0.903
IF
1.06
CiteScore
0.510
SJR
1.062
SNIP
Research paper
 
CC-BY 4.0
 
 

Effects of Hands-on Activities on Conservation, Disgust and Knowledge of Woodlice

Jana Fančovičová 1  ,  
 
1
Department of Biology, Faculty of Education, Trnava University, Priemyselná, Trnava, SLOVAKIA
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(3):721–729
Online publish date: 2017-11-26
Publish date: 2017-11-26
KEYWORDS:
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.
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.
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.
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.
5. Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2015). Attitudes toward animals among kindergarten children: species preferences. Anthrozoös, 28(1), 45-59.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
11. Douglas, L. R., & Winkel, G. (2014). The flipside of the flagship. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23(4), 979-997.
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.
13. Gunnthorsdottir, A. (2001). Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoös, 14(4), 204-215.
14. Hawkey, R. (2001). Case Study: Walking with woodlice: an experiment in biodiversity education. Journal of Biological Education, 36(1), 11-15.
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.
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.
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.
18. Jimenez, J. N., & Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2015). Public knowledge of, and attitudes to, frogs in Colombia. Anthrozoös, 28(2), 319-332.
19. Kellert, S. R. (1993). Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conservation Biology, 7(4), 845-855.
20. Kellert, S. R. (1997). The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Washington, D.C., U.S.: Island Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
28. Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29. Oaten, M., Stevenson, R. J., & Case, T. I. (2009). Disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 303-321.
30. Prokop, P., & Fančovičová, J. (2010). The association between disgust, danger and fear of macroparasites and human behaviour. Acta Ethologica, 13(1), 57-62.
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.
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.
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.
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.
35. Prokop, P., Fančovičová, J., & Kubiatko, M. (2009a). Vampires are still alive: Slovakian students’ attitudes toward bats. Anthrozoös, 22(1), 19-30.
36. Prokop, P., Kubiatko, M., & Fančovičová, J. (2008). Slovakian pupils’ knowledge of, and attitudes toward, birds. Anthrozoös, 21(3), 221-235.
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.
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.
39. Prokop, P., Özel, M., & Uşak, M. (2009b). Cross-cultural comparison of student attitudes toward snakes. Society & Animals, 17(3), 224-240.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
50. Tomažič, I. (2008). The influence of direct experience on students’ attitudes to, and knowledge about amphibians. Acta Biologica Slovenica, 51(1), 39-49.
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.
52. Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., Kurzban, R., & DeScioli, P. (2013). Disgust: Evolved function and structure. Psychological Review, 120(1), 65-84.
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.
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.
55. Wang, S., & Loreau, M. (2016). Biodiversity and ecosystem stability across scales in metacommunities. Ecology letters, 19(5), 510-518.
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).
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215