3/2018 vol. 14
Stats
CC-BY 4.0
Get citation
RESEARCH PAPER
Effects of Hands-on Activities on Conservation, Disgust and Knowledge of Woodlice
Jana Fančovičová 1
,
 
Pavol Prokop 1
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Biology, Faculty of Education, Trnava University, Priemyselná, Trnava, SLOVAKIA
 
 
Online publication date: 2017-11-26
 
 
Publication date: 2017-11-26
 
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(3):721-729
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80817
 
 
Article (PDF)
References (56)
 
KEYWORDS
achievement
emotion
pupils
woodlice
 
ABSTRACT
Although hands-on activities significantly improve achievement and attitudes toward animals, the use of the aesthetically unpleasant is questionable. We investigated whether the use of woodlouse, as an example of an unpopular animal, alters children’s conservation attitudes, disgust for and knowledge of woodlice. The experimental group (n = 116), but not the control group (n = 110), achieved a better woodlouse conservation score with hands-on activities, but the intentions for woodlouse conservation were not generalized for conserving other animals. Disgust for woodlice was not influenced by the treatment, but females, albeit more disgust sensitive than men, showed higher conservation scores than men. Woodlouse knowledge scores significantly increased in both groups. In summary, this study demonstrates both the benefits and limits of using animals which are aesthetically unpopular, but essential parts of biodiversity and food chains.
 
REFERENCES (56)
1.
Ballouard, J. M., Provost, G., Barré, D., & Bonnet, X. (2012). Influence of a field trip on the attitude of schoolchildren toward unpopular organisms: an experience with snakes. Journal of Herpetology, 46(3), 423-428.
Google Scholar
 
 
2.
Betts, M. G., Wolf, C., Ripple, W. J., Phalan, B., Millers, K. A., Duarte, A., Butchart, S. H. M., & Levi, T. (2017). Global forest loss disproportionately erodes biodiversity in intact landscapes. Nature, 547(7664), 441-444.
Google Scholar
 
 
3.
Bjerke, T., Østdahl, T., & Kleiven, J. (2003). Attitudes and activities related to urban wildlife: Pet owners and non-owners. Anthrozoös, 16(3), 252-262.
Google Scholar
 
 
4.
Black, S. H., Shepard, M., & Allen, M. M. (2001). Endangered invertebrates: the case for greater attention to invertebrate conservation. Endangered Species Update, 18(2), 41-49.
Google Scholar
 
 
5.
Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2015). Attitudes toward animals among kindergarten children: species preferences. Anthrozoös, 28(1), 45-59.
Google Scholar
 
 
6.
Breuer, G. B., Schlegel, J., Kauf, P., & Rupf, R. (2015). The Importance of Being Colorful and Able to Fly: Interpretation and implications of children’s statements on selected insects and other invertebrates. International Journal of Science Education, 37(16), 2664-2687.
Google Scholar
 
 
7.
Cardoso, P., Erwin, T. L., Borges, P. A., & New, T. R. (2011). The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biological Conservation, 144(11), 2647-2655.
Google Scholar
 
 
8.
Clucas, B., McHugh, K., & Caro, T. (2008). Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(6), 1517-1528.
Google Scholar
 
 
9.
Curtis, V., Aunger, R., & Rabie, T. (2004). Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk of disease. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 271(Suppl 4), S131-S133.
Google Scholar
 
 
10.
Davey, G. C. (1994). The” disgusting” spider: The role of disease and illness in the perpetuation of fear of spiders. Society & Animals, 2(1), 17-25.
Google Scholar
 
 
11.
Douglas, L. R., & Winkel, G. (2014). The flipside of the flagship. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23(4), 979-997.
Google Scholar
 
 
12.
Grodsky, S. M., Iglay, R. B., Sorenson, C. E., & Moorman, C. E. (2015). Should invertebrates receive greater inclusion in wildlife research journals?. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 79(4), 529-536.
Google Scholar
 
 
13.
Gunnthorsdottir, A. (2001). Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoös, 14(4), 204-215.
Google Scholar
 
 
14.
Hawkey, R. (2001). Case Study: Walking with woodlice: an experiment in biodiversity education. Journal of Biological Education, 36(1), 11-15.
Google Scholar
 
 
15.
Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Hands-on activities and their influence on students’ interest. Research in Science Education, 40(5), 743-757.
Google Scholar
 
 
16.
Iozzi, L. A. (1989). What research says to the educator: Part one: Environmental education and the affective domain. The Journal of Environmental Education, 20(3), 3-9.
Google Scholar
 
 
17.
Jacobs, M. H., Vaske, J. J., Dubois, S., & Fehres, P. (2014). More than fear: role of emotions in acceptability of lethal control of wolves. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 60(4), 589-598.
Google Scholar
 
 
18.
Jimenez, J. N., & Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2015). Public knowledge of, and attitudes to, frogs in Colombia. Anthrozoös, 28(2), 319-332.
Google Scholar
 
 
19.
Kellert, S. R. (1993). Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conservation Biology, 7(4), 845-855.
Google Scholar
 
 
20.
Kellert, S. R. (1997). The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Washington, D.C., U.S.: Island Press.
Google Scholar
 
 
21.
Klingenberg, K. (2014). ‘Primärerfahrung’with living animals in contrast to educational videos: a comparative intervention study. Journal of Biological Education, 48(2), 105-112.
Google Scholar
 
 
22.
Knight, A. J. (2008). “Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 94-103.
Google Scholar
 
 
23.
Lindemann‐Matthies, P. (2005). ‘Loveable’mammals and ‘lifeless’ plants: how children’s interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 655-677.
Google Scholar
 
 
24.
Lorenz, A. R., Libarkin, J. C., & Ording, G. J. (2014). Disgust in response to some arthropods aligns with disgust provoked by pathogens. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2, 248-254.
Google Scholar
 
 
25.
Martín-López, B., Montes, C., & Benayas, J. (2007). The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 139(1), 67-82.
Google Scholar
 
 
26.
Matthews, R. W., Flage, L. R., & Matthews, J. R. (1997). Insects as teaching tools in primary and secondary education. Annual Review of Entomology, 42(1), 269-289.
Google Scholar
 
 
27.
Morgan, J. M., & Gramann, J. H. (1989). Predicting effectiveness of wildlife education programs: A study of students’ attitudes and knowledge toward snakes. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 17(4), 501-509.
Google Scholar
 
 
28.
Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Google Scholar
 
 
29.
Oaten, M., Stevenson, R. J., & Case, T. I. (2009). Disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 303-321.
Google Scholar
 
 
30.
Prokop, P., & Fančovičová, J. (2010). The association between disgust, danger and fear of macroparasites and human behaviour. Acta Ethologica, 13(1), 57-62.
Google Scholar
 
 
31.
Prokop, P., & Fančovičová, J. (2013). Does colour matter? The influence of animal warning coloration on human emotions and willingness to protect them. Animal conservation, 16(4), 458-466.
Google Scholar
 
 
32.
Prokop, P., & Fančovičová, J. (2017). The effect of hands-on activities on children’s knowledge and disgust for animals. Journal of Biological Education, 51(3), 305-314.
Google Scholar
 
 
33.
Prokop, P., & Jančovičová, M. (2013). Disgust sensitivity and gender differences: an initial test of the parental investment hypothesis. Problems of Psychology in the 21st Century, 7(7), 40-48.
Google Scholar
 
 
34.
Prokop, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2010). Effects of having pets at home on children’s attitudes toward popular and unpopular animals. Anthrozoös, 23(1), 21-35.
Google Scholar
 
 
35.
Prokop, P., Fančovičová, J., & Kubiatko, M. (2009a). Vampires are still alive: Slovakian students’ attitudes toward bats. Anthrozoös, 22(1), 19-30.
Google Scholar
 
 
36.
Prokop, P., Kubiatko, M., & Fančovičová, J. (2008). Slovakian pupils’ knowledge of, and attitudes toward, birds. Anthrozoös, 21(3), 221-235.
Google Scholar
 
 
37.
Prokop, P., Lešková, A., Kubiatko, M., & Diran, C. (2007). Slovakian students’ knowledge of and attitudes toward biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 895-907.
Google Scholar
 
 
38.
Prokop, P., Medina-Jerez, W., Coleman, J., Fančovičová, J., Özel, M., & Fedor, P. (2016). Tolerance of frogs among high school students: Influences of disgust and culture. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(6), 1499-1505.
Google Scholar
 
 
39.
Prokop, P., Özel, M., & Uşak, M. (2009b). Cross-cultural comparison of student attitudes toward snakes. Society & Animals, 17(3), 224-240.
Google Scholar
 
 
40.
Randler, C., Hummel, E., & Prokop, P. (2012). Practical work at school reduces disgust and fear of unpopular animals. Society & Animals, 20(1), 61-74.
Google Scholar
 
 
41.
Randler, C., Hummel, E., & Wüst-Ackermann, P. (2013). The influence of perceived disgust on students’ motivation and achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2839-2856.
Google Scholar
 
 
42.
Randler, C., Ilg, A., & Kern, J. (2005). Cognitive and emotional evaluation of an amphibian conservation program for elementary school students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 37(1), 43-52.
Google Scholar
 
 
43.
Sammet, R., Kutta, A. M., & Dreesmann, D. (2015). Hands-on or video-based learning with anticipation? A comparative approach to identifying student motivation and learning enjoyment during a lesson about ants. Journal of Biological Education, 49(4), 420-440.
Google Scholar
 
 
44.
Senzaki, M., Yamaura, Y., Shoji, Y., Kubo, T., & Nakamura, F. (2017). Citizens promote the conservation of flagship species more than ecosystem services in wetland restoration. Biological Conservation, 214, 1-5.
Google Scholar
 
 
45.
Schlegel, J., & Rupf, R. (2010). Attitudes towards potential animal flagship species in nature conservation: a survey among students of different educational institutions. Journal for Nature Conservation, 18(4), 278-290.
Google Scholar
 
 
46.
Schlegel, J., Breuer, G., & Rupf, R. (2015). Local insects as flagship species to promote nature conservation? A survey among primary school children on their attitudes toward invertebrates. Anthrozoös, 28(2), 229-245.
Google Scholar
 
 
47.
Silva, A., & Minor, E. S. (2017). Adolescents’ Experience and Knowledge of, and Attitudes toward, Bees: Implications and Recommendations for Conservation. Anthrozoös, 30(1), 19-32.
Google Scholar
 
 
48.
Snaddon, J. L., & Turner, E. C. (2007). A child’s eye view of the insect world: perceptions of insect diversity. Environmental Conservation, 34(1), 33-35.
Google Scholar
 
 
49.
Thomas‐Walters, L., & J Raihani, N. (2016). Supporting conservation: The roles of flagship species and identifiable victims. Conservation Letters, doi:10.1111/conl.12319.
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
50.
Tomažič, I. (2008). The influence of direct experience on students’ attitudes to, and knowledge about amphibians. Acta Biologica Slovenica, 51(1), 39-49.
Google Scholar
 
 
51.
Tomažič, I., Pihler, N., & Strgar, J. (2017). Pre-service biology teachers’reported fear and disgust of animals and their willingness to incorporate live animals into their teaching through study years. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(3), 337-349.
Google Scholar
 
 
52.
Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., Kurzban, R., & DeScioli, P. (2013). Disgust: Evolved function and structure. Psychological Review, 120(1), 65-84.
Google Scholar
 
 
53.
Wagler, R. (2010). The association between preservice elementary teacher animal attitude and likelihood of animal incorporation in future science curriculum. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5(3), 353-375.
Google Scholar
 
 
54.
Wagler, R., & Wagler, A. (2011). Arthropods: Attitude and incorporation in preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6(3), 229-250.
Google Scholar
 
 
55.
Wang, S., & Loreau, M. (2016). Biodiversity and ecosystem stability across scales in metacommunities. Ecology letters, 19(5), 510-518.
Google Scholar
 
 
56.
Yli-Panula, E., & Matikainen, E. (2014). Students and student teachers’ ability to name animals in ecosystems: a perspective of animal knowledge and biodiversity. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(4).
Google Scholar
 
 
Share
Send by email
RELATED ARTICLE
Does Individual Interest Still Predict Achievement in Science and Technology When Controlling for Self-Concept? A Longitudinal Study Conducted in Canadian Schools
The Educational Effectiveness of Didactical Games in Project-based Science Learning among 5th Grade Students
Effectiveness of Augmented Reality (AR) on Students’ Achievement and Motivation in Learning Science
The Transformation of Scientific Knowledge Concerning Evolution into the Content of the Curriculum and its Potential to Create a Conceptual Change in the Conceptual Structures of Pupils
Comparative Effect of Two Problem-solving Instructional Strategies on Students’ Achievement in Stoichiometry
Indexes
 
Keywords index
Topics index
Authors index
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215
Journals System - logo
© 2006-2024 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
Scroll to top