value of nature, concern for nature, and pro-environmental behavior.   27  2.1.6 Potential impact of marine aquariums on developing visitors’ ocean literacy In some countries marine education is implemented through school systems but in most countries ocean literacy is not an explicit part of the school curriculum (Ocean Literacy Network, n.d.). Yet, most countries have marine aquariums where they provide visitors with opportunities to connect with the ocean (Schubel et al., 2009) through first hand contact with diverse living marine organisms. For this reason, marine aquariums are considered to be excellent and effective informal marine educational venues for both the general public and students (Ballantyne, 2004; Evans, 1997; Kelsey, 1991; Lamb, 2004; NOAA, 1998; Walter & Lien, 1985).  A typical aquarium function includes four main components: entertainment, education, research, and conservation (Kelsey, 1991; Reade & Waran, 1996). Among these components, education is regarded as a central role of aquariums (Ohara & Nishi, 2001; Packer & Ballantyne, 2010). One study reported that roughly 38 percent of visitors to zoos and aquariums listed the most important reason for their visit as the educational benefits to children (Kellert, 1980). Many people also visit aquariums for entertainment (Benbow, 1997; Reade & Waran, 1996); they expect to ‘have fun’ and to encounter diverse marine organisms. However, as Packer and Ballantyne (2010) suggested, education and entertainment are not mutually exclusive but rather are compatible and synergistic.   As a place for “learning for fun” (Packer, 2006), aquariums are well suited not only for educating children but also for adult education (Falk et al., 2007; Packer & Ballantyne, 2010). Indeed, many aquariums bring in scientists, journalists, photographers, explorers, and authors to share their work, knowledge, images, and concerns about the world’s oceans through lectures, films, and panel discussions on a variety of subjects (Koster & Schubel, 2007). Zoos and 28  aquariums contribute to additional constructions on visitors’ prior knowledge and enhance their motivations and capacity to lean in the lifelong learning process (Falk, 2005). With regard to marine aquariums as a potential venue for developing visitors’ ocean literacy, a few researchers reported positive influences of aquarium experiences on visitors’ knowledge and attitude change about marine conservation (Adelman et al., 2000; Ballantyne, Packer, Hughes, & Dierking, 2007; Falk & Adelman 2003; Falk et al., 2007) as well as on visitors’ environmental caring, connection, and advocacy (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Scott, 2007; Wyles et al., 2013). However, these studies did not employ an ocean literacy framework. Hence, there is a need for more research to understand how aquarium settings and programs can be designed to facilitate visitors’ connectedness to the ocean (Clayton & Myers, 2009) and eventually increase visitors’ ocean literacy.  It is believed that helping people understand their connection to the ocean and ocean life is the most critical factor to enhance their ocean literacy (Schubel et al., 2009). Intellectual and emotional connections do not only impact understandings and feelings about the relationality between people and the ocean environment, these connections also provide opportunities to think deeply about other marine-related issues, which will eventually bring changes toward responsible environmental attitudes and actions (Packer & Ballantyne, 2010; Packard, 2001; Scott, 2007). However, the potential and impact of marine aquariums on developing visitors’ ocean literacy need to be rigorously evaluated (Schubel et al., 2009).  Responding to the critical need to explore ocean literacy development in marine aquarium contexts, this study seeks to understand (1) the characteristics of elementary students’ changes in marine science knowledge and orientations after participating in an aquarium summer camp and 29  (2) the ways in which aquarium experiences influenced changes in students’ marine science knowledge and orientations during the aquarium summer camp experiences.  2.2 Sociocultural theory 2.2.1 Sociocultural theory and learning  Sociocultural theory is a theoretical framework to research that views cognition and learning as being situated in a social and cultural context (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985). Sociocultural theory emphasizes that social relationships and culturally created constructs play a critical role in the process of knowledge construction and human thinking and feeling (Lantolf, 2000; Thorne, 2005; Wertsch, 1985). In other words, knowledge can be regarded as something co-constructed and the ways of thinking and feeling are learned within a milieu of diverse sociocultural contexts by interacting with cultural artifacts and other more knowledgeable members of society.  The dynamic interdependence of social and individual processes is underscored by Vygotsky’s (1978) conceptualization of the transformation of socially shared activities into internalized processes (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). The basic principle of a sociocultural framework is that “human mental functioning is inherently situated in social, interactional, cultural, institutional, and historical context” (Wertsch, 1991b, p. 86) and mediated by language and other symbolic systems (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). Thus the product of learning can be viewed as something socioculturally constructed, and knowledge is not the same for all individuals in society but shared within delimited communities of knowers (Rogoff & Lave, 1984).  Vygotsky (1978) introduced the concept of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) to stress the social mediation in the learning process. ZPD indicates the distance between a child’s ‘actual 30  development level’ and ‘potential development level’. Tasks within ZPD could be solved with the assistance of adults or more skilled peers which Vygotsky referred to as scaffolding. Different communication media (e.g., television, magazines, and museum exhibitions) and assistance from parents and teachers to understand and make meaning of new experiences are some examples of social mediation in the learning process (Falk & Dierking, 2000, 2002). In this sense, Falk and Dierking (2000) argue that learning is socioculturally situated and is reflective of a larger culture. 2.2.2 Ocean literacy development in a sociocultural context  Learning can be defined as the process of acquiring knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and beliefs through transformation of experience (Kolb, 1984). From a sociocultural perspective, learning is inherently situated in and closely intertwined with a learner’s culture and social interactions (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991a, b). Thus, students’ knowledge, perceptions, attitudes, and values about the ocean and marine organisms can be quite different depending on their sociocultural backgrounds. Individual’s construction of ocean-related knowledge occurs within their ZPD with the assistance or accompaniment of a more knowledgeable other in a social, cultural, historical and political contexts (e.g., by interacting with teachers and peers in a field trip to a coastal area in Japan in 2014). Also an individual’s cognitive process that includes remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating (Bloom, 1956, revised by Krathwohl, 2002) occurs within particular contexts in which the learner is situated. For example, an instructional message about whaling can be positively interpreted or rejected with criticism by a learner depending on the learner’s social, cultural, historical, and political contexts. 31  As I defined already, orientation is an individual’s interpretive framework about the ways they connect with the ocean (section 1.5). The ways an individual perceives his/her relationship with the ocean are socially and culturally mediated. Children develop orientations through their life experiences such as eating seafood and family visits to the seashore. Regarding the sociocultural impact on students’ orientation development, an exploratory study conducted by Kim, Anderson and Scott (2013) revealed that Korean 6th Grade urban students’ perceptions of valuing marine organisms were highly utilitarian. The authors posited that the students’ highly utilitarian values of ‘fish’, ‘crab’ and ‘sea lettuce’ are possibly related to Korean food culture. For example, ‘sea lettuce’ could be closely related to the students’ ecologistic value because it is a basic producer in the marine ecosystems. Yet 96% of the students indicated a utilitarian value and noted their experiences with sea lettuce as food. In addition, 62% and 56% students demonstrated their utilitarian values of fish and crab respectively mentioning their personal seafood experiences. This result shows that food culture possibly affects and reflects the students’ perspectives of the value of nature, and that values are socioculturally mediated (Kahn, 2002; Kellert, 1996; Ulrich, 1993).  To summarize, students construct “their knowledge and values [towards nature] through interaction with a physical and social world” (Kahn, 2002, p. 105). As such, ocean-related knowledge and orientations are developed within students’ social and cultural contexts. Therefore, in view of this, I consider sociocultural theory an appropriate framework or lens through which ocean literacy development can best be understood and interpreted.  2.3 Summary Ocean literacy is a relatively new term required of global citizens for sustainability of the Earth. This literature review on ocean literacy revealed the need for further research in the area 32  of ocean literacy development in marine aquarium settings within an Asian cultural context. Also this review demonstrated that marine science knowledge and orientations are essential components to examine individuals’ ocean literacy.  Given that individuals’ knowledge and orientations develop within their social and cultural contexts through interacting with other members of the society and/or cultural artifacts, the lens of sociocultural theory was discussed as a theoretical framework. Constructs of marine science knowledge (Ocean Literacy Network, n.d.) and orientations (Snively, 1986) coupled with sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991a) will best work together to answer the research questions and for further interpretations of the findings.  33  Chapter 3 Methodology and Analytical Framework In this chapter, firstly, I begin with descriptions of the study context and participants. Secondly, I discuss the methodology and various methods that I used to collect quantitative (QUAN) and qualitative (QUAL) data to answer the research questions (Section 1.3, p. 6). Thirdly, I describe analytic frameworks of QUAN and QUAL data, followed by a discussion of validity, trustworthiness, and significance of the study. I conclude with comments on the study’s limitations and ethical considerations.  3.1 Context of the study This study was conducted at the Vancouver Aquarium, located in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (www.vanaqua.org). This site was selected because the Vancouver Aquarium has a reputation for excellent educational programs and receives visitors from diverse sociocultural backgrounds, a reflection of the multicultural nature of Vancouver city where the aquarium is located. In Canada’s Ethnocultural Mosaic 2006 Census, Statistics Canada (www.statcan.gc.ca) reported that Vancouver was home to more than 200 different ethnic groups. Visible minorities accounted for 41.7 percent of Metro Vancouver’s population, and the three largest visible-minority groups were Chinese, South Asian, and Filipinos. Given the fact that there has been very scant research conducted on both visitors’ ocean literacy development and the possible influences of sociocultural factors on ocean literacy development at marine aquarium contexts, Vancouver Aquarium is an ideal setting for this study. Therefore, to 34  investigate the research questions, participants taking part in the Vancouver Aquarium summer camp entitled AquaCamps2 were recruited.  Consistent with the mission statement of the Vancouver Aquarium3, the goal of AquaCamps is to raise awareness of the marine environment and promote conservation through diverse hands-on activities, animal observations, crafts, and games with themes around local and exotic animals, life cycles, food webs, adaptations, ecosystems, and sustainability (http://www.vanaqua.org/learn/camps/aquacamps). The AquaCamps program investigated in this study was a five-day camp designed for students of Grades 3 to 5, and involved a total of six sessions which took place from July to August in 2012 and 2013 respectively (Table 3 and Figure 1).   Table 3 AquaCamps program sessions AquaCamps program sessions   Sessions Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 2012  Jul.2-6 Jul.9-13 Jul.16-20 Aug.7-10 Aug.13-17 Aug.27-31 2013 Jul.2-5 Jul.8-12 Jul.15-19  Jul.29-Aug.2 Aug.6-9 Aug.19-23  Each session of AquaCamps was implemented through 20 activities in 10 galleries as well as particular outdoor spaces (e.g., Marine Mammal Rescue Center and seashore) for five or four days depending on the length of the sessions. A sample schedule of events for AquaCamps and descriptions of each activity are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B respectively. Each                                                           2 AquaCamps offers four camp programs according to the participants’ grades: Sea Squirt for kindergarten; Underwater Adventurers for grades 1-2; Ocean Explorers for grades 3-5; and BC Biologists for grades 6-8. In this study, AquaCamps program indicates Ocean Explorers. 3 The Vancouver Aquarium is a self-supporting, non-profit society dedicated to effecting the conservation of aquatic life through display, communication, public programming and education, research and direct action. 35  day the program took place from 9am to 3pm and was facilitated by seven staff members along with the assistance of a small group of ‘Work Experience Volunteers (Grades 11 and 12 students)’ who came from secondary schools located in the Vancouver school district.    Figure 1. Encountering marine animals in the gallery.  3.2 The study participants Study participants were mostly Vancouver based elementary school students who voluntarily registered at the Vancouver Aquarium AquaCamps program in 2012 and 2013. I infer that the participants were likely of high socioeconomic status because their parents paid $330 36  CAD for a five-day camp, which to many parents would be an impracticably high cost4, and wanted their children to have the enrichment of aquarium-related learning experiences. In addition to the Vancouver residents who attended AquaCamps, participants also reported that they came from Victoria (Vancouver Island, BC), Toronto (Ontario), Texas (US), Tokyo (Japan), Seoul (Korea), and Hong Kong (Special administrative region of China) to participate in this camp. All students who registered in AquaCamps were regarded as potential participants because (1) middle childhood (age between five and 12) is a critical period for developing individual’s relationship to their world (Sobel, 1990), (2) students in Grades 3 to 5 are able to respond to survey questions with consistency (Borgers, Leeuw, & Hox, 2000), and (3) the expected number of participants was more acceptable for statistical analysis than other AquaCamps program (e.g., BC Biologists program for Grades 6 - 8 ran for only two sessions in 2012).  The study was conducted over the course of two consecutive AquaCamps seasons: 2012 and 2013. The inclusion of two AquaCamps groups provided a sufficient number of students from diverse sociocultural backgrounds and for confirmatory factor and other statistical analyses to be performed. Thus, a total of 168 students participated in the study with 91 and 77 students participating in 2012 and 2013 respectively. This number was sufficient to conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in an attempt to examine whether the data fit the six-orientation model derived from Snively (1986) and Kellert (1996, 2003). The ratio of boys to girls was 1:1.15. However, the number of Caucasian students was double the number of East Asian students. 46.4% of the 168 participants were Grade 3s while 23.2% were Grade 5s (Table 4).                                                              4 Median family income in Vancouver ($67,550 CAD) was marked 22nd on a list of 33 urban cities in Canada (The Vancouver Sun, 2011, December 7, Economy section) 37  Table 4 Demographics Demographics   Grades Boy Girl Total East Asian G3 14 11 East Asian G3 students: 25  G4  9  7 East Asian G4 students: 16  G5  7  8 East Asian G5 students: 15  Caucasian G3 23 30 Caucasian G3 students: 53  G4 15 20 Caucasian G4 students: 35  G5 10 14 Caucasian G5 students: 24  Total Grade 3: 78 Total Grade 4: 51 Total Grade 5: 39  Total  East Asian boys: 30  East Asian girls: 26 Total East Asian students:56  Caucasian boys: 48  Caucasian girls: 64  Total Caucasian students: 112  Total boys: 78      Total girls: 90 Total participants: 168  3.3 Methodology The research questions required both quantitative (QUAN) and qualitative (QUAL) methodological approaches. Research questions one and three sought to understand the characteristics of elementary students’ changes in ocean literacy in an aquarium summer camp context, which required QUAN approach. Research questions two and four sought to provide an understanding of the impact of marine aquarium experiences and other life experiences on developing the students’ ocean literacy, which required descriptive QUAL approach. Thus, I employed a mixed methods approach, which I considered to the best way to examine and describe specific phenomena in a single study (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Mixed methods research utilizes both QUAN and QUAL approaches in an attempt to balance the shortcomings of each approach. Specifically, the QUAN approach demonstrated the participating students’ 38  changes in ocean literacy using numeric data but this approach was unable to capture the process of changes in ocean literacy or the context such as moment-by-moment interaction and complexities of an individual’s understandings (Anderson & Ellenbogen, 2012). Conversely, the QUAL approach provided an understanding of the students’ camp experiences that may affect changes in students’ ocean literacy using enriched verbal and textual data. The QUAL approach revealed the process of changes in ocean literacy at individual and local level with limitations of generalizability. Therefore, combining QUAN and QUAL approaches strengthened the study by providing researchers with a wider repertoire of strategies to best answer the research questions and better warrant the findings in general. To answer the research questions one and three, I employed the following experimental design; a one-group pretest-posttest design. This design is useful if the researcher intends to discover the influences of experimental treatment or intervention on the changes in participants’ outcomes (e.g., knowledge and attitudes) without a control group (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). I also employed a phenomenological case study design to answer the research questions two and four. Phenomenology is the study of the world or phenomenon through individuals’ experiences; subsequently the research focuses on “a comprehensive description of [the participants’] experience of the phenomenon being studied” (Gall et al., 2003, p. 482). In this study, the phenomenon being studied is ‘changes in elementary students’ ocean literacy’ resulting from an aquarium summer camp experiences as mediated by their diverse sociocultural backgrounds.  Since the QUAL data collection is embedded within an experimental design it can be regarded as ‘Embedded Experimental Model’ (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). According to Creswell and Plano Clark, this model is available if QUAN data are used to answer the question in an experimental design, and QUAL data are embedded within the design during the 39  intervention in an attempt to answer another question related to the experiment. Then, the QUAN and QUAL data sets that separately emerged were combined during data interpretation for the two purposes as shown Figure 2; primarily QUAL data were used to complement the QUAN data, and secondarily to expand the scope and breath of the study, the use of QUAL and QUAN methods were employed to understand program processes and assess program outcomes respectively (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989).             3.4 Methods 3.4.1 Quantitative methods To understand the characteristics of changes in elementary students’ ocean literacy after an aquarium summer camp experiences, a specially developed Ocean Literacy Survey instrument (Appendix C) was created. Keeping the participants’ Grade levels (3-5) in mind, the  Data Collection                        Data Analysis & Interpretation Figure 2. Model for data collection and analysis. 40  questionnaire was carefully developed considering the principles of questionnaire construction (Johnson & Christensen, 2008), which emphasize the use of simple, clear, and precise questions described in natural and familiar language for the target participants. The questionnaire was comprised of 35 questions in three parts (Part A, B, and C). Both Part A and B of the instrument employed a five-point Likert scale to assess the students’ understanding about the ocean and marine organisms.  Part A consisted of 10 questions to investigate students’ marine science knowledge based on the statements of the seven Essential Principles (EPs) and 44 Fundamental Concepts (FCs) of Ocean Science (Table 5). A number of previous studies developed an instrument to measure the participants’ marine science knowledge based on the seven EPs and 44 FCs of Ocean Science adopting a multiple choice format with a large number of questions (e.g., 57 questions in Greely, 2008). However the questionnaire developed for this study included only 10 marine science knowledge questions that covered concepts from the 44 FCs considered appropriate for Grades 3, 4, and 5 students to understand and relevance to the objectives of AquaCamps activities. Moreover, there was a time constraint for the questionnaire; only 15 minutes were provided to complete all 35 questions. Hence, appropriateness of the concepts for the Grade levels, relevance to the program objectives, and time constraint were the criteria for an extraction from and reduction in the number of FCs.       41  Table 5 Marine science knowledge statements Marine science knowledge statements  Question Statements EP FC Q1: The ocean covers about a half (50%) of the Earth’s surface 1 a Q2: Most rain that falls on land originally evaporated from the ocean 3 d Q3: The ocean is a major influence on global weather and climate. 3 a Q4: About half of the oxygen humans and animals on land breathe comes from oxygen- produced in the ocean.  4 a Q5: The most abundant life form in the ocean is fish.  5 b Q6: The diversity of major groups of organisms is much greater in the ocean than on land.  5 c Q7: There are some marine animals that are independent of energy from sunlight.  5 g Q8: Everyone is affected by the ocean. 6 a Q9: Much of the world’s population lives in coastal areas.  6 d Q10: Human life has no big impacts on the ocean because the ocean is huge.  6 e  Since all the questions in an experimental design should be “realistic indicators of what people are expected to learn” in the specific context (Diamond, Luke, & Uttal, 2009, p. 36), the 10 questions were checked by the AquaCamps program coordinator to verify that the AquaCamps experience does in fact teach those 10 concepts represented in Part A of the questionnaire. According to the coordinator, all concepts were intended to be taught in the camp except one (Q6: more life diversity in the ocean) which remained in the questionnaire because marine aquariums provide students with varied opportunities to encounter a wide range of marine organisms and learn about diversity of marine organisms. These questions were given in the form of a five-point Likert scale because students’ beliefs about an object can be represented as a continuum of perspectives rather than dichotomous views. Since students bring their own knowledge which can be partially right or wrong, all answers for each question were given a score from 1 for completely wrong (strongly agree to incorrect statement or strongly disagree to correct statement) to 5 for completely right (strongly agree to correct statement or strongly 42  disagree to incorrect statement). In addition, it was important to consider that when completing questionnaire, participants should not feel that they are taking a test (Diamond et al., 2009). Part B of the questionnaire consisted of 18 questions to examine the six orientations (naturalistic, aesthetic, spiritual, utilitarian, recreational, and negativistic) toward the ocean. Each orientation has three questions and some of the questions have been adapted from the instruments created by Frost (2000, for the questions 3, 10, 12, and 18) and Whitley (1998, for the question 8). However, the four questions adapted from Frost’s instrument were modified because it was originally designed to explore students’ attitudes towards a forest environment.  Part C of the questionnaire consisted of seven questions about the participants’ sociocultural backgrounds which included grade, gender, ethnicity, previous experiences related to the ocean and marine organisms, and learning sources for marine science. In this study, based on the students’ self-report responses (to the question 3 in Part C), a student was regarded as ‘East Asian student’ if (1) he/she was born in one of East Asian countries or (2) his/her father and/or mother was born in one of East Asian countries. Complex and multiple factors contribute to the development of ethnic identity, but parents, peers, and language form a cluster of variables that reinforce ethnic culture and ethnic identity of adolescents (Phinney, Romero, Nava, & Huang, 2001). Particularly parental influences are important to children’s development of ethnic identity because children grow up with parents who carry with them the language and cultures from their country of origin, which are closely associated with ethnic identity (McCoy, 1992).  To ensure content validity of the survey, the questions were reviewed and discussed by two professors with expertise in marine environmental education. In the case of participants from different cultural backgrounds, functional, instrumental, conceptual, and linguistic equivalences (Pareek & Rao, 1980; Yu, Keown, & Jacobs, 1993) of the survey questionnaire were checked via 43  consultations with peers from different cultural backgrounds, in particular East Asian cultures. Thereafter, the survey was pilot tested with seven East Asian students (Grade 5) and 23 Caucasian students (Grade 4) in order to validate the instrument (June 21, 2012 at Blue Sky elementary school [pseudonym] in Vancouver). Based on the result of pilot testing, the questionnaire was refined for the use of appropriate vocabulary for that age of students. 3.4.2 Qualitative methods In order to understand the impact of AquaCamps and other life experiences on the development of students’ ocean literacy, a series of qualitative methods were employed. Firstly, semi-structured interviews were conducted during lunch time on the last day of the program to explore the students’ (1) perceptions about their connectedness to and orientations toward the ocean, (2) life experiences related to their ocean literacy development, and (3) overall response to the AquaCamps experiences (see Appendix D for the interview protocols). In addition, informal conversations with participants were carried out during program activities as this method was the least threatening way of conducting an interview and is deemed very useful for studies involving children (Diamond et al., 2009). Indeed, informal conversations provided me with rich qualitative data regarding the students’ thoughts about related issues that emerged from the immediate context (Patton, 2002).  Secondly, as an observer participant5, I observed gallery settings, participants’ activities including conversations with staff members and peers, and interactions with exhibited marine organisms in an attempt to seek the sources that possibly impacted changes in the students’ ocean literacy during their camp experiences. Observation is an important and useful method because                                                           5 Observer participant acts “primarily as an observer… interacting only casually and nondirectly with individuals or groups while engaged in observation” (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003, p. 268). 44  “people do not always do what they say they do” (Johnson & Turner, 2003, p. 312) and recording observation is a form of unobtrusive data collection or measure which possibly reduces participant bias (Bowen, 2005). Incorporating observations also allowed me to see what the participants did in real world situations. Since being observed by the researcher might evoke participant reactivity, I attempted to establish a close rapport by playing games with students on the first day of camp and whenever possible over the course of the program.  Along with interviews and observations, I used supporting qualitative methods to add deeper and richer understanding of the phenomenon. These methods included digital photographs, student journals, and researcher field notes. I took digital photographs of (1) the camp activities which provided me with a visual record and helped my recall of AquaCamps events that happened within specific contexts, and (2) the students’ journals which provided additional information about their perceptions of the ocean and marine organisms as well as their responses to the AquaCamps program. In addition, I maintained a research journal to record the students’ experiences, interactions and my reflections to provide evidence on how the participants’ AquaCamps experiences may influence their changes in ocean literacy.  3.5 Data collection procedures I investigated elementary students’ AquaCamps experiences from July to August in 2012 and 2013. During these sessions, I used a variety of methods concurrently as shown in Table 6. On the first day of each session of the camp, I collected the assent/consent forms from the participants’ parents, which were sent to them via email from the program coordinator one week before the camp began. In cases where participants forgot to bring their signed form on the first day of the program, extra copies of assent/consent forms were provided. In the AquaCamps 45  classroom located within the aquarium building, I introduced my study and my role in the camp. My data collection began with administrating the pre-questionnaire. During the AquaCamps program, I attended all activities to observe and document the students’ learning experiences, behaviors, conversations, and interactions with marine animals as well as their interactions with instructors and peers. I kept written field notes and collected visual records such as photographs and students’ journals. On the last day of the program, I administered a post-questionnaire and conducted semi-structured interviews.   Table 6 Data collection strategy Data collection strategies (per session)    Day 1 Day 2, 3, 4 Day 5 Quantitative Methods  Questionnaire [pre-test]  Questionnaire [post-test]  √  - -  - -  √ Qualitative  Methods  Observation  Informal conversation  Interview  Documents  Photo taking  Field notes √ √ - √ √ √ √ √ - √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √  A total of 20 students were purposefully selected for the interviews (Appendix E) based on consideration of their sociocultural backgrounds, marine science knowledge (relatively high or low), and their orientation types (highly naturalistic, aesthetic, spiritual, utilitarian, recreational, or negativistic) as determined from their responses on the Ocean Literacy Survey pre-test data. Purposive sampling was chosen because an individual’s varied experiences should be considered more than representativeness and generalizability when selecting participants for in-depth interviews (Seidman, 2006). Although students in this age group (Grades 3-5) have 46  sufficient language skills to answer well designed interview questions with some consistency (Borgers et al., 2000), I ensured that every interview task was short in duration, no more than thirty minutes, to maintain participants’ concentration and interest. All informal conversations and interviews were audio-recorded for analysis. 3.6 Data analysis In order to systematically analyze quantitative (QUAN) and qualitative (QUAL) data, I partially employed Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie’s (2003) data analytic framework. For QUAN data reduction, statistic software (SPSS 16.0 for Windows) was used. The participants’ demographic information was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Two sets of quantitative data (pre- and post-Ocean Literacy Survey questionnaire) were compared using paired-samples t-test to examine significant differences in students’ ocean literacy (Part A and B) after the camp experiences. Also, independent-samples t-test, one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RM-ANOVA) were adopted to investigate any possible relationship between their changes in ocean literacy and sociocultural backgrounds including grade level, gender, ethnicity, aquarium visit frequency, beach visit frequency and pet owning experience.  For QUAL data reduction, confirmatory thematic analysis was used to confirm whether a particular orientation model drawn from the theories existed in this data set. All textual data (transcribed interview data and field notes) were analyzed using a priori coding list which was also drawn from the theories (constructs of ocean literacy and orientations toward the ocean). Analyzed QUAL data were used to complement and expand QUAN data for further interpretation. The details of the analysis procedures are described in the next section. 47  3.6.1 Quantitative data analysis The changes in students’ marine science knowledge (Part A of the questionnaire) were investigated at two levels: overall level and individual question level. Overall change in marine science knowledge was examined by paired-samples t-test to determine whether or not the difference between the number of correct answers on the pre- and post-test was significant.  The change in students’ marine science knowledge individual question level was examined using paired-samples t-test with entire samples as well as subgroups divided by their sociocultural backgrounds (e.g., gender). Also independent-samples t-test and one-way ANOVA were carried out to determine whether there was a significant difference between the mean scores of each subgroup (e.g., girl and boy; Grades 3, 4 and 5) in each question. In addition, RM-ANOVA was run to examine if the differences between the pre- and post-test scores in each question were significantly related to students’ sociocultural backgrounds. Before analyzing the changes in students’ orientation (Part B of the questionnaire), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out using statistic software (IBM SPSS Amos 20.0 for Windows) in an attempt to confirm whether the data fit the six-orientation model derived from Snively (1986) and Kellert (1996, 2003). When CFA was conducted using six-orientation model (Figure 3), two observed variables of spiritual (SPR) orientation revealed low loadings (spr2: 0.32; spr3: 0.06). This result indicated that spiritual orientation was not manifested by this group of students and/or the three items for spiritual orientation did not have acceptable internal consistency possibly due to the following reasons. First, participants (especially Grade 3 students who comprised 46.4% of the participants) were most likely too young to build and express spiritual orientations toward the ocean. Secondly, some students chose neutral for their answer because they both agreed and disagreed to the same question depending on the situation. For 48  example, in response to the question 7 ‘I think it is wrong to force ocean animals such as whales and dolphins to live in aquariums’, several students wrote a similar short note under their markings at ‘Neither Disagree nor Agree’, “I will choose the middle because I agree if the animals were hunted but disagree if rescued” (Jerry, Grade 5, August 7, 2012). If the question had clearly described a specific situation, the students might have chosen a confirmed answer.   Figure 3. Six-orientation model.  49  Since the one out of six orientations did not show good loading sizes, the model was amended into five-orientation model (Figure 4) and was tested for adequacy. According to Hu and Bentler (1999) and Jackson (2001), the researcher should use more than one fit index when judging the adequacy of a model. Although there is not a strict consensus as to which index should be reported and which cutoff value should be applied in model fit due to the effects of various aspects of the analytic situation such as sample size (Brown, 2006), Hu and Bentler (1999) suggest two fit criteria for evaluating model fit: using both Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMSR) and one of several fit indices such as the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Brown (2006) suggests reporting at least one index from each category when evaluating model fit: Absolute Fit Index (chi-square or SRMSR); Parsimony Correction Index (RMSEA); Comparative Fit Index (CFI or TLI).  In terms of sample size, there is no consensus about how large sample size is sufficient for CFA/Model Fit because the outcome of model fit can be affected by not only sample size but also loadings (Jackson, 2001). However, 168 cases are acceptable number for model fit test since it meets suggested sample size: 10 times of the number of observed variables (Mitchell, 1993) or 15 times (Stevens, 1996), or minimum 100 cases (Russell, 2002). Considering sample size, loadings, number of observed variables together, the amended five-orientation model can be evaluated as fitting for the data since its indices meet the criteria of a goodness of fit (Table 7). 50   Figure 4. Five-orientation model.  Table 7 A goodness of fit index for orientations toward the ocean  A goodness of fit index for orientations toward the ocean   Index Value (N=168) Acceptable Cut-off   References SRMSR .051  <.08 Hu & Bentler (1999) PMSEA .069 <.08 Browne & Cudeck (1993) CFI .907 >.90 Bentler (1990)  51  The result of CFA of the five-orientation model also demonstrated that the construct validity of the instrument is acceptable based on the following judgments: (1) Factor loadings (Standardized Estimate) between latent variables and observed variables demonstrated more than 0.5 (Bogozzi & Yi, 1988) and (2) construct reliability revealed greater than 0.7 (Fornell & Larker, 1981) as shown in Table 8.   Table 8 Construct validity of five-orientation model  Construct validity of five-orientation model   Standardized Estimate Standard Error Average Variance Extract Construct Reliability nat1    NAT 0.760 0.268 0.605 0.821 nat2    NAT 0.691 0.498   nat3    NAT 0.726 0.266   aes1    AES 0.720 0.253 0.522 0.764 aes2    AES 0.586 0.342   aes3    AES 0.541 0.461   rec1    REC 0.449 0.615 0.428 0.686 rec2    REC 0.663 0.340   aec3    REC 0.645 0.459   utl1    UTL 0.805 0.312 0.549 0.784 utl2    UTL 0.715 0.430   utl3    UTL 0.669 0.578   neg1    NEG 0.599 0.603 0.489 0.740 neg2    NEG 0.720 0.401   neg3    NEG 0.742 0.490   Note. NAT: naturalistic orientation, AES: aesthetic orientation, REC: recreational orientation, UTL: utilitarian orientation, NEG: negativistic orientation.  In addition, the reliability of orientation questions was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha (Table 9). Considering small number of items (three) in each orientation, alpha values ranging from 0.592 (recreational orientation) to 0.765 (utilitarian orientation) could be acceptable. However the value of spiritual orientation (0.349) was too low to be accepted, which was aligned with low factor loadings between latent variables (SPR) and observed variables (spr2, and 3) as 52  described above. Therefore, spiritual orientation was excluded in the quantitative analysis, but I explored the students’ spiritual orientation in the qualitative analysis.  Table 9 Reliability of each orientation category  Reliability of each orientation category   Orientation Category   Number of items Chronbach’s α Naturalistic (NAT)   3 0.755 Aesthetic (AES)   3 0.627 Recreational (REC)    3 0.592 Utilitarian (UTL)   3 0.765 Negativistic (NEG)   3 0.727 Spiritual (SPR)   3 0.349  To examine the students’ changes in orientation (Part B of the questionnaire) in five categories, individual students’ mean scores of each orientation on pre- and post-test were calculated. Then paired-samples t-test was run to determine if there was a significant difference between the mean scores on pre-test and the one on post-test in each orientation. Also independent-samples t-test and one-way ANOVA were carried out to examine a significant difference between the mean scores of each subgroup (e.g., girl and boy; Grades 3, 4 and 5) in each orientation. In addition, RM-ANOVA was run to examine if the differences between the pre- and post-test scores in each orientation were significantly related to students’ sociocultural backgrounds. The result will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5. 3.6.2 Qualitative data analysis For QUAL data reduction, confirmatory thematic analysis (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003) was used. All textual data (transcribed interview data, documents, and field notes) were analyzed using qualitative software (NVivo 7.0) in conjunction with a priori coding (Miles & Huberman, 1994). To complement QUAN findings from the research question one and to answer 53  the research question two, I created a priori coding list for marine science knowledge (Table 10) drown from the seven Essential Principles (EPs) and 44 Fundamental Concepts (FCs) of Ocean Science. Full description of the seven EPs and 44 FCs of Ocean Science is available at the Ocean Literacy Network website (http://www.oceanliteracy.net).   Table 10 A priori coding list for marine science knowledge A priori coding list for marine science knowledge    Theme Code  Subthemes Theme Code  Subthemes EP #1 Big ocean 1a Watery earth EP #5 Life Diversity 5a Varied life sizes 1b Varied ocean 5b Dominant microbes  1c Circulation system 5c Exclusive life groups 1d Sea level 5d Unique ocean lives 1e Water resource 5e Diverse habitats 1f Water cycle 5f Environmental factors 1g Watersheds 5g Deep ocean ecosystem 1h Limited resource 5h Vertical zonation EP #2 Ocean & Earth 2a Ocean originated material 5i Estuaries  2b Land shape change EP #6 Interconnection 6a Ocean & human life 2c Erosion and Sediment 6b Source for food, material and energy 2d Sand 6c Source for recreation and discovery  2e Changing coast 6d Living coastal areas EP #3 Weather & Climate 3a Controlling weather and climate 6e Humans’ influences 3b Dominating energy  6f Hazard coastal regions 3c El Niño 6g Caring for the ocean 3d Rain from ocean EP #7 Unexplored Ocean 7a Unexplored place 3e Dominating carbon cycle 7b More than a curiosity 3f Climate change 7c Sustainability of ocean 3g Ocean circulation for climate change 7d Use of technology EP #4 Habitat Earth 4a Oxygen resource 7e Use of math model 4b Life evolution 7f Interdisciplinary work   54  Using this coding list, I analyzed the interview data, students’ journals, my field notes, digital photographs, and other documented data provided by the Vancouver Aquarium (e.g., program activity descriptions). Some of the coding examples are as follows: Researcher: You observed some plankton using a microscope yesterday. How is plankton related to you? Ryder: Phytoplankton provides us with oxygen (4a) which is critical for our survival, so it is very important to human (6a). (Grade 4, informal conversation, August 16, 2012)  Beach Walk activity includes:   Introduction of the intertidal zone (5h), the diversity of organisms (5a) and their adaptations (5d) to living out of water for extended periods of time;  Developing children’s observational skills and critical thinking skills (e.g., why they live there); and  Discussion about direct and indirect impacts humans can have on intertidal environments (6e) and oceans as well as the ways we can protect them (6g). (AquaCamps program description, provided by the camp coordinator)  In an attempt to complement QUAN findings from the research question three and to answer the research question four, I created another a priori coding list (Table 11). As suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994), I began by selecting six orientations toward the ocean (naturalistic, aesthetic, spiritual, utilitarian, recreational, and negativistic) as general themes to act as a frame based on the findings from Snively’s (1986) orientations and complemented by Kellert’s (1996, 2003) typology. I also created initial subthemes for each theme from the work of Snively and Kellert. These themes and subthemes were stored at ‘Tree Nodes’ of NVivo program.  While reading the textual data with the use of NVivo, I coded using this a priori coding list (existing nodes). I added new subthemes as ‘Free Nodes’ for the data when the subtheme list did not represent the students’ responses. After reading the textual data several times, these new subthemes were transferred from Free Nodes to Tree Nodes. As shown in Table 11, a total of 28 55  subthemes emerged. The next section describes how these subthemes were identified including short excerpts from interview transcripts.  Table 11 A priori coding list for orientations toward the ocean  A priori coding list for orientations toward the ocean   Themes Subthemes Themes Subthemes Naturalistic 1 Taxonomy  2 Ecosystem (including food web & abiotic components) 3 (Cognitive) Interest in the ocean  & marine organisms) 4 Education 5 Research  Aesthetic 1 Feelings 2 Sense of wonder 3 Artistic 4 Symbolic communication 5 Predilection Spiritual 1 Moralistic 2 Emotional attachment 3 Companionship 4 Biocentric  5 Empathy for organisms 6 Ethical Responsibility Utilitarian 1 Food  2 Materials   3 Energy 4 Medication  Recreational 1 Enjoyment 2 Control 3 Anthropocentric 4 Social Negativistic 1 Harm to nature  2 Avoid nature 3 Danger of the ocean 4 Disconnection  I identified the naturalistic orientation theme when the students viewed the ocean/ marine organisms as a source for exploring varied wonders and nurturing intellectual curiosity, imagination, and discovery. The following subthemes are included in this category: taxonomy (e.g., human-other animals’ similarities & differences), ecosystem (e.g., food web, abiotic components), interest (e.g., cognitive interest in the ocean and marine organisms), education (e.g., scientific learning and instruction), research (e.g., study, discovery). The following excerpts illustrate how the students expressed their viewpoints toward the ocean and marine organisms: The ocean is a community because a bunch of different animals function together (ecosystem) like humans in a community (taxonomy). Their actions are linked together and thus all are connected (ecosystem). For example, one animal eats too much food 56  means others will starve, if a big animal eats too many small animals then plankton will swarm up because nothing eats the plankton. (Grayson, Grade 5, informal conversation, August 2, 2013)  I want to be a marine biologist because we humans only know some about it, there are so much to learn (education), and I want to find out what that is (interest, research). (Kylie, Grade 4, interview, July 7, 2012)  I identified aesthetic orientation when the students viewed the ocean/ marine organisms for aesthetic attraction, artistic inspiration, and symbolic communication. The following subthemes were included in this category: positive feelings (e.g., delighted, thrilled), sense of wonder (e.g., admiration, awe), artistic (e.g., appreciation of the beauty), symbolic communication (e.g., representation), predilection (e.g., personal preference, likeness). The following excerpts illustrate the students’ aesthetic orientation:  I went a scuba diving. Guess what I saw. Right in front of me I saw a sea turtle and s a shark, white tip reef shark just strait under us! (sense of wonder). (Carlos, Grade 4, informal conversation, July 12, 2012)  Look! It is a Chinese sturgeon and I am a Chinese, we have a close connection (symbolic communication). I like him (predilection). (Easton, Grade 3, informal conversation, August 14, 2012)  Despite the low level of internal consistency in the QUAN measure on the spiritual orientation, I was able to discern spiritual orientation via the QUAL analysis. I identified spiritual orientation when the students viewed the ocean/ marine organisms for a source of moral and spiritual inspiration as well as emotional attachment to nature. I created the following subthemes for this category: moralistic (e.g., concern for right or wrong), emotional attachment (e.g., emotional connection), companionship (e.g., caring experiences), biocentric (e.g., human –nature equal status), empathy for organisms (e.g., compassion), ethical responsibility (e.g., care for nature protection). The following excerpts illustrate the students’ spiritual orientation:   57  If I were the shark in the tank (emotional attachment), I don’t want people to bang on the tank so I would tell them “stop doing that” (moralistic). (Juan, Grade 3, informal conversation, July 11, 2012)  I am really interested in cetaceans because they are majestic, but they are endangered (empathy) and we should protect them (ethical responsibility). (Kylie, Grade 4, interview, July 7, 2012)  I identified utilitarian orientation when the students viewed the ocean/ marine organisms as a source for humans’ practical needs such as oxygen, food, medicine, energy, and etcetera. The following subthemes were included in this category: food (e.g., fish and other nutrients), materials (e.g., salt, water, and other resources for living), energy (e.g., finite/ infinite energy resources), and medication (e.g., medical resources). The following excerpts illustrate the students’ utilitarian orientation:   The ocean is like a factory because it makes fishes and makes them survive. Just like a factory makes things for us to use, the ocean makes fishes and we can eat them (food). (Jace, Grade 3, interview, July 12, 2012)  The ocean does supply us oils (energy), water (materials), and other resources. (Ava, Grade 3, interview, July 19, 2012)  I identified recreational orientation when the students viewed the ocean/ marine organisms as a source of refreshment, entertainment, relaxation, and exercise. I created the following subthemes for this category: enjoyment (e.g., entertainment, sea sports), control (e.g., domination), anthropocentric (e.g., human above nature), social (e.g., sharing experiences). The following excerpts illustrate the students’ utilitarian orientation:   The ocean is a playground. When I was in Hawaii, I did swimming, snorkeling, canoeing, and fishing (enjoyment). (Noah, Grade 3, interview, August 17, 2012)  I wish I could have one dolphin as a pet. It will be great to train him (Anthropocentric, control). (Mia, Grade 5, informal conversation, August 16, 2012)  58  I identified negativistic orientation when the students viewed the ocean/ marine organisms as a subject of fears and dislike, which can provoke avoidance or destructive responses. The following subthemes were included in this category: harm to nature (e.g., habitat destruction, pollution), avoid nature (e.g., fear, dislike), danger of the ocean (e.g., disaster), and disconnection (e.g., isolation). The following excerpts illustrate the students’ negativistic orientation: I went to English Bay last week. While digging the ground I found and caught almost one hundred clams. It was fun (harm to nature). (Damian, Grade 3, informal conversation, August 14, 2012)  There are dangerous creatures in the beach such as sea anemone and sea jelly. It stings from its tentacles which is very irritating (avoid nature). (Anthony, Grade 3, informal conversation, July 15, 2013)   Blue whales need plankton but we humans are not related to plankton at all (disconnection). (Easton, Grade 3, informal conversation, August 15, 2012)  Using these six themes and 28 subthemes, each student’s interview data were separately analyzed. All qualitative data were used primarily to complement QUAN data, and secondarily to understand students’ AquaCamps experiences. Eventually, the combined QUAN and QUAL data were used to interpret the influences of AquaCamps as well as life experiences on the students’ ocean literacy developments. 3.7 Validity, trustworthiness, and quality of the study With regard to evaluating the quality of the research process and study findings, different criteria have been adopted for QUAN and QUAL studies. Some of the criteria used to evaluate the quality of QUAN studies are internal, construct, external, and statistic conclusion validities (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability as criteria for the quality of QUAL studies. Since mixed 59  methodology employs QUAN and QUAL strands in a single study, the necessity of an integrative framework for evaluating the quality of mixed method research has been discussed and a number of scholars (e.g., Dellinger & Leech, 2007; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009) constructed comprehensive frameworks (O’Cathain, 2010). Adopting the integrative framework proposed by Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009), I discuss the quality issues of this mixed study below.  In the stage of data collection, I paid attention to the validity and reliability for QUAN data as well as to credibility and dependability for QUAL data. Higher data quality in a mixed study originates from valid and credible QUAN and QUAL data (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Validity refers to “the notion that the instrument being developed is accurate, given what you are trying to measure” (Diamond et al., 2009, p. 46). In order to obtain the content validity of the QUAN instrument, the survey questions were examined by and discussed with two Professors with expertise in marine environmental education. With regard to the construct validity of the QUAN instrument, CFA revealed that the questionnaire (Part B) had acceptable convergent as well as discriminant validity. However, possible threats to internal validity of QUAN data might exist, ‘testing effect’ (Gall et al., 2003), due to the fact that the same questionnaire was administered two times (pre- and post-test) with a four day interval. Reliability is defined as “the degree to which the results of a measurement consistently and accurately represent the true magnitude of a construct” (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009, p. 211). The reliability of the questionnaire (Part B) was checked using Cronbach’s Alpha and as a result, the reliability of five orientations was validated while one orientation (SPR) was excluded in QUAN discussion. Credibility and dependability in QUAL strand are similar to the concepts of validity and reliability in QUAN strand. Credibility is defined as whether the researcher’s descriptions “are 60  credible to the constructors of the original multiple realities” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 296). I ensured credibility by triangulating multiple data such as interviews, field notes, and documents (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Patton, 2002). Textual data were shared with the camp coordinator as a form of member checking. Dependability is the ability of the researchers to yield consistent results (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Throughout repeated six sessions in 2012 and 2013, I conducted the same data collection process.  In the stage of data analysis and inference (conclusion), adequate analytic strategy was ensured. Confirmability is a concept of whether the results are grounded in data and are logical (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To ensure adequate QUAL data analysis, I asked a colleague (PhD candidate in the faculty of education, UBC) to act as a ‘confirmability auditor’. My colleague reviewed the interviews, field notes, and documents to ensure my research process was transparent and the conclusions logical.   In the stage of integration, design quality and transferability were checked. Integration is a crucial stage in a mixed methods study. I developed and maintained a clear mixed design (Figure 2) which justifies combining QUAN and QUAL strands in order to answer the research questions. Transferability refers to the applicability of the study to other similar settings, people, time periods, contexts, and ways of defining the constructs (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Findings from QUAN strand with larger samples might provide greater confidence in generalizing conclusions to other research contexts, while the detailed descriptions obtained from QUAL strand may provide comprehensive conditions the research findings emerged (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Since the transferability highly depends on the similarity between the research context and ‘receiving’ context, Teddlie and Tashakkori recommend “to specify the possible boundaries of transferability” (p. 311). Since the AquaCamps is a five-day program 61  specially designed for elementary students by the Vancouver Aquarium and the campers might have particular interests in marine animals, the process and outcomes of this study may apply only to similar elementary level marine educational programs. However, the process and outcomes are also constrained by the diversity of participants’ sociocultural backgrounds. The details of demographics in QUAN data and the descriptions of the study context will provide the reader with information to judge transferability of this study to other settings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Scott, 2007).  3.8 Limitations As a male researcher from a Korean cultural background, interpretation of my study’s findings may reflect my own beliefs, experiences, and expectations associated with marine educational programs in Korea, indicating a presence of an inevitable personal bias (Gall et al., 2003; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). While I was aware of this limitation, I tried to review my ‘self’ through maintaining a reflective journal which is “a kind of diary in which the investigator on a daily basis or as needed, records a variety of information about self … and methods” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 327).  Linguistic differences between interviewer and interviewee may affect the progress of interviews due to “the thinking of both the participants and the interviewer is intertwined with the language they are using” (Vygotsky, 1987 cited in Seidman, 2006, p. 105). As my first language is Korean, I paid great attention to understanding clearly how the participants (Chinese students in particular) communicated and what they communicated by using informal and semi-structured interviews, which are best suited for ESL (English as Second Language) /EAL (English as an Additional Language) students (Diamond et al., 2009). In the case of interviewing 62  Korean students I spoke Korean, but I also made great effort to accurately represent the full sense and meaning of the interview responses expressed by participants in English.  3.9 Ethical considerations To ensure my study followed appropriate ethical guidelines, I applied to the UBC Behavioral Ethical Review (BREB). Approval was granted on June 1, 2012 and renewed on April 29, 2013. In accordance with BREB procedure, I gained approval from the Vancouver Aquarium for conducting this research. Since my study involved children, approximately one week before the camp, the AquaCamps coordinator contacted the camp participants and their parents (or legal guardians) via e-mail to introduce the study and to send assent/consent forms. The assent/consent forms included the purpose of the study, the study investigators, conditions for participation and withdrawal from the study, potential benefits and risks, confidentiality, and contact information. To ensure anonymity and to maintain privacy and confidentiality, I used pseudonyms for all participants’ names in the data obtained from in-depth interviews and student-produced artifacts. 63  Chapter 4 Changes in Students’ Marine Science Knowledge Understanding the fundamental concepts about the functioning of the ocean is one of the necessary conditions to be an ocean-literate person (Cava et al., 2005). It is difficult to make informed value decisions without ecological and environmental knowledge (Clayton & Myers, 2009). In this sense, increasing visitors’ (students’) marine science knowledge can be one of the most important tasks of marine aquariums in their role as a venue for informal marine education. However, the impact of marine aquarium experiences on constructing elementary students’ ocean science knowledge remains unclear. Thus, this chapter reports on the results of QUAN and QUAL analysis to answer research questions one and two:  1. What are the characteristics of elementary students’ changes in marine science knowledge after participating in the AquaCamps?  2. How do students’ AquaCamps and other life experiences affect their changes in marine science knowledge? First, this chapter describes how the students’ marine science knowledge was examined in a quantitative manner followed by detailed reports of knowledge changes in both the overall and at each individual question level via analysis of the students’ responses on the Ocean Literacy Survey (Part A). The second part of this chapter begins with a description of two qualitative methods, and then reports on the ocean literacy components of 10 galleries and 20 camp activities followed by snapshots of the students’ conceptual changes in each Essential Principle of Ocean Science. Finally, this chapter discusses additional life experiences that influenced the students’ marine science knowledge construction which is then followed by a summary.    64  4.1 Changes in marine science knowledge To explore changes in students’ marine science knowledge, an Ocean Literacy Survey (Part A) was administered to all participating students at the beginning and the end of the camp. As shown in Figure 5, all responses to each question statement were given a score from 1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree and were worded in a canonically correct and affirmative form (Questions 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9). Since the statements of questions 1, 5, and 10 were worded as canonically incorrect statements, the 1 to 5 point scores were logically reversed.                       In addition to examining changes in marine science knowledge of entire samples, the change in student knowledge was also investigated depending on their sociocultural backgrounds which include grade, gender, ethnicity, and other variables suspected to have a bearing on students’ responses including aquarium visit frequency, beach walk frequency, and pet owning experience. In terms of ethnicity, the students were divided into two groups as a function of Figure 5. Scoring the responses. 65  declared ethnicity: East Asian and Caucasian. They were also divided into three groups depending on their frequency of past aquarium visitation and beach walks. If the students responded that their visits to the aquarium/ beach totaled fewer than four times a year, they were designated as a Low Frequency (LF) group. If their visit frequency count was between four and 10 times a year, they were designated as a Medium Frequency (MF) group. If their visits totaled more than 10 times a year, they were designated as a High Frequency (HF) group. 4.1.1 Overall changes Whenever the students chose either strongly agree/ agree to correct statements or strongly disagree/ disagree to incorrect statements, the responses were regarded as correct answers. Forty-five percent of students chose more than five correct answers out of 10 in the post-test while 35 percent students chose more than five correct answers in the pre-test. When assessed by the number of correct answers (Figure 6), the mean number of correct answers on the post-test (M = 5.25, SD = 1.86) was statistically higher than the mean on the pre-test (M = 4.77, SD = 1.86), t(159) = -3.96, p = .000.         Figure 6. Number of correct answers on pre- and post-test.  4.1.2 Changes in each question A paired-samples t-test was used to elucidate whether there was a statistically significant change in students’ marine science knowledge As shown in Figure 7, the students demonstrated a wide range of scores on differen  Figure 7. Knowledge score comparison by each question*: p < .05; **: p < .01. The questions follow: Q1: The ocean covers about a half (50%) of the Earth’s surface. Q2: Most rain that falls on land originally evaporated from the ocean.Q3: The ocean is a major influence on global weather and climate.Q4: Most of oxygen humans and animals on land breathe comes from oxygen produced in theQ5: The most abundant life form in the ocean is fish.Q6: The diversity of major groups of organisms is much greater in the ocean than on land.Q7: There are some marine animals that are independent of energy from sunlight.Q8: Everyone is affected by the ocean.Q9: Much of the world’s population lives in coastal areas.Q10: Human life has no big impacts on the ocean because the ocean is huge. At the beginning of the camp, the mean scores of Q3 and other scores while the mean scores of Q4 and Q5 were relatively lower than other scores. At the end of a five-day AquaCamps, studentsParticularly their knowledge about the oceanits role to make Earth habitable (Q422.533.544.5Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4** * after the AquaCamps experiences in . [False, Fundamental Concept 1a [True: 3d]  [True: 3a]  ocean.  [False: 5b]  [True [True: 5g]  [True: 6a]  [True: 6d]  [False: 6e] Q7 were relatively higher than ’ marine science knowledge increased in all 10 ’s physical feature (Q1: Fundamental Concept : 4a) and to support a greater diversity of life and ecosystem Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 * ** 66 each question. t concepts.   ] [True: 4a] : 5c] questions. 1a), Pre-TestPost-Test67  (Q6: 5c), as well as humans’ various impact on the ocean (Q10: 6e) showed statistically significant increase (Table 12). The mean score of Q10 revealed the biggest increase of 0.340, t(158) = -3.242, p = .001, while the mean score of Q2 and Q9 increased only 0.069 and 0.075 respectively.   Table 12 Marine science knowledge scores in pre- and post-test Marine science knowledge scores in pre- and post-test  Pre-Test  Post-Test Question M1 SD  M2 SD N MD t p Sig 1 3.27 1.24 3.45 1.23 159 0.221 -3.045 0.003 ** 2 3.62 1.02 3.69 0.98 159 0.069 -0.877 0.382 3 3.77 0.89 3.86 0.85 159 0.194 -1.176 0.241 4 2.67 1.03 2.90 1.02 159 0.226 -2.270 0.025 * 5 2.25 0.99 2.41 1.08 159 0.164 -1.627 0.106 6 3.49 0.97 3.66 0.94 159 0.169 -1.982 0.049 * 7 3.77 0.91 3.91 0.88 159 0.132 -1.534 0.127 8 3.50 1.15 3.63 1.61 159 0.132 -1.637 0.104 9 3.01 0.89 3.09 0.88 159 0.075 -1.000 0.319 10 3.74 1.31 4.08 1.16 159 0.340 -3.242 0.001 ** Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  *: p < .05; **: p < .01.   Change on question 1 The ocean covers about a half (50%) of the Earth’s surface. This is an incorrect statement about the Fundamental Concept 1a: ‘The ocean is the dominant physical feature on our planet Earth—covering approximately 70% of the planet’s surface’ (Cava et al., 2005). With regard to this concept, a paired-samples t-test revealed that the students’ mean score on the post-test (M = 3.45, SD = 1.23) significantly increased compared to the mean score on the pre-test (M = 3.27, SD = 1.24) after participating in AquaCamps, t(159) = -3.045, p = .003 (Table 12). When 68  assessed by a paired-samples t-test with the students’ sociocultural backgrounds, a statistically significant mean difference was observed in the groups of grade 3, t(73) = -2.472, p < .05; girls, t(85) = -2.144, p < .05; boys, t(72) = -2.164, p < .05; East Asian, t(52) = -2.442, p < .05; moderate frequency aquarium visit, t(51) = -2.901, p < .01; high frequency beach walk, t(65) = -2.289, p < .05; and pet owning experience, t(130) = -2.548, p < .05 (Table 13).  Table 13 Knowledge scores change (question 1) Knowledge scores change (question 1)  Independent variables Pre-Test Post-Test Group  M1  SD  M2  SD   n  MD t p Sig Grade Grade 3 3.05 1.16 3.32 1.21 74 0.270 -2.472 0.016 * Grade 4 3.06 1.17 3.30 1.20 47 0.234 -1.532 0.132 Grade5 3.76 1.34 3.87 1.23 38 0.105 -1.000 0.324 Gender   Girl 3.10 1.16 3.29 1.21 86 0.186 -2.144 0.035 * Boy 3.37 1.32 3.63 1.23 73 0.260 -2.164 0.034 * Ethnicity East Asian 3.13 1.30 3.45 1.23 53 0.321 -2.442 0.018 * Caucasian 3.27 1.21 3.44 1.23 106 0.170 -1.967 0.052 Aquarium visit Frequency Low 3.32 1.24 3.46 1.24 71 0.141 -1.217 0.228 Medium  3.19 1.27 3.54 1.20 52 0.346 -2.901 0.005 ** High 3.08 1.2 3.28 1.26 36 0.194 -1.363 0.182 Beach visit  frequency   Low  3.47 1.08 3.67 1.00 45 0.200 -1.593 0.118 Medium 3.25 1.26 3.46 1.27 48 0.208 -1.373 0.176 High 3.05 1.31 3.29 1.32 66 0.242 -2.289 0.025 * Pet owning Experience Yes 3.23 1.24 3.44 1.24 131 0.206 -2.548 0.012 * No 3.19 1.27 3.48 1.19 27 0.296 -1.772 0.088 Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  *: p < .05; **: p < .01.  When assessed by RM-ANOVA, the differences between the pre- and post-test scores (MD) were not significantly related to grade, F(2,156) = 0.423, p = .656; gender, F(1,157) = 0.156, p = .694; ethnicity, F(1, 157) = 0.917, p = .340; aquarium visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.914, p = .403; beach visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.007, p = .993; and pet owning experience,  F(1,157) = 0.187, p = .666 (Table Regarding this concept, however,scores at the beginning of the AquaCampsgrades, F(2,165) = 4.958, p < .01 difference between Grade 5 and Grade(p = .008), and the mean difference between also statistically significant (p = .031). This mean difference was not significant on the post Figure 8. Knowledge score comparison by         **: p < .01.  Change on question 2 Most rain that falls on land originally evaporated from the oceanstatement about the Fundamental Cfrom the tropical ocean’ (Cava et al., 2005revealed that the students’ mean score oncompared to the mean score on theF-1 in Appendix F).  a one-way ANOVA revealed that the students were significantly different among different (Figure 8). Tukey post-hoc analysis demonstrated  3 (0.72, 95% CI [0.16, 1.28]) was statistically significant Grade 5 and Grade 4 (0.65, 95% CI [0.05, 1.27]) was  grade.   . This is a correct oncept 3d: ‘Most rain that falls on land originally evaporated ). With regard to this concept, a paired the post-test (M = 3.69, SD = 0.98) slightly increased  pre-test (M = 3.62, SD = 1.02) after participating in 22.533.54Gr.3Gr.4Gr.5** 69 ’ mean that the mean -test.  -samples t-test 70  AquaCamps, t(159) = -0.877, p = .382 (Table 12). When assessed by a paired-samples t-test based on the students’ sociocultural backgrounds, a statistically significant mean difference was not observed between different groups (Table 14).   Table 14 Knowledge scores change (question 2) Knowledge scores change (question 2)  Independent variables Pre-Test Post-Test Group  M1  SD  M2  SD   n  MD t p Sig Grade Grade 3 3.66 0.95 3.61 0.81 74 -0.054 0.476 0.636 Grade 4 3.66 1.15 3.72 1.08 47 0.064 -0.434 0.666 Grade5 3.47 0.98 3.79 1.14 38 0.316 -1.968 0.057 Gender   Girl 3.44 1.06 3.53 0.98 86 0.093 -0.851 0.397 Boy 3.82 0.93 3.86 0.95 73 0.041 -0.359 0.721 Ethnicity East Asian 3.62 1.06 3.75 0.96 53 0.132 -0.943 0.350 Caucasian 3.61 1.00 3.65 0.99 106 0.038 -0.394 0.694 Aquarium visit frequency Low 3.73 1.06 3.72 0.96 71 -0.014 0.121 0.904 Medium  3.48 0.96 3.67 0.98 52 0.192 -1.399 0.168 High 3.58 1.02 3.64 1.02 36 0.056 -0.320 0.751 Beach visit  frequency   Low  3.53 1.06 3.76 0.83 45 0.222 -1.348 0.184 Medium 3.56 1.03 3.58 1.05 48 0.021 -0.167 0.868 High 3.71 0.99 3.71 1.02 66 0.000 0.000 1.000 Pet owning Experience Yes 3.63 0.99 3.67 0.97 131 0.046 -0.529 0.598 No 3.59 1.15 3.70 0.99 27 0.111 -0.593 0.558 Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  When assessed by RM-ANOVA, the differences between pre- and post-test scores (MD) were not significantly related to grade, F(2,156) = 1.982, p = .141; gender, F(1,157) = 0.044, p = .835; ethnicity, F(1,157) = 0.209, p = .648; aquarium visit frequency, F(2,156) = .676, p = .510; beach visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.601, p = .549; and pet owning experience, F(1,157) = 0.051, p = .822 (Table F-2 in Appendix F). Regarding this concept, however, significant mean difference was observed between boys  and girls (Figure 9). An independentboys’ knowledge score (M = 3.82,a statistically significant difference,scores on this concept in the postdifference, t(157) = 2.138, p = .0 Figure 9. Knowledge score comparison by gender.        *: p < .05  Change on question 3 The ocean is a major influence on global weather and climateabout the Fundamental Concept of 2005). With regard to this concept, a the post-test (M = 3.86, SD = 0.85) slightly increased compared to the mean score on (M = 3.77, SD = 0.89) after participating in When assessed by a paired-samples-samples t-test revealed that at the beginning of the camp  SD = 0.93) was higher than girls’ score (M = 3. t(165.877) = 2.223, p = .028. It was observed that-test was also higher than girls’ score, a statistically significant 34.    . This is a correct statement 3a: ‘The ocean controls global weather and climatepaired-samples t-test revealed that the studentsAquaCamps, t(159) = -1.176, p = .241 (Table  t-test based on the students’ sociocultural backgrounds22.533.54GirlBoy* * 71 44, SD = 1.06),  boys’ ’ (Cava et al., ’ mean score on the pre-test 12). , no 72  statistically significant mean difference was observed between different groups (Table 15).   Table 15 Knowledge scores change (question 3) Knowledge scores change (question 3)  Independent variables Pre-Test Post-Test Group  M1  SD  M2  SD   n  MD t p Sig Grade Grade 3 3.57 0.94 3.70 0.87 74 0.135 -1.055 0.295 Grade 4 3.96 0.83 4.00 0.78 47 0.043 -0.280 0.781 Grade5 3.92 0.78 4.00 0.84 38 0.079 -0.620 0.539 Gender   Girl 3.62 0.87 3.83 0.80 86 0.209 -1.973 0.052 Boy 3.95 0.88 3.90 0.90 73 -0.041 0.340 0.735 Ethnicity East Asian 3.62 0.88 3.87 0.86 53 0.245 -1.902 0.063 Caucasian 3.84 0.89 3.86 0.84 106 0.019 -0.186 0.852 Aquarium visit Frequency Low 3.75 0.87 3.79 0.86 71 0.042 -0.349 0.728 Medium  3.83 0.90 3.87 0.91 52 0.038 -0.270 0.788 High 3.72 0.91 4.00 0.72 36 0.278 -1.711 0.096 Beach visit  frequency   Low  3.76 0.96 3.91 0.82 45 0.156 -0.980 0.333 Medium 3.58 0.87 3.60 0.79 48 0.021 -0.141 0.888 High 3.91 0.84 4.02 0.87 66 0.106 -0.880 0.382 Pet owning Experience Yes 3.79 0.86 3.87 0.83 131 0.084 -0.946 0.346 No 3.63 1.01 3.78 0.93 27 0.148 -0.750 0.460 Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  When assessed by RM-ANOVA, the differences between pre- and post-test scores (MD) were not significantly related to grade, F(2,156) = 0.072, p = .931; gender, F(1,157) = 3.003, p = .085; ethnicity F(1,157) = 2.319, p = .130; aquarium visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.934, p = .395; beach visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.304, p = .738; and pet owning experience, F(1,157) = 0.282, p = .596 (Table F-3 in Appendix F). Regarding this concept, however, a significant mean difference was observed between boys and girls (Figure 10). An independent-samples t-test revealed that at the beginning of the camp boys’ knowledge score (M = 3.95, SD = 0.88) was higher than girls’ score (M = 3.62, SD =  0.87), a statistically significant difference,AquaCamps, the mean difference between girl Figure 10. Knowledge score comparison by gender.       *: p < .05  Change on question 4 Most of the oxygen humans and animals on land breathe comes from oxygen produced in the ocean. This is a correct statement about the atmosphere originally came from the activities of photosynthetic organisms in the ocean(Cava et al., 2005). With regard to this concept, a students’ mean score on the post-the mean score on the pre-test (M2.270, p = .025 (Table 12). Whensociocultural backgrounds, a statistically significant mean difference was observed in the group of East Asian, t(52) = -2.442, p < .05 t(166) = 2.702, p = .008. However, at the end of the s and boys was not significant.    the Fundamental Concept 4a: ‘Most paired-samples t-test revealed that the test (M = 2.90, SD = 1.02) significantly increased compared to  = 2.67, SD = 1.03) after participating in AquaCamps assessed by a paired-samples t-test based on students (Table 16). 22.533.54GirlBoy* 73 of the oxygen in  , t(159) = -’ 74  Table 16 Knowledge scores change (question 4) Knowledge scores change (question 4)  Independent variables Pre-Test Post-Test Group  M1  SD  M2  SD   n  MD t p Sig Grade Grade 3 2.72 1.00 2.97 1.01 74 0.257 -1.782 0.079 Grade 4 2.64 1.07 2.96 1.10 47 0.319 -1.580 0.121 Grade5 2.63 1.05 2.68 0.93 38 0.053 -0.285 0.777 Gender   Girl 2.73 1.05 2.91 0.97 86 0.174 -1.371 0.174 Boy 2.60 1.01 2.89 1.09 73 0.288 -1.822 0.073 Ethnicity East Asian 2.49 1.07 2.92 1.05 53 0.434 -2.202 0.032 * Caucasian 2.76 1.00 2.89 1.01 106 0.123 -1.096 0.276 Aquarium visit frequency Low 2.61 0.98 2.76 1.02 71 0.155 -1.008 0.317 Medium  2.62 1.05 2.88 0.96 52 0.269 -1.529 0.132 High 2.89 1.09 3.19 1.06 36 0.306 -1.539 0.133 Beach visit  frequency   Low  2.51 0.84 2.82 1.03 45 0.311 -1.571 0.123 Medium 2.62 1.18 2.79 0.90 48 0.167 -0.893 0.377 High 2.82 1.02 3.03 1.10 66 0.212 -1.440 0.155 Pet owning experience Yes 2.63 1.02 2.85 1.00 131 0.214 -1.907 0.059 No 2.85 1.10 3.07 1.07 27 0.222 -1.030 0.312 Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  *: p < .05  When assessed by RM-ANOVA, the differences between pre- and post-test scores (MD) were not significantly related to grade, F(2,156) = 0.612, p = .543; gender, F(1,157) = 0.057, p = .812; ethnicity, F(1,157) = 2.240, p = .136; aquarium visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.403, p = .669; beach visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.112, p = .894; and pet owning experience, F(1,157) = 0.048, p = .827 (Table F-4 in Appendix F).  Change on question 5 The most abundant life form in the ocean is fish. This is an incorrect statement about the Fundamental Concept 5b: ‘Most life in the ocean exists as microbes. Microbes are the most 75  important primary producers in the ocean. Not only are they the most abundant life form in the ocean, they have extremely fast growth rates and life cycles’ (Cava et al., 2005). With regard to this concept, a paired-samples t-test revealed that the students’ mean score on the post-test (M = 2.41, SD = 1.08) slightly increased compared to the mean score on the pre-test (M = 2.25, SD = 0.99) after participating in AquaCamps, t(159) = -1.627, p = .106 (Table 12). When assessed by a paired-samples t-test based on the students’ sociocultural backgrounds, a statistically significant mean difference was observed in the group of girls, t(86) = -2.121, p < .05; and low frequency aquarium visit, t(71) = -2.023, p < .05 (Table 17).  Table 17 Knowledge scores change (question 5) Knowledge scores change (question 5)  Independent variables Pre-Test Post-Test Group  M1  SD  M2  SD   n  MD t p Sig Grade Grade 3 2.26 0.99 2.41 1.12 74 0.149 -0.992 0.325 Grade 4 2.17 0.96 2.34 1.03 47 0.170 -0.871 0.388 Grade5 2.32 1.02 2.50 1.08 38 0.184 -0.980 0.334 Gender   Girl 2.26 0.72 2.51 1.03 86 0.256 -2.121 0.037 * Boy 2.23 1.23 2.29 1.14 73 0.055 -0.329 0.743 Ethnicity East Asian 2.13 1.02 2.40 1.01 53 0.264 -1.631 0.109 Caucasian 2.30 0.97 2.42 1.12 106 0.113 -0.889 0.376 Aquarium visit frequency Low 2.17 0.97 2.45 1.17 71 0.282 -2.023 0.047 * Medium  2.33 1.00 2.31 0.90 52 -0.019 0.121 0.904 High 2.28 1.00 2.47 1.16 36 0.194 -0.737 0.466 Beach visit  frequency   Low  2.24 0.96 2.42 1.08 45 0.178 -1.000 0.323 Medium 2.33 1.04 2.46 1.05 48 0.125 -0.651 0.518 High 2.18 0.98 2.36 1.12 66 0.182 -1.147 0.256 Pet owning experience Yes 2.20 0.96 2.38 1.08 131 0.183 -1.746 0.083 No 2.44 1.09 2.52 1.12 27 0.074 -0.242 0.811 Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  *: p < .05   76  However, when assessed by RM-ANOVA, the differences between pre- and post-test scores (MD) were not significantly related to grade, F(2,156) = 0.050, p = .951; gender, F(1,157) = 1.298, p = .256; ethnicity, F(1,157) = 0.503, p = .479; aquarium visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.789, p = .456; beach visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.049, p = .952; and pet owning experience, F(1,157) = 0.194, p = .660 (Table F-5 in Appendix F).  Change on question 6 The diversity of major groups of organisms is much greater in the ocean than on land. This is a correct statement about the Fundamental Concept 5c: ‘Some major groups are found exclusively in the ocean. The diversity of major groups of organisms is much greater in the ocean than on land’ (Cava et al., 2005). With regard to this concept, a paired-samples t-test revealed that the students’ mean score on the post-test (M = 3.66, SD = 0.94) significantly increased compared to the mean score on the pre-test (M = 3.45, SD = 0.97) after participating in AquaCamps, t(159) = -1.982, p = .049 (Table 12). When assessed by a paired-samples t-test based on the students’ sociocultural backgrounds, a statistically significant mean difference was observed in the group of girls, t(86) = -2.525, p < .05; Caucasian, t(106) = -3.060, p < .01; high frequency beach visit, t(66) = -2.485,  p < .05; and pet owning experience t(131) = -2.535, p < .05 (Table 18).      77  Table 18 Knowledge scores change (question 6) Knowledge scores change (question 6)  Independent variables Pre-Test Post-Test Group  M1  SD  M2  SD   n  MD t p Sig Grade Grade 3 3.38 0.98 3.54 0.98 74 0.162 -1.229 0.223 Grade 4 3.45 1.00 3.74 0.92 47 0.298 -1.821 0.075 Grade5 3.76 0.91 3.79 0.87 38 0.026 -0.177 0.860 Gender   Girl 3.26 0.87 3.53 0.92 86 0.279 -2.525 0.013 * Boy 3.77 1.02 3.81 0.95 73 0.041 -0.309 0.758 Ethnicity East Asian 3.68 1.00 3.58 0.86 53 -0.094 0.590 0.558 Caucasian 3.40 0.95 3.70 0.98 106 0.302 -3.060 0.003 ** Aquarium visit frequency Low 3.54 0.95 3.55 0.92 71 0.014 -0.116 0.908 Medium  3.35 1.05 3.67 1.00 52 0.327 -1.992 0.052 High 3.61 0.90 3.86 0.87 36 0.250 -1.464 0.152 Beach visit  frequency   Low  3.44 0.99 3.47 0.99 45 0.022 -0.133 0.895 Medium 3.54 0.99 3.65 0.93 48 0.104 -0.658 0.514 High 3.48 0.96 3.80 0.90 66 0.318 -2.485 0.016 * Pet owning experience Yes 3.45 0.99 3.69 0.96 131 0.244 -2.535 0.012 * No 3.70 0.91 3.52 0.85 27 -0.185 1.044 0.306 Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  *: p < .05; **: p < .01  However, when assessed by RM-ANOVA, the differences between pre- and post-test scores (MD) were not significantly related to grade, F(2,156) = 0.562, p = .571; gender, F(1,157) = 2.028, p = .156; ethnicity, F(1,157) = 3.823, p = .052; aquarium visit frequency, F(2,156) = 1.443, p = .239; beach visit frequency, F(2,156) = 1.207, p = .302; and pet owning experience, F(1,157) = 3.313, p = .071 (Table F-6 in Appendix F). Regarding this concept, however, significant mean difference was observed between boys and girls (Figure 11). An independent-samples t-test revealed that at the beginning of the camp boys’ knowledge score (M = 3.77, SD = 1.02) was higher than girls’ score (M = 3.26, SD = 0.87), with a statistically significant difference, t(166) = 3.591, p = .000. At the end of the AquaCamps,  the mean difference between girl Figure 11. Knowledge score comparison by gender.          ***: p < .001  Change on question 7 There are some marine animals that are independent ofcorrect statement about the Fundamental Cindependent of energy from sunlight and photosynthetic organisms. Hydrothermal vents, submarine hot springs, methane cold seeps, and whale falls rely only on chemosynthetic organisms to supportpaired-samples t-test revealed that the students0.88) significantly increased compared to the mean score on after participating in AquaCampspaired-samples t-test based on the studentsmean difference was observed in the group of girls and boys was not significant.      energy from sunlightoncept 5g: ‘There are deep ecosystems that are chemical life’ (Cava et al., 2005). With regard to this concept, a ’ mean score on the post-test (M = 3.91, the pre-test (M = 3.77, , t(159) = -1.534, p = .127 (Table 12). When assessed by a ’ sociocultural backgrounds, a statistically significant s, t(86) = -2.429, p < .05 (Table 22.533.54GirlBoy*** 78 . This is a  energy and SD = SD = 0.91) 19). 79  Table 19 Knowledge scores change (question 7) Knowledge scores change (question 7)  Independent variables Pre-Test Post-Test Group  M1  SD  M2  SD   n  MD t p Sig Grade Grade 3 3.76 0.92 3.89 0.84 74 0.135 -1.182 0.241 Grade 4 3.74 1.03 3.87 0.90 47 0.128 -0.724 0.473 Grade5 3.84 0.75 3.97 0.97 38 0.132 -0.710 0.482 Gender   Girl 3.69 0.80 3.93 0.78 86 0.244 -2.429 0.017 * Boy 3.88 1.03 3.88 1.00 73 0.000 0.000 1.000 Ethnicity East Asian 3.66 0.98 3.91 0.84 53 0.245 -1.541 0.129 Caucasian 3.83 0.88 3.91 0.91 106 0.075 -0.741 0.460 Aquarium visit Frequency Low 3.77 0.91 3.90 0.81 71 0.127 -0.932 0.354 Medium  3.69 0.88 3.90 1.00 52 0.212 -1.278 0.207 High 3.89 0.98 3.92 0.87 36 0.028 -0.215 0.831 Beach visit  frequency   Low  3.56 0.89 3.76 0.86 45 0.200 -1.040 0.304 Medium 3.67 1.00 3.92 0.82 48 0.250 -1.811 0.077 High 4.00 0.82 4.00 0.94 66 0.000 0.000 1.000 Pet owning Experience Yes 3.78 0.92 3.89 0.93 131 0.107 -1.081 0.282 No 3.74 0.90 4.04 0.59 27 0.296 -1.870 0.073 Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  *: p < .05  However, when assessed by RM-ANOVA, the differences between pre- and post-test scores (MD) were not significantly related to grade, F(2,156) = 0.022, p = .978; gender, F(1,157) = 2.389, p = .124; ethnicity, F(1,157) = 0.808, p = .370; aquarium visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.551, p = .577; beach visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.979, p = .378; and pet owning experience, F(1,157) = 0.549, p = .460 (Table F-7 in Appendix F).  Change on question 8 Everyone is affected by the ocean. This is a correct statement about the Fundamental Concept 6a: ‘The ocean affects every human life. It supplies freshwater and nearly all Earth’s oxygen. It moderates the Earth’s climate, influences our weather, and affects human health’ 80  (Cava et al., 2005). With regard to this concept, a paired-samples t-test revealed that the students’ mean score on the post-test (M = 3.63, SD = 1.61) significantly increased compared to the mean score on the pre-test (M = 3.50, SD = 1.15) after participating in AquaCamps, t(159) = -1.637, p = .104 (Table 12). When assessed by a paired-samples t-test based on the students’ sociocultural backgrounds, a statistically significant mean difference was not observed between different groups (Table 20).  Table 20 Knowledge scores change (question 8) Knowledge scores change (question 8)  Independent variables Pre-Test Post-Test Group  M1  SD  M2  SD   n  MD t p Sig Grade Grade 3 3.15 1.17 3.27 1.20 74 0.122 -0.886 0.379 Grade 4 3.68 1.16 3.85 1.14 47 0.170 -1.212 0.232 Grade5 3.95 0.90 4.05 0.90 38 0.105 -0.892 0.378 Gender   Girl 3.43 1.10 3.53 1.12 86 0.105 -0.976 0.332 Boy 3.58 1.21 3.74 1.20 73 0.164 -1.332 0.187 Ethnicity East Asian 3.23 1.14 3.32 1.25 53 0.094 -0.545 0.588 Caucasian 3.63 1.14 3.78 1.09 106 0.151 -1.763 0.081 Aquarium visit Frequency Low 3.45 1.24 3.63 1.17 71 0.183 -1.606 0.113 Medium  3.58 1.05 3.50 1.21 52 -0.077 0.522 0.604 High 3.47 1.13 3.81 1.06 36 0.333 -1.919 0.063 Beach visit  frequency   Low  3.42 1.10 3.56 1.14 45 0.133 -0.882 0.382 Medium 3.17 1.21 3.35 1.26 48 0.188 -1.176 0.245 High 3.79 1.09 3.88 1.06 66 0.091 -0.760 0.450 Pet owning Experience Yes 3.53 1.17 3.69 1.09 131 0.168 -1.935 0.055 No 3.30 1.03 3.26 1.40 27 -0.037 0.166 0.869 Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  When assessed by RM-ANOVA, the differences between pre- and post-test scores (MD) were not significantly related to grade, F(2,156) = 0.078, p = .925; gender, F(1,157) =  0.118, p = .732; ethnicity, F(1,1571.786, p = .171; beach visit frequency, F(1,157) = 0.932, p = .336 (Table Regarding this concept, however, significant mean difference was observed among groups with different grades and ethnicitstudents’ mean scores at the beginningdifferent grades, F(2,165) = 6.566observed on the post-test, F(2,165Caucasians’ knowledge score on the pre= 3.23, SD = 1.14) with a statistically significant difference,the AquaCamps, Caucasians’ score ((M = 3.32, SD = 1.45), with a statistically significant difference,  Figure 12. Knowledge score comparison by             *: p < .05; **: p < .01.  2.533.544.5** )  = 0.103, p = .749; aquarium visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.072, p = .931; and pet owningF-8 in Appendix F). ies (Figure 12). A one-way ANOVA revealed that the  of the AquaCamps were significantly different between , p < .01. This mean difference between grades was also ) = 9.330, p < .01. An independent-samples t-test -test (M = 3.63, SD = 1.14) was higher than East Asians ( t(166) = 2.244, p = .026M = 3.78, SD = 1.09) was still higher than East Asians t(157) = 2.401, p  grade and ethnicity.          Gr.3Gr.4Gr.522.533.54East AsianCaucasian** * * 81 F(2,156) =  experience, the revealed that M . At the end of ’ score = .018.   82  Change on question 9 Much of the world’s population lives in coastal areas. This is a correct statement about the Fundamental Concept 6d (Cava et al., 2005). With regard to this concept, a paired-samples t-test revealed that the students’ mean score on the post-test (M = 3.09, SD = 0.88) slightly increased compared to the mean score on the pre-test (M = 3.01, SD = 0.89) after participating in AquaCamps, t(159) = -1.000, p = .319 (Table 12). When assessed by a paired-samples t-test based on the students’ sociocultural backgrounds, no statistically significant mean difference was observed between the different groups (Table 21).  Table 21 Knowledge scores change (question 9) Knowledge scores change (question 9)  Independent variables Pre-Test Post-Test Group  M1  SD  M2  SD   n  MD t p Sig Grade Grade 3 3.05 0.92 3.03 0.95 74 -0.027 0.222 0.825 Grade 4 3.02 0.82 3.13 0.82 47 0.106 -0.798 0.429 Grade5 2.92 0.94 3.16 0.82 38 0.237 -1.857 0.071 Gender   Girl 3.02 0.88 3.16 0.85 86 0.140 -1.366 0.176 Boy 3.00 0.91 3.00 0.91 73 0.000 0.000 1.000 Ethnicity East Asian 2.85 0.82 2.94 0.82 53 0.094 -0.711 0.480 Caucasian 3.09 0.92 3.16 0.91 106 0.066 -0.717 0.475 Aquarium visit Frequency Low 3.01 0.93 3.13 0.84 71 0.113 -1.000 0.321 Medium  2.96 0.86 2.94 0.92 52 -0.019 0.148 0.883 High 3.08 0.87 3.22 0.90 36 0.139 -0.842 0.406 Beach visit  frequency   Low  3.11 0.78 3.04 0.71 45 -0.067 0.535 0.596 Medium 2.79 0.92 2.90 0.97 48 0.104 -0.759 0.452 High 3.11 0.93 3.26 0.90 66 0.152 -1.199 0.235 Pet owning Experience Yes 3.04 0.88 3.11 0.87 131 0.069 -0.791 0.430 No 2.89 0.97 3.00 0.96 27 0.111 -0.769 0.449 Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  The result of RM-ANOVA revealed that the differences between pre- and post-test scores 83  (MD) were not significantly related to grade, F(2,156) = 1.369, p = .258; gender, F(1,157) = 0.974, p = .325; ethnicity, F(1,157) = 0.052, p = .820; aquarium visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.398, p = .673; beach visit frequency, F(2,156) = 1.072, p = .345; and pet owning experience, F(1,157) = 0.061, p = .806 (Table F-9 in Appendix F).  Change on question 10 Human life has no big impacts on the ocean because the ocean is huge. This is an incorrect statement about the Fundamental Concept 6e: ‘Humans affect the ocean in a variety of ways. … Human development and activity leads to pollution and physical modifications. In addition, humans have removed most of the large vertebrates from the ocean’ (Cava et al., 2005). With regard to this concept, a paired-samples t-test revealed that the students’ mean score on the post-test (M = 4.08, SD = 1.16) significantly increased compared to the mean score on the pre-test (M = 3.74, SD = 1.31) after participating in AquaCamps, t(159) = -3.242, p = .001 (Table 12). When assessed by a paired-samples t-test based on the students’ sociocultural backgrounds, a statistically significant mean difference was observed in the group of Grade 3, t(74) = -3.221, p < .01; girls, t(86) = - 2.543, p < .05; boys, t(73) = -2.028, p < .05; East Asian, t(53) = -2.780, p < .01; Caucasian, t(106) = -2.103, p < .05; medium frequency aquarium visit, t(52) = -2.793, p < .01; medium frequency beach visit, t(48) = -2.591, p < .05; and pet owning experience t(131) = -3.108, p < .01 (Table 22).     84  Table 22 Knowledge scores change (question 10) Knowledge scores change (question 10)  Independent variables Pre-Test Post-Test Group  M1  SD  M2  SD   n  MD t p Sig Grade Grade 3 3.42 1.30 3.89 1.17 74 0.473 -3.221 0.002 ** Grade 4 4.00 1.34 4.23 1.13 47 0.234 -1.108 0.274 Grade5 4.05 1.16 4.26 1.16 38 0.211 -1.016 0.316 Gender   Girl 3.71 1.24 4.06 1.11 86 0.349 -2.543 0.013 * Boy 3.78 1.40 4.11 1.22 73 0.329 -2.028 0.046 * Ethnicity East Asian 3.40 1.32 3.85 1.18 53 0.453 -2.780 0.008 ** Caucasian 3.92 1.27 4.20 1.13 106 0.283 -2.103 0.038 * Aquarium visit frequency Low 3.75 1.36 4.03 1.17 71 0.282 -1.825 0.072 Medium  3.65 1.15 4.15 1.09 52 0.500 -2.793 0.007 ** High 3.86 1.44 4.08 1.25 36 0.222 -0.941 0.353 Beach visit  frequency   Low  3.82 1.37 4.07 1.14 45 0.244 -1.132 0.264 Medium 3.46 1.20 3.83 1.15 48 0.375 -2.591 0.013 * High 3.89 1.33 4.27 1.16 66 0.379 -2.131 0.037 * Pet owning experience Yes 3.76 1.30 4.14 1.16 131 0.374 -3.108 0.002 ** No 3.59 1.37 3.81 1.14 27 0.222 -1.140 0.265 Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  *: p < .05; **: p < .01  When assessed by RM-ANOVA, the differences between pre- and post-test scores (MD) were not significantly related to grade, F(2,156) = 0.845, p = .431; gender, F(1,157) = 0.067, p = .797; ethnicity, F(1,157) = 0.547, p = .461; aquarium visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.615, p = .542; beach visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.114, p = .893; and pet owning experience, F(1,157) = 0.364, p = .547 (Table F-10 in Appendix F). Regarding this concept, however, a significant mean difference was observed among the groups with different grades and ethnicities (Figure 13). A one-way ANOVA revealed that the students’ mean scores at the beginning of the AquaCamps were significantly different between different grades, F(2,165) = 5.123, p < .01. Tukey post-hoc analysis demonstrated that the mean  difference between Grade 4 and Grade(p = .016), and the mean difference between was also statistically significant (test. An independent-samples t-test 3.92, SD = 1.27) was higher than significant difference, t(166) = 2.383, difference between Caucasians and East Asian  Figure 13. Knowledge score comparison by g         *: p < .05; **: p < .01.  Although the students demonstrated a wide range of scores on differemarine science knowledge increased in all 10 This supports the argument that interactions in constructions on visitors’ prior knowledge Tunnicliffe, 2013). 2.533.544.5**  3 (0.65, 95% CI [0.10, 1.20]) was statistically significant Grade 5 and Grade 3 (0.63, 95% CI [0.03, 1.23]) p = .037). This mean difference was not significant on the postshowed on the pre-test Caucasians’ knowledge score (the East Asians’ score (M = 3.40, SD = 1.32) withp = .018. At the end of the AquaCamps, the mean s was not significant on the post-test. rade and ethnicity. nt conceptsquestions at the end of a five-day AquaCampszoos and aquariums are important about organisms and nature (Falk, 2005Gr.3Gr.4Gr.52.533.544.5East AsianCaucasian* 85 -M =  a statistically    , their . to additional ; Patrick & 86  4.2 Sources of students’ marine science knowledge In the previous section, analysis of the questionnaire revealed that students’ marine science knowledge significantly increased in some concepts after participating in the AquaCamps. The result brings us to the next two questions: why was the students’ knowledge score significantly increased in some concepts and not in others? And how did the AquaCamps affect the changes in students’ marine science knowledge? These questions are subsequently answered in this section.  4.2.1 Influence of AquaCamps on marine science knowledge   To identify the influence of AquaCamps on the students’ marine science knowledge, two qualitative methods were used. Based on the students’ responses to the questionnaire, I carefully chose several students and chatted with them about their answers to each question in an attempt to further understand why they chose the particular answers to the questions in the pre- and post-test. During the camp, I also spoke with some students with the intent to identify their knowledge construction with regard to particular concepts. The components of ocean literacy concepts (44 Fundamental Concepts) reflected in 10 galleries and 20 activities were also analyzed to explain their impacts on the students’ knowledge changes (or no changes).    Ocean literacy components in the galleries During the five days of camp, the students interacted with live marine organisms in the galleries as well as at the seashore as they participated in the aquarium’s diverse educational programs. In particular, the galleries became the campers’ informal classroom where they co-constructed their knowledge and built upon their previous knowledge by sharing their 87  experiences with peers and educators. Hence, the galleries were investigated as a source of influence on students’ ocean literacy. The ocean literacy components in the galleries were also analyzed independently by the camp coordinator using the same format of Essential Principles (EPs) and Fundamental Concepts (FCs) of Ocean Science, which demonstrated 87.9 percent of inter-rater agreement.   Table 23 Ocean literacy components in the galleries Ocean literacy components in the galleries  Fundamental Concept Penguin Points Canacc-ord EX* Tropic Zone BC coast* The Wild Coast Amazon* Pacific Canada* Frogs Forever Clownfish Cove Canada’s Arctic 1a ● ● ● ●      ● 1g     ●      1h   ● ●      ● 2d   ●        3f          ● 5a          ● 5b          ● 5c   ● ● ●  ●   ● 5d ● ● ● ● ●  ●   ● 5e  ● ● ● ●  ●   ● 5f  ● ● ●   ●   ● 5g          ● 5h   ●  ●      5i   ●   ●     6a   ● ●   ●   ● 6b   ● ●   ●   ● 6c ● ● ● ● ●  ●   ● 6e ●  ● ● ●  ●  ● ● 6g ●  ● ● ●  ●  ● ● 7a          ● 7b  ● ● ● ●  ●   ● 7c ●  ● ●   ●   ● 7d          ● 7f  ●        ● Note. Canaccord EX: Canaccord Financial Exploration Gallery, BC coast: Treasures of the BC coast, Amazon: Graham Amazon Gallery, Pacific Canada: Pacific Canada Pavilion.  88  Careful analyses coupled with discussion between myself and the camp coordinator identified 10 galleries as partially reflecting EPs and FCs of Ocean Science which may result in change in students’ marine science knowledge during the AquaCamps. As shown in Table 23, the galleries were more focused on the EP #5 and EP #6; particularly the concepts 5d (Ocean biology provides many unique examples of life cycles, adaptations and important relationships among organisms), 6e (Humans affect the ocean in a variety ways), and 6g (Everyone is responsible for caring for the ocean). However, the Ocean Literacy concepts included in the test were not strongly emphasized except the two (6a for the Question 8; 6e for the question 10). This finding indicates that gallery settings might have a limited influence on changes in the students’ knowledge scores.  The following is a snapshot of the components EPs and FCs of Ocean Science embedded in the galleries. Figure 14 (a) shows an example of the panels in the Strait of Georgia gallery reflecting the concept 6b, ‘From the ocean we get foods, medicines, and minerals and energy sources’ (Cava et al., 2005). When students read this panel, the information provided helped them to understand how they were related to the marine ecosystems through food webs. Figure 14 (b) demonstrates an example of the panels in Canada’s Arctic. This figure reflects the concepts 5a: ‘Ocean life ranges in size from the smallest virus to the largest animal that has lived on Earth, the blue whale’, and 5b: ‘Most life in the ocean exists as microbes. Microbes are the most important primary producers in the ocean’ (Cava et al., 2005). This panel “The largest feed on the tiny” helped the students understand the various sizes of marine life and the importance of small organisms to the marine ecosystems.    89    Figure 14. A panel of the Strait of Georgia (a) and the Canada’s Arctic (b).  Ocean literacy components in the AquaCamps program Student learning during AquaCamps occurred through specially designed activities which involved interactions with marine organisms, peers, and educators. Each activity of the AquaCamps program reflected EPs and FCs of Ocean Science, which may influence the change in students’ marine science knowledge. To identify the Ocean literacy components in the AquaCamps activities qualitative data which included interviews and the researcher’s journal, were analyzed. The Ocean literacy components in the AquaCamps activities were also analyzed by the camp coordinator independently using the same format of EPs and FCs of Ocean Science, which demonstrated 88.5 percent of inter-rater agreement.   90  Table 24 Ocean literacy components in the activities Ocean literacy components in the activities  Activities Fundamental Concept 1 h 3b 3 f 3 g 4 a 5 a 5 b 5c 5 d 5 e 5 f 5 h 6 a 6 B 6 c 6 d 6 e 6 f 6 g 7 c 7 d 7 f Penguin Relay      ●   ● ● ●      ●  ● ●   Marine Mammal Station      ●   ●        ●  ●    Climate Change   ● ● ● ●     ● ●  ●    ● ● ●    Ice Hop Challenge   ●      ● ● ●      ●  ●    Gallery Observation      ●  ● ● ● ●    ●  ●  ● ● ●  Beach Walk      ●  ● ● ● ● ●   ●  ●  ●    Plankton Tow and Observation     ● ● ●  ● ●   ●  ●      ●  Dolphin/Beluga Show         ●        ●  ●    Feeding Whales      ●   ●              Ocean Wise Talk ●            ● ●  ● ●  ● ●   Wet Lab      ●  ● ●   ●   ●  ●      Field Trip to MMRC                 ●  ●    4D show (Happy Feet)         ● ●     ●  ●  ● ●   Squid Dissection         ●      ●        Bioaccumulation      ● ●  ●    ● ●   ●  ●    Survival Game         ●              Running Pictionary         ●      ●        Scavenger Hunt      ●   ● ●             Shark Truth ●        ●     ● ●  ●  ●    Dive Talk               ●      ● ●  The result of the data analysis revealed that most AquaCamps activities were more focused on EP #5 and EP #6 (Table 24). Particularly the concepts 5d (marine biology), 6e (human impacts on the ocean), and 6g (responsibility of caring the ocean) were emphasized compared to other activities. Sixteen out of 20 activities (80 percent) reflected the concept 5d, which means the camp programs were mainly focused on marine biological knowledge such as 91  unique life cycles, adaptations, and relationships among the marine organisms. Emphasis on 6e and 6g concepts seems to reflect the Vancouver Aquarium’s mission statement for conservation. The following shows an example of activity (Bioaccumulation) that includes several OL concepts and how those concepts were identified from the qualitative data. Bioaccumulation(50 min) is a physical activity game in which children are introduced to food chain concept (5d) and are engaged in a discussion about humans’ negative impact on marine organisms (6e) and possible solutions to the issues (6g) (Vancouver Aquarium Summer Camp Program, n.d.).    Kayla, one of the AquaCamp instructors, leads the activity. After making five groups of six, she asks the children make a list of animals and plants connected to the ocean. They classify their animals and plants into the three categories herbivore, carnivore, and omnivore (5d). Kayla makes sure their list must include humans and asks the children how humans impact on marine animals and plants (6e). Samuel, one of the students, answers using an example of Exxon Valdez oil spill accidents that happened in 1989 in Alaska.  After the discussion all students are invited to the Bioaccumulation game. Fourteen, nine, five, two students are assigned to the role of zooplankton, fish, seal, and shark respectively (5a, 5b). Following Kayla’s instruction, zooplankton goes to the grass to take red, blue, and white tokens which represent phytoplankton (5d). Then fish go and hunt the zooplankton and take their tokens which are again transferred to seals and eventually to sharks (5d). After that Kayla and students count how many red, blue, and white tokens are accumulated to fish, seals and sharks. With the notice that red tokens indicate toxin chemicals, the students learn that more and more toxin can be accumulated towards higher level of consumer including humans (6a, 6b). From the discussion, they conclude that we should not dump chemicals into the ocean (6g) and choose seafood wisely. (Field note, July 9, 2012)  Changes in categorical knowledge Essential Principle 1: Question 1 The first Essential Principle of Ocean Science describes the Earth has one big ocean with many features. The statement of question one on the survey ‘The ocean covers about a half (50%) of the Earth’s surface’ was given to examine the students’ knowledge level on the concept 1a: ‘The ocean is the dominant physical feature on our planet Earth—covering approximately 92  70% of the planet’s surface. In their responses to this incorrect statement, about half (48.2%) of the students chose ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’ in the pre-test.  When asked for additional explanations on their answers to this question, Grayson (Grade 5) demonstrated his previous knowledge on this concept as well as the source of the information saying: “I strongly disagree because I watched hours and hours of ‘Planet Earth’, a documentary. That program starts from a globe, and they said 70% is covered by ocean” (informal conversation, July 29, 2013). The other half of the students’ answers (‘strongly agreed’, ‘agreed’ and ‘neither disagree nor agree’) was mostly based on guesses. For example, Chase (Grade 3) said: “I guess it covers 50% but I’m not sure about it” (informal conversation, July 29, 2013). During the AquaCamps experiences, there was no particular activity that focused on the concept 1a. However, throughout the gallery exhibits (e.g., lots of maps in Canada’s Arctic gallery) as well as some activities (e.g., Climate Change), the information on this concept was indirectly provided to the students. As a result, about six out of ten (58.2%) students chose the right answers in the post-test. Researcher: Why did you disagree with this statement? Luke: I know it covers more than 50% because I saw the map. Researcher: A map? Luke: Yes, the maps at the beluga tank. (Grade 5, informal conversation, July 19, 2013)  Although this concept was not emphasized in the AquaCamps program, the students gained this information implicitly through gallery panels and related activities.  Essential Principle 3: Question 2, 3 The third Essential Principle of Ocean Science states that the ocean is a major influence on weather and climate. Two statements from survey questions two and three were given to 93  examine the students’ knowledge level on the concept 3d: ‘Most rain that falls on land originally evaporated from the tropical ocean’ and 3a: ‘The ocean controls global weather and climate’ respectively.  The information on these concepts was not found in gallery exhibits or during the AquaCamps activities. This result might explain why the rates of correct answers to question two (64.3% in pre-test, 64.2% in post-test) and question three (66.7% in pre-test and 69.2% in post-test) did not change significantly during the AquaCamps experiences, although the rates of correct answer were relatively high.  When asked for more explanations about the concept 3d, the students’ answers were almost the same in the pre-test and post-test. The students who understood the process of precipitation described it as follows:  Researcher: You marked here “strongly agree” that rain comes from the ocean. Could you explain how it comes from the ocean? Kayden: Rain comes from the clouds and the water evaporates from the ocean and rise up into the clouds. So I agree that rain originally comes from the ocean. Researcher: I see. Where did you learn that? Kayden: I learned it from school. My teacher has a chart and she presented a big lesson to us about the story of the Earth, and water cycle. (Grade 5, informal conversation, July 2, 2013)  With regard to concept 3a, although one activity (Climate Change) of the AquaCamps was related to the concept, it had a different focus. While the concept 3a emphasizes that ‘the ocean controls weather and climate by dominating the Earth’s energy, water and carbon systems (carbon cycle)’ the activity (Climate Change) instead focuses on the opposite direction: the impact of human induced climate change on the ocean. Using well illustrated slides the instructor (Aaron) introduced the concept of gases, carbon footprint, greenhouse effect, and the reasons for global warming. He also discussed how our daily life fosters climate change and how we can 94  reduce our carbon footprint (field note, July 3, 2012). As a result, the students were able to illustrate the general concept of climate change, related problems, and possible actions to reduce their carbon footprint. However, the students failed to explain or showed superficial knowledge of the concept that the ocean controls weather and climate, although almost seven out of 10 (69.2%) students chose the right answer on the post-test. The following shows a snapshot of the students’ limited understanding on this concept. Researcher: Could you tell me how the ocean can be related to global weather and climate change?  Kylie: Um ... the ocean is influenced by climate change. Researcher: How does climate change affect the ocean? Kylie: What I know is that the ice in the north is melting because of climate change, and so it is all water now. Researcher: What problems does it cause? Kylie: It kills the polar bear because it melts ice caps. It also gives some freshwater, which would be a problem to some fish living in the salt water.  Researcher: Then how the ocean can affect global weather and climate change? Kylie: I don’t know that. (Grade 4, informal conversation, July 5, 2012)  Essential Principle 4: Question 4 The fourth Essential Principle of Ocean Science states that the ocean makes Earth habitable. The statement of question four on the survey ‘Most of the oxygen humans and animals on land breathe comes from oxygen produced in the ocean’ aimed to examine the students’ knowledge level on the concept 4a: ‘Most of the oxygen in the atmosphere originally came from the activities of photosynthetic organisms in the ocean’. In the pre-test, only one out of four (25%) students agreed or strongly agreed on this statement, and the remaining students (75%) believed most oxygen comes from the trees on land. Even though some students mentioned the possibilities of oxygen release from the ocean, their knowledge was too limited to make a connection to mega-size marine algae and was not connected to the presence of phytoplankton as 95  shown in the excerpt below: Researcher: You disagreed that most oxygen comes from the ocean. Why do you think so? Where does most oxygen come from? Mason: Plants like trees on land. Researcher: Absolutely plants on land produce oxygen. How about the possibilities of oxygen coming from the ocean? Mason: Actually I think some seaweed can produce the oxygen but most oxygen comes from the trees. (Grade 4, informal conversation, July 22, 2013)  Two AquaCamps activities (Climate Change and Plankton Tow and Observation) introduced the presence of phytoplankton in the ocean and its roles as a producer of the marine ecosystems as well as a source of oxygen release to the atmosphere. One excerpt below demonstrates how this concept was taught to the students via the Plankton Tow and Observation activity. Kayla, one of the AquaCamps instructors, demonstrated how to use plankton net and helped the students who want to try to tow the net. After the students towed the net, Kayla asked them to identify what was inside the collection bottle. One student said, “A piece of seaweed” and another student answered, “Nothing but sand”. Another student found a tiny amphipod and shouted, “I see a tiny shrimp”. On hearing this all students gravitated towards the bottle. Kayla told the students “there are so many plankton in this bottle but it is very hard to see them because they are too small. So we are gonna go to the lab and observe what we collected using microscopes”. At the Wet Lab, a group of 10 students were listening to Chloe’s instructions. She showed several plankton pictures from the book she prepared. She asked the students to guess what marine organisms they will be from those planktons. Students were so surprised when they learned that totally different shapes of plankton eventually turn into barnacle, crab, and jellyfish. With some examples of phytoplankton, she explained their important roles as primary producers and providers of oxygen that we breathe (4a). She then presented what the students collected using a microscope which connected to a computer monitor. Since the microscope was a stereomicroscope with maximum 100 times magnification, the students enjoyed observing meso-plankton such as copepods and podon and were not able to watch phytoplankton. (Field note, August 15, 2012)  As a result of the instructor’s explanations on the role of plankton in oxygen production, the students constructed new knowledge about the function of the ocean as a provider of oxygen. The following excerpt shows a snapshot of one student’s understanding of this concept. 96  Researcher: How does the ocean affect your life? Noah: In many ways. For example, if there is no ocean half of the oxygen we are breading will be gone (4a).  Researcher: How do you know that? Noah: I learned this from Chloe (one of the AquaCamps instructors) in the Wet Lab. (Grade 3, interview, August 17, 2012)  Although the students’ mean score on the post-test (M = 2.90, SD = 1.02) significantly increased compared to the mean score on the pre-test (M = 2.67, SD = 1.03) after participating in AquaCamps, t(159) = - 2.270, p = .025, the students showed a low rate (26%) of correct answer to this question. This may result from the fact that (1) the contents of instruction were not the same depending on who is in charge of the activity and (2) the Plankton Tow and Observation activity was substituted with other activities depending on the weather conditions.   Essential Principle 5: Question 5, 6, 7 The fifth Essential Principle of Ocean Science states that the ocean supports a great diversity of life and ecosystems. Three statements were given to examine the students’ knowledge level on the concept 5b: ‘Most life in the ocean exists as microbes and they are the most important primary producers in the ocean’, 5c: ‘The diversity of major groups of organisms is much greater in the ocean than on land’, and 5g: ‘there are deep ocean ecosystems that are independent of energy from sunlight and photosynthetic organisms.  However, as shown in Table 23 and Table 24, gallery exhibits and AquaCamps activities mostly focus on the concept 5d: ‘Ocean biology provides many unique examples of life cycles, adaptations and important relationships among organisms that do not occur on land’ rather than 5b, 5c, and 5g. That is, more than seven out of 10 (70.8%) AquaCamps activities introduced knowledge about diverse marine organisms. As a result, the students’ conceptual understanding 97  of the diversity of marine organisms significantly increased after their AquaCamps experiences, t(159) = -1.982, p = .049; but their answers were based more on assumptions as shown in Blake’s response below.  Researcher: Why do you think more diverse organisms are in the ocean than on land? Blake: Because we know so many creatures are living in the ocean and people said we humans discovered only 2 % of it. Which means it may have more various creatures than on land. (Grade 4, informal conversation, July 15, 2013)  With regard to the concept of 5b, the students’ knowledge of the most abundant life form in the ocean was very low (13.1% of correct response rate in pre-test and 18.2% in post-test). When asked the most abundant life form in the ocean, the majority of students did not understand the abundance of microbes in the ocean as they indicated fish for their answer to this question.  Researcher: You agree on the idea that the most abundant life form in the ocean is fish. Why do you think so? Carlos: Because when I go to aquarium fish is everywhere! (Grade 4, informal conversation, July 29, 2013)  Even when students thought about the presence of marine algae, their ideas were not connected to microscopic algae but limited to recognition of mega-size algae that generally live attached to rocks in coastal areas (e.g., sea lettuce). Researcher: You marked here “neither disagree nor agree” to the statement that fish is the most abundant life form in the ocean. Why? Stella: Because I am not sure but I think seaweeds will be more abundant than fish in the ocean. Researcher: What makes you think so? Stella: Because plants are the most abundant on land, I guess seaweeds can be the most plentiful in the ocean. (Grade 5, informal conversation, July 8, 2013)  Although this is an exceptional case of the students’ remarkable change on the concepts of microbes in the ocean, the following excerpt illustrates that Brayden (Grade 5) constructed new knowledge about the presence of numerous micro-organisms (5a, 5b) as well as their 98  important role in the marine ecosystems (5d) from ‘Plankton Tow and Observation’ program.  Researcher: Among the AquaCamps activities, what would you say was the most meaningful activity for you?  Brayden: I think it is a plankton tow.  Researcher: Why, and what did you learn from that activity? Brayden: We collect plankton using a net and we saw some zooplankton using microscopes. I have never seen them before and I learned that millions and millions are living in the water although you don’t realize they are there (5a, 5b). Researcher: Then which one is more plentiful between fish and plankton?  Brayden: Absolutely, there is way more plankton in the ocean than fish (5b). Everywhere there is plankton. You don’t see fish everywhere in the ocean, but there is plankton almost everywhere. Researcher: Oh great, what are the roles of the plankton?  Brayden: Phytoplankton absorbs sunlight and they are kind of bottom of the food chain in the ocean (5d). (Grade 4, interview, August 23, 2013)  Essential Principle 6: Question 8, 9, 10 The sixth Essential Principle of Ocean Science describes that the ocean and human are inextricably interconnected. Three statements were given to examine the students’ knowledge level on the concepts 6a: ‘The ocean affects every human life’, 6c: ‘Much of the world’s population lives in coastal areas’, and 6e: ‘Humans affect the ocean in a variety of ways’.  However, as shown in Table 24 and Table 25, gallery exhibits and AquaCamps activities are mostly focusing on the concepts 6e and 6g: ‘Everyone is responsible for caring for the ocean’ than 6a and 6d. Reflecting the missions statement of Vancouver Aquarium, dedication to effecting the conservation of aquatic life, most AquaCamps activities emphasized the concepts 6e (human impacts on the ocean) and 6g (responsibility for caring the ocean). As a result, the students conceptual understanding about human impact on the ocean was significantly increased after the camps experiences, t(159) = -3.242, p = .001.  With regard to concept 6a, the statement ‘Everyone is affected by the ocean’ is correct based on the fact that the ocean supplies freshwater and nearly all of the Earth’s oxygen and also 99  moderates the Earth’s climate, influences our weather, and affects human health. About half (52.4%) of the students in pre-test and six out of 10 (57.9%) students in post-test understood this concept. Some students demonstrated limited understanding on this concept by indicating the irrelevance of the ocean’s impact on people living a great distance from the ocean. An excerpt from an interview with Sebastian shown below explains that a student’s understanding on this concept might be influenced by where they live in reference to distance from the ocean.  Researcher: In which way the ocean can affect your life? Sebastian: Where I live has no the ocean; I live in the middle of desert. So I really don’t get that much impact by the ocean except one thing that we sometimes get rain which comes from the ocean. Researcher: Where do you live? Sebastian: The point between New Mexico and Texas. (Grade 5, informal conversation, July 12, 2102)  The statement of question nine, ‘Much of the world’s population lives in coastal areas’ is correct, but only three out of 10 students chose the correct answer in the pre- and post-test. Jocelyn (Grade 5), one of the students who disagreed on this statement, explained her reasoning as follows: “We live near the ocean, but there are so many other places that aren’t near the ocean. You see the ocean is around the land and there is more in the middle, so it is not correct”. (Informal conversation, July 3, 2013) However, there could be a misunderstanding on the students’ part regarding this concept depending on how the term ‘coastal areas’ is defined. According to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1996), “it is estimated that 50–70% of the global human population lives in the coastal zone” (p. 294). However, if the 1994 distribution of population in relation to the distance from the nearest coastline is taken into account, 37 percent of the world's population lives within 100 km (Gommes, du Guerny, Nachtergaele, & Brinkman, 1997), and about half of the world’s population lives within 200 kilometers of a coastline (Creel, 2003). As shown in 100  Jocelyn’s response above, if she regards coastal areas as the areas just near the coastline, the above statement would not be correct. Therefore, when this concept is introduced, a more detailed explanation should be provided.  Lastly, the students’ responses to the concept 6e demonstrated that more than seven out of 10 (71.1%) students understood the diversity of negative human impact on the ocean after their AquaCamps experiences. The following excerpt demonstrates how Adam (Grade 3) constructed his knowledge on this concept from the discussion of human impact on the ocean during the Bioaccumulation activity.  Researcher: How do people affect the ocean? Adam: Uh… Oil spill for an example, sea turtles would die because it needs to get out for air but it can be trapped in the oily water, and… fish would die because that kills them. And it would have a huge impact on most of the ocean species that live around the surfaces … like oil spilt in Alaska many years ago.  Researcher: You mean Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989? Adam: Yes. (Interview, July 6, 2012)  The students’ recognition of humans’ substantial impact on the ocean was also connected to their changes in environmentally responsible behaviors (6g). After the program Shark Truth, Tristan (Grade 4) realized the negative impact of human actions on the decline of global shark populations as well as the devastating fishing practices associated with the harvesting of sharks for shark fin soup. He demonstrated his willingness to reconstruct his perspectives to align with environmentally responsible behavior toward marine animals. Researcher: Today, we heard about a story of sharks in the classroom. Tristan: Oh yes, she talks about a shark’s fin soup. I like it, the taste is good.   Researcher: You tried it before? Tristan: Yes, it was a dogfish.  Researcher: Shark’s fin soup is a kind food culture in some countries. But the guest speaker today in the classroom said … Tristan: Try to not! Researcher: What do you think? Do we have to stop that? Tristan: Yeah, we should [stop] (6g) because they might be extinct. (Interview, August 9, 101  2012)  Qualitative data analysis demonstrated which Essential Principles (EPs) and Fundamental Concepts (FCs) of Ocean Science were emphasized in the gallery settings and camp activities. The analysis also revealed how the changes in students’ understanding about particular FCs of Ocean Science were related to the components of the galleries and camp activities.  4.2.2 Influence of other life experiences on marine science knowledge The previous section demonstrated that students’ marine aquarium experiences highly influenced their knowledge construction. However, students’ learning occurs beyond classroom science and aquarium experiences. According to the participating students’ multiple responses to the survey (Table 25), they constructed marine science knowledge from diverse sources including aquariums (84.5%), schools (76.8%), books and magazines (70.2%), television and movies (67.3%), beach walk (60.7%), family and friends (54.2%), and Internet (53.6%). Also, interview data indicated that the students learned from a variety of contexts which contributed to the construction of ocean literacy concepts.          102  Table 25 Sources of marine science learning and knowledge Sources of marine science learning and knowledge    Responses Percent of Cases   n Percent Learning Sourcesa School 129 16.4% 76.8% Aquarium 142 18.1% 84.5% TV, Movies 113 14.4% 67.3% Family, Friends 91 11.6% 54.2% Internet 90 11.5% 53.6% Beach walk 102 13.0% 60.7% Books, Magazines 118 15.0% 70.2% Total 785 100.0% 467.3% a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.    Books & Magazines Seven out of 10 students responded that they acquired marine science knowledge from books and magazines. There are many different kinds of marine science related books and magazines available for young students to learn about the Fundamental Concepts (FCs) of Ocean Science. The following excerpt shows that reading a magazine directly contributed to the construction of the concept 1a (physical features of the Earth) for Molly (Grade 5).  Researcher: You disagreed that the ocean covers 50% of the Earth. Then how much it covers the Earth?  Molly: I get “OWL” magazine once a month and it said water covers at least 70% the Earth (1a). (Informal conversation, August 6, 2013)  School Classroom lessons are a good source of student knowledge on a wide range of the FCs of Ocean Science. Although the concepts can be taught in all subjects, science best incorporates these concepts. The following excerpt demonstrates Kayden’s (Grade 5) knowledge related to the concept 3d (origin of rain) from classroom science.  103  Researcher: You marked here “strongly agree” that rain comes from the ocean. Could you explain how it comes from the ocean? Kayden: Rain comes from the clouds and the water evaporates from the ocean and rise up into the clouds. So I agree that rain originally comes from the ocean (3d). Researcher: I see. Where did you learn that? Kayden: I learned it from school. My teacher has a chart and she presented a big lesson to us about the story of the Earth, and water cycle. (Informal conversation, July 2, 2013)  Family members More than half (54.2%) of the students reported that they constructed their marine science knowledge through conversations with family members. This influence may depend on family member’s knowledge of and interests in related concepts of Ocean Science. For example, Blake (Grade 4) gained a great deal of information about rockfish from his grandpa who enjoys taking diving trips in the pursuit of rockfish (informal conversation, July 18, 2013). Another example below shows that Adam (Grade 3) learned about seafood issues (6e) and responsible actions (6g) from his father.  Researcher: In the Ocean Wise Talk, you said to the instructor what kind of fish is sustainable and which one we should avoid such as blue fin tuna (6e, 6g). How did you know that? I mean where did you get it? Adam: My dad told me. Researcher: Your dad?  Adam: Yes, my dad read a book or an article or a magazine and if he found interesting topics or issues he told me. (Informal conversation, July 6, 2012)  TV & Movies Almost seven out of 10 (67.3%) students reported that they gained marine science knowledge from TV programs and/or movies. Documentary films about marine organisms can provide a good source for students to construct Fundamental Concepts regarding the diversity of marine life and marine ecosystems. The following excerpt illustrates how Blake (Grade 4) 104  constructed his biological knowledge about dolphins from a documentary film.  Researcher: We saw the dolphin show today. Could you tell me whatever you know about dolphins?  Blake: Dolphins use echolocation, they send a sound out and they somehow detect the sound waves bouncing back at them so they know what is in front of them (5d). I know several species of dolphins. Researcher: Where did you get that? Blake: From the Blue Planet, a documentary film. (Informal conversation, July 18, 2013)  Beach walks The beach walk experience was a great opportunity for students to learn wide range of ocean literacy concepts from direct experiences. Particularly the walk provided students with the unique experience of encountering diverse marine organisms, which helps them conduct first-hand observations and build deeper understanding of interconnectedness with the ocean realm as well as develop ocean conservation related perspectives. The following excerpt demonstrates how beach walk experiences helped Violet (Grade 4) build her interconnectedness to the ocean. Researcher: How does the ocean affect you then?  Violet: I live on the coast of BC, Vancouver Island, and I pretty much go to the ocean. So ocean is a big part of my life and very important to me. Researcher: Would you tell me one detailed example how the ocean affects your life?   Violet: I swim in the ocean a lot, and I think it is a fun place to go (6c). (Interview, July 3, 2013)  From a sociocultural point of view, learning always occurs as a result of interactions with diverse physical and psychological tools (Rowe & Kisiel, 2012). Students reported that they constructed marine science knowledge from multiple sources on a daily basis, which should be considered when implementing educational programs to help children bring their prior knowledge for more meaningful learning (Ausubel, 2000).   105  4.3 Summary With regard to overall change in the students’ marine science knowledge, the mean number of correct answers on the post-test (M = 5.25, SD = 1.86) was statistically higher than the mean on the pre-test (M = 4.77, SD = 1.86), t(159) = -3.964, p = .000. Increases in knowledge scores were observed throughout all 10 questions. The students’ knowledge about human impact on the ocean (Q10: 6e) revealed the biggest increase of 0.340, t(158) = -3.242, p = .001, reflecting much emphasis of AquaCamps program on this concept. However, the students’ knowledge levels revealed a wide spectrum depending on different concepts. The students held a relatively low level of understanding on the concepts of the ocean’s role in making Earth habitable (4a) and abundant life forms in the ocean (5b) compared to their high level of understanding of the concepts of the ocean’s influence on weather and climate (3a) and marine life independent of energy form sunlight (5g).  Qualitative data analysis revealed that aquarium settings and AquaCamps activities played a role in increasing the students’ knowledge levels. The aquarium settings and camp programs reflected Essential Principles and Fundamental Concepts of Ocean Science focusing primarily on EP #5 and EP #6. Further analysis of interview data demonstrated why the students’ knowledge about four concepts in particular (the ocean’s physical feature, the ocean’s role in making Earth habitable, the ocean’s role in supporting a great diversity of life and ecosystem, and human impact on the ocean) significantly increased after participating in the AquaCamps experiences. However, the students reported that they constructed their marine science knowledge not only from aquariums (84.5%), but also from schools (76.8%), books and magazines (70.2%), television and movies (67.3%), beach walks (60.7%), family and friends (54.2%), and the Internet (53.6%).   106  The extent of marine science knowledge change during the AquaCamps was not significantly related to the students’ sociocultural backgrounds, but pre-test scores revealed that students in higher grade levels, boys, Caucasians, and high frequency beach walkers tended to show higher levels of marine science knowledge. It is highly probable for those students in higher grades to obtain higher scores in a marine science test since they learn additional concepts (cf. http://oceanliteracy.wp2.coexploration.org/ocean-literacy-framework/principle-5-v2/). While it would be interesting to explore reasons why boys, Caucasians and high frequency beach walkers demonstrated higher scores, the magnitude of this research would require additional time which was not within the scope of this study. 107  Chapter 5 Changes in Students’ Orientations Ocean literacy is defined as understanding mutual impacts shared between the ocean and human beings. If literacy is not limited to conceptual understanding but extended to a critical transformation in relationship with the object matter (Baker, 2004), examining ocean literacy should include an individual’s viewpoint/ interpretive framework on the ways they connect with the ocean, defined as an orientation in this study. Thus, this chapter reports on the quantitative (QUAN) and qualitative (QUAL) analysis results and answers the following research questions:  3. What are the characteristics of changes in elementary students’ orientations toward ocean and marine organisms before and after the AquaCamps?  4. How do students’ AquaCamps and other life experiences affect the changes in their orientations? The first section of this chapter begins with descriptions about how the students’ orientations were examined in a quantitative manner followed by detailed reports on the characteristics of overall and categorical changes in the students’ orientations during the AquaCamps. QUAN data analysis also demonstrated correlations among the five orientations. In the second section of this chapter, selected QUAL data are presented to explain how AquaCamps experiences influenced the changes in students’ orientations, supporting the QUAN results. Finally, the last part of this chapter illustrates other life experiences that also affected the students’ development and changes in their orientations toward the ocean and concludes with a summary.     108  5.1 Changes in orientations To explore the students’ orientations towards the ocean and marine organisms, an Ocean Literacy Survey (Part B) was administered at the beginning and the end of the camp. As shown in Figure 14, all responses to each question statement were given a score from 1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree.              The students’ naturalistic (NAT), aesthetic (AES), spiritual (SPR), recreational (REC), utilitarian (UTL), and negativistic (NEG) orientation scores were obtained by averaging scores from the questions that were constructed for each orientation (NAT from the questions 13, 14, and 17; AES from 1, 5, and 15; SPR from 3, 4, and 7; REC from 6, 11, and 16; UTL from 2, 9, and 12; UTL from 2, 9, and 12; NEG from 8, 10, and 18). Students’ orientation scores in each category were compared between pre- and post-test in order to explore significant changes during the AquaCamps experiences. However, SPR orientation which revealed unacceptable internal consistency was excluded from the quantitative results, but a discussion about the students’ SPR orientation change was included in the second section based on the qualitative data.  5.1.1 Overall changes When assessing the students’ orientations toward the ocean, NAT, AES, REC orientation   Figure 15. Scoring the responses.  scores were relatively higher than UTL and NEGAquaCamps, their NAT, AES, and orientation scores decreased (Figure    Figure 16. Orientation change.          **: p < .01; ***: p < .001. A paired-samples t-test was used to significant mean difference in studentsin Table 26, the AquaCamps experiences elicited orientation, t(158) = -4.620, p < .001After AquaCamps experiences, the participantsdecreased, t(158) = 4.057, p < .001statistically significant mean difference in  1.522.533.544.5NAT*** orientation scores. After participating in the REC orientation scores increased while UTL and 16).    determine whether or not there was a statistically ’ orientations after the AquaCamps experiences.a statistically significant increase in  as well as in AES orientation, t(158) = -2.830’ UTL and NEG orientations significantly ; t(158) = 3.575, p < .001 respectively. However, there was no REC orientation, t(158) = -1.469, p = AES REC UTL NEGPre-TestPost-Test**  *** *** 109 NEG  As shown NAT , p < .01. .144. 110  Table 26 Orientation scores in pre- and post-test Orientation scores in pre- and post-test   Pre-Test  Post-Test      Orientation M1 SD  M2 SD N  MD t p Sig NAT 4.18 0.70 4.37 0.56 159  0.189 - 4.620 0.000 *** AES 4.29 0.54 4.38 0.51 159  0.090 - 2.830 0.005 ** REC 3.41 0.63 3.48 0.61 159  0.063 - 1.469 0.144  UTL 2.06 0.79 1.87 0.62 159 - 0.189  4.057 0.000 *** NEG 2.23 0.78 2.09 0.71 159 - 0.136  3.575 0.000 *** Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  **: p < .01; ***: p < .001.  5.1.2 Categorical changes  Naturalistic (NAT) orientation Naturalistic orientation refers to a viewpoint in which the students view the ocean/ marine organisms as a source for exploring varied wonders and nurturing intellectual curiosity, imagination, and discovery. The participants’ NAT orientation significantly increased after participating in AquaCamps experiences as shown in Table 27. A statistically significant mean difference was observed in the groups of Grade 3, t(73) = -3.221, p < .01; Grade 4, t(46) = -2.529, p < .05; Grade 5 t(37) = -2.762, p < .01; girls, t(85) = -2.525, p < .05; boys, t(72) = -3.946, p < .001; East Asian t(52) = -4.400, p < .001; Caucasian, t(105) = -2.323, p < .01; low frequency aquarium visit t(70) = -3.731, p < .001; medium frequency aquarium visit t(51) = -2.394, p < .05; medium frequency beach walk t(47) = -2.716, p < .01; high frequency beach walk t(65) = -3.640, p < .01; and pet owning experience t(130) = -3.369, p < .01; no pet owning experience t(26) = -4.385, p < .001.    111  Table 27 Naturalistic orientation pre- and post-test scores  Naturalistic orientation pre- and post-test scores   Independent variables  Pre-Test Post-Test      Group  M1  SD  M2  SD   n  MD  t p Sig Grade Grade 3 4.18 0.74 4.35 0.57 74 0.171 -2.767 0.007 ** Grade 4 4.26 0.66 4.45 0.51 47 0.184 -2.529 0.015 * Grade5 4.06 0.68 4.29 0.59 38 0.229 -2.762 0.009 ** Gender Girl 4.23 0.59 4.35 0.55 86 0.116 -2.525 0.013 * Boy 4.11 0.81 4.38 0.57 73 0.274 -3.946 0.000 *** Ethnicity   East Asian 3.90 0.85 4.27 0.61 53 0.372 -4.400 0.000 *** Caucasian 4.31 0.57 4.41 0.52 106 0.097 -2.323 0.022 * Aquarium visit frequency Low 4.13 0.68 4.37 0.53 71 0.235 -3.731 0.000 *** Medium  4.19 0.70 4.38 0.52 52 0.187 -2.394 0.020 * High 4.24 0.75 4.34 0.66 36 0.102 -1.510 0.140  Beach visit  frequency Low  4.19 0.73 4.37 0.52 45 0.178 -1.856 0.070  Medium 4.03 0.74 4.23 0.60 48 0.201 -2.716 0.009 ** High 4.27 0.65 4.46 0.54 66 0.188 -3.640 0.001 ** Pet owning experience Yes 4.22 0.67 4.38 0.54 131 0.156 -3.369 0.001 ** No 3.93 0.81 4.28 0.62 27 0.358 -4.385 0.000 *** Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  *: p < .05; **: p < .01; ***: p < .001.  An independent-samples t-test was run to determine if there were differences in NAT orientation toward the ocean between different groups using the pre-test as well as post-test data (Figure 17). At the beginning of AquaCamps, Caucasian students’ NAT orientation score (M = 4.31, SD = 0.57) was higher than East Asian students’ NAT orientation score (M = 3.90, SD = 0.85), a statistically significant difference, t(80.603) = 3.480, p = .001. NAT orientation scores of students with pet owning experience (M = 4.22, SD = 0.67) was higher than the NAT orientation scores of the students without pet owning experience (M = 3.93, SD = 0.81), a statistically significant difference, t(165) = 2.058, p = .041. However the difference in NAT orientation scores between the groups was not statistically significant in the post-test.    Figure 17. Naturalistic orientation         *: p < .05; **: p < .01.  The RM-ANOVA was conducted to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in NAT orientation scorestudents’ sociocultural backgrounds.pre- and post-test NAT scores (MD0.330, p = .720; aquarium visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.027, p = .974; and pet      22.533.544.55**   score comparison by ethnicity and pet owning experience. over the five-day AquaCamps experience with regard to the  When assessed by RM-ANOVA, the differences between ) were not significantly related to grade, F(2,F(2,156) = 0.869, p = .421; beach visit frequency, owning experience, F(1,157) = 3.493, p = .064 (Table East AsianCaucasian22.533.544.55Pet ExperienceNo Pet Experience* 112   156) = 28).  113  Table 28 Change in naturalistic orientation by sociocultural backgrounds Change in naturalistic orientation by sociocultural backgrounds    df1 df2 F p Sig Grade Intercept 1 165 10284.266 0.000 *** Grade 2 165 1.180 0.310  Time 1 156 20.807 0.000 *** Grade x Time 2 156 0.330 0.720  Gender Intercept 1 166 10196.943 0.000 *** Gender 1 166 0.005 0.942  Time 1 157 21.231 0.000 *** Gender x Time 1 157 3.740 0.055  Ethnicity Intercept 1 166 10517.735 0.000 *** Ethnicity 1 166 6.049 0.015 * Time 1 157 22.181 0.000 *** Ethnicity x Time 1 157 11.500 0.001 *** Aquarium visit frequency Intercept 1 165 10143.463 0.000 *** Aquarium visit 2 165 0.057 0.945  Time 1 156 20.797 0.000 *** Aquarium visit x Time 2 156 0.869 0.421  Beach visit frequency Intercept 1 165 10404.535 0.000 *** Beach visit 2 165 1.880 0.156  Time 1 156 20.639 0.000 *** Beach visit x Time 2 156 0.027 0.974  Pet owning experience Intercept 1 166 10211.943 0.000 *** Pet experience 1 166 1.427 0.234  Time 1 157 21.129 0.000 *** Pet experience x Time 1 157 3.493 0.064  Note. *: p < .05; **: p < .01; ***: p < .001.   When comparing NAT orientation score increase between girls and boys, girls’ NAT orientation scores increased by 0.116 after the camp while boys’ NAT orientation scores increased by 0.274, which elucidates a significant difference between pre- and post-test NAT orientation scores, F(1,157) = 11.500, p = .055. In case of increase in NAT orientation scores 114  between East Asian and Caucasian students, East Asian students’ NAT orientation score increased by 0.372 while Caucasian students’ NAT orientation score increased by 0.097 after participating in AquaCamps (Figure 18). This difference is explained by the RM-ANOVA that the differences between pre- and post-test of NAT orientation scores (MD) were significantly related to ethnicity, F(1,157) = 11.500, p = .001. Although East Asian students seemed to respond more actively to naturalistic components of the programs (e.g., ecosystem and cognitive interest in the ocean) it may not mean that Caucasian students are less likely to respond to the same components because their NAT orientation score in the pre-test was already 4.31 out of 5.0 implying a limited potential to further increase their NAT orientation post-test score.    Figure 18. Estimated marginal means of naturalistic orientation.  115  Aesthetic (AES) orientation Aesthetic orientation refers to a viewpoint in which the students see the ocean/ marine organisms for aesthetic attraction, artistic inspiration, and symbolic communication. The participants’ AES orientation significantly increased after participating in AquaCamps experiences as shown in Table 29. A statistically significant mean difference was observed in the groups of girls, t(85) = -1.989, p < .05; boys, t(72) = -2.020, p < .05; Caucasian, t(105) = -2.138, p < .05; medium frequency aquarium visit, t(51) = -2.524, p < .05; low frequency beach walk, t(44) = -2.282, p < .05; high frequency beach walk, t(65) = -2.217, p < .05; and pet owning experience, t(130) = -2.470, p < .05.  Table 29 Aesthetic orientation pre- and post-test scores Aesthetic orientation pre- and post-test scores  Independent variables  Pre-Test Post-Test      Group  M1  SD  M2  SD   n  MD  t p Sig Grade Grade 3 4.30 0.50 4.38 0.53 74 0.081 -1.874 0.065  Grade 4 4.23 0.63 4.33 0.55 47 0.099 -1.421 0.162  Grade5 4.33 0.50 4.43 0.44 38 0.096 -1.634 0.111  Gender Girl 4.39 0.44 4.46 0.46 86 0.073 -1.989 0.050 * Boy 4.17 0.62 4.28 0.55 73 0.110 -2.020 0.047 * Ethnicity East Asian 4.15 0.61 4.28 0.55 53 0.126 -1.852 0.070  Caucasian 4.36 0.48 4.43 0.49 106 0.072 -2.138 0.035 * Aquarium visit frequency Low 4.28 0.53 4.33 0.58 71 0.057 -1.268 0.209  Medium  4.25 0.58 4.42 0.42 52 0.166 -2.524 0.015 * High 4.37 0.49 4.42 0.49 36 0.046 -0.856 0.398  Beach visit  frequency Low  4.11 0.60 4.30 0.50 45 0.185 -2.282 0.027 * Medium 4.22 0.57 4.23 0.54 48 0.006 -0.160 0.874  High 4.46 0.45 4.55 0.42 66 0.095 -2.217 0.030 * Pet owning  experience Yes 4.30 0.55 4.39 0.49 131 0.089 -2.470 0.015 * No 4.22 0.45 4.33 0.61 27 0.112 -1.623 0.117  Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  *: p < .05.  116  An independent-samples t-test was run to determine if there were differences in AES orientation toward the ocean between different groups using the pre-test as well as post-test data (Figure 19). At the beginning of AquaCamps, girls’ AES orientation score (M = 4.39, SD = 0.44) was higher than boys’ AES orientation score (M = 4.17, SD = 0.62), a statistically significant difference, t(128.9) = 2.583, p = .011. Girls demonstrated higher AES orientation score than boys did in the post-test, t(157) = 2.219, p = .028. Caucasian students’ AES orientation score (M = 4.36, SD = 0.48) was higher than East Asian students’ AES orientation score (M = 4.15, SD = 0.61), a statistically significant difference, t(166) = 2.760, p = .006. As a result of one-way ANOVA, AES orientation score was significantly different between different frequency of beach walk groups, F(2,165) = 3.642, p < .05. Tukey post-hoc analysis revealed that the mean difference between the groups of high frequency beach walk and low frequency beach walk (0.28, 95% CI [0.03, 0.53]) was statistically significant (p = .022). More significant difference in AES orientation scores between different frequency of beach walk groups was observed in the post-test, F(2,165) = 7.078, p < .01.     Figure 19. Aesthetic orientation score comparison by gender, ethnicity, and             *: p < .05; **: p < .01.   When assessed by RM-ANOVAscores (MD) were not significantly = 0.432, p = .512; ethnicity, F(1,157) = 1.018, 22.533.544.5522.533.544.55* *    beach walk frequency. (Table 30), the differences between pre- related to grade, F(2,156) = 0.150, p = .860; gender,p = .315; aquarium visit frequency, GirlBoy22.533.544.55East AsianCaucasianLF_BeachMF_BeachHF_Beach* ** ** 117   and post-test  F(1,157) F(2,156) = 118  1.118, p = .329; beach visit frequency, F(2,156) = 2.973, p = .054; and pet owning experience, F(1,157) = 0.040, p = .841.   Table 30 Change in aesthetic orientation by sociocultural backgrounds Change in aesthetic orientation by sociocultural backgrounds    df1 df2 F p Sig Grade Intercept 1 165 12070.990 0.000 *** Grade 2 165 0.303 0.739  Time 1 156 8.192 0.005 ** Grade x Time 2 156 0.150 0.860  Gender Intercept 1 166 12590.226 0.000 *** Gender 1 166 7.076 0.009 ** Time 1 157 8.227 0.005 ** Gender x Time 1 157 0.432 0.512  Ethnicity Intercept 1 166 12553.572 0.000 *** Ethnicity 1 166 6.690 0.011 * Time 1 157 8.319 0.004 ** Ethnicity x Time 1 157 1.018 0.315  Aquarium visit frequency Intercept 1 165 12100.199 0.000 *** Aquarium visit 2 165 1.008 0.367  Time 1 156 8.329 0.004 *** Aquarium visit x Time 2 156 1.118 0.329  Beach visit frequency Intercept 1 165 12827.701 0.000 *** Beach visit 2 165 4.481 0.013 * Time 1 156 8.559 0.004 ** Beach visit x Time 2 156 2.973 0.054  Pet owning experience Intercept 1 166 11984.834 0.000 *** Pet experience 1 166 0.217 0.642  Time 1 157 8.674 0.004 ** Pet experience x Time 1 157 0.040 0.841  Note. *: p < .05; **: p < .01; ***: p < .001.    119  Recreational orientation Recreational orientation refers to a viewpoint in which the students see the ocean/ marine organisms as a source of refreshment, entertainment, relaxation, and exercise. The participants’ REC orientation slightly increased after participating in AquaCamps experiences as shown in Table 31. However, a statistically significant mean difference was not observed in any particular group.   Table 31 Recreational orientation pre- and post-test scores Recreational orientation pre- and post-test scores   Independent variables  Pre-Test Post-Test      Group  M1  SD  M2  SD   n  MD  t p Sig Grade Grade 3 3.47 0.58 3.50 0.65 74 0.027 -0.486 0.629  Grade 4 3.31 0.68 3.45 0.54 47 0.134 -1.542 0.130  Grade5 3.42 0.64 3.47 0.61 38 0.044 -0.469 0.642  Gender Girl 3.50 0.53 3.57 0.55 86 0.062 -1.285 0.202  Boy 3.31 0.71 3.37 0.66 73 0.064 -0.859 0.393  Ethnicity East Asian 3.34 0.61 3.45 0.63 53 0.106 -1.262 0.213  Caucasian 3.45 0.63 3.49 0.6 106 0.041 -0.846 0.400  Aquarium visit frequency Low 3.42 0.65 3.51 0.59 71 0.089 -1.394 0.168  Medium  3.34 0.64 3.37 0.66 52 0.026 -0.326 0.746  High 3.51 0.55 3.57 0.53 36 0.064 -0.777 0.442  Beach visit  frequency Low  3.34 0.72 3.41 0.66 45 0.066 -0.816 0.419  Medium 3.38 0.54 3.42 0.56 48 0.048 -0.651 0.519  High 3.49 0.61 3.56 0.60 66 0.071 -1.028 0.308  Pet owning  experience Yes 3.42 0.60 3.47 0.58 131 0.054 -1.182 0.239  No 3.35 0.71 3.46 0.67 27 0.111 -0.879 0.388  Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).    An independent-samples t-test was run to determine if there were differences in REC orientation toward the ocean between different groups using the pre-test as well as post-test data  (Figure 20). At the beginning of AquaCampswas higher than boys’ REC orientation difference, t(166) = 2.157, p = .0than boys’ REC orientation score (statistically significant difference,  Figure 20. Recreational orientation         *: p < .05.  When assessed by RM-ANOVAscores (MD) were not significantly = 0.005, p = .944; ethnicity, F(1,157) = 0.634, 0.193, p = .824; beach visit frequency, F(1,157) = 0.211, p = .646.   , girls’ REC orientation score (M = 3.50, score (M = 3.31, SD = 0.71), a statistically significant 32. Girls’ higher REC orientation score (M = 3.57, M = 3.37, SD = 0.66) was also observed in the postt(157) = 2.052, p = .042.   score comparison by gender.  (Table 32), the differences between pre- related to grade, F(2,156) = 0.640, p = .529; gender,p = .427; aquarium visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.094, p = .910; and pet owning22.533.54GirlBoy* * 120 SD = 0.53) SD = 0.55) -test, a and post-test  F(1,157) F(2,156) =  experience, 121  Table 32 Change in recreational orientation by sociocultural backgrounds Change in recreational orientation by sociocultural backgrounds    df1 df2 F p Sig Grade Intercept 1 165 6387.394 0.000 *** Grade 2 165 0.794 0.454  Time 1 156 1.555 0.214  Grade x Time 2 156 0.640 0.529  Gender Intercept 1 166 6588.538 0.000 *** Gender 1 166 5.799 0.017 * Time 1 157 1.516 0.220  Gender x Time 1 157 0.005 0.944  Ethnicity Intercept 1 166 6405.805 0.000 *** Ethnicity 1 166 0.944 0.333  Time 1 157 1.562 0.213  Ethnicity x Time 1 157 0.634 0.427  Aquarium visit frequency Intercept 1 165 6430.217 0.000 *** Aquarium visit 2 165 1.242 0.291  Time 1 156 1.555 0.214  Aquarium visit x Time 2 156 0.193 0.824  Beach visit frequency Intercept 1 165 6405.366 0.000 *** Beach visit 2 165 0.792 0.455  Time 1 156 1.555 0.214  Beach visit x Time 2 156 0.094 0.910  Pet owning experience Intercept 1 166 6566.601 0.000 *** Pet experience 1 166 0.075 0.785  Time 1 157 1.521 0.219  Pet experience x Time 1 157 0.211 0.646  Note. *: p < .05; **: p < .01; ***: p < .001.  Utilitarian (UTL) orientation Utilitarian orientation refers to a viewpoint in which the students see the ocean/ marine organisms as a source for humans’ practical needs such as oxygen, food, medicine, and energy. The participants’ UTL orientation significantly decreased after participating in AquaCamps 122  experiences as shown in Table 33. A statistically significant mean difference was observed in the groups of Grade 3, t(73) = 2.112, p < .05; Grade 4, t(46) = 2.092, p < .05; Grade 5, t(37) = 3.070, p < .01; girls, t(85) = 2.946, p < .01; boys, t(72) = 2.782, p < .01; East Asian, t(52) = 3.098, p < .01; Caucasian, t(105) = 2.679, p < .01; medium frequency aquarium visit, t(51) = 3.283, p < .01; high frequency aquarium visit, t(35) = 2.166, p < .05; medium frequency beach walk, t(46) = 2.314, p < .05; high frequency beach walk, t(65) = 2.713, p < .01; and pet owning experience, t(130) = 3.962, p < .001.  Table 33 Utilitarian orientation pre- and post-test scores Utilitarian orientation pre- and post-test scores  Independent variables  Pre-Test Post-Test      Group  M1  SD  M2  SD   n  MD  t p Sig Grade Grade 3 2.09 0.79 1.94 0.58 74 -0.153 2.112 0.038 * Grade 4 2.01 0.77 1.85 0.64 47 -0.163 2.092 0.042 * Grade5 2.03 0.81 1.74 0.67 38 -0.289 3.070 0.004 ** Gender Girl 2.03 0.69 1.86 0.58 86 -0.170 2.946 0.004 ** Boy 2.08 0.89 1.87 0.67 73 -0.210 2.782 0.007 ** Ethnicity East Asian 2.31 0.88 2.02 0.62 53 -0.289 3.098 0.003 ** Caucasian 1.92 0.70 1.79 0.61 106 -0.138 2.679 0.009 ** Aquarium visit frequency Low 2.07 0.90 1.93 0.66 71 -0.136 1.823 0.073  Medium  2.09 0.64 1.83 0.59 52 -0.256 3.283 0.002 ** High 1.98 0.76 1.79 0.60 36 -0.194 2.166 0.037 * Beach visit  frequency Low  2.02 0.77 1.89 0.66 45 -0.132 1.916 0.062  Medium 2.23 0.73 2.03 0.59 48 -0.195 2.314 0.025 * High 1.95 0.82 1.73 0.59 66 -0.222 2.713 0.009 ** Pet owning  experience Yes 2.04 0.77 1.84 0.59 131 -0.193 3.962 0.000 *** No 2.11 0.90 1.95 0.76 27 -0.160 1.140 0.265  Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  *: p < .05; **: p < .01; ***: p < .001.   An independent-samples orientation toward the ocean between(Figure 21). At the beginning of AquaCamps2.31, SD = 0.88) was higher than Caucasian students0.70), a statistically significant difference,East Asian students’ UTL orientation students’ UTL orientation score (difference, t(157) = 2.315, p = .022.  Figure 21. Utilitarian orientation          *: p < .05; **: p < .01  When assessed by RM-ANOVAscores (MD) were not significantly 1.52.5t-test was run to determine if there were differences in  different groups using the pre-test as well as post, East Asian students’ UTL orientation’ UTL orientation score (M  t(90.820) = 3.009, p = .003. It was also observed that score (M = 2.03, SD = 0.62) was higher than M = 1.786, SD = 0.61) in the post-test, a statistically significant   score comparison by ethnicity.    (Table 34), the differences between pre- related to grade, F(2,156) = 1.091, p = .338; gender,12East AsianCaucasian** * 123 UTL -test data  score (M = = 1.92, SD = the Caucasian and post-test  F(1,157) 124  = 0.055, p = .815; ethnicity, F(1,157) = 2.748, p = .099; aquarium visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.546, p = .580; beach visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.360, p = .698; and pet owning experience, F(1,157) = 0.098, p = .755.   Table 34 Change in utilitarian orientation by sociocultural backgrounds Change in utilitarian orientation by sociocultural backgrounds    df1 df2 F p Sig Grade Intercept 1 165 1538.206 0.000 *** grade 2 165 0.926 0.398  Time 1 156 16.700 0.000 *** Grade x Time 2 156 1.091 0.338  Gender Intercept 1 166 1526.864 0.000 *** Gender 1 166 0.014 0.905  Time 1 157 16.673 0.000 *** Gender x Time 1 157 0.055 0.815  Ethnicity Intercept 1 166 1608.419 0.000 *** Ethnicity 1 166 7.958 0.005 ** Time 1 157 16.935 0.000 *** Ethnicity x Time 1 157 2.748 0.099  Aquarium visit frequency Intercept 1 165 1531.407 0.000 *** Aquarium visit 2 165 0.966 0.383  Time 1 156 16.659 0.000 *** Aquarium visit x Time 2 156 0.546 0.580  Beach visit frequency Intercept 1 165 1580.765 0.000 *** Beach visit 2 165 3.231 0.042 * Time 1 156 16.748 0.000 *** Beach visit x Time 2 156 0.360 0.698  Pet owning experience Intercept 1 166 1515.174 0.000 *** Pet experience 1 166 0.528 0.468  Time 1 157 16.291 0.000 *** Pet experience x Time 1 157 0.098 0.755  Note.  *: p < .05; **: p < .01; ***: p < .001.   125  Negativistic (NEG) orientation Negativistic orientation refers to a viewpoint in which the students see the ocean/ marine organisms as objects that evoke fears and dislike, which in turn provoke avoidance or destructive reactions. The participants’ NEG orientation significantly decreased after participating in AquaCamps experiences as shown in Table 35. A statistically significant mean difference was observed in the groups of Grade 3, t(73) = 3.364, p < .01; girls, t(85) = 2.484, p < .05; boys, t(72) = 2.568, p < .05; East Asian, t(52) = 2.939, p < .01; Caucasian, t(105) = 2.307, p < .05; low frequency aquarium visit, t(70) = 2.987, p < .01; medium frequency aquarium visit, t(51) = 2.373, p < .05; high frequency beach walk, t(65) = 2.975, p < .01; pet owning experience t(130) = 2.587, p < .05; and no pet owning experience t(26) = 2.936, p < .01.  Table 35 Negativistic orientation pre- and post-test scores Negativistic orientation pre- and post-test scores  Independent variables  Pre-Test Post-Test      Group  M1  SD  M2  SD   n  MD  t p Sig Grade Grade 3 2.29 0.87 2.09 0.68 74 -0.208 3.364 0.001 *** Grade 4 2.20 0.70 2.13 0.72 47 -0.071 1.235 0.223  Grade5 2.13 0.72 2.05 0.77 38 -0.079 1.044 0.303  Gender Girl 2.14 0.70 2.02 0.60 86 -0.120 2.484 0.015 * Boy 2.33 0.87 2.17 0.81 73 -0.156 2.568 0.012 * Ethnicity East Asian 2.59 0.79 2.40 0.78 53 -0.195 2.939 0.005 ** Caucasian 2.04 0.72 1.94 0.62 106 -0.107 2.307 0.023 * Aquarium visit frequency Low 2.34 0.82 2.17 0.67 71 -0.174 2.987 0.004 ** Medium  2.28 0.81 2.12 0.83 52 -0.160 2.373 0.021 * High 1.93 0.59 1.90 0.58 36 -0.028 0.381 0.706  Beach visit  frequency Low  2.36 0.82 2.24 0.70 45 -0.126 1.715 0.093  Medium 2.39 0.70 2.30 0.66 48 -0.090 1.334 0.188  High 2.02 0.78 1.84 0.68 66 -0.177 2.975 0.004 ** Pet owning  experience Yes 2.19 0.76 2.08 0.69 131 -0.107 2.587 0.011 * No 2.42 0.90 2.14 0.81 27 -0.284 2.936 0.007 ** Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; MD: difference (M2-M1).  *: p < .05; **: p < .01; ***: p < .001. 126   An independent-samples t-test was run to determine if there were differences in NEG orientation toward the ocean between different groups using the pre-test as well as post-test data (Figure 22). At the beginning of AquaCamps, East Asian students’ NEG orientation score (M = 2.59, SD = 0.79) was higher than Caucasian students’ NEG orientation score (M = 2.04, SD = 0.72), a statistically significant difference, t(166) = 4.595, p = .000. East Asian students’ higher NEG orientation score (M = 2.40, SD = 0.78) than Caucasian students’ NEG orientation score (M = 1.94, SD = 0.62) was also observed in the post-test, a statistically significant difference, t(157) = 4.023, p = .000. As a result of one-way ANOVA, NEG orientation score was significantly different between different frequency of aquarium visit groups, F(2,165) = 4.343, p < .05. Tukey post-hoc analysis revealed that the mean difference between high frequency aquarium visit group and low frequency aquarium visit group (0.45, 95% CI [0.08, 0.81]) was statistically significant (p = .011). NEG orientation score was also significantly different between different frequency of beach walk groups, F(2,165) = 3.532, p < .05 in the pre-test, and F(2,156) = 7.793, p < .01 in the post-test. After the AquaCamps, the mean difference between high frequency beach walk group and low frequency beach walk group (0.40, 95% CI [0.09, 0.71]) was revealed as statistically significant (p = .008). Tukey post-hoc analysis indicated mean difference between high frequency beach walk group and medium frequency beach walk group (0.46, 95% CI [0.15, 0.77]) was also statistically significant (p = .001). Higher frequency of aquarium and beach visit groups revealed lower NEG orientation scores.     Figure 22. Negativistic orientation frequency.          *: p < .05; **: p < .01; ***:  When assessed by RM-ANOVAscores (MD) were not significantly = 0.164, p = .686; ethnicity, F(1,157) = 1.273, 11.522.5311.522.5*** ***   score comparison by ethnicity, aquarium visit and beach walk p < .001.  (Table 36), the differences between pre- related to grade, F(2,156) =1.425, p = .244; gender,p = .261; aquarium visit frequency, East AsianCaucasian11.522.5LF_AquariumMF_AquariumHF_aquariumLF_BeachMF_BeachHF_Beach* ** * 127  and post-test  F(1,157) F(2,156) = 128  1.315, p = .271; beach visit frequency, F(2,156) = 0.660, p = .518; and pet owning experience, F(1,157) = 2.885, p = .091.  Table 36 Change in negativistic orientation by sociocultural backgrounds Change in negativistic orientation by sociocultural backgrounds    df1 df2 F p Sig Grade Intercept 1 165 1512.751 0.000 *** grade 2 165 0.017 0.983  Time 1 156 13.110 0.000 *** Grade x Time 2 156 1.425 0.244  Gender Intercept 1 166 1541.347 0.000 *** Gender 1 166 1.966 0.163  Time 1 157 12.929 0.000 *** Gender x Time 1 157 0.164 0.686  Ethnicity Intercept 1 166 1720.738 0.000 *** Ethnicity 1 166 20.806 0.000 *** Time 1 157 13.071 0.000 *** Ethnicity x Time 1 157 1.273 0.261  Aquarium visit frequency Intercept 1 165 1576.718 0.000 *** Aquarium visit 2 165 3.134 0.046 * Time 1 156 13.053 0.000 *** Aquarium visit x Time 2 156 1.315 0.271  Beach visit frequency Intercept 1 165 1631.432 0.000 *** Beach visit 2 165 6.387 0.002 ** Time 1 156 13.112 0.000 *** Beach visit x Time 2 156 0.660 0.518  Pet owning experience Intercept 1 166 1516.291 0.000 *** Pet experience 1 166 0.380 0.538  Time 1 157 13.186 0.000 *** Pet experience x Time 1 157 2.885 0.091  Note. *: p < .05; **: p < .01; ***: p < .001.    129  Although both East Asian and Caucasian students’ NEG orientation scores significantly changed (decreased) after the camp experiences, East Asian students’ NEG orientation score was still significantly higher than Caucasian students’ score in both pre- and post-test (Figure 23). This implies that the gap in NEG orientations between East Asian and Caucasian students is deeply rooted in their perceptions. It also explains why RM-ANOVA revealed that the difference between pre- and post-test of NEG orientation scores (MD) were not significantly related to ethnicity.    Figure 23. Estimated marginal means of negativistic orientation. *: p < .05; **: p < .01; ***: p < .001.  130  5.1.3 Correlation between orientations A Pearson's correlation was run to assess the relationship among the five orientations of AquaCamps participants in pre- and post-test. Preliminary analyses showed the relationship to be linear as visually assessed by Q-Q plot. However there were two outliers; one in pre-test NAT orientation score, and one in pre-test AES score. Since there were neither data entry nor measurement errors, those outliers were removed from the data set. Although NAT orientation data demonstrated a slightly positively skewed distribution while UTL orientation data showed a slightly negatively skewed distribution, Pearson's correlation was run without transforming variables because the test is somewhat robust to deviations from normality.  Table 37 Pearson correlation  Pearson correlation (2-tailed)  Pre-Test  NAT AES REC UTL NEG  NAT 1      AES .597** 1     REC .343** .327** 1    UTL -.209** -.293** .041 1   NEG -.353** -.330** -.195* .302** 1 Post-Test  NAT AES REC UTL NEG  NAT 1      AES .580** 1     REC .399** .383** 1    UTL -.219** -.299** .058 1   NEG -.398** -.320** -.172* .320** 1 Note. *: p < .05; **: p < .01  As shown in Table 37, NAT orientation revealed a strong positive correlation with AES orientation, r(163) = .597, p = .000; a moderate positive correlation with REC orientation, r(163) = .343, p = .000, while it demonstrated a weak negative correlation with UTL orientation r(163) 131  = -.209, p = .006; and a moderate negative correlation with NEG orientation, r(163) = -.353, p = .000.  AES orientation showed a moderate positive correlation with REC orientation, r(163) = .327, p = .000, and a weak negative correlation with UTL orientation r(163) = -.293, p = .000, and a moderate negative correlation with NEG orientation, r(163) = -.330, p = .000.  There was a weak negative correlation between REC and NEG orientation, r(163) = -.195, p = .011. UTL orientations revealed a moderate positive correlation with NEG orientation, r(163) = .302, p = .000.  Overall, there was a positive correlation among NAT, AES, and REC orientations. However, NAT and AES orientations were negatively correlated with UTL and NEG orientations. This correlation was similar to Whitley’s (1998) findings. In a study conducted in the state of California (US), Whitley explored museum visitors’ attitudes towards marine life and identified a positive correlation between UTL and NEG attitudes as well as between AES and animal right attitudes (similar concept of SPR orientation in this study). Students’ orientations toward the ocean cannot be described as just one type; they revealed a mixture of orientations toward the ocean. The correlation table between the orientations was useful to understand why students who demonstrated highly AES orientation also showed higher NAT orientation than UTL or NEG orientation in the qualitative data.  Based on the quantitative results, it can be concluded that the students’ orientations changed positively during the AquaCamps program. Also the result revealed that students from different sociocultural backgrounds demonstrated different patterns of orientations. For example, Caucasian students showed highly NAT and AES orientations which are compared to East Asian students showed highly UTL and NEG orientations. How AquaCamps influenced changes in 132  students’ orientations, and how sociocultural factors caused students’ orientation development in different ways require QUAL analysis and interpretations.   5.2. Effect of AquaCamps on students’ orientations  In this section, I draw on selected qualitative (QUAL) data to complement quantitative (QUAN) data and show how the students’ naturalistic and aesthetic orientations significantly increased while the utilitarian and negativistic orientations significantly decreased after the AquaCamps experiences. The section also demonstrates a positive change in the spiritual orientation which was excluded in the QUAN analysis.   5.2.1 Changes in naturalistic (NAT) orientation Qualitative data analysis revealed that AquaCamps reflected the five subthemes of NAT orientation (taxonomy, ecosystem, cognitive interest, education, and research), which significantly affected NAT orientation. The following has been extracted from my field notes. This excerpt shows an example of how an activity (Plankton Tow and Observation) contributed to increase the students’ NAT orientation.   [Plankton Tow and Observation] Kayla, one of the AquaCamps instructors, demonstrated how to use plankton net (education) and helped the students who wanted trying to tow the net (cognitive interest). After the students towed the net, Kayla asked them what was inside the collection bottle. One student said, “A piece of seaweed” and another student answered, “nothing but sand”. Another student found a tiny amphipod and shouted, “I see a tiny shrimp”, which made all students to gravitate towards the bottle (cognitive interest). Kayla told the students “there are so many planktons in this bottle but it is very hard to see them because they are too small (education). So we are gonna go to the lab and observe what we collected using microscopes (cognitive interest)”. At the Wet Lab, a group of 10 students were listening to Chloe’s instruction. She showed several plankton pictures from the book she had prepared. She asked the students to guess what marine organisms they would be from those planktons (cognitive interest). Students were so surprised when they learned that totally different shapes of plankton would turn 133  into barnacle, crab, and jellyfish. With some examples of phytoplankton, she explained their important roles as primary producers and providers of oxygen that we breathe (cognitive interest). Then she presented what the students collected using a microscope which connected to a computer monitor. Since the microscope was a stereomicroscope with maximum 100 times magnification, the students were able to enjoy observing meso-plankton such as copepods and podon (cognitive interest) and were not able to watch phytoplankton. (Field note, August 15, 2012)  Analysis of interview data clearly demonstrated the impacts of this program on the students’ NAT orientation. Throughout the Plankton Tow and Observation experiences, the students compared themselves to plankton, discovered their connections to plankton in the ecosystem, learned characteristics and importance of plankton, and further developed their cognitive interests. The following excerpt from my conversation with students Ryder (Grade 4) and Brody (Grade 3) shows their development in NAT orientation from this activity.    Researcher: You observed some plankton using a microscope yesterday. Have you done it before?  Ryder: No, it was my first time to observe it. It was very interesting (cognitive interest). Researcher: How is plankton related to you?  Ryder: Well, it is similar to us because zooplankton begins its life from a tiny shape but become a big animal (Instructor showed sea urchins life cycle in the lab). Human’s life also begins from a tiny egg and grows to adult. So it is similar to us (taxonomy). Researcher: How about phytoplankton? It is not dramatically changed. Ryder: Phytoplankton is also related to us because it helps us. Researcher: How does it help us? Ryder: We breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide but plant does the opposite direction. Phytoplankton provides us with oxygen which is critical for our survival. So it is very important to human (education).  Brody: It is also related to me because phytoplankton is fed by zooplankton which is fed by anchovy. Anchovy is fed by tuna and we eat tuna. In that way, phytoplankton is related to us (ecosystem). (Informal conversation, August 16, 2012)  In addition to Plankton Tow and Observation, many other activities contributed to the change in students’ NAT orientation. When the activity was new to the students, they tended to perceive the ocean as a site for exploring varied wonders and nurturing intellectual curiosity, 134  imagination, and discovery as conveyed in the following excerpt.  Researcher: what was the most enjoyable/meaningful activity so far? Sebastian: I really enjoyed collecting plankton and watching them using a microscope Researcher: Have you seen them before? Sebastian: No, never. This was my very first experience. (Grade 5, informal conversation, July 12, 2012)  Mia: Squid dissection was very fun and it was my first experience. Researcher: What did you learn from that activity? Mia: I was wondering why the lenses of squid are so much small although the eyes are big. (Grade 5, informal conversation, August, 17, 2012)      Maya: I saw dolphins swim with eye suction cups on it and I learned how scientists do their research about dolphins here. It was very interesting. (Grade 5, informal conversation, August 9, 2013)  5.2.2 Changes in aesthetic (AES) orientation Qualitative data analysis revealed that AquaCamps reflected the five subthemes of AES orientation but mainly focusing on two of them (sense of wonder and artistic) which significantly affected students’ AES orientation. First, students could find aesthetic components of marine organisms and develop their sense of wonder by reading gallery signage. However, gallery signage may have had limited and passive effects on the students because the students were required to read each sign carefully. The following excerpt shows Jocelyn (Grade 5) gained a sense of wonder during the gallery observation time.  Jocelyn: Did you know that some Rockfish can be older than humans? Researcher: Really? Jocelyn: Yes, you can see here. [She read the panel] Canary Rockfish – it can live to 84 years old, so when you buy one at a market or restaurant - it can be as old or older than you. And this Yellow eye rockfish can live to almost 120 years old - it is incredible. Researcher: Wow, it is amazing! (Informal conversation, July 2, 2013)  Compared to gallery signage, interactions with staff members resulted in greater 135  reinforcement of the students’ AES orientation by emphasizing AES components of marine organisms. For example, James, a volunteer in the Wet Lab, asked the students to guess the age of a sea anemone that resided in one of the small display tanks. Far beyond the students’ expectations, James hinted that the anemone’s age was estimated at approximately 60 years because the animal had lived at the aquarium since the center opened in 1956. The students were very surprised to learn this information. At the end of the day, the students were asked to share one thing they had learned during the camp. Luke (Grade 5) answered he was very surprised to learn that the anemone’s age was about 60 years. (Field note, August 7, 2013) One objective of most AquaCamps activities was to help the students feel a sense of wonder, and staff members’ actions to meet this objective were frequently observed. For example, when students went for a beach walk, Cameron, one of the AquaCamps instructors, introduced the miraculous recovery of ‘dead’ sea weed which provided the students with another ‘WOW’ moment interpreted as a sense of wonder. Cameron: How long can you hold your breath in the water? Student 1: 30 seconds Student 2: One minute. Cameron: Here, I have a piece of sea weed which is almost dried out. Do you think this is alive or dead? Student 3: It looks dead one. Cameron: Yes, it looks dead, but when the tide comes in all these seaweeds will completely recover and will say “I am OK”. Isn’t it amazing that they can endure several hours out of water while we can do only a few minutes at most? (Field note, July 8, 2013)  Among the AquaCamps activities that foster the students’ AES orientation, creating a costume of marine organisms was a powerful activity. Staff encouraged students to create and wear costumes on the last day of the camp. Staff members also prepared their own personal costumes. Most of the costumes wonderfully expressed morphological characteristics as well as 136  the aesthetic beauty of marine organisms. Chloe, one of the AquaCamps instructors, created her own “Garbage Jelly” to represent the danger of ocean garbage which kills a multitude of marine organisms including sea turtles that swallow plastic bags mistaking them for sea jellies. Alyssa (Grade 5) wore her ‘Blue Spotted Jelly’ made from a shower curtain with glittering threads of material attached (Figure 24). The costume display provided a moment when everyone could become a unique and beautiful marine animal.    Figure 24. Becoming a jelly.  Researcher: I love your awesome jelly costume. Very creative! What is it? Alyssa: It is a blue spotted jelly. Researcher: Yes, we saw that in the tank. Could you tell me something about it? Alyssa: Although some jellies are dangerous, they are gracefully floating and so beautiful. When I saw the blue spotted jelly, I felt, ‘wow’, they are just beautiful and I made my costume in imitation of this jelly. (Informal conversation, August 2, 2013)  In the marine aquarium setting, students had the opportunity to directly observe and 137  appreciate up close the beauty of gracefully swimming jellies and various other marine organisms. Well designed gallery settings and interpretive commentaries can be effective “to reinforce visitors’ sense of wonder, awe, excitement, and privilege, and encourage visitors to use imaginations to enter into the animal’s world, identify with individual animals and experience empathy” (Packer & Ballantyne 2010, p.31). 5.2.3 Changes in spiritual (SPR) orientation Since the reliability of SPR orientation in the survey was relatively low, quantitative results about SPR orientation change were not reported. However, qualitative data manifestly demonstrate the students’ SPR orientation changes during the AquaCamps experiences. Some evidence is as follows.  Vancouver Aquarium’s mission statement emphasizes the conservation of aquatic life through display and interpretation, education, research, and direct action (www.vanaqua.org) which was reflected in most gallery exhibits and educational programs including the AquaCamps. Hence the impacts of AquaCamps on the students’ SPR orientation were significantly observed throughout the interviews and informal communications with the students.  AquaCamps program provided students with sources of moral and spiritual inspiration as well as emotional attachment to the ocean and marine organisms. In many cases, the components of SPR orientations (e.g., concern for right or wrong, empathy for animals, ethical responsibility, emotional attachment) were closely intertwined, examples of which are described below.   In the Shark Truth, the instructor introduced (1) different kinds of sharks and their characteristics, (2) their importance for maintaining marine food chain, and (3) humans’ negative impact on sharks. Shark Truth emphasized the number of sharks killed every year (100,000,000) 138  solely for shark fin soup and also included a slideshow with visuals of hundreds of thousands of dried shark fins and dead and dying sharks after their fins had been removed. After the program, students actively responded to the moralistic concerns for sharks.  Researcher: what did you learn from this program? Maya: I’ve never understood why people kill the sharks but l learned why. And I leaned that so many sharks are killed every year, which is not fair at all (moralistic concern, empathy for the animal). They are important to the whole ocean so we have to stop killing them for the shark fin soup (ethical responsibility). (Grade 5, informal conversation, August 9, 2013)  The Beach Walk affected the students’ SPR orientation by emphasizing that we should respect all organisms living in the intertidal (area between the tides) zone. Before going on the beach walk, Cameron, one of the AquaCamps instructors, discussed beach etiquette with the students which included the dos and don’ts of the beach walk. Students agreed not to take anything from the beach except garbage, and promised that they would carefully lift up (or roll over) rocks to observe organisms living underneath and then put the rock back gently as they are home to many creatures. At the beach, Cameron demonstrated how to handle vulnerable organisms (tiny shore crabs, mussels, isopods, seaweeds, including dead organisms) using his pinky finger. Cameron also modeled how to replace rocks without harming organisms living on and underneath the rock (field note, July 5, 2013). As a result, most students carefully handled and observed the animals they found and took care to return them to their original habitats. When the students were asked the most important thing they leaned from the AquaCamps, Scarlett (Grade 4) answered “I learned that I should respect all marine animals even after they’re dead” (informal conversation, July 5, 2013). Gabriella (Grade 4) also remarked “I learned where all the animals live, and that we have to be very careful when we handle them” (informal conversation, July 8, 2013). 139  Also the field trip to Marine Mammal Rescue Center (MMRC6) remarkably influenced the students’ SPR orientation. It was the very first experience for the students to meet baby marine mammals which fostered the students’ emotional attachment, empathy for the animals, and our ethical responsibility. Many students regarded MMRC as the most meaningful learning experience during the AquaCamps. Some responses are as follows. Zoey: I really enjoyed when we went to MMRC and we saw the baby seals they were really cute and I felt sorry for them (empathy for the animals) because their mom abandoned them but it is good to have somebody in this world who helps them (ethical responsibility). (Grade 5, informal conversation, July 19, 2013)  Alyssa: Most meaningful learning activity will be MMRC field trip that meant a lot to me, it was first time to see inside and it makes me think about much more than I always do. And it can also teach me life style, in our family we are eco-friendly as much as possible but I think now I am gonna go even further and try to be eco-friendly continuously (ethical responsibility). (Grade 5, informal conversation, August 2, 2013)  Direct encounters with marine mammals in the galleries helped students to develop an emotional attachment with the animals. Students reported that they felt closer connectedness with marine animals after direct interactions with them. For example, Jace (Grade 3) mentioned that “I would say my connection with Jack (porpoise) increased from five to nine out of 10 after having eye contact with him (informal conversation, July 12, 2012).  Aquarium staff’s care-giving activities and positive interpretations about captivity of rescued animals significantly influenced the students’ empathy for the animals and ethical responsibility. Morgan, one of the AquaCamps instructors, introduced the story of rescued harbor porpoises Jack and Daisy. Daisy is four years old and Jack will be one in the August. Both of them were found abandoned when they were four and six weeks old respectively; so not very old at all and what happened is that we brought them to MMRC center which we will visit today. They were not strong enough to swim yet. What we had to do is put them in a little harness and                                                           6 MMRC is a kind of hospital run by the Vancouver Aquarium for injured marine mammals. 140  let them float in the water because they had to stay in the water but they couldn’t swim anything. We kept feeding them and had to watch them 24 hours all day, every day because they were so sick. Eventually they got better and could eat and swim on their own. Because they were found so young and basically they were raised by humans. Fisheries Canada decided they are not releasable because they wouldn’t survive if we put them back in the ocean, so they are now here their permanent home in the aquarium. Since they are raised by people they are so friendly to people. (Field note, July 5, 2012)  Because of this positive interpretation that emphasized our responsibility to take care of marine organisms coupled with the aquarium’s animal care activities (daily health check by staff and vet) observed by visitors, many students reiterated their support for captivity of rescued animals. When asked how they would feel if they were one of the rescued animals in the tank (e.g, Helen, Henna, Jack and Daisy), more than half of the interviewed students responded in a similar manner saying: “I would feel happy because they feed me well and give good care. Probably I don’t want to go back to the ocean”. The students’ responses indicated their concerns for the well-being of rescued animals from their anthropocentric position.  5.2.4 Changes in recreational (REC) orientation Quantitative data analysis revealed that there was no statistically significant mean difference in REC orientation between pre- and post-test. Although gallery exhibits and AquaCamps activities partially included the subthemes of REC orientation (e.g., enjoyment and control), they are not emphasized. For example, although the students enjoyed the Dolphin/Beluga Shows, entertainment itself was not the primary purpose of the shows. The objectives of the shows were to ‘allow students to make a caring personal connection to the animals through entertainment and show them the importance of work in marine mammal research’ (AquaCamps documents, n.d.). As a result of emphasis on NAT and SPR orientations in the program, Quantitative data analysis indicated no significant change in REC orientations. 141  This was also observed in qualitative data.  Researcher: What do you think about the dolphin show? Maya: I enjoyed the show and I learned that how scientists do their research about dolphins here. Actually I saw Helen and Henna (dolphins) were swimming for a research with eye suction cups on its eyes. (Grade 5, informal conversation, August 7, 2013)  This excerpt coupled with the aquarium staff’s interpretation during the show on how well the trainers cared for the animals and the kind of research conducted on them indicated that the show was not intended for visitors’ entertainment only. As a result, students viewed the dolphins and beluga whales not only as a source of enjoyment but also of investigation.  When students were allowed to touch marine invertebrates in the Wet Lab, they enjoyed interactions with these animals. However they were requested by staff to wash their hands first as a health precaution for the animals and to touch the animals using their pinky fingers. In this way, I can conclude that the programs did not exclusively facilitate REC orientation.  Some students demonstrated both their SPR and REC orientations, saying that “it is fun to watch marine mammals in the show, and it is good for humans to study them, but it is cruel to the animals because of downsized small habitat” (Jacob, Grade 5, informal conversation, July 29, 2013). Thus SPR response to the animals seemed to influence minimal increase of the students’ REC orientation.   5.2.5 Changes in utilitarian (UTL) orientation In the utilitarian orientation, the ocean and marine organisms are seen as a source for humans’ practical needs. A limited gallery exhibits and AquaCamps activities include this component. One panel in the gallery Pacific Canada (Figure 25) fostered the students’ UTL orientation.  142   Figure 25. Utilitarian orientation panel.  However, gallery exhibits and camp activities did not emphasize UTL values of the ocean and marine organisms. For example, although the Ocean Wise Talk activity was associated with UTL values of marine organisms, the focus was not to affect UTL orientation. Instead, it was intended to educate students about endangered marine animals, the problem of by-catch, and our ethical responsibilities for the sustainable use of marine resources. The following field note shows a snapshot of the Ocean Wise Talk activity. John (instructor) began the program with discussion about the problems that our precious ocean has. Responding to the answers from the students he explained the most serious problem is overfishing. John continued to explain what happens when fishermen catch fishes and scallops using a trawl. Students found they caught not only fish they want to get but also other animals such as sharks, squids and corals from their first trial. John introduced the term ‘by-catch’ indicating the un-intended result of the student’s trawling. For wise and sustainable use of marine resources, he showed specially designed net which has bigger mesh net and sieving covers on it. Using this net, students could catch fishes only they targeted. He showed the Ocean Wise symbol which indicates the seafood obtained from sustainable way, and encouraged the students’ use of seafood which has the ocean wise mark on it. (Field note, August 28, 2012) 143   The description above clearly shows that this AquaCamps program focused on ethical responsibility (SPR) and not on UTL orientation. Emphasizing the SPR component may influence a decrease of UTL orientation. For example, Tristan (Grade 4) expressed his willingness to stop eating shark fin soup (interview, August 9, 2012) after participating in the Shark Truth activity.  Quantitative data analysis revealed that the students’ UTL orientation significantly decreased after the AquaCamps program. Qualitative data did not directly explain what component of the program caused this decrease in the students’ UTL orientations. However, as shown in section 5.1.3 UTL orientation had weak negative correlation with NAT orientation (r = -.209, p = .006) and AES orientation (r = -.293, p = .000). This means that the component of the program that influenced an increase of NAT and AES orientations might also affect the decrease of UTL orientations during the camp experiences.  5.2.6 Changes in negativistic (NEG) orientation The quantitative data results showed that the students’ NEG orientation was significantly decreased during the camp experiences. This is an expected result given the fact that (1) all gallery exhibits and camp programs are not intended for increasing negative perspectives (e.g., harm to nature and disconnection) from the students, and (2) there is plenty of qualitative evidence relating to the increase in NAT, AES, and SPR orientations of the AquaCamps, which are negatively correlated to NEG orientation. There is limited evidence of AquaCamps’ impacts that result in the decrease of NEG orientation.  Researcher: After the AquaCamps experiences, do you find any difference in terms of connections to the animals? 144  Kennedy: Yes…..before the camp, I thought all the animals are just slimy and stinky , but after I touch them like sea crabs they were different and then I thought ‘OK maybe I do have something to do all these’. For example, maybe I could get used to be this and…    Researcher: Does it mean that you felt more close connections to them after you touched the marine animals? Kennedy: Yes. Researcher: Even to the sea cucumber? Kennedy: Yeah. (Grade 5, informal conversation, August 1, 2012)  After having encounters with marine animals on the beach and in the Wet Lab, many students like Kennedy demonstrated a positive emotional change towards marine organisms which revealed a decrease of NEG orientation. Since NEG orientation had a moderate negative correlation with NAT orientation (r = -.353, p = .000) and AES orientation (r = -.330, p = .000), the components of increasing NAT and AES orientations might also have influenced a decrease in NEG orientation. However, disconnection to the ocean was widely observed from the students throughout the AquaCamps program. Students’ perceptions of disconnection to the ocean and isolation from marine ecosystems are worrying signs for the sustainability of the Earth given that human-nature connectedness plays a key role to facilitate responsible environmental attitudes and behaviors (Feral, 1998; Goralnik & Nelson, 2011; Schultz, 2002). The following excerpt shows one example of the students’ disconnection from the ocean. Researcher: Blake, could you tell me something about herring? Blake: What I know about herring are … they go in a giant, huge school, and they are silvery and male has sperm sac while female has egg sac. Researcher: What do they eat? Blake: They eat plankton. Researcher: Where did you get that? Blake: I have seen them in the TV show, “Blue Planet” Researcher: Have you tried it before? Blake: No, I’ve never eaten them. Researcher: How are you related to herring? Do you have any kind of connection with herring in your life? 145  Blake: No, I think I do not have any connection with them. (Grade 4, informal conversation, July 18, 2013)  Regardless of his scientific knowledge about herring, Blake could not understand his connection to them. His knowledge might be limited solely to the fish species herring and not extended to the whole marine ecosystem of which he is a part. Most East Asian students mentioned their connections to the ocean/marine organisms based on UTL orientation; meaning that they are frequently disconnected to the ocean if they do not find ‘usefulness’ or attach value to any given marine organism. An excerpt below showed a Chinese student’s conditional connectedness to the ocean.  Researcher: Does fish like rockfish and salmon have value? Luis: You mean like how many prices are? Researcher: No, I am not talking about their prices; I meant do we need them? Are they important? Luis: We need them because when they lay eggs we can ship them and we eat those fishes Researcher: How about Sea worms? Luis: No, we don’t need them.  Researcher: But the ocean needs sea worms.  Luis: Yes, but not to human… (Grade 4, informal conversation, August 14, 2012)   When asked a question by the researcher whether humans are part of the marine ecosystem, Mia (Grade 5, Korean student) answered “We humans are not in the marine ecosystems” (informal conversation, August 15, 2012). Perhaps the students regard the marine environment as a pristine place where humans are excluded (Vining et al., 2008). As students’ perceptions of connection to the ocean are the core of their ocean literacy, and the key for the sustainability of the Earth, the students’ perceptions of disconnection will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.  Qualitative data clearly answered the research question how the AquaCamps affected the changes in students’ orientations and are consistent with quantitative findings. Due to multiple 146  objectives of a single activity as well as existing positive/negative correlations between the orientations, some activities were observed to have multiple impacts on different orientations at the same time.  5.3. Life experiences affecting orientations  The previous section described ways in which the AquaCamps affected the students’ changes in orientations toward the ocean and marine organisms. However, development of and change in students’ orientations were not exclusively affected by aquarium experiences. The students came with previously constructed orientations shaped by their sociocultural contexts, but they reconstructed their orientations during AquaCamps. Also the orientations were not fully completed; instead they were undergoing construction and were influenced by the other components. Hence, qualitative data were analyzed to identify which components influenced the formation and development of students’ orientation during their life experiences. As a result, the following six components were identified.  5.3.1 Direct experiences Direct outdoor experience is the most influential factor in promoting emotional affinity toward nature (Kals et al., 1999) and in shaping environmental attitude during childhood (Chawla, 1998). Interview data in this study revealed that direct experiences such as beach walk and snorkeling greatly influence the students’ orientations towards the ocean and marine organisms, particularly the naturalistic, aesthetic, and recreational orientations. The extent of the development of particular orientations may depend on the kind of experiences the students had, in particular experiences within social and cultural contexts. Although aquarium experiences can be regarded as a kind of indirect experience (Kellert, 2002), in this thesis, aquarium experiences 147  will be discussed as a direct experience due to the fact that most students have limited access to the underwater world since they must be a certain age and acquire specific scuba equipment.  [Case 1] Beach walk/ Aquarium visit and naturalistic (NAT) orientation Madison (Grade 4) was interested in marine biology and showed highly NAT orientation towards the ocean. She viewed the ocean as a community of marine organisms and a place for personal interest, curiosity, and discovery. When Madison visited a beach with her family, she explored the area using her five senses. Those experiences influenced her sense of wonder which resulted in further discovery of the ocean realm and eventually helped her construct a connectedness with the ocean.  Researcher: I have six cards here. Which card would you like to choose to describe the ocean? Madison: The ocean is a “community” because everyone living in the ocean is relying on each other (ecosystem). Researcher: When your family goes to the seashore what things you usually do? Madison: I usually walk around to explore birds and other wild lives…look at the rocks and shells look at all different colors and patterns (cognitive interest) and sometimes I hear the wave rolling and coming to me.  Researcher: Awesome! What was the most memorable moment you have had with marine animals and plants? Madison: Ah…. When I went to Vancouver Island I went to Qualicum beach I saw a bird that I’ve never seen before. It was an oystercatcher. Researcher: How do you know it was an oystercatcher?  Madison: They were black but had a long red beak and pink legs and I found their name in the book (cognitive interest). (Grade 4, interview, August 9, 2012)  Grace (Grade 5) wanted to be a marine biologist due to her experiences in marine aquariums. Her story supports the idea that encounters with marine organisms in non-natural habitats such as aquariums also affect students’ development of NAT orientations. She said:   When I was little, I went to the aquarium and I saw people working here that is how I got my inspiration and I saw the animals and I felt I am attached to them. It was really weird because my mom had to drag me home and I could not stop wanting to go to the 148  aquarium, so ... meeting all the animals in the aquarium made me interested in marine biology. (Informal conversation, July 29, 2013)  [Case 2] Snorkeling/ Swimming and aesthetic (AES)/ recreational (REC) orientation The unique experience of encountering marine organisms while students are snorkeling and swimming seemed to greatly affect their AES and REC orientations. Bella (Grade 3) regarded the ocean as a painting and an object that provided her with artistic inspirations. Bella’s AES orientation seemed to have developed from her snorkeling experiences which offered opportunities to appreciate the beauty of marine organisms. Researcher: Among these six word cards, which one would you like to choose to describe the ocean? Bella: I would choose “painting” because it is really like a beautiful painting (artistic). Researcher: What makes you think the ocean is a painting? Bella: When I was snorkeling in Turks and Caicos Island, I saw huge fish and smaller fish and all kinds of beautiful corals (artistic). It was amazing. (Interview, August 28, 2012)  Darren’s (Grade 5) story below gave a good example on how his direct encounter with flying fish in their natural habitat deeply contributed to his AES orientation toward the ocean and marine organisms.  Researcher: Could you tell me the most memorable experience you have had with marine organisms? Darren: It was probably the time when my family went to Carrabin just earlier this summer for three weeks. I saw flying fish dive about three feet away from wild and sea turtle got the sea eels and .. Researcher: When you were snorkeling? Darren: Yes, there were so many things cool, everything was amazing. Researcher: What was your favorite moment? Darren: Probably my favorite moment would be the first time I saw the flying fish because when I heard about flying fish I thought people just exaggerate things but they always go about a hundred feet or so. So they really did fly! Researcher: Wow, awesome! (Interview, July 19, 2013)  Adam (Grade 3) reported that swimming with dolphins and rays were the most 149  memorable experiences with marine organisms. These experiences are likely to have affected Adam’s REC orientation that regards the ocean as a source of entertainment.  Researcher: Please tell me any memorable experiences you had with marine animals.  Adam: Discovery cove … Researcher: Could you tell me something more about that? Adam: When my family went to the discovery cove, I swam with sting rays and rode on dolphins, which was a really fun. (Interview, July 5, 2012)  Burgess and Mayer-Smith (2011) conducted an exploratory and naturalistic case study to investigate how students’ direct experiences at Mountain School Camp provoked their biophilic disposition. Burgess and Mayer-Smith reported that students’ direct experiences in a wilderness program increased their aesthetic, humanistic, moralistic, symbolic, naturalistic, and ecological-scientific valuing of nature. Many students’ stories aligned with the results of this study and confirmed that direct experiences with the ocean and marine organisms greatly contribute to the students’ NAT, AES, and REC orientation development.  Emphasizing the importance of direct experience with wildlife, Pyle (1993) noted that “a face-to-face encounter with a banana slug means much more than a Komodo dragon seen on television” (p. 146). Indeed, experiences with non-human beings in natural habitats as well as in zoos and aquariums provoke students’ emotional connections with other animals and cultivate students’ caring relationships which may lead to an ethic of care for the natural environment as a whole (Ballantyne, Anderson, & Packer, 2010; Myers & Saunders, 2002; Scott, 2007). 5.3.2 Family members Interview data revealed that family members affect the students’ formation and development of orientations toward the ocean and marine organisms. A number of studies reported the impact of family members and/or significant others on children’s valuing of nature 150  and pro-environmental actions (e.g., Chawla & Cushing, 2007; Kals et al., 1999; Stern, 2000). Two cases from the QUAL data showed that family members not only influenced the formation and development of children’s orientations, they also influenced patterns depending on the different members’ orientations. Caucasian parents seem to have an effect upon the students’ NAT and SPR orientations in particular; while East Asian parents contributed to the students’ UTL and NEG orientations as shown in cases below.  [Case 1] Caucasian parents and naturalistic (NAT)/ spiritual (SPR) orientation Blake (Grade 4) was very interested in fishes. The following excerpt shows that his NAT orientation was extremely affected by his grandfather.  Researcher: Your mom told me that you are very much fascinated by marine fishes. What made you interested in marine biology and fishes in particular?  Blake: My grandpa came to my classroom when I was in a preschool, and he brought all his scuba diving gear and I thought it is very cool and I got into studying the ocean. And I got a bunch of books like the one I have here. I especially like rockfish because my grandpa always tells me stories about scuba diving trips about rockfish. And my grandma gave me this book.  Researcher: What is your favorite marine animal? Blake: I really like the one called Copper rockfish in particular because it is really cool, I like its color. (Informal conversation, July 15, 2013)  Ava (Grade 3) viewed the ocean as a place from which we learn something new as well as an object that deserves our care. Ava’s story below demonstrated that her NAT and SPR orientations seem to be affected by her mother.  Researcher: Could you think about things you do in everyday life that affects the ocean? Ava: A thing my family does is trying to educate people about the ocean like my mom, she takes my class out for a beach walk and educates them about stuffs and after kids come up to me and say “wow I never knew about these creatures, I want to help them, I shouldn’t do this stuff”. And I also sometime tell to my friends to become more aware about it. (Informal conversation, July 19, 2012)   151  [Case 2] East Asian parents and utilitarian (UTL)/ negativistic (NEG) orientations Many cases reported from interviews revealed that East Asian parents remarkably affected the students’ UTL and NEG orientation. For instance, Ryder (Grade 4) viewed the ocean as a source of fulfilling human needs. Ryder’s UTL orientation may not be irrelevant to his parents’ UTL behaviors. That is, Ryder may build his UTL orientation upon family events such as fishing and cooking what they catch from the sea.  Researcher: Could you tell me the most memorable experience you have had with marine organisms? Ryder: My family went fishing last year, and my dad caught a shark, this much big one. Researcher: Wow, you also got one fish? Ryder: My brother got one but I didn’t.  Researcher: What happened after catching the fish? Ryder: We cooked the fish and enjoyed. Researcher: Even shark? Ryder: No, one guy who drove the boat killed the shark and threw away. (Interview, August 16, 2012)  Similarly, Jace’s (Grade 3) NEG behavior in the Squid Dissection activity where he intentionally tore the squid mantle into many pieces may be related to his father’s UTL/NEG behavior reported below.  Researcher: Could you tell me the most memorable experience you have had with marine organisms? Jace: Me and my family and another family were on a boat and we were fishing and a crab came scrambling around the boat. So my dad picked it up and cut off its legs and pinches. When we got home we cooked it and ate it. (Interview, August 16, 2012)  This study was not designed to identify correlation between the students’ orientations and their family members’ orientation toward the ocean/marine organisms. However, the four excerpts above may indirectly show the potential correlation due to the possibilities that family members may function as a role model or an amplifier of the students’ experiences in nature (Kals et al., 1999). 152  5.3.3 Friends The students showed active interaction with one another throughout AquaCamps group activities and discussions. During their interactions, the students influenced one another’s orientations. After having a small group discussion about mutual impacts shared by the ocean and humans, Alyssa (Grade 5) said:  I think it is really cool to see how other people think about the same thing, for example, I thought it was the first time that I thought of… but I learn many thing from her [Grace], what she is saying immediately looks like “Yes, I totally understand what she is saying” and that was not the first thing that I thought of. (Interview, July 29, 2013)  Interview data revealed that the students’ orientations were also influenced by their friends. Maya’s (Grade 5) story below shows that she was impressed and influenced by her friend’s SPR orientation and actions for natural resource protection.   Researcher: Could you tell me one of memorable experiences you have had with marine animals?  Maya: I have a friend named Hanna, she is really fascinated about sharks she wrote and published a book about shark, and how terrible killing sharks for soups. She started a campaign against it. In class we were doing a resource protection project, one of my friends also wrote about shark fin soup and how terrible it is. It was a great experience for me. (Interview, August 6, 2013)   5.3.4 Seafood preference and culture Seafood preference and culture may be related to students’ UTL orientation toward the ocean and marine organisms. Students who reported that they enjoyed seafood tended to have highly UTL orientation. For example, East Asian students in particular mentioned that they enjoyed various types of seafood, which may be the reason why they viewed the ocean as a source of seafood. In cases where all family members enjoyed seafood, the students were more likely to show UTL orientation. Responses from two Korean students, Mia (Grade 5) and Ryder (Grade 4) with whom I conducted interviews clearly supported this potential.  153  Researcher: How does the ocean affect your life? Mia: It gives us food, salt, and other things we need. Researcher: Do you like seafood? Mia: Yes, I do. My dad, mom and I like fish and we eat it very often.  Researcher: If you take one example? Mia: We like a mackerel. And my grandpa also like fish, he frequently gives us crabs marinated in soybean source.  Ryder: I love the crabs marinated in soybean source. That is my favorite one. Researcher: Your family love seafood? Ryder: Yes, like salmon, seaweed, crab…  Researcher: How often does your family eat seafood? Ryder: About two times a week. (Interview, August 16, 2012)  Preference of seafood also affected the students’ perceptions of valuing marine organisms. Students’ responses indicated that the marine organisms they enjoyed eating had more value than organisms they did not eat. Emily (Grade 5, Korean) mentioned the economic value she placed on fish she ate compared to the absence of value assigned to organisms that she did not eat.  Researcher: What kinds of values do Salmon and Rockfish have? Emily: We eat them for sashimi. Researcher: Do you like sashimi? Emily: Yes. Researcher: What other values do they have? Emily: Well… I don’t know. Researcher: How about this sea star. What values does it have? Emily: It may not have any values as we don’t eat them. (Informal conversation, August 10, 2012)  On the contrary, although some Caucasian students also mentioned their love for seafood (e.g., salmon burger and calamari), they seemed to view fish more as objects to study and to appreciate rather than food. This result may be due to the probability that these students had different food cultures. When Caucasian students talked about eating seafood, they mentioned that they did not consume the entire fish; they only ate fish filets. While in the East Asian students’ cultures seafood was often prepared and cooked whole. Since fish filets sold in stores and fish burgers may not provide a visual image of a whole fish, this may explain why Caucasian 154  students might have lower UTL orientation; therefore they do not immediately see fish as a source of food. The following two sets of pictures (Figure 26) support this statement.                      Figure 26. Different preparations for seafood.  5.3.5 Pet experience In the quantitative data, the students who experienced owning pets demonstrated significantly higher NAT orientation scores in the pre-test than the students who had no pet owning experience. Also qualitative data revealed that pet owning experiences may facilitate the students’ companionship with, emotional attachment to, and ethical responsibility for the pet (marine animals in this context), and eventually influence the students’ SPR orientation development.  The following excerpt demonstrates the impact of pet experiences on SPR orientation of Tristan (Grade 4) who immigrated to Canada from China four years ago. Tristan represented the      Fish filets in the Save on Foods                 Salmon burger         Fish as a whole in T & T                     Steamed fish 155  ocean as a calm temple showing his SPR orientation. His pet experiences with a tortoise may influence his companionship with the reptile and eventually facilitate development of his SPR orientation.  Researcher: You told me your favorite animal is a sea turtle. Could you tell me a bit about the animal? For example, what they eat, where they live, and whatever you know about it.  Tristan: I don’t know much about the sea turtles, but I just like it. Researcher: Do you have any connections with a sea turtle?  Tristan: Some kind of connections I have. They were not sea turtles but I had five tortoises in my home when I was in China. (Interview, August 9, 2012)  The positive influence of pet experience on students’ orientation toward wildlife was also reported by Eagles and Muffitt (1990). They conducted a quantitative study and found that the students who reported having pets in their homes had significantly higher levels of humanistic and naturalistic attitude scores and lower dominionistic and utilitarian attitudes scores. However, it is still unclear what and how other sociocultural factors such as socioeconomic status and parents’ educational level are related to the NAT score difference between pet owners and non-owners (Prokop, Prokop & Tunnicliffe, 2008), which warrants further investigation. (Prokop & Tunnicliffe, 2010). 5.3.6 Movies and books Interview data revealed that movies and books greatly affected the students’ formation and development of orientations toward the ocean and marine organisms. One excerpt below shows that movies and books were one of the critical sources for developing students’ NAT orientation. Anthony (Grade 3) demonstrated a relatively higher level of marine science knowledge, and he viewed the ocean as a place where he felt a sense of wonder and the joy of learning something new. His cognitive interest toward the ocean originated from a movie and 156  developed through reading various books in that field.  Researcher: What made you interested in marine biology? Anthony: There was a movie “Blue Planet”. It’s got lots in it and made me interested in marine biology.  Researcher: A movie, Blue Planet? Anthony: Yes, and I also have lots of books about marine animals. Researcher: Such as? Anthony: I have a big flip book with a great white shark in it, and when you read it, it’s like you are in a submarine checking out all kinds of animals through three openings. (Informal conversation, July 18, 2013)  Eagles and Muffitt (1990) reported the positive impacts of vicarious or symbolic experiences with natural settings and wildlife. The authors found that students who read about wildlife and watched television wildlife programs had higher naturalistic and scientific scores on the survey compared to nonreaders who had higher utilitarian scores. My qualitative data coupled with Eagles and Muffitt (1990) findings demonstrated the power of vicarious encounters with wildlife on students’ NAT orientation development and support Schubel et al.’s (2009) argument that we should incorporate mass media (e.g., print and television) and social media (e.g., forums and web logs using online technologies) into comprehensive ocean literacy campaign.  The students’ responses identified that the formation and development of different orientations toward the ocean and marine organisms are associated with multiple impacts from direct experiences with the ocean and marine organisms, family members’ orientations, friends’ orientations, seafood preference, pet owning experiences, and learning from movies and books.  5.4 Summary Quantitative data analysis revealed that the students’ naturalistic (NAT) and aesthetic (AES) orientations significantly increased while their utilitarian (UTL) and negativistic (NEG) 157  orientations significantly decreased after participating in the AquaCamps. The students’ recreational (REC) orientation increased slightly but there was no significant change. Although the students’ NAT, AES, UTL, and NEG orientations significantly changed, the extent of difference was not related to the students’ sociocultural backgrounds. This implies that the AquaCamps experiences evenly affected the students’ orientations. However, the pre-test demonstrated that the orientations that students brought to AquaCamps were significantly different depending on their ethnicities; Caucasian students showed higher levels of NAT and AES orientations while East Asian students demonstrated higher level of UTL and NEG orientations toward the ocean. The intent of the comparison was not to essentialize racial differences but to offer insights into how different cultural groups of students interact with the ocean and the context of that interaction. Also, quantitative data analysis revealed that girls demonstrated a higher level of AES orientation than boys. However, investigating gender difference in orientations toward the ocean needs further quantitative study with larger numbers of participants and qualitative studies with thick description focusing on varying patterns to enable meaningful claims about gender. Quantitative data analysis also demonstrated that NAT, AES, and REC orientations were positively correlated and UTL and NEG orientations are also positively correlated. However NAT, AES, REC orientations were negatively correlated to UTL and NEG orientations. In most cases individual students tended to show a mixture of orientations that were positively correlated to each other rather than to show a single orientation.  Qualitative data analysis revealed that the AquaCamps program affected the students’ NAT, AES, and SPR orientations by emphasizing themes around ecosystem, cognitive interest, education, sense of wonder, artistic, concern for right or wrong, ethical responsibility, and 158  emotional attachment. Substantial interview data answered how the AquaCamps program affected the students’ changes in NAT, AES, and SPR orientations. Even though some entertainment components were included in the camp programs, those programs did not focus exclusively on entertainment but also considered cognitive interest, education, and ethical responsibility. This explained why the students’ REC orientations did not show significant change after the camp experiences. Although AquaCamps introduced some UTL orientation, the focus was not to increase UTL orientation but to educate students about endangered marine animals and the ethical responsibility for the sustainable use of marine resources. As a result, the students’ UTL orientation decreased. Some limited QUAL data showed how the AquaCamps program affected the students’ changes in NEG orientation. It also appears that emphasizing NAT, AES, and SPR components played a role in decreasing the aspect of NEG orientation (e.g., harm to nature, avoid nature, disconnection). With regard to NEG orientation, QUAL data revealed a critical issue of students’ disconnection to the ocean, which warrants further discussion. Students’ orientation development and change are not exclusively affected by aquarium experiences. Interview data identified that various sociocultural components surrounding the students also affect the formation and development of different orientations towards the ocean and marine organisms. Thus, a student’s orientation toward the ocean is a result of multiple impacts from direct experiences with the ocean and marine organisms, family members’ orientations, friends’ orientations, seafood preferences and culture, pet owning experiences, and learning from movies and books. The students’ orientations toward the ocean and marine organisms are in a process of ongoing construction that reflects their new experiences and sociocultural components.   159  Chapter 6 Summary, Discussion, Conclusions, and Implications Quantitative data analysis demonstrated significant changes in the participating students’ marine science knowledge as well as orientations toward the ocean/marine organisms. Qualitative data analysis revealed that these changes are affected by not only AquaCamps experiences but also multiple components including the students’ previous knowledge and their sociocultural backgrounds. Throughout data collection corpus and interpretation, three critical issues emerged for discussion: students’ disconnectedness from the ocean, establishment of a localized ocean literacy framework, and sustainability within the ocean literacy framework.     This chapter provides summarized answers to each research question and discussion around three emergent issues. Several implications for theory and practice in the field of marine education are discussed followed by suggestions for the improvement of marine aquarium education to create a more ocean-literate society.  6.1 Summary This exploratory study investigated elementary students’ changes in ocean literacy during a marine aquarium camp provided by the Vancouver Aquarium & Marine Science Center located in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Quantitative and qualitative data obtained through survey questionnaires, interviews, observations, and documents were used to examine the characteristics of elementary students’ marine science knowledge and orientations toward the ocean and marine organisms in an aquarium summer camp context. Summarized answers are described with each research question below.    160  1. What are the characteristics of elementary students’ changes in marine science knowledge after participating in the AquaCamps? After participating in the AquaCamps, the students’ overall marine science knowledge significantly increased. The mean number of correct answers on the post-test (M = 5.25, SD = 1.86) was statistically higher than the mean on the pre-test (M = 4.77, SD = 1.86), t(159) = - 3.964, p = .000. Increase in knowledge scores was observed throughout all ten questions particularly in knowledge about humans’ various impact on the ocean (Q10: 6e) revealed the biggest increase of 0.340, t(158) = -3.242, p = .001, reflecting much emphasis of the AquaCamps program on this concept. However, the students’ knowledge levels revealed a wide spectrum depending on different concepts. With regard to the Essential Principles and Fundamental Concepts of Ocean Science, the students had relatively low levels of understanding on the concepts about the ocean’s role to make Earth habitable (4a) and abundant life forms in the ocean (5b) compared to high levels of understanding on the concepts of the ocean’s influence on weather and climate (3a) and marine life independent of energy from sunlight (5g). This result indicates that the change in students’ marine science knowledge depends on their previous knowledge and the emphasis of the AquaCamps program.  2. How do students’ AquaCamps and other life experiences affect their changes in marine science knowledge? Qualitative data analysis revealed that the aquarium’s 10 galleries and 20 camp activities reflected the seven Essential Principles of Ocean Science mainly focusing on #5 and #6, which played a role in increasing the students’ knowledge level in particular concepts. Further analysis of interview data illustrated how the students constructed their knowledge through interactions 161  with gallery exhibits, panels, peers, instructors during AquaCamps experiences. Interview data analysis also explained the students’ significant knowledge increase particularly in four concepts (the ocean’s physical features, its role to make Earth habitable, its role to support a great diversity of life and ecosystem, and humans’ various impact on the ocean) that were closely related to the emphasis of galleries and camp activities.  Students reported that they constructed their marine science knowledge in multiple contextual settings and from multiple sources including aquariums, schools, books and magazines, television and movies, beach walk, family and friends, and Internet. Interview data showed that everyday life experiences affected students’ ongoing knowledge construction and changes.   3. What are the characteristics of elementary students’ changes in orientations toward ocean and marine organisms before and after the AquaCamps?  QUAN data analysis revealed that the students’ naturalistic (NAT) and aesthetic (AES) orientations significantly increased while their utilitarian (UTL) and negativistic (NEG) orientations significantly decreased after participating in the AquaCamps. The students’ recreational (REC) orientation increased slightly, but there was no significant change. Although the students’ NAT, AES, UTL, and NEG orientations significantly changed, the extent of the difference was not related to the students’ sociocultural backgrounds indicating that the changes evenly affected the students’ orientations. However, the pre-test demonstrated that students’ orientations were significantly different depending on their ethnicities; Caucasian students showed higher levels of NAT and AES orientations while East Asian students demonstrated higher level of UTL and NEG orientations. This implies that prior to the AquaCamps experience, 162  the students had already constructed orientations that reflected their personal and previous knowledge, emotions, and experiences in the sociocultural contexts of their families, culture, history, social norms and values; these played a critical role in the formation and development of students’ orientations.  Quantitative data analysis also demonstrated that NAT, AES, and REC orientations were positively correlated, and UTL and NEG orientations were also positively correlated. However NAT, AES, REC orientations were negatively correlated to UTL and NEG orientations.  4. How do students’ AquaCamps and other life experiences affect their changes in orientations? Supporting quantitative result, qualitative data analysis revealed that the AquaCamps program influenced an increase of naturalistic (NAT), aesthetic (AES), and spiritual (SPR) orientations by emphasizing the themes around ecosystem, cognitive interest, education, sense of wonder, artistic, concern for right or wrong, ethical responsibility, and emotional attachment. Substantial interview data revealed that AquaCamps provided students with biophilic experiences which affected an increase in NAT, AES, and SPR orientations. Even though some entertainment components were included in the camp activities, those programs did not focus exclusively on entertainment but also cognitive interest, education, and ethical responsibility at the same time. This result explained why the students’ recreational orientations did not show significant change after the camp experiences. Although AquaCamps introduced some utilitarian (UTL) orientation, the focus was not to increase UTL orientation but to educate students about endangered marine animals and the ethical responsibility for the sustainable use of marine resources. As a result, the students’ UTL orientation decreased. Some limited qualitative data 163  showed how the AquaCamps program affected the students’ changes in negativistic (NEG) orientation. Emphasizing NAT, AES, and SPR components, which are negatively correlated to NEG, appeared to play a role in decreasing the aspect of NEG orientation (e.g., harm to nature, avoid nature, disconnection).  Students’ orientation development and related changes are not exclusively affected by aquarium experiences. Interview data identified that various sociocultural components associated with the students also affected the formation and development of different orientations towards the ocean and marine organisms. A student’s orientations towards the ocean is a result of multiple impacts from direct experiences with the ocean and marine organisms, family members’ orientations, friends’ orientations, seafood preferences and culture, pet owning experiences, and learning from movies and books. The students’ orientations towards the ocean and marine organisms are constantly under construction reflecting their new experiences and sociocultural components.  This study’s results provide answers to an overall question of how aquarium experiences contribute to students’ ocean literacy changes. It also provides insight into the field of marine education in informal contexts on how aquarium settings and programs should be designed to foster students’ connectedness to the ocean and to marine organisms.  6.2 Discussion Given that the goal of marine education is to increase individuals’ ocean literacy, that is, to facilitate their meaningful connections to the ocean, this study’s results highlighted three issues for further discussion: students’ disconnectedness from the ocean, establishment of a localized ocean literacy framework, and sustainability within the ocean literacy framework.     164  6.2.1 Disconnectedness from the ocean In contrast to connectedness (p. 8), disconnectedness refers to the degree to which individuals separate themselves from the objects. In Chapter one, I mentioned Louv’s (2005) term ‘nature-deficit-disorder’ as well as the state of modern urban elementary students’ disconnectedness from the ocean. My observation was based on my twenty year teaching experiences which formed the rationale of this study. Data obtained from AquaCamps confirmed the need for further discussion to address this phenomenon.  Although most students participating in this study were well versed in marine science facts, they were unable to explain their own connections to the ocean, or how the ocean affected their lives. The phenomenon of disconnection from the ocean was widely observed throughout the AquaCamps by most participating students. The students failed to express their cognitive, affective, or experiential connections to the ocean/marine organisms. If students perceive the ocean to be something totally irrelevant to their life, as Schultz (2002) stated, their “separateness from nature will lead to ethics in which nature is valued only to the extent that it benefits humans” (p. 65). If there was no significant change in the students’ awareness of connections to the ocean during the camp, does this result mean that aquarium experiences do not contribute to cultivating students’ connectedness to the ocean? Some researchers argued that zoos and aquariums provide a unique opportunity for visitors to feel a connection to many types of animals (Clayton & Myers, 2009; Falk et al., 2007; Scott, 2007) and that spending time at a managed environment facilitates visitors’ implicit connectedness to nature (Schultz, Shriver, Tabanico, & Khazian., 2004; Schultz & Tabanico, 2007). Attention should be paid to the fact that these studies reported the visitors’ ‘emotional’ connectedness. Some students in my study also expressed that they felt an increase 165  of emotional connection to marine organisms after having interactions. However, there was no significant change in the students’ lack of awareness about cognitive connections to the ocean/marine organisms. Baker (2004) argues that ‘true literacy’ should culminate in a critical transformation or changed relationship with the subject matter as a result of emotional change coupled with a new self-awareness based on fresh knowledge or skills. Therefore, nurturing only emotional connectedness may not be enough to deal with the issue of disconnectedness. Marine education is interchangeably used with marine science education and marine environmental education. Marine science education and marine environmental education could be understood as a part of science education and environmental education focusing on the ocean. However, marine education emphasizes understanding mutual influences shared by humans and the ocean. Hence, marine education is situated within environmental education. Drawing upon my own marine science knowledge and experiences as a marine educator, I understand marine education to be an exploration of the marine environment and its inhabitants that is guided and informed by both the cognitive and affective domains. As I conducted this study and documented the children’s knowledge, orientations, and experiences, I conclude that marine education must be re-imagined as marine ecological education. Ecology education is an education “to develop understanding of the inescapable interconnectedness of human and natural world and a sense of concern for the Earth” (Judson, 2010, p.11). Judson (2010) proposed engaging in imaginative, emotional, and somatic bonding to nature to develop an understanding of interconnectedness to nature and a sense of concern for nature. Including ecology within marine education embraces the connection between the ocean realm and human kind; the connectedness that I suggest is essential to the development of ocean literacy. In order to increase students’ ocean literacy, the goals of AquaCamps and the objectives 166  of program activities should focus on connectedness. However, the focus of each was placed on understanding characteristics of marine species and ocean related issues, which may result in no significant change in the students’ lack of awareness about their connections to the ocean/marine organisms even after the camp experiences.  To foster connectedness and increase ocean literacy, marine ecology education should be implemented in both cognitive and affective domains. In the cognitive domain, students need to construct knowledge about their connections to the ocean/marine organisms. Given the difficulty in making informed value decisions without ecological and environmental knowledge (Clayton & Myers, 2009), acquiring the seven Essential Principles (EPs) and Fundamental Concepts (FCs) of Ocean Science will be necessary to make responsible decisions regarding the ocean and eventually to become ocean-literate. However, the seven EPs and 44 FCs of Ocean Science will simply remain as marine scientific concepts unless marine educators focus more on facilitating students’ awareness about their connections to the ocean. For example, the concept of 4a states: ‘Most of the oxygen humans and animals on land breathe comes from oxygen produced in the ocean’. Building upon this concept, ecological education may go one step further and enable students to make explicit connections. For example: ‘When I breathe, half of the oxygen I inhale comes from the ocean; therefore, the ocean is closely connected to me’. Through such explicit approaches, students will be able to construct their connections to the ocean more effectively and integrate their environmental learning into their everyday lives (Zandvliet, 2013). Many researchers and educators argued that emotional connection with an object is a pre-requisite for knowledge connection. Renowned environmental scientist and author Rachel Carson (1965) emphasized the importance of feeling as follows:  It is not half so important to know as to feel. If facts are the seeds that later produce 167  knowledge and wisdom, then the emotions and the impressions of the senses are the fertile soil in which the seeds must grow. (p. 48)   In this sense, marine ecology education should provide students with ample opportunities to experience emotional connections with marine organisms because students’ emotional connections with animals in zoos and aquariums evolve to the development of caring for other animals and for the whole environment (Ballantyne et al., 2010; Hart, 1997; Myers & Saunders, 2002; Scott, 2007). Scott’s (2007) study provides a good example of marine ecology education in the affective domain. Scott reported on individual students who participated in a five-day aquarium program which involved regular direct observations of a chosen marine animal which students personally selected to study. The resultant student/observation animal relationship provided students with AES and SPR experiences and the opportunity to build emotional connections to their animals. The students were eventually able to express their willingness to protect their observation animal and the marine environment as a whole.  Littledyke (2008) argues that cognitive and affective domains should be integrated to foster students’ environmental awareness by bringing explicit knowledge education and facilitating biophilic experiences with nature. Given that both cognitive and affective connections to the ocean are critical factors for enhancing ocean literacy (Schubel et al, 2009), marine ecology education in the aquarium setting should provide students with opportunities to (1) construct knowledge more focused on their explicit connections to the ocean and less focused on marine biological facts, and (2) build a sense of relationship with marine organisms through direct encounters. Providing the above opportunities is one solution to deal with the issue of student disconnectedness from the ocean. 168  6.2.2 Establishment of localized ocean literacy framework UNEP (2012) released 21 issues of environmental concern for the 21st century. Regarding ocean related issues in particular, the marine environment is faced with increasing threats such as overfishing, acidification, land and marine-based pollution, and habitat destruction. Yet the ocean provides many essential Earth system functions including the regulation of climate and the hydrological cycle. The ocean also provides habitat for a rich diversity of organisms, food, and materials and energy for human use (UNEP, 2012). Thus it is critical to combine creativity with the collaborative efforts of global citizens to solve problems and make responsible decisions on ocean related environmental issues. Hence, all global citizens must become ocean-literate persons who make informed decisions and take action to solve environmental problems.  Although ocean literacy must become a requirement for all the Earth’s citizens, a discussion on whether the principles and concepts of ocean literacy should remain as stated or be changed is warranted (Strang & Tuddenham, 2012). The seven Essential Principles (EPs) and 44 Fundamental Concepts (FCs) released by the US Ocean Literacy Network reflect contemporary sociocultural values shared and pursued by the American people. Marine scientific facts are standard across countries, but knowledge, norms, history, culture, and societal values differ across global contexts. Therefore EPs and FCs of Ocean Science from US may not be applicable to other societies.  In fact, the eight states associated with the Great Lakes in the US are sharing The Great Lakes Literacy model which is modified from the ocean literacy framework (Fortner & Manzo, 2011). Great Lakes Literacy added one additional Essential Principle to the seven EPs of Ocean Science that includes the environmental history of the lakes and their role in the development of 169  the region’s history, economy, and regional identity. Other cases of responding to the need to establish a localized ocean literacy framework are found in the European Union and Canada. The European Marine Science Educators Association, formed in 2011, has continued discussions to establish a European ocean literacy framework since the first conference held in Belgium in 2012 (Evy, Fiona, & Geraldine, 2012). In Canada, the Canadian Network for Ocean Education was launched in 2013 to ‘Canadianize’ the prescribed learning outcomes of the US ocean literacy framework.  My study’s findings strongly justify the need for the establishment of a localized ocean literacy framework. Within the constraints of sample size, East Asian students in this study demonstrated highly utilitarian, negativistic, and recreational orientations which are compared to Caucasian students’ highly naturalistic, aesthetic, and spiritual orientations toward the ocean/marine organisms. This finding was supported by Sasaki’s (2008) assertion that Japanese marine educators demonstrate higher utilitarian attitudes toward the ocean/marine organisms while US marine educators show higher naturalistic attitudes. Kim et al. (2013) identified that Korean elementary students’ perceptions of valuing marine organisms were highly utilitarian and negativistic. Different tendencies of orientation towards the ocean among different societies indicate that people view their connections to the ocean in different ways and imply the need for the establishment of localized ocean literacy framework.  6.2.3 Sustainability within the ocean literacy framework As I conducted my study and wrote this thesis, I often thought about how the term sustainability aligned with the ocean literacy framework. For the Glossary of Terms in Chapter 1, I selected a working definition by Goodland (1995) which in my view reflected the current ocean 170  literacy framework. Goodland (1995) discussed the concept of sustainability and conceptualized Environmental Sustainability as the maintenance of natural resources such as soil, atmosphere, forest, and water. I characterize this particular meaning of sustainability as reflecting a human centered or anthropocentric view. A definition which espouses a ‘shallow ecology’ stance of ‘what can the Earth do for me?” As I joined the students in their AquaCamps journey, I found that Goodland’s definition did not adequately reflect everything I heard, observed, and discerned in the students’ actions and voices as they experienced AquaCamps. If ocean literacy is required of all global citizens for sustainability of the Earth, then a re-imagined definition of sustainability is warranted. Drawing upon the students’ marine science knowledge, orientations, and experiences articulated in this study, I suggest elaborating on sustainability within the context of ocean literacy to incorporate the findings of this thesis. Therefore, I consider sustainability within the ocean literacy framework to mean: connectedness as illuminated through a sense of assured balance of present and future wonder and peaceful coexistence realized through cognitive, affective, and experiential connections with the ocean realm. 6.3 Conclusions The marine aquarium setting can be a rich and powerful educational venue and plays a role in linking visitors to ocean and marine organisms. A mixed methods research study was conducted to examine elementary students’ (Grade 3 to 5) changes in ocean literacy in two domains (marine science knowledge and orientations) during a five-day AquaCamps provided by the Vancouver Aquarium, BC, Canada.  Quantitative data identified the students’ positive changes in marine science knowledge and qualitative data revealed which components of AquaCamps influenced the students’ 171  knowledge improvement. However, the students demonstrated limited understanding about how they are connected to the ocean and to marine organisms as a whole throughout the camp. This may result from the emphasis of AquaCamps on marine biological facts and marine related conservation issues and a lack of focus on individual student’s connectedness to the ocean.  In regard to their orientations towards the ocean, the students’ naturalistic and aesthetic orientations significantly increased while utilitarian and negativistic orientations significantly decreased after the camp experiences. Qualitative data revealed which components influenced these changes and supported the argument that marine aquarium experiences considerably contribute to students’ emotional connection to marine animals. Qualitative data also identified that students’ orientations towards the ocean were formed and developed based on multiple factors which include direct experiences with the ocean and marine organisms, family members’ orientations, friends’ orientations, seafood preferences and culture, pet owning experiences, and learning from movies and books To increase ocean literacy and address the issue of disconnectedness, marine education should be transformed to marine ecological education by (1) helping students to explicitly understand how they are connected to the ocean/marine organisms in daily life, and (2) providing students with opportunities to build emotional connections to the ocean/marine organism through direct encounters. Ocean literacy is required by all global citizens because it is essential for the sustainability of the Earth. In this regard, educators and policy makers should pay more attention to ocean literacy education in both formal and informal settings and more research studies should expand on this field. 6.4 Implications and suggestions  There are multiple forms and terms related to literacy such as language literacy, science 172  literacy, mathematics literacy, environmental literacy, engineering literacy, music literacy, and many others. Ocean literacy is a relatively new term defined in 2004 and has only recently become known worldwide (Ocean Literacy Network, n.d.). As such, a limited amount of research has been conducted on ocean literacy. Based on a two-year study in a marine aquarium summer camp, several implications and suggestions were made for marine education practitioners and researchers with the intent to improve marine aquarium education and eventually contribute to creating a more ocean-literate society.  6.4.1 Implications for theory and practice This study provides four implications for theory and practice as the findings provide a link between marine education theory and practice. Given the lack of discussion about and insight into ocean literacy in the field of marine education, this study may benefit marine education practitioners in both formal and informal contexts in implementing marine education with a goal to increase students’ ocean literacy.     Firstly, marine science knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ocean literacy. Marine science knowledge helps students understand the ocean world. However, this study’s results revealed that gaining marine science knowledge does not automatically enable individual students to understand their interrelationships and connections to the ocean, which is a key component of ocean literacy. Making connections to the ocean and marine organisms was underscored as the most critical condition to enhance individuals’ ocean literacy (Schubel et al., 2009). Therefore, by focusing on the concept of connectedness, marine educators should help each student make their own meaningful connections to the ocean in addition to gaining marine science knowledge.  173  Secondly, metacognitive knowledge should be emphasized for developing ocean literacy. Knowledge has been defined and classified in various ways. In the field of Education, there are four types of knowledge: factual; conceptual; procedural; and metacognitive knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). Factual knowledge includes basic elements of a discipline (e.g., ocean covers 70 percent of the Earth’ surface). Conceptual knowledge involves interrelationships among the basic elements of a discipline (e.g., the ocean controls weather and climate by dominating the Earth’s energy, water and carbon systems). Procedural knowledge includes how to do something (e.g., descriptions about how to collect plankton). Metacognitive knowledge involves knowledge of one’s cognition (e.g., I know how my actions/the things I do affect the ocean).  When considering the definition of ocean literacy, understanding the ocean’s influence on you and your influences on the ocean (Ocean Literacy Network, n.d.), ocean literacy development requires individual students to construct metaconitive knowledge (i.e., one’s self-awareness about interrelationship with the ocean) in addition to factual, conceptual and procedural knowledge as stated in the seven Essential Principles and forty-four Fundamental Concepts of Ocean Science. As mentioned earlier, most students participating in this study were unable to explain their own connections to the ocean although they were well versed in marine science facts. This result implies the need to emphasize metacognitive knowledge for the development of ocean literacy.  Thirdly, disconnection could be regarded as an additional component of negativistic orientation. Negativistic orientation addresses the ocean as a subject of fears and dislike, which results in avoidance or destructive responses. Disconnection to the ocean reflects students’ isolation from the ocean. Given that humans’ connectedness to nature plays a key role to facilitate responsible environmental attitudes and behaviors (Feral, 1998; Goralnik & Nelson, 174  2011; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Schultz, 2002), students’ disconnection from the ocean may lead to negative results in terms of the sustainability, the health and wellbeing of the ocean. Hence, this study result suggests that disconnection may have practical value in being monitored as an additional component of negativistic orientation.  Lastly, ocean literacy is constructed reflecting learner’s sociocultural backgrounds. Ocean literacy does not have universal standards. This study pointed out that individual student’s knowledge, feelings, experiences, values, orientations and connections to the ocean are constructed in their diverse sociocultural contexts, and hence everyone has a different form of ocean literacy. For example in this study, Jace (Grade 3, Korean) demonstrated highly utilitarian and negativistic orientations to the ocean while Alyssa (Grade 5, Canadian) showed highly naturalistic and aesthetic orientations. Thus, particular attention should be given to developing an approach for marine education which includes understanding each student’s connections and lack of connections to the ocean obtained from their sociocultural backgrounds and helping them build their lacking connections.   6.4.2 Suggestions for marine aquarium education and future studies This subsection provides three suggestions for marine aquarium education for adopting an ocean literacy framework followed by a suggestion regarding the development of an ocean literacy assessment tool.   Firstly, incorporating all Essential Principles of Ocean Science in marine aquarium education may have practical value to increase individuals’ ocean literacy. Most aquariums in North America emphasize commitment to conservation in their mission statements. They expect their visitors to have enjoyable experiences, build knowledge about and strengthen their 175  emotional connections to the oceans, and eventually become more aware of ocean conservation issues during their visit (Vernon, 2009). As a venue for informal marine education, some aquariums in North America are attempting to incorporate ocean literacy framework in their gallery settings and educational programs (Spitzer et al., 2010). However, qualitative data from this study context revealed that marine aquarium’s exhibits and programs were more focused on the Essential Principles #5, #6, and #7 and not in #1, #2, #3, and #4. If the aquarium supports the ocean literacy principles for the goals of marine education, it may need to extend efforts to reflect all of seven Essential Principles in their programs, with emphasis on individuals’ connections to the ocean rather than on the acquiring of scientific facts.  Secondly, objectives, goals, and aims of educational programs in aquariums need to be consistent with one another and linked to the institution’s mission statement. For example, AquaCamps program activities at the Vancouver Aquarium should be implemented under the clear objectives that have behavioral statements focusing on building individual’s connections to the ocean and goals of increasing individual’s ocean literacy as well as aims of producing ocean-literate society which are all well aligned with the mission statement of the institution, ‘dedication to the conservation of aquatic life through display and interpretation, education, research, and direct action’. As discussed in the previous section, marine education in aquariums must evolve towards marine ecological education from marine biology education; since a person who has a higher level of connectedness to the ocean will be associated with more caring attitudes towards the ocean and a higher rate of commitment to protect the ocean (Schultz, 2002; Scott, 2007).  Thirdly, the ocean literacy framework should be acknowledged by all staff members in aquariums. The practical work to increase the public’s and students’ ocean literacy remains with 176  knowledgeable and skilled educators (Schubel et al., 2009; Schultz et al., 2004). To effectively incorporate Essential Principles and Fundamental Concepts of Ocean Science in marine aquarium education, the aquarium should provide all staff members with professional development workshops. As such, program developers will appropriately include the ocean literacy framework in their programs and the interpretive talks of educators will emphasize connectedness between visitors and ocean/marine organisms.  Lastly, a standardized assessment tool for ocean literacy should be developed. In order to explore changes in elementary students’ ocean literacy in a marine aquarium context, this study examined two components of ocean literacy: marine science knowledge and orientations toward the ocean. Plankis and Marrero (2010) suggested developing a full ocean literacy assessment tool to measure all seven Essential Principles. However, according to COSEE’s (n.d.) guideline for Ocean Literacy Index, measuring knowledge about Essential Principles (EPs) and Fundamental Concepts (FCs) would not be enough to assess individuals’ ocean literacy. It should be designed to measure (1) knowledge of EPs and FCs of Ocean Science, (2) attitudes about the ocean and marine life, (3) behaviors related to the ocean and marine life, and (4) exposure to ocean and marine experiences. Adopting COSEE’s four domains of Ocean Literacy Index and considering a localized ocean literacy framework as well as students’ grades, a standardized assessment tool should be developed and provided to assess ocean literacy levels of students. Tracking progress in the development of ocean literacy using the standardized tool will enable educators to compare and improve the quality of marine education in school based as well as informal marine education contexts.  177  6.4.3 Researcher reflections In the process of conducting this study, I brought the lens of a middle class Korean, male with many years experience as an elementary school teacher and marine educator. I paid particular attention to the possibility that my beliefs and sociocultural background might influence the study’s data collection, analysis, and interpretation. For this reason, I kept a “critical distance” from the students (Schwandt, 2007), triangulated my analysis by employing mixed and multiple methods and data sources, and maintained an on-going record of my thoughts and reflections in a research journal. Although I made every attempt to remain neutral and avoid including any personal biases or perspectives in my interactions with the students, I cannot entirely rule out the possibility that my role affected their engagement in and response to AquaCamps experiences and the research interviews.  However, this study provided me with answers to the research questions and an opportunity to identify future directions for marine education and for my role as a marine educator. Not only did this research facilitate a better understanding of elementary students’ changes in Ocean Literacy during a marine aquarium experience, this study also enabled me to ‘look inward’, to fully explore and comprehend myself as a teacher, educator, and researcher who is passionate about and dedicated to inspiring others to connect with the Ocean Realm. 6.4.4 Concluding thoughts Recent assessment reports disseminated by IPCC (2014) warn that due to human actions upon the Earth specifically related to climate change, ocean acidification coupled with other global changes pose substantial risks to marine ecosystems. Our role as educators is not to be prophets of doom and gloom. If we focus solely on the negative aspects of ocean related 178  environmental problems rather than actively engage in ways to help the Earth, then children will find solace in extinction of experience behaviors such as playing computer and video games. Yet, if children are informed and inspired through experiences that nurture and nourish the human/ocean connection, their connectedness, and sense of wonder, particularly experiences which value and embrace the cognitive, affective, and experiential domains, then there is a future for our oceans and ultimately for ourselves.   179  References Adelman, L. M., Falk, J. H., & James, S. (2000). Impact of National Aquarium in Baltimore on visitors’ conservation attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Curator, 43(1), 33-61.  Anderson, D., & Ellenbogen, K. M. (2012). Learning science in informal contexts: Epistemological perspectives and paradigms. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1179-1187). New York: Springer.  Anderson, D., Lawson, B., & Mayer-Smith, J. (2006). Investigating the impact of a practicum experience in an aquarium on pre-service. Teaching Education, 17(4), 341-353.  Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. M. (2007). Predators of knowledge construction: Interpreting students' metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Science Education, 91(2), 298-320.  Anderson, D., Nashon, S. M., & Thomas, G. P. (2009). Evolution of research methods for probing and understanding metacognition. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 181-195.   Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.  Baker, B. (2004). Threads of connection: Reading the landscape, ourselves, and others. Journal of museum education, 29(1), 27-30.  Ballantyne, R. (2004). Young students' conceptions of the marine environment and their role in the development of aquaria exhibits. The Geojournal, 60, 159-163.  Ballantyne, R., Anderson, D., & Packer, J. (2010). Exploring the impact of integrated fieldwork, reflective and metacognitive experiences on student environmental learning outcomes. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 26, 47-64.  Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K., & Dierking, L. (2007). Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: Lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environmental Education Research, 13(3), 367-383.  Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Sutherland, L. A. (2011). Visitors’ memories of wildlife tourism: Implications for the design of powerful interpretative experiences. Tourism Management, 32, 770-779.   Benbow, S. M. P. (1997). A view through the glass: Aquariums on the Internet. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 7(1), 27-31. 180  Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structure models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.  Bogozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.  Borgers, N., Leeuw, E., & Hox, J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research: Cognitive development and response quality. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 66(1), 60-75.  Bowen, G. A. (2005). Preparing a qualitative research-based dissertation: Lessons learned. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 208-222.  Briseño-Garzón, A., Anderson, D. & Anderson, A., (2007). Adult learning experience from an aquarium visit: The role of social interaction in family groups. Curator, 50(3), 299-318.  Brody, M. J., & Koch, H. (1990). An assessment of 4th-, 8th-, and 11th-Grade students’ knowledge related to marine science and natural resource issues. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(2), 16-26.  Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.   Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bellen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). London: Sage.  Burgess, D. J., & Mayer-Smith, J. (2011). Listening to children: Perceptions of nature. The Journal of Natural History Education and Experience, 5, 27-43.  Cava, F., Schoedinger, S., Strang, C., & Tuddenham, P. (2005). Science content and standards for ocean literacy: A report on ocean literacy. Retrieved August 24, 2010, from http://coexploration.org/oceanliteracy/documents/OLit2004-05_Final_Report.pdf  Carson, R. (1965). The sense of wonder. New York: Harper & Row.  Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Education, 29(3), 11-21.  Chawla, L. (2007). Childhood experiences associated with care for the natural world: A theoretical framework for empirical results. Children, Youth and Environments, 17(4), 144-170.  Chawla, L., & Cushing, D. (2007). Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 13(4), 437-452.  Cheng, J. C., & Monroe, M. C. (2010). Connection to Nature: Children’s affective attitude 181  toward nature. Environment and Behavior, XX(X), 1-19.  Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 45-65). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.  Clayton, S., & Myers, G. (2009). Conservation Psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature. Chichester, UK: Blackwell.  COSEE (n.d.). Ocean Literacy Index. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://www.coseeca.net/programs/oceanliteracy/oceanliteracyindex/  Creel, L. (2003). Ripple effects: Population and coastal regions. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from http://www.prb.org/pdf/RippleEffects_Eng.pdf  Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  Cummins, S., & Snively, G. (2000). The effect of instruction on children’s knowledge of marine ecology, attitudes toward the ocean, and stances toward marine resource issues. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 5, 305-326.  Dellinger, A. B., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Toward a united validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4). 309-332.  Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.  Diamond, J., Luke, J. J., & Uttal, D. H. (2009). Practical evaluation guide: Tools for museums and other informal educational settings. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.   Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., & Shwom, R. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 30, 335-372.  Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442.  Eagles, P. F. J., & Muffitt, S. (1990). An analysis of children’s attitudes toward animals. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 41-44.   Evans, K. L. (1997). Aquaria and marine environmental education. Aquarium Sciences and Conservation, 1, 239-250. Retrieved January 31, 2006, from http://www.springerlink.com/media/988t6nlwxp0tna6rkp6j/contributions/h/6/0/3/h6035x3r46072212.pdf 182  Evy, C., Fiona, C., & Geraldine, F. (2012). The European marine science educators association (EMSEA): Towards a more ocean literate Europe. Current, 28(2), 43-46.  Falk, J. H. (2005). Free-choice environmental learning: Framing the discussion. Environmental Education Research, 11(3), 265-280.  Falk, J. H., & Adelman, L. M. (2003). Investigating the impact of prior knowledge and interest on aquarium visitor learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 163-176.   Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.  Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2002). Lessons without limit: How free-choice learning is transforming education. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.  Falk, J.H.; Reinhard, E. M., Vernon, C. L., Bronnenkant, K., Deans, N. L., & Heimlich, J. E. (2007). Why Zoos & Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit. Association of Zoos & Aquariums. Silver Spring, MD. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from http://www.aza.org/uploadedFiles/Education/why_zoos_matter.pdf  Feral, C. H. (1998). The connectedness model and optimal development: Is ecopsychology the answer to emotional well-being? The Humanistic Psychologist, 26, 243-274.   Fletcher, S., & Potts, J. (2007). Ocean citizenship: An emergent geographical concept. Coastal Management, 35(4), 511-524.   Fornell, C., & Larker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.  Fortner, R. W. (1978). Experiences related to oceanic knowledge and attitudes of tenth grade students in Virginia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institution and State University, Blacksburg.  Fortner, R., & Manzo, L. (2011). Great Lakes literacy: Essential principles and fundamental concepts for Great Lakes learning. Current, 27(3), 5-10.  Fortner, R. W., & Wildman, T. M. (1980). Marine education: Progress and promise. Science Education, 64(5), 717-723.  Frost, C. J. (2000). Comparing attitudes about forests between young adults in North-central Florida and Peruvian Amazon. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.  Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational Research: An introduction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 183  Giles, S. A. (1999). Ocean conservation: A baseline study of knowledge and attitudes of fifth graders. Unpublished master’s thesis, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA.  Gommes, R., du Guerny, J., Nachtergaele, F., & Brinkman, R. (1997). Potential impacts of sea-level rise on populations and agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved January 31, 2014, from http://www.fao.org/sd/eidirect/EIre0046.htm  Goodland, L. (1995). The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26, 1-24.  Goodwin, H. L., & Schaadt, J. G. (1978). A statement on the need for marine and aquatic education to inform Americans about the world of water. Newark, DE: Delaware Sea Grant College Program, University of Delaware (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED156541).   Goralnik, L., & Nelson, M. P. (2011). Framing philosophy of environmental action: Aldo Leopold, John Muir, and the importance of community. Journal of Environmental Education, 42(3), 181-192.   Greely, T. (2008). Ocean literacy and reasoning about ocean issues: The influence of content, experience and morality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa.  Green, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 11(3), 255-274.  Hart, R. A. (1997). Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. London: Earthscan Publications.  Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). The structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 638-646.    Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1996). Climate Change 1995: Impacts, adaptations and mitigation of climate change, scientific-technical analyses. Retrieved January 31, 2014, from https://ipcc-wg2.gov/publications/SAR/index.html  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Retrieved April 10, 2014, from http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/final-drafts/  184  Jackson, D. L. (2001). Sample size and number of parameter estimates in maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis: A Monte Carlo investigation. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(2), 205–223.  Jacobs, M. H., Vaske, J. J., Teel, T. L., & Manfredo, M. J. (2013). Human dimensions of wildlife. In L. Steg, A. E. Van den Berg, & J. I. M. De Groot (Eds.), Environmental psychology: An introduction (pp. 77-86). Chichester, UK: BPS Blackwell.    John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191-206.   Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 297-320). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  Judson, G. (2010). A new approach to ecological education: Engaging students’ imaginations in their world. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.  Kahn, P. H. (2002). Children’s affiliations with nature: Structure, development, and the problem of environmental generational amnesia. In P. H. Kahn & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 93-116). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.   Kals, E., Schumacher, D., Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 178-202.   Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002). The relationship of general life values to attitudes toward large carnivores. Human Ecology Review, 9(1), 55-61.  Kellert, S. R. (1980). Activities of the American public relating to animals. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.  Kellert, S. R. (1991). Japanese perceptions of wildlife. Conservation Biology, 5(3), 297-308.  Kellert, S. R. (1993). The biological basis for human values of nature. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 42-69). Washington, DC: Island Press.  Kellert, S. R. (1996). The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Washington, DC: Island Press.  185  Kellert, S. R. (2002). Experiencing nature: affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. In P. H. Kahn & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp.117-152). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.   Kellert, S. R. (2003). Human values, ethics, and the marine environment. In D. G. Dallmeyer (Ed.), Values at sea: Ethics for the marine environment (pp. 1-18). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.  Kellert, S. R., & Berry, J. (1980). Knowledge, affection and basic attitudes toward animals in American society. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.  Kellert, S. R., & Westervelt, M. O. (1983). Children’s attitudes, knowledge and behaviors toward animals. US Govt. Print. Off., Supt. of Doc., #024-010-00-641-2, Washington, DC.  Kelsey, E. (1991). Conceptual change and killer whale: Constructing ecological values for animals at the Vancouver Aquarium. International Journal of Science Education, 13(5), 551-559.  Kim, J. (2007). Korean teachers' perceptions of aquarium field trips and future recommendations for marine aquarium education. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.  Kim, J., Anderson, D., & Scott, S. (2013). Korean elementary school students' perceptions of relationship with marine organisms. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 14(2), Article 10.   Kolb, D. (1984). Experimental learning: Experiences as the source of learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.   Koster, E. H., & Schubel, J. R. (2007). Raising the relevancy bar at aquariums and science centers. In J. H. Falk, L. D. Dierking & S. Foutz (Eds.), In principle, in practice: Museums as learning institutions. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.   Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.    Lamb, C. T. (2004). Effectiveness of non-profit aquarium education programs: A case study of the National Aquarium in Baltimore. Current, 20(2), 12-18.  Lamb, K. L. (1996). The problem of defining nature first: A philosophical critique of environmental ethics. Social Science Journal, 3, 475-486.  Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press. 186  Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.   Lee, E. (2010). 부산시내 중학생의 해양생물에 대한 관심도 조사 및 현장학습 프로그램 개발 [Survey on middle school students’ interests about marine organisms and a development of field trip programs in Busan, Korea]. Unpublished master’s thesis. Pukyong National University, Busan, Korea.   Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.  Littledyke, M. (2008). Science education for environmental awareness: Approaches to integrating cognitive and affective domains. Environmental Education Research, 14(1), 1-17.  Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.   Marrero, M. E. (2009). Uncovering students’ conceptions of the ocean: A critical first step to improving ocean literacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbia University, New York.  Mayer, V. J., & Fortner, R. W. (1985). Marine and aquatic education. In J. Lien & R. Graham (Eds.), Marine Parks and Conservation: Challenge and Promise (pp. 158-166). St. John’s, NFLD: National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada.  Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of environmental psychology, 24, 503-515.   McCoy, D. (1992). The influence of structural factors on the emergent ethnicity of immigrant groups: The Vietnamese in Sydney, Australia. Ethnic Groups 9: 247–265.  Milfont, T. L., Duckitt, J., & Wagner, C. (2010). A cross-cultural test of the value–attitude–behavior hierarchy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(1), 2791–2813.  Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  Mitchell, R. J. (1993). Path analysis: Pollination. In S. M. Schneider, & J. Gurevitch (Eds.), Design and analysis of ecological experiments (pp. 211-231). New York: Chapman and Hall.  Myers, O. E., & Saunders, C. D. (2002). Animals as links toward developing caring relationships with the natural world. In P. H. Kahn & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 153-178). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.  187  National Marine Sanctuary Foundation. (2006). Conference on Ocean Literacy Report. Retrieved February 14, 2014 http://www.naml.org/news/docs/cool_report.pdf  National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. (1998). Marine education, U.S.A.: An overview. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/yoto/meeting/mar_edu_361.html  Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Thinking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715-740.  Norton, B. (2006). Identity as a sociocultural construct in second language education. TESOL in Context, (special issue), 22-33.     O’Cathain, A. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Toward a comprehensive framework. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 531-555). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  Ocean Literacy Network. (n.d.). Why ocean literacy? Retrieved October 18, 2011, from http://oceanliteracy.wp2.coexploration.org/?page_id=62  Ocean Project. (1999a). Review of existing public opinion data on oceans. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from http://www. Theoceanproject.org/what_we_do/research.html  Ocean Project. (1999b). Communication about oceans: Results of national survey.  Retrieved November 1, 2005, from http://www. Theoceanproject.org/what_we_do/research.html  Ocean Project. (2009a). America, the ocean, and climate change: Key findings. Retrieved April 5, 2011, from http://www.theoceanproject.org/resources/doc/America_the_Ocean_and_Climate_Change_KeyFindings_1Jun09final.pdf  Ocean Project. (2009b). America, the ocean, and climate change: Summary of data. Retrieved April 5, 2011, from http://www.theoceanproject.org/resources/doc/America_the_Ocean_and_Climate_Change_Summary_of_Data_June2009.pdf  Ocean Project, (2011). America and the ocean: Annual update 2011. Retrieved November 5, 2013, from http://theoceanproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/TOP_AmericaOceansUpdate2011_online.pdf  Ohara, K., & Nishi, G. (2001). Environmental education in aquariums in Japan. In N. Ounaïs (Ed.), Proceedings for the Fifth International Aquarium Congress, 2 (pp. 13-22). Monaco: Oceanographic Museum.   188  Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  Packard, J. (2001). Aquarium roles in conservation of the oceans: What we have learned and the challenges ahead. In N. Ounaïs (Ed.), Proceedings for the Fifth International Aquarium Congress, 1 (pp. 69-74). Monaco: Oceanographic Museum.  Packer, J. (2006). Learning for fun: The unique offering of educational leisure experiences. Curator: The Museum Journal, 49(3), 329-344.  Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2010, Fall). The role of zoos and aquariums in education for a sustainable future. New directions for adult and continuing education, 127, 25-34.   Pareek, U., & Rao, T.V. (1980). Cross-cultural surveys and interviewing. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 127-179). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.    Patrick, P. G., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2013). Zoo Talk. New York: Springer.  Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.  Phinney, J. S., Romero, I., Nava, M., & Huang, D. (2001). The role of language, parents, and peers in ethnic identity among adolescents in immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(2), 135-153.   Picker, L. (1980). What is marine education? Science and children, 18(2), 10-11.   Plankis, B. J. (2009). Examining the effects of technology-infused issue investigations on high school students’ environmental and ocean literacies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston. Houston, TX.  Plankis, B. J., & Marrero, M. E. (2010). Recent ocean literacy research in United States public schools: Results and implications. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 1(1), 21-50. Retrieved March 24, 2011, from http://www.iejeegreen.com/index.php/iejeegreen/article/viewDownloadInterstitial/27/8  Prokop, P., Prokop, M., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2008). Effects of keeping animals as pets on children’s concepts of vertebrates and invertebrates. International Journal of Science Education, 30(4), 431–449.  Prokop, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2010). Effects of having pets at home on children’s attitudes toward popular and unpopular animals. Anthrozoos, 23(1), 21-35.   189  Pyle, R. M. (1993). The thunder tree: Lessons from an urban wildland. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.  Reade, L. S., & Waran, N. K. (1996). The modern zoo: How do people perceive zoo animals? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 7(1-2), 109-118.  Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  Rolston, H. (1981). Values in nature. Environmental Ethics, 3, 113-128.  Rowe, S., & Kisiel, J. (2012). Family engagement at aquarium touch tanks: Exploring interactions and the potential for learning. In E. Davidsson & A. Jakobsson (Eds.), Understanding interactions at science centers and museums: Approaching sociocultural perspectives (pp. 63-77). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.   Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in personality and social psychology bulletin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), 1629-1646.  Sasaki, T. (2008). Results from a consciousness survey of marine science education: Marine educators in Japan and the US. Journal of the Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 4, 49-56.   Schoedinger, S., Tran, L. U., & Whitley, L. (2010). From the principles to the scope and sequence: A brief history of the ocean literacy campaign. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from http://coexploration.org/oceanliteracy/NMEA_Report_3/NMEA_2010-2-History.pdf  Schubel, J. R., Monroe, C., Schubel, K. A., & Bronnenkant, K. (2009). Environmental literacy through the lens of aquarium ocean literacy efforts. In J. H. Falk, J. E. Heimlich & S. Foutz (Eds.), Free-choice learning and the environment. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.   Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In P. Schumuck & P. W. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61-78). Boston: Kluwer.  Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J., & Khazian, A. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 31-42.   Schultz, P. W., & Tabanico, J. (2007). Self, identity, and the natural environment: Exploring implicit connections with nature. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 1219-1247.  Schwandt, T. A. (2007). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  190  Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5, 137-182.   Scott, S. A. (2007). Children’s environmental knowing: A case study of children’s experiences during an environmental education program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, Canada.  Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.  Snively, G. (1986). Sea of images: A study of relationships amongst children’s beliefs, orientations, and science instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.   Snively, G. (1989a). Our inner shore: A holistic approach to marine education. Green Teacher, 29, 12-14.   Snively, G. (1989b). Canadian marine and aquatic education: The challenge of the 90's. Prime Areas, 31(2), 91-98.  Sobel, D. (1990). A place in the world: Adults’ memories of chi1dhood’s special places. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 7(4), 5-12.   Spitzer, W., Taylor, S., Napoleon, M., Sloan, P., Nelson, S. M., Stone, D., et al. (2010, June). Accredited aquariums to increase ocean literacy. Retrieved August 10, 2011, from http://www.aza.org/Membership/detail.aspx?id=13576  Spotte, S., & Clark, P. (2004). A knowledge-based survey of adult aquarium visitor. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(2), 143-151,  Steel, B. S., Smith, C., Opsommer, L., Curiel, S., & Wagner-Steel, R. (2005). Public ocean literacy in the United States. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48, 97-114.  Steg, L., & De Groot, J. I. M. (2012). Environmental values. In S. Clayton (Ed.), The oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 81-92). New York: Oxford University Press.  Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.  Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and technique. Newbury Park, London: Sage.  Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  191  Strang, C. & Tuddenham, P. (2012). Ocean literacy in Europe. Retrieved December 5, 2013, from http://oceanliteracy.wp2.coexploration.org/ocean-literacy-in-europe/  Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  Th°gersen, J., Grunert-Beckmann, S. C.  (1997). Values and attitude formation towards emerging attitude objects: From recycling to general, waste minimizing behavior. Advances in Consumer, 24, 182-189.  Thomson, T. L., & Mintzes, J. J. (2002). Cognitive structure and the affective domain: On knowing and feeling in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 645-660.   Tomažič, I. (2011). Pre-service biology teachers’ and primary school students’ attitudes toward and knowledge about snakes. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 7(3), 161-171.  Thorne, S. (2005). Epistemology, politics, and ethics in sociocultural theory. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 393-409.  Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 73-172). Washington, DC: Island Press.   United Nations Environment Programme. (2012). 21 issues for the 21st century: Result of the UNEP foresight process on emerging environmental issues. Retrieved December 28, 2013, from http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/foresightreport/Portals/24175/pdfs/Foresight_Report-21_Issues_for_the_21st_Century.pdf  Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (1999). A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Society and Natural Resources, 12(6), 523-537.  Vernon, C. (2009). Mission accomplished? Measuring Monterey Bay Aquarium’s role in inspiring ocean conservation. Journal of the International Zoo Educators Association, 45, 42-46.  Vining, J., Merrick, M. S., & Price, E. A. (2008). The distinction between humans and nature: Human perceptions of connectedness to nature and elements of the natural and unnatural. Human Ecology Review, 15(1), 1-11.   Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  192  Walter, H., & Lien, J. (1985). Attitudes of Canadian students and teachers toward the marine environment and marine education. In J. Lien & R. Graham (Eds.). Marine parks and conservation: Challenge and promise (pp. 188-204). St. John’s, NFLD: National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada.  Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.   Wertsch, J. V. (1991a) Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.  Wertsch, J. V. (1991b). A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levin & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 85-100). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.  Whitley, L. N. (1998). Cultural diversity and attitudes toward marine wildlife. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.  Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.   Wilson, E. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 31-41). Washington, DC: Island Press.  World Oceans Network. (n.d). What is the state of the ocean? Retrieved January 28, 2014, from http://www.worldoceannetwork.org/clever/state-ocean/  Wyles, K. J., Pahl, S., White, M., Morris, S., Cracknell, D., & Thompson, R. C. (2013). Towards a marine mindset: Visiting an aquarium can improve attitudes and intentions regarding marine sustainability. Visitor Studies, 16(1), 95-110.  Yu, J. H., Keown, C. F., & Jacobs, L. W. (1993). Attitude scale methodology: Cross-cultural implications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 6(2), 45-63.  Zandvliet, D. B. (2013). Environmental learning. In D. B. Zandvliet (Ed.), The ecology of school (pp. 1-18). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. 193  Appendices Appendix A: AquaCamps schedule of events  DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3 DAY 4 DAY5 09:00-09:20 Arrival Arrival  Logbook Arrival  Logbook Arrival  Logbook Arrival  Logbook 09:20-10:00 Introduction  Logbook  Pre-survey  Gallery Time Gallery Time Gallery Time (Rescued Animals) Gallery Time 4D Show 10:00-10:15 Snack Snack Snack Snack Snack 10:15-12:00 Penguin Bingo Penguin Relay Beach Walk Plankton Tow Dolphin Show Feeding Whale  Scavenger Hunt Running Pictionary 12:00-13:00 Lunch Lunch Lunch Field Trip to    MMRC Lunch 13:00-14:00 MMS Reflection  Logbook Ocean Wise Talk  Squid Dissection 14:00-15:00 Climate Change Wet-Lab Bioaccumulation  Logbook  Post-survey Note. MMS: Marine Mammal Station; MMRC: Marine Mammal Rescue Center.   194  Appendix B: Descriptions of AquaCamps activities Activities                           Description Log Book Log Book assists campers to document their camp experiences and to better recall what they learnt during camps.  Penguin Relay This physical activity helps campers to learn about the lifestyle of African penguins and to discuss human impacts on them as well as the ways to protect them  MMS Marine Mammal Station introduces campers to unique features (fur, teeth, scales etc.) of marine mammals that illustrate mammals’ adaptations to different habitats.  Climate Change Climate Change is an interactive lecture that introduces the concept of human induced global climate change and its effects on Earth’s systems and living things; it encourages campers to discuss how to reduce their carbon footprint.  Gallery Observation Trough inquiry-based and facilitated observation, campers learn about marine life and create caring bonds with them.  Beach Walk While campers explore the intertidal zone they are encouraged to observe the diversity of organisms with critical thinking about their adaptations to living the region.  Plankton Tow & Observation  This activity introduces campers to phytoplankton and zooplankton, their roles in marine ecosystems; it also provides campers with a chance to collect their own plankton using a tow and observe plankton using a microscope.  Wet-Lab Wet Lab is an on-site teaching laboratory that houses living local intertidal species. Campers study an array of invertebrates such as sea stars and crabs through observations and careful touch experiences.  Dolphin Show Dolphin Show allows campers to make a caring personal connection to the dolphins through entertainment and stories; after the show campers have a short Q&A session with marine mammal trainers.  Feeding Whale This game helps campers to learn about the different feeding methods used by whales, and the different ecological niches they fill according to the feeding method used.  Ocean Wise Talk This is an interactive lecture that introduces campers to the issues of overfishing and by-catch as well as sustainable uses of ocean resources such as Ocean Wise program.  195  Appendix B: Description of the AquaCamps activities (cont.) Activities                           Description Bioaccumulation  Bioaccumulation is a physical activity game in which children are introduced to food chain concept and are engaged in a discussion about humans’ negative impact on marine organisms and possible solutions to the issues.  Ice Hop Challenge  This activity introduces campers to the lifestyles of Arctic/Antarctic animals and the role of ice in their lives. Campers are encouraged to discuss simple steps we can take to reduce the impact of climate change.   Field Trip to MMRC This trip to Marine Mammal Rescue Center allows children to create a caring bond with the animals at the facility, and to understand the process behind rescuing and rehabilitating marine animals.   4D Show Campers have a chance to be immersed in the film through the show’s various surprises, while having fun. The film also provides campers with a chance to think about environmental issues and the ways they can have a positive impact in the world.  Survival Game Campers are introduced to food webs, the concept of trophic levels and what organisms occupy them; through physical activity, campers experience the everyday life of an organism as they avoid being eaten while looking for food.  Scavenger Hunt Using critical thinking skills to decipher their clues, campers get a chance to further explore the galleries, and continue to learn about animals in the galleries.  Running Pictionary Through the game campers are encouraged to express the characteristics of marine organisms using their non-verbal communication skills.  Squid Dissection Through the experiment, campers learn about the squid’s anatomy, the purpose of the different organs, and their various adaptations.   Dive Talk Campers are introduced to SCUBA diving as an important scientific tool in oceanography with an attempt to inspire them to explore the oceans through diving.  Shark Truth Campers are introduced to various kinds of sharks, their important roles in marine ecosystems as well as their endangered situations caused by humans; Campers are encouraged to discuss how to reduce human impact on them.    Appendix C: Survey questionnaire      Ocean Literacy ChangesBy Drs. David Anderson, Samson Nashon, Sandra Scott, and Mr. Jongmun Kim This questionnaire is part of a research project to understand elementary school students’ beliefs about the ocean. There are no right or wrong answers  You have this questionnaire because you (a) registered in provided by the Vancouver Aquarium and (b) submitted the assent/consent forms to participate in this research project.  This questionnaire comprises three parts and it will take you about 15 minutes to complete this questionnaire.  All of your responses and information will be kept strictly confidential.       Department of Curriculum & PedagogyVancouver, B.C. Canada  V6T 1Z4 QUESTIONNAIRE  in an Aquarium Summer Camp   to these questions.  the “Ocean Explorer” summer camp  196  2125 Main Mall  Tel: (604) 822-5422 Fax: (604) 822-4717   197   Part A ☺ Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. (please circle one for each statement)  [1] The ocean covers about a half (50%) of the Earth’s surface • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •    Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [2] Most rain that falls on land originally evaporated from the ocean• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •    Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [3] The ocean is a major influence on global weather and climate • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •    Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [4] Most of the oxygen humans and animals on land breathe comes from oxygen produced in the ocean • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •     Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neither Disagree nor Agree   Agree   Strongly Agree [5] The most abundant life form in the ocean is fish • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •    Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [6] The diversity of major groups of organisms is much greater in the ocean than on land • • • • • • • • • •    Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [7] There are some marine animals that are independent of energy from sunlight• • • • • • • • • • • • •     Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [8] Everyone is affected by the ocean • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •   Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree [9] Much of the world’s population lives in coastal areas • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •    Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [10] Human life has no big impacts on the ocean because the ocean is huge • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •   Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree  198  Part B  ☺ Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. (please circle one for each statement)   [1] I think the ocean is beautiful and awesome • • • • • •     Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [2] I think humans can take whatever they need from the ocean • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •     Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [3] I think marine creatures have a right to exist just like humans • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •     Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [4] I think human activities threaten the ocean • • • • • •    Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree [5] I think all marine creatures have their own beauty  • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •     Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [6] I like to go on a picnic to the seashore more than other places (e.g., forest) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •     Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [7] I think it is wrong to force ocean animals such as whales and dolphins to live in aquariums• • • • • • • •     Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [8] I think fish are slimy and smelly • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •    Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree [9] I think there is nothing wrong with developing a seashore to build a new town • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •     Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [10] I think there is a good chance that I will get hurt if I go to the sea (shore) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •     Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [11] I think the seashore is a playground • • • • • • • • • • • •    Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree [12] I think all marine creatures exist primarily for the benefit of humans • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •   Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree 199  Part B (cont.)  [13] I like storybooks, movies, and documentary films about the ocean and marine organisms • • • • •      Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [14] Sometimes I want to be a fish or other marine animals to experience underwater world • • • • • • • • •     Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [15] I like art, music, poetry, and story about the ocean • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •     Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [16] I think the ocean is nice place to enjoy sea sports (e.g., swimming, kayaking, scuba diving etc.) • • •     Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [17] I want to learn more about the ocean and marine organisms • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •     Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neither Disagree nor Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree [18] I think the ocean is a frightening, scary place• • • •   Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree       200  Part C  ☺ A few questions about your background to help interpret your responses. (please check in the box or write your answers on the line)  [1] What Grade are you in? □ Gr. 3   □ Gr. 4   □ Gr. 5  [2] Are you: □ girl  □ boy  [3] (a) Your status in Canada?  □ International student   □ Immigrant    □ Citizen  (b) If you were born outside Canada, when did you come to Canada? _______ year(s) ago  (c) What country were you born in? _______________ (d) What country was your father born in? _______________ (e) What country was your mother born in? ______________  [4] Where have you learned about the ocean? (please check all applicable)  □ From school □ From TV and movies □ From Internet □ From books and magazines □ From zoos and aquariums  □ From family and friends (conversation) □ From visiting the beach  [5] How many times do you visit aquariums each year?  □ Less than 1   □ 1 to 3    □ 4 to 10    □ 11 to 20    □ More than 20  [6] How many times do you visit the beach each year?  □ Less than 1   □ 1 to 3    □ 4 to 10    □ 11 to 20    □ More than 20  [7] Do you or did you have a pet?  □ Yes  □ No If yes, what kind(s)? ___________________________     Thank you very much for your participation!!!  201  Appendix D: Interview questions   Protocol for ocean literacy 1. What words would you use to describe the ocean? Why? 2. How do you think [your actions/the things you do] affect the ocean? 3. Do you think the ocean affects your life in any way? How? Protocol for experiences with the ocean and marine organisms 4. Could you tell me your favorite or the least favorite animal or plant that lives in/near the ocean? Why? 5. What type of food would you say your family eats most often? Do you eat seafood? 6. Do you often go the seashore or beach with your family? What do you usually do there? 7. Please tell me any memorable experiences you have had with animals or plants that live in/near the ocean (e.g., catching a fish or seeing an interesting sea creatures).  Protocol for AquaCamps experiences 8. Was it your idea to attend AquaCamp? If so, why were you interested in this camp? 9. What was the most meaningful/enjoyable activity to you? Why? 10. What are some things you learned at AquaCamp that you didn’t know before (and won’t forget)?   202  Appendix E: Demographics of interviewees   Name Born countries Child, Dad, Mom Gender Grade Knowledge (Number of correct answers) Dominant Orientations 1 Adam CA, CA, CA Boy 3 4 NAT, REC 2 Anthony CA, CA, CA Boy 3 4 NAT, AES 3 Ava CA, US, US Girl 3 6 NAT, AES 4 Bella CA, CA, CA Girl 3 4 AES, NAT 5 Jace KR(7), KR, KR Boy 3 5 UTL, NEG 6 Noah CA, TW, TW Boy 3 4 UTL, REC 7 Damian KR, KR, KR Boy 3 2 NEG, REC 8 Brayden IS, CA, CA Boy 4 6 NAT, AES 9 Blake CA, CA, CA Boy 4 8 NAT, SPR 10 Violet CA, CA, CA Girl 4 5 NAT, SPR 11 Madison CA,CN,CN Girl 4 8 NAT, ART 12 Ryder KR(5), KR, KR Boy 4 6 NAT, UTL 13 Tristan CN, CN, CN Boy 4 2 NAT, AES 14 Kylie CA, HK, HK Girl 4 5 AES, NAT 15 Darren CA, CA, CA Boy 5 8 AES, REC 16 Alyssa CA, CA, CA Girl 5 7 NAT, AES 17 Maya CA, CA, CA Girl 5 7 SPR, AES 18 Kennedy CA, TW, TW Girl 5 3 NAT, REC 19 Mia KR, KR, KR Girl 5 6 UTL, REC 20 Stella KR, KR, KR Girl 5 4 AES, SPR  Note: CA: Canada, CN: China, HK: Hong Kong, IS: Israel, KR: Republic of Korea, US: United States, TW: Taiwan. The numbers in the brocket mean the years after immigration to Canada     203  Appendix F: Group tables Table F-1  Change in knowledge (question 1) by sociocultural backgrounds df1 df2 F p Sig Grade Intercept 1 165 1498.057 0.000 *** Grade 2 165 4.654 0.011 * Time 1 156 8.341 0.004 ** Grade x Time 2 156 0.423 0.656 Gender Intercept 1 166 1463.844 0.000 *** Gender 1 166 3.965 0.048 * Time 1 157 8.507 0.004 ** Gender x Time 1 157 0.156 0.694 Ethnicity Intercept 1 166 1430.621 0.000 *** Ethnicity 1 166 0.079 0.780 Time 1 157 8.517 0.004 ** Ethnicity x Time 1 157 0.917 0.340 Aquarium visit frequency Intercept 1 165 1430.173 0.000 *** Aquarium visit 2 165 0.335 0.716 Time 1 156 8.503 0.004 ** Aquarium visit x Time 2 156 0.914 0.403 Beach visit frequency Intercept 1 165 1441.384 0.000 *** Beach visit 2 165 1.075 0.344 Time 1 156 8.353 0.004 ** Beach visit x Time 2 156 0.007 0.993 Pet owning experience Intercept 1 166 1412.493 0.000 *** Pet experience 1 166 0.007 0.934 Time 1 157 8.470 0.004 ** Pet experience x Time 1 157 0.187 0.666 Note. *: p < .05; **: p < .01; ***: p < .001.       204  Table F-2  Change in knowledge (question 2) by sociocultural backgrounds df1 df2 F p Sig Grade Intercept 1 165 2958.833 0.000 *** grade 2 165 0.030 0.971 Time 1 156 0.458 0.499 Grade x Time 2 156 1.982 0.141 Gender Intercept 1 166 3082.215 0.000 *** Gender 1 166 6.057 0.015 * Time 1 157 0.451 0.503 Gender x Time 1 157 0.044 0.835 Ethnicity Intercept 1 166 2973.550 0.000 *** Ethnicity 1 166 0.350 0.555 Time 1 157 0.445 0.506 Ethnicity x Time 1 157 0.209 0.648 Aquarium visit frequency Intercept 1 165 2967.040 0.000 *** Aquarium visit 2 165 0.421 0.657 Time 1 156 0.454 0.502 Aquarium visit x Time 2 156 0.676 0.510 Beach visit frequency Intercept 1 165 2958.340 0.000 *** Beach visit 2 165 0.274 0.761 Time 1 156 0.451 0.503 Beach visit x Time 2 156 0.601 0.549 Pet owning experience Intercept 1 166 2934.631 0.000 *** Pet experience 1 166 0.023 0.880 Time 1 157 0.267 0.606 Pet experience x Time 1 157 0.051 0.822 Note. *: p < .05; ***: p < .001.          205  Table F-3  Change in knowledge (question 3) by sociocultural backgrounds df1 df2 F p Sig Grade Intercept 1 165 5081.463 0.000 *** grade 2 165 4.108 0.018 * Time 1 156 1.154 0.284 Grade x Time 2 156 0.072 0.931 Gender Intercept 1 166 4979.696 0.000 *** Gender 1 166 4.308 0.039 * Time 1 157 1.203 0.274 Gender x Time 1 157 3.003 0.085 Ethnicity Intercept 1 166 4896.498 0.000 *** Ethnicity 1 166 1.239 0.267 Time 1 157 1.176 0.280 Ethnicity x Time 1 157 2.319 0.130 Aquarium visit frequency Intercept 1 165 4851.480 0.000 *** Aquarium visit 2 165 0.278 0.758 Time 1 156 1.155 0.284 Aquarium visit x Time 2 156 0.934 0.395 Beach visit frequency Intercept 1 165 5056.098 0.000 *** Beach visit 2 165 3.559 0.031 * Time 1 156 1.181 0.279 Beach visit x Time 2 156 0.304 0.738 Pet owning experience Intercept 1 166 4900.051 0.000 *** Pet experience 1 166 1.368 0.244 Time 1 157 1.142 0.287 Pet experience x Time 1 157 0.282 0.596 Note. *: p < .05; ***: p < .001.          206  Table F-4  Change in knowledge (question 4) by sociocultural backgrounds df1 df2 F p Sig Grade Intercept 1 165 1944.583 0.000 *** grade 2 165 0.767 0.466 Time 1 156 4.235 0.041 * Grade x Time 2 156 0.612 0.543 Gender Intercept 1 166 1935.861 0.000 *** Gender 1 166 0.026 0.873 Time 1 157 4.212 0.042 * Gender x Time 1 157 0.057 0.812 Ethnicity Intercept 1 166 1944.379 0.000 *** Ethnicity 1 166 0.830 0.364 Time 1 157 4.277 0.040 * Ethnicity x Time 1 157 2.240 0.136 Aquarium visit frequency Intercept 1 165 1987.256 0.000 *** Aquarium visit 2 165 2.451 0.089 Time 1 156 4.177 0.043 * Aquarium visit x Time 2 156 0.403 0.669 Beach visit frequency Intercept 1 165 1958.155 0.000 *** Beach visit 2 165 1.263 0.285 Time 1 156 4.222 0.042 * Beach visit x Time 2 156 0.112 0.894 Pet owning experience Intercept 1 166 1949.974 0.000 *** Pet experience 1 166 1.173 0.280 Time 1 157 3.755 0.054 Pet experience x Time 1 157 0.048 0.827 Note. *: p < .05; ***: p < .001.          207  Table F-5  Change in knowledge (question 5) by sociocultural backgrounds df1 df2 F p Sig Grade Intercept 1 165 1321.207 0.000 *** grade 2 165 0.308 0.735 Time 1 156 1.992 0.160 Grade x Time 2 156 0.050 0.951 Gender Intercept 1 166 1330.261 0.000 *** Gender 1 166 0.438 0.509 Time 1 157 2.024 0.157 Gender x Time 1 157 1.298 0.256 Ethnicity Intercept 1 166 1327.994 0.000 *** Ethnicity 1 166 0.595 0.442 Time 1 157 2.029 0.156 Ethnicity x Time 1 157 0.503 0.479 Aquarium visit frequency Intercept 1 165 1315.261 0.000 *** Aquarium visit 2 165 0.011 0.989 Time 1 156 2.033 0.156 Aquarium visit x Time 2 156 0.789 0.456 Beach visit frequency Intercept 1 165 1318.009 0.000 *** Beach visit 2 165 0.049 0.952 Time 1 156 2.004 0.159 Beach visit x Time 2 156 0.049 0.952 Pet owning experience Intercept 1 166 1319.708 0.000 *** Pet experience 1 166 1.489 0.224 Time 1 157 2.027 0.156 Pet experience x Time 1 157 0.194 0.660 Note. ***: p < .001.          208  Table F-6  Change in knowledge (question 6) by sociocultural backgrounds df1 df2 F p Sig Grade Intercept 1 165 3496.899 0.000 *** grade 2 165 1.727 0.181 Time 1 156 3.524 0.062 Grade x Time 2 156 0.562 0.571 Gender Intercept 1 166 3669.807 0.000 *** Gender 1 166 11.327 0.001 ** Time 1 157 3.652 0.058 Gender x Time 1 157 2.028 0.156 Ethnicity Intercept 1 166 3433.507 0.000 *** Ethnicity 1 166 0.066 0.798 Time 1 157 3.661 0.058 Ethnicity x Time 1 157 3.823 0.052 Aquarium visit frequency Intercept 1 165 3464.284 0.000 *** Aquarium visit 2 165 0.862 0.424 Time 1 156 3.597 0.060 Aquarium visit x Time 2 156 1.443 0.239 Beach visit frequency Intercept 1 165 3464.906 0.000 *** Beach visit 2 165 0.902 0.408 Time 1 156 3.608 0.059 Beach visit x Time 2 156 1.207 0.302 Pet owning experience Intercept 1 166 3418.514 0.000 *** Pet experience 1 166 0.010 0.920 Time 1 157 3.645 0.058 Pet experience x Time 1 157 3.313 0.071 Note. **: p < .01; ***: p < .001.          209  Table F-7  Change in knowledge (question 7) by sociocultural backgrounds df1 df2 F p Sig Grade Intercept 1 165 4626.303 0.000 *** grade 2 165 0.279 0.757 Time 1 156 2.494 0.116 Grade x Time 2 156 0.022 0.978 Gender Intercept 1 166 4657.345 0.000 *** Gender 1 166 0.549 0.460 Time 1 157 2.571 0.111 Gender x Time 1 157 2.389 0.124 Ethnicity Intercept 1 166 4649.954 0.000 *** Ethnicity 1 166 0.425 0.515 Time 1 157 2.538 0.113 Ethnicity x Time 1 157 0.808 0.370 Aquarium visit frequency Intercept 1 165 4641.221 0.000 *** Aquarium visit 2 165 0.530 0.589 Time 1 156 2.531 0.114 Aquarium visit x Time 2 156 0.551 0.577 Beach visit frequency Intercept 1 165 4806.803 0.000 *** Beach visit 2 165 3.536 0.031 * Time 1 156 2.600 0.109 Beach visit x Time 2 156 0.979 0.378 Pet owning experience Intercept 1 166 4601.074 0.000 *** Pet experience 1 166 0.254 0.615 Time 1 157 2.799 0.096 Pet experience x Time 1 157 0.549 0.460 Note. *: p < .05; ***: p < .001.          210  Table F-8  Change in knowledge (question 8) by sociocultural backgrounds df1 df2 F p Sig Grade Intercept 1 165 2206.256 0.000 *** Grade 2 165 8.568 0.000 *** Time 1 156 2.507 0.115 Grade x Time 2 156 0.078 0.925 Gender Intercept 1 166 2020.863 0.000 *** Gender 1 166 1.291 0.258 Time 1 157 2.571 0.111 Gender x Time 1 157 1.118 0.732 Ethnicity Intercept 1 166 2088.653 0.000 *** Ethnicity 1 166 6.936 0.009 ** Time 1 157 2.554 0.112 Ethnicity x Time 1 157 0.103 0.749 Aquarium visit frequency Intercept 1 165 1997.024 0.000 *** Aquarium visit 2 165 0.254 0.776 Time 1 156 2.601 0.109 Aquarium visit x Time 2 156 1.786 0.171 Beach visit frequency Intercept 1 165 2093.993 0.000 *** Beach visit 2 165 4.109 0.018 * Time 1 156 2.586 0.110 Beach visit x Time 2 156 0.072 0.931 Pet owning experience Intercept 1 166 2024.700 0.000 *** Pet experience 1 166 2.368 0.126 Time 1 157 2.546 0.113 Pet experience x Time 1 157 0.932 0.336 Note. *: p < .05; **: p < .01; ***: p < .001.           211  Table F-9  Change in knowledge (question 9) by sociocultural backgrounds df1 df2 F p Sig Grade Intercept 1 165 2717.455 0.000 *** Grade 2 165 0.065 0.937 Time 1 156 0.770 0.382 Grade x Time 2 156 1.369 0.258 Gender Intercept 1 166 2734.532 0.000 *** Gender 1 166 0.491 0.484 Time 1 157 0.756 0.386 Gender x Time 1 157 0.974 0.325 Ethnicity Intercept 1 166 2785.559 0.000 *** Ethnicity 1 166 3.834 0.052 Time 1 157 0.755 0.386 Ethnicity x Time 1 157 0.052 0.820 Aquarium visit frequency Intercept 1 165 2738.602 0.000 *** Aquarium visit 2 165 0.956 0.386 Time 1 156 0.763 0.384 Aquarium visit x Time 2 156 0.398 0.673 Beach visit frequency Intercept 1 165 2804.893 0.000 *** Beach visit 2 165 2.561 0.080 Time 1 156 0.775 0.380 Beach visit x Time 2 156 1.072 0.345 Pet owning experience Intercept 1 166 2703.715 0.000 *** Pet experience 1 166 0.781 0.378 Time 1 157 0.753 0.387 Pet experience x Time 1 157 0.061 0.806 Note. ***: p < .001.           212  Table F-10  Change in knowledge (question 10) by sociocultural backgrounds df1 df2 F p Sig Grade Intercept 1 165 2426.649 0.000 *** Grade 2 165 4.575 0.012 * Time 1 156 11.771 0.001 ** Grade x Time 2 156 0.845 0.431 Gender Intercept 1 166 2326.347 0.000 *** Gender 1 166 0.315 0.575 Time 1 157 11.700 0.001 ** Gender x Time 1 157 0.067 0.797 Ethnicity Intercept 1 166 2403.205 0.000 *** Ethnicity 1 166 5.922 0.016 * Time 1 157 11.726 0.001 ** Ethnicity x Time 1 157 0.547 0.461 Aquarium visit frequency Intercept 1 165 2311.735 0.000 *** Aquarium visit 2 165 0.160 0.853 Time 1 156 11.673 0.001 ** Aquarium visit x Time 2 156 0.615 0.542 Beach visit frequency Intercept 1 165 2385.368 0.000 *** Beach visit 2 165 2.776 0.065 Time 1 156 11.759 0.001 ** Beach visit x Time 2 156 0.114 0.893 Pet owning experience Intercept 1 166 2313.964 0.000 *** Pet experience 1 166 1.310 0.254 Time 1 157 12.145 0.001 ** Pet experience x Time 1 157 0.364 0.547 Note. *: p < .05; **: p < .01; ***: p < .001.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0167241/manifest

Comment

Related Items