Marine and Aquatic Education - A Challenge for Science Educators ROSANNE W. FORTNER AND VICTOR J. MAYER School of Natural Resources & College of Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH Introduction Marine and Aquatic Education is a relatively recent area of interest, having evolved over the past 15 or so years concurrent with the nation’s expanding interest in the oceans and the consequent scientific research conducted on their life forms, water column, and bottom characteristics. Scientists and science educators concerned about the public perception of the oceans have been largely responsible for establishment of Marine and Aquatic Education programs. An examination of the science education literature, however, shows little that relates to this area. A major purpose of this article is to bring Marine and Aquatic Education (abbreviated here as MAE) to the atten- tion of the science education community in the hope of involving a larger share of the community in a scholarly examination of the need for the con- tent of MAE in the curriculum, in appropriate means of development and dissemination of MAE materials and other issues related to curriculum inno- vation, student learning and teacher education. MAE was formalized with the report of a series of meetings in the 1970s which involved over 1,000 scientists and educators around the United States (Goodwin & Schaadt, 1978). These meetings were an attempt to develop a concensus concerning the nature and content of Marine and Aquatic Educa- tion and to determine directions for its future development. In this 1978 report MAE is defined as: that part of the total educational process which enables people to develop a sensitivity to and a general understanding of the role of the seas and fresh water in human affairs and the impact of society on the marine and aquatic environ- ments. The report defined MAE as a part of environmental education. The influ- ence of science and science educators on the development of MAE is readily observed in the conceptual scheme presented in the appendix of the report (see Appendix A). Of the 35 sub-concepts in the scheme, only four would Science Education 73(2): 135-154 (1989) 0 1989 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326/89/020135-20$04.00
Transcript
Marine and Aquatic Education - A Challenge for Science Educators
ROSANNE W. FORTNER AND VICTOR J. MAYER School of Natural Resources & College of Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
Introduction
Marine and Aquatic Education is a relatively recent area of interest, having evolved over the past 15 or so years concurrent with the nation’s expanding interest in the oceans and the consequent scientific research conducted on their life forms, water column, and bottom characteristics. Scientists and science educators concerned about the public perception of the oceans have been largely responsible for establishment of Marine and Aquatic Education programs. An examination of the science education literature, however, shows little that relates to this area. A major purpose of this article is to bring Marine and Aquatic Education (abbreviated here as MAE) t o the atten- tion of the science education community in the hope of involving a larger share of the community in a scholarly examination of the need for the con- tent of MAE in the curriculum, in appropriate means of development and dissemination of MAE materials and other issues related to curriculum inno- vation, student learning and teacher education.
MAE was formalized with the report of a series of meetings in the 1970s which involved over 1,000 scientists and educators around the United States (Goodwin & Schaadt, 1978). These meetings were an attempt to develop a concensus concerning the nature and content of Marine and Aquatic Educa- tion and to determine directions for its future development. In this 1978 report MAE is defined as:
that part of the total educational process which enables people to develop a sensitivity to and a general understanding of the role of the seas and fresh water in human affairs and the impact of society on the marine and aquatic environ- ments.
The report defined MAE as a part of environmental education. The influ- ence of science and science educators on the development of MAE is readily observed in the conceptual scheme presented in the appendix of the report (see Appendix A). Of the 35 sub-concepts in the scheme, only four would
Science Education 73(2): 135-154 (1989) 0 1989 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326/89/020135-20$04.00
136 FORTNER AND MAYER
not be considered within the domain of science by most educators. Even in this recent update of the conceptual scheme (Picker et al., 1984) science pre- dominates. Therefore science educators should take a great deal of profes- sional interest in MAE.
These efforts and others were supported by the Office of Sea Grant of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which in turn is administered under the Department of Commerce of the federal government. It is Sea Grant that provided an early stimulus and direction for the develop- ment of marine and aquatic education programs through establishment of broad objectives, financial support of developmental programs and the encouragement of the National Marine Educators Association meetings which provide the major communication channel for marine and aquatic educators.
National Sea Grant Program and Marine and Aquatic Education
The Sea Grant Program was established in 1966 by the National Sea Grant College Program Act (P.L. 89-688). As of 1988 there were 31 Sea Grant programs representing 30 different states and Puerto Rico. Two programs represent two states each and two states, Massachusetts and California, have two programs. The states include all of those with significant coastal front- age, including those on the Great Lakes. A list of programs is provided in the Appendix.
From the beginning, programs supported by Sea Grant had educational components. They were charged by the Act to provide “for the education of participants in various fields relating to the development of marine resources” as well as for “imparting useful information t o persons currently employed or interested in the various fields related to the development of marine resources, the scientific community, and the general public” (Na- tional Sea Grant College Program Act, 1966). These statements were inter- preted as a charge to develop career related programs in higher education and t o develop an advisory services component. Very little was done for pre-college programs with the exception of several in vocational education. In the 1976 reauthorization act (P.L. 94-461), however, Sea Grant’s objec- tive was stated as being
to increase the understanding, assessment, development, utilization and con- servation of the Nation’s ocean and coastal resources by providing assistance to promote a strong educational base, responsive research and training activities, and broad and prompt dissemination of knowledge and techniques. (National Sea Grant College Program Act, 1976.)
Sea Grant, from its inception, carried out its mission through three types of programs. Research on aquatic systems was the major priority. Informa- tion on effective utilization of aquatic resources gained through such research
MARINE AND AQUATIC EDUCATION 137
programs was then to be disseminated by Sea Grant programs through the advisory services component, a close analog of the cooperative extension service in agriculture. Third was the educational component, frequently developing aquatic programs for college curricula and graduate programs. The statement in the reauthorization act reinforced the traditional research and advisory services roles of Sea Grant programs and added a thrust in pre- college public education. The Office of Sea Grant sought to clarify the educational mandate implied above through the following listing of goals in education and training for 1976-1 980:
To build and maintain broad, high-quality curricula for education and training of qualified professionals and technicians to meet requirements for the develop- ment and management of the nation’s marine resources; continuing education opportunities for practicing professionals, technicians, and decision-makers en- gaged in marine-related activities; educational exchange programs; public educa- tion at all levels to increase public awareness and understanding of the realm of marine affairs and enjoyment of the sea; and other stimulating and innovative educational activities to further the general goals of Sea Grant.. . . To increase public awareness and understanding of the economic, social, and aesthetic values of the marine environment . . . to improve the quality of citizen participation in decision-making processes relative to marine resource issues and to enhance enjoyment of the sea. (Office of Sea Grant, 1976)
There resulted a large increase in the number and types of programs offered at the pre-college level in marine and aquatic education. The growth and strength of marine education across the country can be attributed largely to this interpretation of the reauthorization act and the accompanying funds targeted by Congress for support of pre-college education programs.
Unlike other federally funded efforts, Sea Grant programs are largely autonomous. They are funded on a requirement of matching federal funds with state support. Frequently this is by act of the state legislature, often providing a separate line item in the state budget for the Sea Grant program. The local Sea Grant director has historically been the major influence on the nature and direction of the local Sea Grant program. The directors have, by and large, been academic scientists. Few, if any, have had experience or background in professional education. Each program is reviewed regularly by the National Office in the context of the broad guidelines developed at the Federal level. Normally this review is done on site by a team consisting of representatives of the Office of Sea Grant and others from around the country representing expertise in Advisory Services programs and in the research projects being considered for funding. The site review panel will recommend the level of funding for the overall program and will rate indi- vidual projects. Therefore there is an incentive for programs to meet these national goals. At the same time, the Directors of Sea Grant programs are very influential and work with the Office of Sea Grant to establish national goals for the program.
The types of education programs supported by Sea Grant can be grouped into eight broad categories:
138 FORTNER AND MAYER
A . College Programs and Courses-This includes projects for the develop ment of graduate and undergraduate courses and provisions for lecture series. The University of Maine at Orono, for example, offers a minor in marine resources with more than 25 courses available to undergraduates, regardless of major. Sea Grant funds are used for advertising the program. Oregon State University offers masters level graduate degrees in Marine Resources Manage- ment. That program was begun in 1974 to meet a need for graduates in the field. Sea Grant funds are used for support of instructors, teaching assistants and some library materials.
B. K-I 2 Curriculum Development - This category includes the develop- ment and evaluation of curriculum materials for grades K through 12. A number of Sea Grant programs have included such projects. Examples include the Hawaii Sea Grant Program, which supported the development of the High School Marine Science Studies, a one year long, multidisciplinary science course for high school. It has been adopted by 87 percent of the schools in Hawaii, and by schools in 23 other states and several Pacific coun- tries. Ohio Sea Grant has developed a series of 23 activities focusing on the Great Lakes. These are intended for use at the middle school level to be integrated into existing curricula. Most of the activities are interdisciplinary with an emphasis on the life and earth sciences. They include a consider- ation of current environmental topics such as PCBs and estuarine habitat destruction.
C. K-I2 Teacher Education -Materials dissemination workshops, teacher inservice programs and subject matter courses specific to a teacher audience are supported in this category. The Ohio Sea Grant Program disseminated its curriculum materials through a series of short one and one-half day aware- ness workshops and longer implementation workshops (Mayer and Fortner, 1988). Sea Grant support allowed the offering of university credit at no cost to the teachers. Texas A&M University has developed workshops for elemen- tary, junior high and high school teachers. Short one-half day workshops on four different topics such as “Using Children’s Literature in Marine Educa- tion” and “Marvelous Marine Mammals” are available to school districts. The University will provide equipment, instructional staff and materials. Sponsors are asked to provide additional equipment, facilities and other support.
D. Nonformal Education - Education activities in nonformal settings, “typically aimed at the education of the general public” (Murray, 1983). The California Sea Grant program has developed extensive nonformal educational activities at San Diego and at several marine facilities along California’s coast both for the general public and for school groups. The Scripps facility offers programs for school field trips to the aquarium and has docent outreach programs for schools.
Technical and Vocational Education -High school, college and other technical training programs for marine careers are included here. The Florida Institute of Technology developed the Inboard/Outboard Training Program. It was designed to meet the growing regional demand for skilled technicians
E.
MARINE AND AQUATIC EDUCATION 139
in the out board propulsion field. The courses receive substantial industry support. Sea Grant funds were provided for the first year with the under- standing that the program was to become self-supporting.
F. Sea Grant Fellowship Program -Grants under this program provide educational assistance for qualified graduates and undergraduates studying ocean and coastal resources. The New York Sea Grant Institute has sup- ported 40 Sea Grant scholars each year. Awards are given for terms of from one semester to a full calendar year and usually include tuition waivers in addition to a stipend. Principal investigators at Sea Grant institutions partici- pating in the awards programs select candidates to work in the fields of marine science, engineering and related disciplines.
G. Sea Grant Fellows (previously called Internships and Research Assist- antships) - While nearly all Sea Grant programs have research assistants, some include them within budgets of individual research projects and some classify them as education. This category supports the Sea Grant Fellows (formerly called Interns) a program begun in 1979 to provide outstanding graduate students with experience assisting congressional committees and marine agencies in the nation’s capitol.
H. Other Education -This includes education programs funded by Sea Grant that cannot be conveniently grouped into one of the above categories, such as lecture series and educational research projects.
From the descriptions above can be seen the tremendous range and breadth of science education activities supported through the Sea Grant program. Activities not only include K-12 teacher education, but also the preparation of technicians and research scientists.
Study Objectives
A study was conducted by the Ohio Sea Grant Education Program in 1984-1985 to determine the degree to which the national goals for Sea Grant education were attained. The following report of that study will also serve as a comprehensive description of Sea Grant education efforts and as such will fairly accurately characterize the status of marine and aquatic education. Until the last few years, Sea Grant efforts with few excep- tions provided perhaps the broadest, most comprehensive and yet focused science education programs of any such efforts on a national scale and thus provide insights for current and future efforts in science education.
Questions to be answered in the study were as follows:
1. What types of education programs have been funded? 2 . Are the priorities implied by funding levels consistent with those stated by
3. Have those priorities changed since 1980? 4. What priority do Sea Grant Directors give to education within their pro-
the National Office for the period 1976-1980?
grams?
140 FORTNER AND MAYER
5. Which types of education programs do Sea Grant Directors value within their programs?
Methods
The sources of data for the study included the annual reports of funding for Sea Grant education programs from 1976 through 1987, which are developed by the Office of Sea Grant, and a questionnaire developed by the Ohio Sea Grant Education Program and sent to each Sea Grant Director.
In order to provide a historical perspective for the study, the annual reports of funding for Sea Grant education programs from 1976 through 1987 were examined. With the exception of 1980, each year’s report in- cluded the titles of individual projects at Sea Grant institutions, funding levels in federal dollars and local matching funds, and changes by category from the previous year. All project titles listed for “Education” were re- viewed, and grouped according to the categories above. The total budget and the number of projects for each category were tabulated by year,
In the second stage of the study the current status of education within Sea Grant programs was assessed through the use of a “Sea Grant Director’s Questionnaire” developed for this purpose. It requested information about how education fits into the organization of the local Sea Grant program, what types of education efforts were in progress, what kinds have been supported in the past, which education projects had been the most and the least successful, and how education fits into the future plans for that partic- ular Sea Grant program. Finally, each Director was asked t o define “educa- tion” as it relates to the local Sea Grant program, and to rank the categories of education projects in order of their importance as Sea Grant efforts.
The survey was transmitted to the thirty Sea Grant Directors under a cover letter from the Director of Ohio Sea Grant. Returns were received from all but one program, Responses were scored and frequencies obtained for each item. Mean rankings for each of the categories of education projects were produced, and the definitions of education were listed and compared for common characteristics.
Results
Funding Pa ttems
Data from the review of Office of Sea Grant annual education reports (Table I) indicates that the greatest amount of Education funding has con- sistently gone t o provide support for research assistants and internships. Since 17 of the 29 programs reporting included support for research assist- ants as portions of research budgets rather than including them as education, it can be assumed that such funding might exceed that in all other education
TABL
E I
Num
ber
of e
duca
tion
proj
ects
and
fund
ing
leve
l by
cate
gory
, 197
6-19
87.
Col
lege
Cou
rses
K
-12
K-1
2 Te
ache
r N
onfo
rmal
Te
chni
cal/
Fello
wsh
ips
Inte
rns/
O
ther
E
duca
tion
Ass
ista
nts
Cur
ricul
um
Edu
catio
n E
duca
tion
Voc
atio
nal
Yea
rs
No.
of
Fund
ing
No.
of
Fund
ing
No.
of
Fund
ing
No.
of
Fund
ing
No.
of
Fund
ing
No.
of
Fund
ing
No.
of
Fund
ing
No.
of
Fund
ing
Proj
. $
10
00
~
Proj
. $
10
00
~
Proj
. $
10
00
~
Proj
. $1
000~
Pr
oj.
$100
0~
Proj
. $
10
00
~
Proj
. $1
000~
Pr
oj.
$1
00
0~
1976
37
68
8 7
154
1 8
5 43
19
77
34
844
22
512
6 11
7 5
155
1978
36
67
6 19
60
6 5
96
8 19
0 19
79
34
692
21
642
4 42
7
144
1980
27
56
3 12
25
0 19
81
31
574
9 28
3 3
172
12
240
1982
33
44
9 8
2 16
3 15
4 14
38
0 19
83
19
227
4 16
9 4
94
6 19
2 19
84
13
272
1 8
6 27
2 6
213
1985
12
26
2 2
26
4 24
3 1
10
7 19
86
17
291
3 55
8
252
5 18
2 19
87
8 13
3 4
56
3 45
6
245
* *
* h
20
325
2 40
14
31
3 2
40
11
333
6 11
3 8
28 1
8
148
10
230
9 26
1 7
207
10
293
7 25
5 3
94
4 12
5 4
103
4 12
0 5
136
1 70
6
120
1 55
4
16
1 55
3
86
9 73
9 10
90
5 11
95
9 18
93
1
11
740
11
75 1
21
12
45
24
1304
24
13
65
24
1707
26
15
43
25
1315
1 2 3 1 10 8 7 14
7 8 6 8
1
142 33 4
252
221
155
310
163
198
150
110
*Pro
ject
s not
sep
arat
ed f
or th
is y
ear.
Tot
al:
17 p
roje
cts,
$5 1
7 th
ousa
nd.
142 FORTNER AND MAYER
categories combined. The benefits derived from funding in this category have been substantial, with about 7,000 students receiving some Sea Grant support between 1966 and 1982 (Goolden, 1983; New York Sea Grant, 1986).
The greatest number of projects over the study period is found for most years in the Courses category, which is nearly a mirror image of the Intern/ Assistant category. That is, many courses have been funded, but at a low level per project, while the interns/assistants category has a high per-project cost. Table I also indicates that the number of courses funded by Sea Grant has been declining over the period 1976-1987 while the number of interns and assistants has risen. Sea Grant expects that this trend will continue as universities having well established programs assume responsibility for their own courses and research programs grow in all programs (Murray, 1983; Murray, 1984; Murray, 1985).
The main period for K-12 curriculum development under Sea Grant was 1977-1979, possibly extending into 1980. The 1980 Sea Grant records report 17 projects in the precollege category (which included projects in categories B and C as used in this study), with a funding level of about $517,000. Even if all of these were for curriculum development, which is not likely, the number of projects would be lower in 1980 than in the previ- ous years.
The narrative accompanying the Precollege category review in 1978 (Murray, 1978) recommended that the category “continue to receive in- creased funding for the next several years.” In 1979 Dr. Barbara s. spector, then Program Director for Education in the Office of Sea Grant, developed extensive documentation of “The Sea Grant Education Initiative for K-12 and Related Teacher Training,” which she saw as “A Framework for Marine and Aquatic Education” (Spector, 1979). With changing federal administra- tions, however, funding for Sea Grant became tenuous and education efforts were unable to grow as recommended. By 1982 it was reported that “by and large, the development of teaching materials under Sea Grant auspices has come to an end” (Shephard, 1982).
Teacher training is a major mechanism for dissemination of the products of curriculum development efforts. Such projects should either accompany or immediately succeed related projects in curriculum development. Funding patterns indicate that this was not the case for Sea Grant funded develop- ment projects however, even though the same report that forecast the end of curriculum development also predicted that teacher training efforts would grow (Shephard, 1982). While some development projects had concurrent teacher education, very few had such a program as a follow-up. In general the number of projects and the funding for teacher education has consist- ently lagged behind that for curriculum development. In 1983 the National Sea Grant Review Panel drafted a report on education and training in Sea Grant (Education and Training, 1983). Its analysis of the public education (K-12) component concluded that teacher education should continue to receive Sea Grant funding and that the curriculum materials developed to
MARINE AND AQUATIC EDUCATION 143
date be adapted for use throughout the nation, thus helping t o build a marine literate society and “upgrade the general state of education” (Edu- cation and Training, 1983).
Nonformal education in Sea Grant is most frequently a function of Advisory Services, but some education programs have developed nonformal efforts, frequently for specific audiences such as those that visit museums or aquaria. Distinguishing between Education and Advisory Service roles is particularly difficult in this area, especially since in many Sea Grant pro- grams Education is housed under Advisory Service. The nonformal education category has received relatively low levels of funding, perhaps because most of this type of education is covered by Advisory Service budgets. Sea Grant’s recommendation is that these nonformal activities continue, and “it is not particularly significant how they are accounted for” (Murray, 1983).
Vocational and technical education constitutes a declining portion of Sea Grant education. According to Murray (1983) “Sea Grant has always fol- lowed a conservative approach toward funding projects in vocational and technical training, preferring to see that there is a need for training before supporting the establishment of new courses.” The one exception he cites is in reference t o the Yasso report (Yasso, 1980) which recommended extensive expansion and upgrading of fisheries education. The Office of Sea Grant saw a responsibility to facilitate implementation of some of those recommendations (Murray, 1983).
The Sea Grant Fellowship Program reached a peak in 1981 with ten fellowships awarded. In 1982 the number dropped to two, but this category has been growing since then.
The number of projects in the category entitled Other grew from one in 1976 to 14 in 1983, then dropped to six and eight in 1986 and 1987, respectively. It included in one year such projects as Alaska’s “Student Par- ticipation in the International Sablefish Symposium,” Cornell’s “New Strategies in Planning and Evaluation for Marine Education Programs” and Michigan’s “Great Lakes seminar.”
When all funding for education projects is compared with the total Fed- eral obligation for Sea Grant, it is apparent (Figure 1 ) that education has not benefitted from the occasional increases in total Sea Grant funds nor has it suffered proportionally from recent reductions. Federal funding has been fairly constant in dollar amount from year to year, somewhat less than $3 million, despite the fluctuations in total allocated Sea Grant funds, ranging from $23 million to $42 million. The levels for total Sea Grant obligation in some years are not precisely the same as the amounts actually spent on projects. During the periods when Sea Grant was threatened with severe retrenchments (especially 1980-1 98 l ) , some of the allocated funds were held back as a means of insuring a low level of maintenance funding should no new funds be forthcoming (Murray, 1984).
144 FORTNER AND MAYER
r(
d k 0) a 0) E
#
t
20 ::: 10 0
‘76 ‘77 ‘78 ‘79 ‘80 ‘81 ‘82 ’83 ‘84 ’85 ‘86
I
’87
Year
I------------ 1 1 Education (millions) Total Sea Grant
Figure 1. Sea Grant education expenditures as part of total Sea Grant budget.
Directors’ Survey
Twenty-nine of the thirty Sea Grant Directors responded t o the survey regarding their perceptions of Sea Grant education. Of these, 24 indicated that they have “an identifiable education component” within their pro- gram.
Sea Grant programs are organized in various ways in different states, with 14 indicating that education is organizationally separate, that is, it does not come under other program headings such as Marine Advisory Service or Research. Ten directors reported that their education efforts are a part of the Advisory Service, and six (multiple answers were acceptable) described their education organization as being shared or mixed or under varying program components depending on the current prqjects.
When asked to identify “the most significant education project ever funded by your program,” eleven directors identified K-12 curriculum development projects, three selected projects that resulted in graduate courses, and two chose nonformal precollege projects. K-I2 teacher educa- tion was chosen by one director, as were nonformal adult education and vocational programs. Most directors claimed there was no education project that was “of least value” to their programs. However, three directors apiece
MARINE AND AQUATIC EDUCATION 145
Category Number of Wean Number of Responses Rank* Zero Ranks*+
Teacher Education 21 1.9 2
College Courses 22 2.8 2
Vocational/Technical 22 3.1 1
Curriculum Development 21 3.3 3
Nonfonnal Education 22 3.9 1
1 = most important (highest priority)
** 0 * inappropriate for Sea Grant
Figure 2. Directors’ priority rankings of Sea Grant’s role in various types of education.
named specific undergraduate courses and nonformal adult education efforts as being of low value, two chose certain graduate courses and vocational training efforts, and one said that a K-12 curriculum project fit this cate- gory.
Directors were asked to rank the types of education in order of their importance for Sea Grant. If a director felt that Sea Grant should not have a role in some types of education, those types were ranked as 0. For all others, a rank of I was to indicate the highest priority. Results are displayed in Figure 2 with the education categories listed in priority order. It is evident that many Sea Grant Directors attach a great deal of importance to teacher education and college program development, ranking them above more commonly funded projects such as nonformal and vocational ones. It should be noted that some categories were not specifically included in the list from which the directors did their ranking. For instance, at the time the survey was developed, it was not apparent to the investigators that internships, research assistantships and fellowships were being classified as separate edu- cation projects by the Office of Sea Grant. Only two directors added such projects in a blank labelled “Other: .” A third Director used the blank to indicate that educational research was a priority. Presumably the directors were responding to the survey on the basis of its first item, “Do you have an identifiable education program within your Sea Grant program?” and most did not see educational assistance to students as being within the scope of the questionnaire.
Finally, each director was asked to define “education” as it relates to his or her Sea Grant program. The responses were as varied as the omnibus collection of Sea Grant programs itself, from “[I define it] any way that covers what I think should be done,” to “Sea Grant is education. Education is how, by and through which we do ‘good works,”’ to “not research, not Marine Advisory Service, not program management, not communication.” Eight directors provided a dictionary type of definition of education, such
146 FORTNER AND MAYER
as “the transfer of knowledge.” Four indicated that in their programs the distinction between education and other programmatic elements is blurred or “functionally integrated.” Thirteen directors listed as their definition the types of education their programs include, and eleven defined education in terms of how the structure of their programs incorporates education.
From the analysis of these open ended questions and rankings, it is ap- parent that in 1986 there is some support among the directors for K-12 sci- ence education. This support is focused primarily on teacher education. There is a feeling among some directors that there have been some successful curric- ulum developing projects, but it is now time to get MAE materials into teachers hands through workshops and other teacher education programs. It is also apparent that there is a lack of understanding among this group of the nature of “professional education” and the potential contributions those trained in science education can provide t o their programs.
Conclusions
It is clear that graduate education in the sciences remained the major priority of Sea Grant Education programs following the 1976 statement of goals. Despite lower funding levels for Sea Grant as a whole, the number of intems/assistants and their financial support formed an increased portion of education funds. Also support of college courses (many of which are at the graduate level), though decreasing, still retained its position as the second largest part of Sea Grant education both in number of programs and in fund- ing level through 1986.
Curriculum development at the K-12 level saw a dramatic reduction in both funding and number of projects. This is consistent with the intent to shift to the implementation of materials developed through teacher educa- tion programs. Unfortunately teacher education has not received increased funding and remains at a low level. Nonformal education, for example, which is funded primarily through Advisory Services and thus most funds do not appear as education, had education funds equivalent to the com- bined K-12 curriculum development and teacher education programs. It does not appear therefore from these data that the Office of Sea Grant was successful, at least from the point of view of funding levels, in increasing programs that would lead to greater public awareness and understanding of the marine environment, one of the major stated objectives for 1976-80.
In drawing such conclusions, it must be kept in mind that Sea Grant has been in a period of capped funding. Inflation has thus eroded Sea Grant’s ability to initiate new programs or different programmatic thrusts. In fact, it may be fortunate that K-12 programs have been able to retain the level of funding they have.
Also, drawing conclusions regarding the nature of programs and program thrusts from data on numbers of programs and funding levels is a bit danger- ous. Although funding for K-12 education does not seem to have increased,
MARINE AND AQUATIC EDUCATION 147
i t is still possible for the net effect of that funding to have greater impact simply by targeting those funds to programs that have demonstrated their effectiveness in the past. Tg a certain extent, the Office of Sea Grant seems to have done just that.
Sea Grant directors as a group have a rather vague notion of “education.” As a result most of what Sea Grant programs do other than strictly research is often categorized as “education.” Even in research, those graduate stu- dents supported to work on a project are often considered a part of the Education program. This generic use of the term “education” by Sea Grant directors and the Office of Sea Grant has frequently made it difficult to discuss educational issues in science, and indeed to identify qualified profes- sionals to work in Sea Grant education programs. Often anyone with a college degree can be considered the Sea Grant educator. Thus there is a need in Sea Grant programs for well trained science educators with exper- ience in both K-12 and college science teaching to work with Sea Grant directors in developing and evaluating programs in education at all levels but especially those developed for K-12.
According to the 1985 summary of education in Sea Grant,
it appears that marine and aquatic education-i.e. education about the world of water and the development and wise use of marine resources-is becoming an established part of education in America. Sea Grant has helped make this hap- pen, and Sea Grant should continue to have a prominent role in promoting marine and aquatic education throughout the nation (Murray, 1985).
Implications for Science Educators
When Fortner and Wildman (1 980) reported on the state of marine educa- tion in 1978 there was evidence of the Sea Grant’s early impact on the field. However, the curriculum materials being developed were not yet being dis- tributed widely, and only a few such programs existed. In the intervening period there is very little evidence in the literature of a systematic examina- tion of the many types of educational programs offered through Sea Grant, nor of a critical analysis of the needs for or appropriateness of such programs. Baseline studies by Fortner and Teates (1980) in Virginia and Fortner and Mayer (1983) in Ohio have examined the level of marine knowledge and attitudes among school children and have provided justification of the development of school programs for improving such knowledge and attitudes. Hedlund and Butzow (1981) conducted similar studies in Maine among adults as a needs assessment for public education programs in marine educa- tion. Fortner (1985) completed a study comparing the effectiveness of public television specials and science classroom presentations on improving knowledge of and attitudes toward marine mammals among ninth graders. A study by Fortner and Lyon (1985) examined the effectiveness of a tele- vision special in changing an adult audience’s knowledge of and attitudes
148 FORTNER AND MAYER
toward marine mammals. Few, if any, other studies have been published dealing in a critical or analytical way with marine and aquatic education programs (Rakow, 1983). This provides an excellent opportunity for science educators to exercise their unique sets of research and knowledge skills in a fascinating and substantive area of education.
Federal policies in education over the past six to ten years as reflected in the Sea Grant Program have been highly detrimental to the expansion and improvement of Marine and Aquatic education. Where such programs have remained strong it is only because the local Sea Grant Director has seen their value and has helped to secure state funding to continue them, usually at a much reduced level. As 1987 drew to a close, i t appeared that the climate for federal funding of science education was changing. There is increased political support for such efforts and this political support is being translated into financial support, especially through the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education. It is anticipated that similar support for Marine and Aquatic education programs through the Office of Sea Grant will also occur. We would encourage those science educators in the 30 states having Sea Grant programs t o establish contact and volunteer their assistance in developing strong, viable Marine and Aquatic education programs where they do not now exist, and to assist in expanding and enhancing programs where educators have been able to retain viable ones in the face of reduced federal assistance. A listing of Sea Grant Programs is found in Appendix B.
References
Education and Training in Sea Grant. (1983) A report by the National Sea Grant Review Panel to the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of NOAA, and the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program. Draft.
Fortner, R. W. (1985). Relative effectiveness of classroom and documentary film pre- sentations on marine mammals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 21(2), 11 5- 126.
Fortner, R. W. & Lyon, A. E. (1985). Effects of a Cousteau television special on viewer knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Environmental Education I6(3), 12-20.
Fortner, R. W. & Mayer, V. J. (1 983). Ohio students’ knowledge and attitudes about the oceans and Great Lakes. Ohio Journal of Science 83(5), 218-224.
Fortner, R. W. & Teates, T. G. (1980). Baseline studies for marine education: Experiences related to marine knowledge and attitudes Journal of Environmental Education 11
Fortner, R. & Wildman, T. M. (1980). Marine education: Progress and promise. Science Education 64(5), 717-723.
Goodwin, H. L., & Schaadt, J. G. (1978). The Need for Marine and Aquatic Education. Sea Grant Publication, Delaware Sea Grant College Program, University of Delaware.
Goolden, S. & Squires, D. (1983). Sea Grant graduates: A resource for the nation. MTS Journal 17(1), 45-48.
Hedlund, W. & Butzow, J. W. (1981). The development of a test instrument for marine knowledge of adults in northern New England. A paper presented at the 1981 Conven- tion of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Grossingers, New York.
(4), 11-19.
MARINE AND AQUATIC EDUCATION 149
Mayer, V. J. & Fortner, R. W. (1987). Relative Effectiveness of four modes of dissemina-
Murray, T. E. (1985). Education and training in the National Sea Grant College Program
Murray, T. E. (1984). Education and training in the National Sea Grant College Program
Murray, T. E. (1 983). Education and training in the National Sea Grant College Program
Murray, T. E. (1978). Education and training in the National Sea Grant College Program
Murray, T. E. (May 29,1984). Personal communication. National Sea Grant College Program Act (1976). P.L. 94-461, U. S . Congress. National Sea Grant College Program Act (1966). P.L. 89-688. U. S . Congress. New York Sea Grant (February 26,1986). Personal communication. Office of Sea Grant (1976). Goals and objectives of the National Sea Grant Program for
the period FY 1976 through FY 1980. Rockville, MD: NOAA. Picker, L., Millman, L. & Aspenwald, K. (1984). A conceptual scheme for aquatic studies:
Framework for aquatic curriculum development. f i e Environmentalist. 4(1), 59-63. Rakow, S . J. (1983). Development of a conceptual structure for aquatic education and its
application to existing aquatic curricula land needed curriculum development. Journal ofEnvironmenta1 Education 15(2), 12-16.
Shephard, R. J. &Murray, T. E. (1982). Education and training in the National Sea Grant College Program - FY 82. Rockville, MD: NOAA.
Spector, B. S . (1979). The Sea Grant education initiative for K-12 and related teacher training: A framework for marine and aquatic education. Rockville, MD: NOAA.
Yasso, W. (1980). Educational needs of the US. commercial fishing industry: A report to the United States Senate by the National Sea Grant College Program. Rockville, MD: NOAA.
tion of curriculum materials. Journal of Environmental Education 19(1), 25-30.
-FY 85. Rockville, MD: NOAA.
- FY 84. Rockville, MD: NOAA.
-FY 83. Rockville,MD: NOAA.
-FY 78. Rockville, MD: NOAA.
150
Appendix A
The Conceptual Scheme for Aquatic Studies+
1. Water Exhibits Important Properties which Play a Vital Role on Earth.
1.1 The earth is unique in our solar system. 1.11 The earth’s mass is such that the planet has an atmosphere
which supports life. 1.12 Water and carbon dioxide are the most abundant compounds
on the earth’s surface. 1.13 The earth’s proximity to the sun enables water to exist in
three phases, solid, liquid, and gas.
1.2
1.3
The earth’s water is constafitly recycled through a process known as the hydrologic cycle. 1.21 The hydrologic cycle consists of the process of evaporation,
condensation, precipitation, and percolation. 1.22 The earth’s surface water is constantly recycled through the
oceans, 1.23 Water is purified through the hydrologic cycle. 1.24 Naturally occurring pfocesses and human activities affect the
hydrologic cycle. Water has unique chemical and physical properties. 1.3 1 The chemical and physical behavior of water results from the
geometry of the water molecule. 1.32 Large amounts of heat are involved in changing water from
one state t o another. 1.33 Water is a very effective solvent.. 1.34 Dissolved and suspended Substances affect the properties of
water. 1.35 Water in nature usually contains gases, organic compounds
and minerals. 1.36 Many elements dissolved in water are cycled through biologi-
cal, geological, and chemical systems.
2. Aquatic Environmenis Interact with the Land and Atmosphere.
2.1 The oceans constitute the largest aquatic environment on earth. 2.11 Oceans formed early in the history of the earth. 2.12 Approximately 70% of the earth’s surface is covered by water.
2.2 The ocean waters are influenced by the earth’s movements and posi- tion in the solar system. 2.21 Ocean currents are affected by absorption of solar energy. 2.22 Ocean currents are affected by the earth’s rotation. 2.23 Tides result from gravitational forces of the earth, the moon,
and the sun. 2.3 Energy is transferred where water meets air, land, or subsurface
topography.
151
2.3 1 Air movements generate waves and surface currents. 2.32 Moving water constantly shapes land forms. 2.33 Subsurface topography is constantly changing. 2.34 Land and sea floor movements generate waves. 2.35 Ocean currents affect the earth’s semi-permanent wind
patterns. 2.36 The earth’s water masses are the major factor influencing
climates. 2.37 Subsurface topography affects tides, currents, and waves.
2.4 Materials carried from land masses influence the physical and chemical features of lakes, rivers, wetlands, and oceans. 2.41 Water, ice, and air carry organic and inorganic materials
into lakes, rivers, wetlands, and oceans. 2.42 Fresh water from the land dilutes ocean water.
2.5 Changes in aquatic environments occur naturally. 2.51 Changes can occur over long periods of time or can occur
quickly. 2.52 Changes in aquatic environments affect the land and
atmosphere. 2.53 Changes occurring on land and in the atmosphere affect
the aquatic environment.
3. Aquatic Organisms Interact in Complex Ecosystems.
3.1 Life probably originated in the aquatic environment. 3.1 1 Water aided the chemical evolution of life forms. 3.12 Aquatic environments have supported and continue to sup-
port the evolution of a diversity of species.
3.2 The aquatic environment enables terrestrial life forms to evolve. 3.21 The majority of oxygen in the atmosphere has been and
continues to be produced by one-celled aquatic plants. 3.22 Ultra-violet radiation from the sun acts upon oxygen in the
atmosphere to produce the ozone layer. 3.23 The ozone layer, which absorbes most of the harmful
ultra-violet radiation, facilitated the evolution of terrestrial organisms from aquatic organisms.
3.24 Throughout the evolutionary process water has been and is today essential to the survival of all organisms.
3.3 Aquatic organisms adapt to their environments in different ways. 3.3 1 Aquatic organisms adapt developmentally, structurally, func-
tionally, and behaviorally to their environments. 3.32 Organisms in aquatic communities interact with their envi-
ronments. 3.33 Populations of aquatic organisms are unevenly distributed.
3.4 Aquatic ecosystems depend on a constant flow of energy and the re cycling of materials.
152
3.41 Aquatic ecosystems are maintained by energy which comes from the sun.
3.42 Aquatic plants convert solar energy to food energy. 3.43 Aquatic organisms depend on life sustaining minerals which
are recycled through the ecosystem. 3.44 Aquatic bacteria reduce organic materials to simpler forms.
3.5 Stable ecosystems are essential to the health of the qquatic environ- ment. 3.51 The stability of aquatic ecosystems tend to be directly pro-
portional to the diversity of their population. 3.52 The stability of aquatic ecosystems tends to be directly
proportional to the complexity of relationships among the populations.
The Project COAST Conceptual Scheme for Aquatic Studies is a state- ment of what every adult, ideally, should know about our water planet to be considered an aquatically literate person. The present Scheme is based on the pioneering efforts of Drs. Bob Stegner and Maura Geens-Tyrrel. The original Scheme was expanded, then reviewed by several groups of experts in the fields of aquatic science, education and curriculum development. Following each review, the Scheme was revised, resulting in the present document.
The Scheme is intended to serve as a framework for curriculum develop- ment in aquatic studies, as a yardstick against which existing and future aquatic education programs may be measured and as a tool for evaluation of aquatic education programs. A school district, for example, can use the Scheme to determine if their curriculum offerings, from pre-school programs through high school, teach the concepts contained in the Scheme. They can immediately identify gaps in their curriculum, which can then be filled in a systematic manner. Curriculum developers can use the Scheme while devel- oping new materials, to insure that the appropriate aquatic concepts are being covered. Program evaluators can use the Scheme to develop standard- ized aquatic tests or to measure the effectiveness of an existing curriculum in covering important conceptual components in aquatic education.
*The Conceptual Scheme for Aquatic Studies was funded in part by a grant from the Delaware Sea Grant College Program.
153
Appendix B
Sea Grant Programs
Alaska Sea Grant College Program University of Alaska 138 Irving I1 Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
Sea Grant College Prog., A-032 University of California, San Diego La Jolla, California 92093
Connecticut Sea Grant University of Connecticut Avery Point Gro ton, Connecticut 06340
Sea Grant Program Robinson Hall University of Delaware Newark, Delaware 19716
Florida Sea Grant College Program Building 803 University of Florida Gainesville. Florida 3261 1
Sea Grant College Program University of Georgia Ecology Building Athens, Georgia 30602
Sea Grant College Program University of Hawaii 1000 Pope Road, Room 220 Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consort. Caylor Building, Gulf Coast Res. Lab. P.O. Box 7000 Oceans Springs, Mississippi 39564
UNH/UMO Sea Grant College Program Marine Program Building University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire 03824
Sea Grant Program New Jersey Marine Science Consortium Building No. 22 Ft. Hancock, New Jersey 07732
Illinois/Indiana Coherent Area Sea Grant Project 1206 South Fourth Street Room 205, Huff Hall Champaign, Illinois 61 820
Sea Grant College Program Center for Wetland Resources Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803-7507
UMO/UNH Sea Grant Program University of Maine 14 Coburn Hall Orono, Maine 04469
Maryland Sea Grant College H. J. Patterson Hall, Room 1222 University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742
Sea Grant College Program Massachusetts Inst. of Technology Building E38, Room 330 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02 139
Sea Grant College Program University of Michigan 2200 Bonisteel Boulevard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48 109-2099
Minnesota Sea Grant Program University of Minnesota 116 Classroom Office Building 1994 Buford Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108
Sea Grant College Program Marine Resources Bldg. University of Rhode Island Narragansett Bay, Rhode Is1 02882
South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium 287 Meeting Street Charleston, South Carolina 29401
154
New York Sea Grant Institute State University of New York Dutchess Hall Stony Brook, New York 11 794
UNC Sea Grant Program Box 8605 North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-8605
Ohlo Sea Grant College Program The Ohio State University 13 14 Kinnear Road Columbus, Ohio 43210
Sea Grant College Program Administrative Services B1dg.-A320 Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 9733 1
Sea Grant Program Department of Marine Science University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00708
Sea Grant Program Inst. for Marine & Coastal Studies University of Southern California University Park Los Angeles, California 90089-0341
Sea Grant College Program Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77843
Va. Sea Grant College Program 203 Monroe Hill House University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
Sea Grant College Program University of Washington, H G 3 0 3716 Brooklyn Avenue, N.E. Seattle, Washington 98105
Sea Grant Institute University of Wisconsin-Madison 1800 University Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53705
