Barnett_C.pdf

Barnett_C_pdf.txt

PAGE 1

INFLUENCE OF CHARISMATIC ANIMALS ON YOUTH ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE AND CONNECTION TO WATER THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF VIRTUAL REALITY TOURS By CAROLINE PAXTON BARNETT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2022

PAGE 2

2022 Caroline Paxton Barnett

PAGE 3

To my parents, my dog, and the Galpagos red lipped batfish ( Ogcocephalus darwini )

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I always had a flair for the dramatic. I would burst into tears at the slightest inconvenience and my mom would look me dead in the eyes and tell me to “buck up.” This cycle repeated from age 4– 24 and here we are, writing the acknowledgments section of my master’s thesis. Thanks, mom, for helping me learn what resilience is. I want to thank my dad for teaching me the meaning of hard work a nd dedication. And t o not print something important the night before in case the printer does not work. I would like to think I always knew what it meant to work hard, but you showed me how to overcome my fears and doubts effortlessly and confi dently. You also taught me to be stubborn—a trait that M om now must deal with in both of us. To my advisor, Dr. Jamie Loizzo, thank you for teaching me what it means to balance work and life. Thank you for your empathy, and your kindness. There is no one like you in this world and I am so grateful to call you a mentor and friend. To m y committee members , Dr. Shirley Baker, and Dr. J. C. Bunch , thank you for putting up with more marine science than science communication at times , and for teaching me how to balance both, and for SPSS facetime sessions for data analysis. I would also like to thank Megan W . for believing in me when I did not believe in myself. Thank you, Christine, Peyton, Jacqueline, Whitney, Colby, Taylor, and Caroline N. , for your friendship, guidance, and for serving as my role models. I would like to thank the Tampa Bay Estuary Program for believing in my project and awarding me a Bay minigrant to fully fund my thesis. Thank you, Joe Whalen, for your mentoring and advice; the project would not be what it is today without your input. Thank you, Captain Ian Lineberger, for boating me around Tampa Bay so I could get the perfect media content, and only asking for a pub sub in return.

PAGE 5

5 Thank you, Dr. Emerson, for allowing me the small joys of color coded spreadsheets, good puns, and good conversations. I promise I can order food on my own now. Thank you, Dr. Coers, for helping me to become comfortable in a classroom setting and for teaching me how to teach others. Thank you, Cathy, Jarred, Ryan, Kyle, Megan E, Olivia, Meredith O, Dr. Brendemuhl, Annette, Malissa, Jenai, and Jane for your enthusiasm, creativity, and conversations. I would especially like to thank Meredith A . , Kristen, and Kyle for helping me input my data. I expected 300 10page su rveys to be input via Google Forms and instead received a 21pound package in the mail with everything written out. I could not have made the deadline without you guys. Thank you, Meredith A . , for learning how to qualitatively code and for being so amazing . Thank you, Wendy, for your hard work and flexibility in helping me to format my thesis. To my beautiful friends Nikki, Kristen, and Kasey —thank you for helping me be the best version of myself. Nikki , thanks for all the puzzle/dog breaks and for your company during the FaceTime breakdowns. Kristen, thanks for being Bucky’s godmother and my reminder to love myself. And Kasey , thanks for enduring the endless songs that were stuck in my head, so I had to make them stuck in yours too (beads of jade). Thank you, Blake, Jenna, Darren, Kye, Cody, Hannah, Sarah K, Anna B, Megan S, Hailey, Amanda, Sarah R, Shelby, Christina, Meredith A, Katelyn, Anna M, Rachel, Madeline, Kasee, Brooke, Natalie, and Cassie for being such supportive friends despite our geographical differences. It really does take a village. Thank you.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 10 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 1 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION ................................................................................ 13 Rationale ................................................................................................................. 18 Research Question ................................................................................................. 18 Purpose and Objectives .......................................................................................... 19 Objectives ......................................................................................................... 19 Questions ......................................................................................................... 19 Significance of Research ........................................................................................ 20 Definition of Terms .................................................................................................. 20 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................... 22 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 24 Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) ....................................................................... 24 Peripheral C ues ................................................................................................ 25 Justification ....................................................................................................... 27 Literature Review .................................................................................................... 27 Role of Environmental Education ..................................................................... 27 Connectedness to Water .................................................................................. 29 Empathy in Education ...................................................................................... 30 Charismatic Megafauna ................................................................................... 31 Flagship Species .............................................................................................. 33 Summary of Literature Review ................................................................................ 34 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 37 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 37 Research Design .............................................................................................. 37 Epistemology .................................................................................................... 39 Funding ............................................................................................................ 39 Population and Sample .................................................................................... 40 Sampling Procedure ......................................................................................... 40 Quantitative Research ............................................................................................ 42 Variables .......................................................................................................... 42

PAGE 7

7 Instrument ........................................................................................................ 44 Qualitative Research ............................................................................................... 45 Research Context ............................................................................................. 45 Data Collect ion ................................................................................................. 46 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 48 Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 53 Limitations ........................................................................................................ 53 Summary of Methodology ....................................................................................... 54 4 RESU LTS ............................................................................................................... 59 Introduction to Results ............................................................................................ 59 Research Objectives ............................................................................................... 60 RO1. Determine Impacts o f Virtual Reality Tours Featuring Charismatic a nd Non Charismatic Animals o n Students’ Connectedness t o Water ................. 60 Treatment 1 – Dolphins .................................................................................... 60 Treatment 2 – Tunicates/Sea Squirts ............................................................... 61 Comparison Group ........................................................................................... 61 RO2. Determi ne S tudents’ P erceptions of the D ifferent V irtual R eality F lagship S pecies T reatments ........................................................................ 62 Treatment 1 – Dolphins .................................................................................... 62 Treatment 2 – Tunicate/Sea Squirt ................................................................... 63 Comparison Group ........................................................................................... 63 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 64 RQ1. How Do Virtual Reality Tours Featuring Charismatic and Non Charismatic Animals Impact Students’ Knowledge Retention? ..................... 64 RQ2. How D o Students Describe Learning F rom the Different Virtual Reality Flagship Species Treatments? ...................................................................... 65 Estuaries .......................................................................................................... 65 VR Responses ................................................................................................. 66 Animals ............................................................................................................. 67 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................... 68 5 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 81 Summary Introduction ............................................................................................. 81 Summary of Study .................................................................................................. 81 Results for RO1. Determine Impacts o f Virtual Reality Tours Featuring Charisma tic a nd NonCharismatic Animals o n Students’ Connectedness t o Water ......................................................................................................... 82 Results for RO2. Determine Students’ Perceptions of the Di fferent Virtual Reality Flagship Species Treatments ............................................................ 83 Results for RQ1. How D o Virtual Reality Tours Featuring Charismatic and Non C harismatic Animals Impact Students’ Knowledge Retention? ............. 84 Results for RQ2. How Do Students Describe Learni ng F rom The Different Virtual Reality Flagship Species Treatments? ............................................... 86 Estuaries .......................................................................................................... 87

PAGE 8

8 Virtual Reality ................................................................................................... 87 Animals ...................................................................................................... 89 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 89 APPENDI X A 2021 BAY MINI GRANT ......................................................................................... 92 B STUDENT INSTRUMENT (POST SURVEY) .......................................................... 94 C IRB APPROVAL ................................................................................................... 100 D TEACHER INFORMED CONSENT ...................................................................... 101 E PARENT TAKEHOME LETTER .......................................................................... 104 F PARENT OPT OUT FORM ................................................................................... 106 G YOUT H SURVEY ASSENT .................................................................................. 110 H INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT ................................................................... 111 I YOUTH INTERVIEW ASSENT ............................................................................. 114 J INTERVIEW WORKSHEET .................................................................................. 115 K INTE RVIEW TRANSCRIPTS ................................................................................ 117 L MAILCHIMP EMAIL CAMPAIGN .......................................................................... 123 M CHARISMATIC AND NONCHARISMATIC ANIMAL VR TOUR EXAMPLES ...... 124 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 125 BIOGRAPH ICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 131

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 31 Survey Participant Demographics ...................................................................... 57 41 One way ANOVA Tukey HSD Post Hoc Test for Pre CTW Index Variables Multiple Comparisons ......................................................................................... 70 42 One way ANOVA Tukey HSD Post Hoc Test for Post CTW Index Variables Multiple Comparisons ......................................................................................... 71 43 Treatment 1 Dolphin CTW RelatedSamples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test ......... 72 44 Treatment 2 Tunicate/Sea Squirt CTW RelatedSamples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test ........................................................................................................... 73 45 Comparison Group CTW RelatedSamples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test ........... 74 46 Treatment 1 Dolphin ELM Descriptive Statistics ................................................. 75 47 Treatment 2 Tunicate/Sea Squirt ELM Descriptive Statistics. ............................ 76 48 Comparison Group ELM Descriptive Statistics ................................................... 77 49 Top Three Things Learned Treatment 1 – Dolphin VR tour ................................ 78 410 Top Three Things Learned Treatment 2 – Tunicate/Sea Squirt VR tour ............ 79 411 Top Three Things Learned – Comparison Group ............................................... 80

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 21 Elaboration Likelihood Model .............................................................................. 36 3-1 Tampa Bay Area Map ......................................................................................... 56

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science INFLUENCE OF CHARISMATIC ANIMALS ON YOUTH ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE AND CONNECTION TO WATER THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF VIRTUAL REALITY TOURS By Caroline Paxton Barnett A ugust 2022 Chair: Jamie Loizzo Major: Agricultural Education and Communication Animals have the innate ability to inspire emotional responses in humans, whether it be adoration for captivating panda bears, or nervousness about terrifying great white sharks. The term “ charismatic ” refers to animals that are visually or empathetically appealing to an audience, and a flagship species is the utilization of charismatic animals as a tool for persuasion. There are many instances of these in communication and education in which charismati c animals act as flagship species for communication messages, acts of persuasion, and education to garner interest and participation. A gap in research exists, however, that assesses their complete role when used as hooks or engagement. How do charismati c animals impact student learning retention and connectedness to water? This study explored the impact of charismatic animals used as communication examples in targeted learning topics in a structured virtual reality tour. The following study created thr ee Virtual Reality ( VR ) 360degree tours about the Tampa Bay estuary. Each tour had a different animal example throughout – a charismatic dolphin, a noncharismatic tunicate, and a comparison group with no animal

PAGE 12

12 example. Utilizing convergent mixed methods , the VR tours with the three different treatments were distributed to five selected schools in the Tampa Bay area. After participating, students completed a retrospective post survey to determine what they learned, their connectedness to water, and tour p erceptions . Six students were randomly selected to complete a take home interview to further examine how they regarded virtual reality tours and charismatic animals. The significance of this research impacts how communicators, educators, policymakers, and others can utilize animals as interest approaches with their audience but not overshadow main message objectives. After participation in the virtual reality tour, e ach of the three tours, regardless of animal charisma presence, yielded significantly posi tive student connectedness to water and estuary knowledge understanding. There was no significance in the level of impact between treatments. Students indicated a higher interest in animals that were weird, interesting, and new to them, showing that communication and education can utilize a larger diversity of animals to engage students with the same impact as a typically charismatic animal.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION Communication is a fundamental aspect of the scientific method and oftentimes is underestimated by scientists in different professional communities (Fischhoff, 2019; Fischhoff & Scheufele, 2013) . To develop change in the natural and physical environment, s cientists need to promote their research, solutions, recommendations, and innovations more effectively and efficiently. This cannot be achieved without communication, and thus , the topic of sc ience communication has evolved into a science in its own right. (Fischhoff & Scheufele, 2013) . The biggest issues with science communication are that scientists are unable to relate their findings back to specific interest groups, policy makers, businesses, and stakeholders in a way that inspires effective two way communication (Fischhoff & Scheufele, 2013; Martin, 2019) . The success of science communication depends on the audience comprehension of results at the most individual level , and scientist awar eness of the role their work plays in public discourse on a broader, societal level (Fischhoff & Scheufele, 2013) . A successful branch of science communication is the implementation of 360degree tours, or virtual reality (VR) tours . This technological feature allows a user to operate technology in order to view highly vivid and realistic media experiences. As a result, this type of technology has become one of the most promising tools for science communication (Oh et al., 2020) . Many organizations are turning to this new technological method of experience, especially during the recent pandemic. National Geographic and the National Museum of Natural Hi story utilize VR tours and videos to show endangered animals, dinosaurs, and ocean creatures (Schlid, 2020). They have proven to be a great alternative when an inperson experience is not an option.

PAGE 14

14 Science communication is important and essential because of its impact on science based decision making. Decision making is not determined by a singular element, and thus is not directly determined only by reporting scientific results and conclusions. Another aspect of science communication is the role of humanity, emotions, and empathy. Scientists must engage in twoway communication and listen to their audience, as well as speak about their findings if they want to have success in conveying it (Fischhoff & Scheufele, 2013) . There is currently a shortage of studies that determine the correlation between emotions and environmental engagement (Ojala, 2012) . Emotions such as hope, sadness, and affection (among others) can aid in complementing the values of specific scientific research results , and may ultimately aid in the communication of environmental problems and research methods (Ojala, 2012) . Ojala (2012) reports that , in healthy psychology, people who have higher degrees of hope oftentimes act in ways designed to reach their desired goals. The author suggests that the emotion of hope is a strong motivational force that can motivate not only decisionmaking but also social engagement. Empathy is used to inspire hope for environmental issues . An increasing number of authors reported that the development of empathy can be stimulated by direct contact with animals (Thompson & Gullone, 2003) . The chain of logic in science communication with animals starts with human inter est and increased empathy in animals, which can be generalized to humandirected empathy, and hopefully to overall environmental empathy. Thompson & Gullone (2003) report that despite a lack of empirical support, western public opinion seems to support the view that there is a positive relationship

PAGE 15

15 between empathy and sentiment felt by people for humans that was also felt for their animal companions. With trends in literature and research showing this positive relationship, it is essential to understand whe ther empathy for animals can correlate to empathy for the very environment those animals live in. Scientists who utilize animals in their research reported that animals specifically garner more attention and affection from interest groups, stakeholders, and communities . Therefore, they might have an easier time utilizing the empathy of their audience to better promote their research and stimulate action. When attempting to generate public interest in scientific research, one of the easiest ways to incorporate animals into research in the natural sciences is to connect animal endangerment or threats to their environment. When a species is threatened with extinction, it is identified as an endangered species. Examples of endangered species in Florida include the loggerhead sea turtle and the West Indian manatee (Mazzotti, 1990) . Habitat loss is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, including elements such as loss of living space due to human development or manmade pollution (Hanski, 2011; Mazzotti, 1990) . Other threats include introduction of invasive species and direct killing, for example animal or egg over harvesting and poisoning (Mazzotti, 1990) . When a habitat becomes threatened or damaged, animals that live in that ecosystem are the first to be directly affected. While utilizing animals as a method to inspire empathy and emotional connection between scientific research and humans, animal and habitat endangerment are oftentimes the context needed. The habitat focused on in this study is an estuary system. Estuaries and the surrounding wetlands are bodies of water where the river mouth extends into the sea

PAGE 16

16 and are home to animals that have adapted into brackish water —a mix of fresh and salt water (NOAA, 20 21). They are delicate ecosystems that are known to be nursery, breeding, and foraging grounds for many animals (NOAA, 2021). Because of their high productivity, estuary systems and the organisms that inhabit them are important to protect and to educate ot hers about. Mazzotti (1990) states that the protection of endangered species and the environment is important in conserving biological diversity, especially with the understanding that human activities are one of the main causes of animal extinction and h abitat loss. Biodiversity is important to conserve as well, since humans are inherently reliant on its products. Elements such as food, clothing, energy, medicine, ecotourism, and even structural materials (among many others) all historically stem from plants and animals (Greenwald et al., 2019) . In 1973, t he United States passed the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) that include d strong protections for threatened and endangered species (Greenwald et al., 2019) . Animals have the innate ability to inspire emotional responses in humans, be it through adoration of charismatic and visually appealing panda bears, or nervousness about charismatic and visually terrifying great white sharks. Specific characteristics of animals contribute to their charisma, and therefore make them more appealing to humans (Ando & Langpap, 2018; Ducarme et al., 2013; Krause & Robinson, 2017; Skibins et al., 2013) . Animals that fall into this category are aptly termed “ charismatic megafauna ” meaning they denote visual or empathetic appeal due to their natural characteristics. Empathy and emotions play a large role in conservational attitudes and actions, to the point where the term “ flagship species paradigm ” was created to describe

PAGE 17

17 animals used as the face of conservation and environmental campaigns (Andelman & Fagan, 2000; Douglas & Winkel, 2014; Thompson & Rog, 2019; Verssimo et al., 2014) . The animals used in this context were helpful in gaining support and recognition by becoming an interest ing approach for education of other environmental topics. Educators and conservationists choose to inform interested individuals about charismatic animals to gain more interest or empathy for their desired educational or informational standpoint s. Charismatic megafauna are used as a tool for persuasion; their primary role is as a figurehead to get the attention of the audience. Once the audience is interested, the speaker can start to inform them about specific topic s relating to that animal. This also serves as an attentiongrabbing and diversion tactic for instructors. When this occurs, charismatic megafauna are utilized as flagship species, where they serve a specific role in spearheading attraction to a subject. This type of interest gathering is not only used in conservat ion issues, but also in education where charismatic megafauna act as interest approaches for certain lessons and provide educational materials to garner student curiosity and participation. One study noted that harnessing the full potential of these animal s will help promote biodiversity conservation and education on this topic (V erssimo et al., 2014) . The problem reviewed in the current research is what occurs when these charismatically cute or fierce animals are too good at garnering attention when used in education. There is a gap in research that assesses the negative role of charismatic megafauna used as interest or engagement examples in education. Studies have shown evidence that charismatic megafauna used as flagship species for

PAGE 18

18 conservational efforts are likely to outshine other animals deemed not as visually appealing to stakeholders or public participants (Douglas & Winkel, 2014; Krger, 2005; Skibins et al., 2013; Thompson & Rog, 2019) . If charismatic megafauna are utilized as flagship species to promote larger conservation or education projects, they are then capable of monopolizing public and stakeholder attention and resources . Do they also monopolize the attention of learners when used as engagement hooks and interest approaches in educational lessons for broader topics on the environment? This issue is a doubleedged sword, as we need these charismatic animals to get the initial attention. Rationale This study is important to the profession of science communication and marine science because it is critical to holistically approach conservation elements, including animals and environments that are not well known or charismatic to the audience. Conservation should not be limited to only those organisms and habitats that are convenient, as all life is interconnected in ecosystems, food webs, and natural processes of life. More media coverage and literacy are devoted to those animals that are popular or ap pealing because they make it easier to gain attention and funding. There is little to no research on how charismatic animals can be used appropriately as flagship species and conservation figureheads to gain attention for other animals and environments, but without allowing them to completely overshadow the main objectives of promoting and facilitating conservation for lesser known organisms. Research Question Conservation has become a growing movement into the 21st century, with climate change becoming more prominent in our environment and media coverage. There is plentiful media attention on charismatic endangered and extinct animals and their

PAGE 19

19 environments . However, there is a lack of research on the responsible use of these animals to promote conservatio n without overshadowing other less charismatically appealing animals in their environments that need just as much attention and funding. The research question guiding this study is: what are students’ perceptions of charismatic versus non charismatic animals when used as interest approaches in educational lessons about estuary systems? Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine how the use of charismatic animals as examples in educational materials and communication strategies impact s tudent understanding of Tampa Bay estuary systems and their connectedness to water. Specifically, this study aimed to determine whether differences exist between three educational virtual reality tours containing varying degrees of charismatic animals as i nterest approaches for general student connectedness to water , and retention of overall knowledge. The research was guided by the following objectives and questions : Objectives RO1 . Determine the impacts of virtual reality tours featuring charismatic and n oncharismatic animals on students’ connectedness to water . RO2 . Determine students’ perceptions of the different virtual reality flagship species treatments . Questions RQ1 . How do virtual reality tours featuring charismatic and noncharismatic animals impact students’ knowledge retention ? RQ2 . How do students describe leaning from the different virtual reality flagship species treatments ?

PAGE 20

20 Significance of Research The significance of this study was to determine best practices for utilizing charismatic megafauna and flagship species in environmental materials in a way that compliments lesson objectives and does not overshadow the purposes of the lesson or information. Charismatic megafauna are great promotional ways to garner public interest in environmental and conservation campaigns . However, we are unsure of their capability to be utilized in education to garner interest in specific subjects without detracting from the lesson itself (Verssimo et al., 2014) . This study address ed the impact of charismatic animals used as educational ex amples in targeted learning topics with student education as the main model. The study was hosted by Streaming Science, a collegebased and student driven science literacy program that targets students in grades 7 11. The theory of this study is focused on the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) with an emphasis on the liking cue of the peripheral route of persuasion. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used that involve d first collecting quantitative data, followed by explaining these result s with in depth qualitative data. In the first, quantitative phase of the study, survey data was collected from middle and high school students enrolled in various agricultural classes in Florida schools to assess whether the level of charisma an animal possesses impacts what content is learned pertaining to the lesson objectives. The second, qualitative phase was conducted as a follow up to help explain the quantitative results. This phase explored whether charismatic animals used as examples in an educational lesson have an impact on what material students retained and reported in the survey. Definition of Terms Major concepts and terms mentioned throughout the study are defined below:

PAGE 21

21 Charisma : The compelling appeal and magnetism that inspires devotion in others (Ducarme et al., 2013) . Charismatic Megafauna: Charismatic megafauna is defined as visually or empathetically appealing animals that have the ability to capture the imagination of an audience and to stimulate people to donate funds and raise public and institutional aw areness of their endangerment or environmental concerns (Mazzoldi et al., 2019) . Connection to Water Scale (CTW): An extension of the Connectedness to Nature (CTN) scale . In order to include the connection to water as a natural world construct, CTW explores how the relationships people have with water provide a rationale for better understanding of the human behavior needed to protect water resources (Warner & Diaz, 2020) . Empathy : Mainly a social emotion, empathy is often what bridges the emotional states of one individual to another , stemming f rom their affective or psychological state (Thompson & Gullone, 2003) . Environmental Education: Values and concepts taught to develop competences and mindsets necessary to comprehend and appreciate the connect ion among humanity, culture, and the surrounding environment , as well as concern over issues about environmental quality (Monroe et al., 2016) . Estuary: Estuaries and their surrounding wetlands are ecosystems that cover an area where a river mouth extends into an ocean, creating a mix of fresh and salt water, also called brackish water. Estuaries are homes t o an abundance of animal species and are common nursery, breeding, foraging, and migration grounds for a host of many different species (NOAA, 2021).

PAGE 22

22 Flagship Species: Flagship species are charismatic species that are used as figureheads and rallying point s to promote conservation (Barua, 2011; Haywood, 1995) . Science Communication: The communication about science by scientists and their organizations with different publics (Gerber, 2014) . 360 tours: Virtual reality (VR)/360degree tours offer the user a vivid and realistic media experience, including a full panoramic view of scenery that is controlled through the video perspective. These tours have become increasingly more popular as technology continues to advance (Oh et al., 2020) . Chapte r Summary In this chapter, the role of science communication and utilization of VR tours was addressed as well as the context and background of the terms charismatic megafauna and flagship species. Charismatic megafauna are often utilized as flagship speci es and leading examples for educational lessons on conservation matters in order to garner more audience interest and understanding. There is little information that examines the effects of such utilization. For example, does the use of charismatic megafauna monopolize the lesson objectives themselves, rendering the main intentions and key takeaways less important than that of a charismatic animal used to garner initial interest ? The research study aimed to examine the relationship between charisma of an animal used as an interest approach or an example model in an educational study regarding the Tampa Bay estuary system . The knowledge retention of student participants was also studied, including the overall subject matter and subsequent influence of conserv ation intentions. The results of this study will benefit marine science communicators as well as science educators by allowing for a better understanding of

PAGE 23

23 how to best utilize charismatic megafauna to garner interest in key informational takeaways without misdirecting attention away from the main concept.

PAGE 24

24 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) was developed by Richard Petty and John Cacioppo in 1986. This theory is related to persuasion, and how receivers of communication interpret the message they are given. ELM shows that persuasion is cognitive, and recipients of the message will either accept or reject the message depending on how they interpret it (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) . Communicators can utilize two different ways to persuade their audience , either via the central route to persuasion or the peripheral route to persuasion. The central route of persuasion, or elaborated route, will include evidence, information, rationality, and research in order to support a statement and persuade the intended audience (Dainton & Zelley, 2019; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) . Through this route, a communicator is more likely to inspire longterm change or persuasion so long as the recipient is motivated to process the information and is able to process the message cognitively (Dainton & Zelley, 2019; Pett y & Cacioppo, 1986) . Should one or both characteristics not be met, ELM will not work to persuade your audience. The peripheral route of persuasion is dubbed as the “shortcut” ELM route . W hile this route has the ability to persuade your audience, the persuasion itself will be short term (Dainton & Zelley, 2019; Petty & Cac ioppo, 1986) . Petty & Cacioppo (1986) state that this method of ELM and persuasion can be used if an audience does not meet the earlier defined characteristics of being highly motivated and capable of cognitively processing the information a communicator is giving them . If these characteristics are not met, while the elaborated route of ELM cannot be fulfilled, a communicator can

PAGE 25

25 choose to utilize the peripheral route to persuasion, which relies on the emotional and superficial involvement of the recipient. Again, while this route can be a quick patch method for persuasion, it leads to weak or no change in persuasion. Regarding the peripheral route of ELM, recipients of persuasion evaluate d information using self learning and simple decision procedures that do not require elaborate messages to elicit attitude or behavior changes. O’Keefe (2013) further explains this using three types of heuristics, or decisionmaking : 1) credibility heuristic ; 2) liking the communicator ; and 3) consensus heuristic. He no tes that these three procedures have little to do with how the information is being conveyed or peripheral cues, but rather how they focus on the community themselves and the environment the message is being conveyed in. Credibility heuristic is how recip ients of the message are persuaded based on the credibility of the communicator. Liking the communicator is when the recipient is more inclined to be persuaded based upon his or her affinity for the speaker. Lastly, consensus heuristic is when the recipient is influenced by the reactions of others around them. A positive reaction in the environment is more likely to persuade someone to also positively accept the persuasion, although this can be compared to the social proof peripheral cue (O’Keefe, 2013) . Should the recipient be motivated and able to process the information provided, when elaboration and evidence increase, the influence of heuristics and peripheral cues will decrease (O’Keefe, 2013; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) . Peripheral C ues In his 1994 work, Robert Cialdini identified seven peripheral cues in the peripheral route of ELM including authority, commitment, contrast, liking, reciprocity, scarcity, and social proof (Dainton & Zelley, 2019) . Cialdini (1994) described the first

PAGE 26

26 cue, authority, as the same communication style parents use with their children, to convince the recipient to accept the message via the power of the communicator’s influence. The second cue, commitment, focuses on the recipient’s personal dedication to a product, cause, group, or organization. The third and fourth cues are contrast and liking. Contrast set s up points of comparison to create a persuasive m essage using discrepancy , while liking is utilized to stress affection or attachment to a person, place, or thing. The reciprocity cue represents a giving and receiving relationship , while scarcity utilizes a person’s fear of missing out on something to convince them to adopt it sooner rather than later. Finally , social proof is essentially peer pressuring the recipient into accepting the behavior or concept. There are tradeoffs between the two ELM processes . The more complex or elaborate a message becomes, the less likely peripheral cues will become effective in the communicator ’s persuasion (O’Keefe, 2013) . In addition to the complexity of the message, outside variables can influence persuasion in three ways: (a) they could affect the degree of elaboration; (b) an outside v ariable could serve as a peripheral cue and influence outcomes in peripheral route persuasion; and (c) they could influence the degree of elaboration (O’Keefe, 2013) . Peripheral cues can be evaluated in the same way as elaborated arguments, in which they can be viewed as positive, negative, or neutral (Dainton & Zelley, 2019; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) . It is also important to note that , while ELM can predict causes of changed attitude due to persuasion, a change in attitude does not predict a change in behavior, and there can be disparity between action and belief (Dainton & Zelley, 2019;

PAGE 27

27 Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) . The peripheral route of persuasion more often ends up with a neutral or negative change in attitude or behavior due to the message being conveyed superficially. By comparison, the elaborated route of persuasion is more likely to end in neutral or positive change. Justification The purpose of this study was to determine whether levels of charisma possessed by animals used in educational examples would have an impact on objectives retained by students. Does their emotional familiarity or attachment to the animal direct their focus and attention to details of the example, or does it engage them with the details of the lesson itself? The ELM was chosen as the theoretical framework for this study because it focuses on the peripheral route of persuasion, specifically focusing on the liking peripheral cue. The more charismatic, or cute, an animal is, the more likely students are to be familiar with it or to have had exposure to the animal in the past. Similarly, they are more likely to like the animal if they find it charismatic. Therefore, ELM was chosen as the theoretical framework, as researchers will be able to determine whether the likeability or charism a of an animal can persuade students to learn more about a conservational topic. Literature Review Role of Environmental Education Environmental education is used as an instrument in education to educate students about approaches, tools, and programs that will help them develop conservation and environmentally friendly behaviors, values, skills, opinions, and awareness . This type of knowledge will prepare them to take informed action on behalf of their community and the global environment (Ardoin et al., 2020; Monroe et al.,

PAGE 28

28 2016) . It focuses on the local environment and places attention on how one’s actions affects the environment around them individually , societally, and globally , through an individual’s beliefs or attitudes, identif ication of environmental threats, and other such behaviors (Ardoin et al., 2020) . The overarching goal of environmental education is to help develop a world population that is both aware and concerned about the environment and all the associated problems that concern it (Monroe et al., 2016) . Strategies that are used today for developing environmental education are created to be sustainable, flexible, and relative to current environmental, political, economic, and cultural realit ies . These strategies ensure interconnectivity to the environment, the problems with it, and why it’s relevant to current educational practices (Monroe et al., 2016) . It’s important to note that environmental education is not limited to classrooms, but to any facility or program that offers educational opportunities, including zoos, museums, gatherings for po licy makers, national park systems, and more (Monroe et al., 2016) . This study, however, takes place in a classroom setting due to convenience sampling, and the need to understand how charismatic and noncharismatic animals make an impact in formal learning settings. Ardoin et al . (2018) comprised a systematic review of literature that was related to environmental education and found that existing environmental education programs have an overall positive effect on accumulated environmental knowledge, attitudes, values, and skills f or the participants in these programs. Their study also found that environmental education not only affected attitudes about the environment, but also attitudes towards academic achievement and civic engagement. Environmental

PAGE 29

29 education is good for examinin g short term environmental outcomes , incubating longterm changes and long term outcomes , and research perspectives. Environmental education has the ability to impact interdisciplinary branches of government works, such as policy, where policymakers can in fluence longterm environmentally friendly changes in attitude, values, and behavior (Varela Candamio et al., 2018) . This is important as it shows that environmental education is not onl y a necessary tool used to broaden the knowledge of students and communities, but also to influence longterm environmental change through the education system. Human behavior is of the upmost importance in predicting and enabling environmental protection (Varela Candamio et al., 2018) . Connectedness to Water There is a current need to increase prowater conservation behaviors in households across the nation. There are agricultural extension professionals and programs that attempt to achieve these changes . However , the ability to recognize objectives and outcomes of these programs has been noted as challenging (Warner & Diaz, 2020) . A study by Warner & Diaz (2020) examines at how t he exploration of an individual’s connectedness to nature does not fully encompass their connectedness to water or water conservation habits. Their study developed a condensed connectedness to water (CTW) scale which focused on the participant connection t o nature with emphasis on behaviors designed to improve water conservation and protection, as one’s connectedness to nature influences their motivation to protect it. The CTW scale is a Likert scale determined by the following statements : 1. I often feel a se nse of oneness with the water around me. 2. I think of the water around me as a community to which I belong. 3. I appreciate the plants and animals that live in the water around me.

PAGE 30

30 4. I think of humans as part of the water cycle . 5. I feel a relationship with the animals and plants that live in the water around me. 6. I feel as though I belong to the water around me as equally as it belongs to me. 7. I have a deep understanding of how my actions affect the water around me. 8. I often feel part of the water cycle. 9. I feel tha t everyone and everything connected to the water around me shares a common energy . 10. Like a drop of water can be part of the ocean, I am connected to the water around me. 11. I often feel like I am only a small part of the natural world around me, and that I am no more important than the water in the streams or the fish in the rivers . The researchers found that the developed CTW scale is a reliable way to plan and evaluate water related environmental and agricultural programs. CTW is used to focus on this connect ion to nature while also providing a rationale to better understand behavior which is needed to protect water resources (Warner & Diaz, 2020) . There is a lack of exploration on how a person’s emotional connection to water is related to their desire to protect it, as the current connectedness to nature scales lacked focus on the impacts of empathy. Once this is understood, more impactful environmental education and program planning can be created and delivered to global audiences (Warner & Diaz, 2 020) . Empathy in Education Instilling and maintaining the role of empathy in early education is becoming increasingly recognized in society (Thompson & Gullone, 2003) . Humane education can refer to emotional intelligence and responsiveness to certain factors, including a respect for animals, which is used to inspire empathy in classrooms (Daly & Suggs, 2010; Thomas & Bierne, 2002) . Currently, American laws and programs are more frequently

PAGE 31

31 suggesting that humane education be implemented to foster empathy and moral development in students, including the use of increased values such as integrity, honesty, and mercy (Daly & Suggs, 2010; Thomas & Bierne, 2002) . Ojala’s (2012) study on the emotion of hope and climate change also suggest that empathy is a strong influencer for engagement, as hope can help students face probl ems related to climate change and help them to transform their emotions into a positive and constructive motivational force (Ojala, 2012) . This study provided evidence that hope is more than just a positive emotion and is important for environmental engagement and education. Therefore, it should be promoted alongside environmental concerns (Ojala, 2012) . Charismatic Megafauna Charismatic megafauna refers to a perceived classification of animals that are visually and empathetically appealing (Mazzoldi et al., 2019) . Their “charisma” denotes more attention by targeted audiences , more so than their other animal counterparts , who fail to come across as charismatic to the target ed audiences who view them (Krger, 2005) . People tend to evaluate the value protection worth of animals based upon beauty, rarity, visual attractiveness, or usefulness (LindemannMatthies, 2005) . Environm ental knowledge and visual appreciation are large contributors to influencing a person’s decision to protect a certain species (LindemannMatthies, 2005; Schlegel & Rupf, 2010) . L arge animals often receive more research funding, national attention, and policy coverage (Skibins et al., 2013; Thompson & Rog, 2019) . Due to charismatic megafauna which often receiv es more of these benefits and exposure, they are often seen in media or literature examples. According to a study by Schlegal and Rupt (2010) , who analyzed student attitudes towards flagship species, a familiar species has a better chance of being protected than an unfamiliar speci es (Schlegel & Rupf, 2010) .

PAGE 32

32 Examples of charismatic megafauna include such animals as sea turtles, whales, dolphins, elephants, tigers, and more. Many factors go into deciding what determines whether an animal is “ charismatic, ” as the defining term at first glance seems broad and subjective. Variables that contribute to an animal’s level of charisma include fame, animal reputation, aesthetics, and overall interest for scientists and people (Ducarme et al., 2013; Lorimer, 2007) . Some terms use d in conjunction with this include species indicator, keystone species, umbrella species, and flagship species (Ducarme et al., 2013) . While charismatic megafauna are gen erally loved and recognized by the public, conservationists question if the promotion of charismatic megafauna protection is actually counterproductive (Ripple et al., 2016) . With the world’s eyes and wal lets on these loveable creatures, there is a likely reduction of resources and findings that could be allocated to other, lesser known, or more imperiled species (Ripple et al., 2016; Sibarani et al., 2019) . There are many studies that research the importance of charismatic megafauna on environmental policy and conservation. One study found that there is a high p otential that using charismatic marine megafauna for mangrove conservation will help increase fundraising and improve awareness endeavors (Thompson & Rog, 2019) . This concept utilizing charismatic megaf auna and other such well known species to increase awareness and involvement for conservation and fundraising is a general theme in conservation (Simberloff, 1998; Skibins et al., 2013; Thompson & Rog, 2019) . When charismatic megafauna are us ed as tools to achieve a conservational goal, the definition broadens to flagship species.

PAGE 33

33 Flagship Species Flagship species are used in conservation marketing and environmentalism as focused examples of animals that possess one or more appealing traits t o represent a larger environmental system or concept that appeal s to a target audience (Verssimo et al., 2014) . It is important to recognize the distinction between charismatic megafauna and flagship species. Charismatic megafauna are the categorization of a specific animal, whereas flagship species are any species of animal, charismatic or not, used to promote campaigns, ecotourism, conservation, and the like. Flagship species can be utilized as ambassadors, symbols, or rallying points for conservation, fundraising, and environmental campaigns (Jepson & Barua, 2015) . Popular ways of increasing the focus on an environmental area in need of public support, policy reform, or attention would be to promote flagship species or species umbrellas, which are species who require a large area of habitat . Therefore, promotion of the protection of these animals also protects other species in the ecosystem (Andelman & Fagan, 2000; Simberloff, 1998) . The term “ flagship species paradigm ” refers to the strategic selection of species who can become the faces of environmental and conservation campaigns (Thompson & Rog, 2019; Verssimo et al., 2014) . Any animal can be used as the leading example in a flagship species paradigm . However, more often than not, charismatic megafauna are chosen due to their relative popular ity and familiarity with targeted audiences (Thompson & Rog, 2019) . One such study analyzed the influence of flagship species in conservation campaign s via monetary donations . This research found that flagship species are more likely to persuade people towards conservation (Thomas Walters & J . Raihani, 2017) .

PAGE 34

34 One such study evaluated case studies of ecotourism, and it was found that the probability of sustainability was influenced by the type of flagship species utilized (Krger, 2005) . Projects that lacked charismatic animals as flagship species proponents ended up with low revenues or sustainability efforts in comparison to those of charismatic flagship campaigns (Krger, 2 005) . This serves as a major difficulty for areas in need of ecotourism, funding, or conservation due to a lack of charismatic flagship species native to the area that could be utilized for campaigns. Another case study that focused solely on the promot ion of koala bears examined how flagship species in education programs can stimulate stakeholder and public interest in conservation of Australia’s habitats (Schlagloth et al., 2018) . Other concerns about the use of flagship species include the amount of attention they bring to its highlighted animals, as ecotourism activities and hotspots can disturb the wildlife or promote unnatural behavior due to the intervention of humans (Mazzoldi et al., 2019) . An example of possible negative ramifications of flagship species could be whale watching boats which interfer e d with the behavior or communication of wil d whales (Mazzoldi et al., 20 19; Parsons, 2012) . Limited research is available on other motivational elements of flagship species , such as cultural or demographic considerations that could serve as further justification for conservation of charismatic megafauna , other than the degree of cuteness an animal has (Frazier, 2005) . Summary of Lit erature Review Chapter 2 presented the theoretical framework and background literature associated with the proposed research design which determines the impact of charismatic megafauna on educational interest approaches and knowledge retention. The first theoretical framework guiding this study is the elaboration likelihood method

PAGE 35

35 (ELM), as the research is designed around the peripheral route of “liking” something or feeling empathy for it. Furthermore, the second theoretical framework used in this design is the theory of planned behavior (TPB) which further expands upon this “liking” cue , and analyzes how attitudes, normative beliefs, and perceived behavioral control were used to determine whether the utilization of charismatic megafauna could in any way, shape, or form influence the attitudes or behaviors of participant conservation behavior. In addition to the theoretical framework, this chapter also went into detail regarding relevant research and a literature review of topics , including that of charisma tic megafauna, science communication, CTW , environmental education, VR tours, empathy, and flagship species.

PAGE 36

36 Figure 21. Elaboration Likelihood Model (Dainton & Zelley, 2019).

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction There are two types of research styles used to approach methodology. Quantitative research analyzes numbers, close ended questions and responses, and experimental studies. Qualitative research relies more on words, openended questions, and case studies (t o name a few). Many research designs will follow one of these research approaches . However , recently there has been a rise in mixed methods research—a combination of both qualitative and quantitative procedures (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner (2007) searched a broad range of recent history and leaders’ definitions of the term “ mixed methods” to determine how best to define it. Their research concluded that the best definition of mixed methods research is “intellectual and prac tical synthesis based on qualitative and quantitative research that also generates research questions as well as providing answers and explanations for those questions” (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007 , p. 129) . Mixed methods can be classified into different categories, including convergent design, explanatory design, and exploratory design. The following study utilized an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. Research Design To best address the research objectives and questions, a convergent mixed methods approach was used. The convergent (or concurrent) design exists when quantitative and qualitative data are both collected and analyzed during the same or a similar timeframe and when it occurs in a parallel timeframe (Fetters, Curry, & Creswell,

PAGE 38

38 2013). Because the instrument was given in a retrospective way, both pre and post views on CTW, ELM, and knowledge on estuaries were given at the same time. Additionally, the takehome interview worksheet was created at the same time as the survey and distributed to teachers to give to selected students after they experienced the instrument . All data was analyzed within the same week, and results of the data were merged and compared to truly understand whether the conclusions of both aspects reflect ed each other or if one type of data provided a particular insight to the other (Fetters, Curry, & Creswell, 2013). The following thesis utilized a convergent mixed methods research design by simultaneously implementing a retrospective quantitative post survey (instrument) and a takehome interview worksheet given to two teacher selected students from each of the three treatments. Two students were chosen due to limited compensation and limited time available to analyze the interviews. Data from both the multimodal instrument , with qualitative write in questions about what students believed they had learned and found most and least interesting from the tour . A longside these qualitative questions were quantitative Likert scale ranking questions about how CTW and ELM attitudes came together to help understand how using charismatic and noncharismat ic animals in VR influenced student knowledge retention. I chose this research design because I wanted to utilize quantitative methods through a survey to get a general sense of what students learned from the VR tour via the instrument created. I also wanted a more indepth qualitative interview with a smaller sample of students to understand more about why they chose the answers that they did in the instrument , and how animals may have impacted their selections.

PAGE 39

39 Epistemology This research study was cond ucted using the constructivism worldview. Constructivism allows individuals to generate and construct their own meaning and knowledge of something through the interaction of beliefs they already have and new teachings, ideas, lessons, and activities that they participate in . The meaning of constructivism varies widely in accordance with the individual’s viewpoint, status, and life experiences . In education, the constructivist viewpoint includes emotional components and subjective meaningmaking that results from interacting with the VR tour and any interpretive activities built into the teacher’s lesson plans (Clayton et al., 2009) . Using the constructivism mindset, learning and teaching are intertwined with curiosity and emotions. The more connected someone feels to what they are learning, the more likely they are to remember the information and build upon it later, denoting the importance of interest approaches and empathy in education using charismatic megafauna. Funding The research for this thesis was created in partnership with the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP). The mission of the TBEP is to build partnerships to restore and prot ect the Tampa Bay estuary system through a community based management plan (Tampa Bay Estuary Program, n.d.). Their 2021– 2022 Bay Mini Grant award of $5,000 provided a financial stipend of $300 to incentivize teachers not only to participate in the survey, but also to follow through with all instructions and turn in all materials to have equal data among sample populations. Each of the five classrooms selected for the study were also provided a classroom set of Google cardboard viewers to help students engage more with the VR tour. Students who were selected by their

PAGE 40

40 teachers to participate and finish the interview were compensated with a $10 Amazon gift card. This was offered to provide incentive for participants not only to sign up for the study, but to see it through. The accepted budget and grant proposal for this study is included in Appendix A. Population and Sample The population for this study included public school students grades 6– 11 from Hernando, Hillsborough, Pasco, Pinellas, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties in the Tampa Bay area in the state of Florida. The Census Reporter (through the 2020 American Community Survey) defines the TampaSt. Petersburg Clearwater Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as including Hernando, Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pine llas counties (Census Reporter, 2020). Manatee and Sarasota counties also border the Tampa Bay Estuary. Only public schools were chosen, and online schools were eliminated. From these areas, the sample of the population examined one school per county as a representative of the whole population. Figure 31 shows where each of these counties are located relative to Tampa Bay. Sampling Procedure Participants were recruited via snowball techniques. My committee and I provided an open call for participants via our connected agricultural education and communication network . Every teacher from various science fields (e.g., biology, chemistry, physics, marine science, agriculture, etc.) and the principals from each of the six public schools were compiled into an E xcel spreadsheet consisting of 1,5 26 email addresses. Teacher and principal emails were listed on each public school website, and only those that were declared a science teacher were selected and put into the final spreadsheet for contacting. A MailChimp e mail campaign was created that advertised

PAGE 41

41 the study and benefits (Appendix L) . Study information was sent out twice to all the listed emails. My committee and I also advertised through social media channels , including personal and Streaming Science, and by a wordof mouth campaign. Potential teacher participants signed up via a Google Forms online survey linked in the MailChimp email to identify six teachers from six different schools in the sample counties. A total of 21 teachers responded that they were interested in participating in the study. The first teacher to respond from each of the six counties was selected to participate. No teachers from Pinellas County responded to the call for participants, so two teachers from the largest county, Hills borough, were selected instead. The teacher from Sarasota County dropped out of the study partway through the process. As it was too late to recruit another teacher from that county, one Hillsborough school was allocated two treatments instead of one, with double the compensation, as they indicated they were able to provide upwards of 600 students to participate in the study. Overall, one teacher each from Pasco, Hernando, Manatee Counties , and two teachers from Hillsborough County participated in the study . Of the five teachers participating, two of them (and therefore three of the six treatments) came from Hillsborough County. To attempt to spread out the three types of treatments, Hillsborough County was assigned all three ( Comparison , Dolphin, and Tunic ate/Sea Squirt). The treatments were assigned randomly to the remaining counties , where n was the number of students who participated in the study from that county : Pasco —Co mparison ( n=4 ), Hernando—Dolphin ( n=13), Manatee — Tunicate/Sea Squirt ( n=33 ), Co mpar ison ( n=64), Hillsborough —Dolphin ( n=92 ), and

PAGE 42

42 Tunicate/Sea Squirt ( n=160). Overall, n = 366 students participated in the study and provided instrument results . Two students from each treatment were selected by their teachers to fill out the interview works heet and were compensated with a $10 Amazon gift card. Table 31 shows the breakdown of student survey participant demographics. In this study, 38.5% of the students were male and 47.3% of the students were female. A total of 38.5% identif ied as Hispanic and/or Latino , while 47.5% indicated they d id not identify as Hispanic and/or Latino. A little over half (51.4%) of the participants identified as white followed by other race (13.4%), two or more races (11.5%), African American (10.1 %), Asian (4.1%), and American Indian and/or Alaska Native (2.5%). P redominantly more high school students (60.1%) participated than middle school students (29.5%). A majority of this study was comprised of students in the 9th grade (38.5%) followed by 10th grade (15.3%), 11th grade (6.0%), and 12th grade (0.3%). Middle school percentages came in at 6th grade (10.9%), 7th grade (17.2%), and 8th grade (1.4%). An equal number of middle and high school teachers were chosen to participate in this study. Some teachers o ffered to involve multiple classrooms at their school while others chose to use only one class of students, causing an inequal distribution of students per treatment. Quantitative Research Variables The independent variable of this study was the use of a charismatic/noncharismatic animal as an example in a VR tour to communicate with middle and high school students about estuary systems and the Tampa Bay estuary. The featured charismatic animal was the bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops t runcates ), and the non charismatic creature was the tunicate/sea squirt ( Tunicata sp) .

PAGE 43

43 In order to determine which animals were charismatic and which were not, I compiled two large lists of charismatic and noncharismatic animals and had my committee members and the Tampa B ay Estuary Program liaison narrow this list down to four animals per category. I posted two polls to my personal social media pages and the social media pages of Streaming Science and viewers were then asked to vote for which animal they deemed most charis matic, and which were deemed least charismatic . The request was accompanied with images for reference. From these polls , the bottlenose dolphin was deemed most charismatic , while the tunicate/sea squirt was deemed least charismatic . These results w ere the n used as the sample animals for the purpose of this thesis. This method was utilized to eliminate researcher bias in choosing an animal to represent a charismatic or noncharismatic megafauna and instead the decision was left to non affiliated individuals . We conducted this survey to choose the animals to highlight in this research due to the bias my academic background in marine science might create based on my knowledge and empathy for certain ocean animals. I created one overarching VR tour that aim ed to teach students about estuary systems and the Tampa Bay estuary. This tour had three treatments in which the content remained the same, but the charismatic animal used as an interest approach was different: a) a bottlenose dolphin for the charismatic ani mal, b) a tunicate/sea squirt as the noncharismatic animal, and c) a comparison group where no animal was used at all. The dependent variable of the study was the retention of knowledge of the participants based on the study of their CTW and water conservation behavior intentions. I measured these variables by conducting a pretest and post test evaluating

PAGE 44

44 participant knowledge of the Tampa Bay Estuary system and overall lesson objectives regardi ng estuaries. The comparison group in this study did not utilize an animal example. Instead, references were verbalized as “the animal” or “an animal , ” without designating a specific organism. Instrument I first created an instrument (the retrospective post survey) that included three main parts. The first part ask ed students three free response questions about the top things they learned from this field trip, including: 1) the most and least interesting parts of the tour ; 2) what could hav e been improved from the tour ; and 3) what animal (if any) was used in the tour. This section was asked first in order to eliminate any answer bias due to questions asked in the survey. The section following CTW items covered participant attitudes: how di d this VR tour affect student environmental opinions? What were t heir opinions about VR tours? The section included the CTW Likert Scale used to determine how the VR tours impacted students ’ feelings about water protection (Warner & Diaz, 2020). S tudents w ere also asked to determine their familiarity with various terms , both before and after experiencing the VR tour. Next was a section detailing the Elaboration Likelihood Model methodology and how students felt about using VR , including how it impacted their experience learning about estuaries. Finally, this survey examined content identification: what information did the students retrain from these tours? A section about demographics round ed out the end of the survey. The entire instrum ent can be found in Appendix B. The overall objective is to determine how the different VR treatments impact students’ Tampa Bay estuary knowledge as well as their connections to

PAGE 45

45 water. Measurable success was through statistical differences of knowledge retention in the surveys and qualitative interviews about each VR tour used to investigate perceptions of the different charismatic animal interest approaches. This was crossreferenced with any mentions of a charismatic or noncharismatic animal throughout the survey. The interview portion of the study took place after the post survey is distributed. Each teacher select ed two students to participate in the interview worksheet and survey which asked about the following topics: grade level, class dynamics, V R tour implementation, estuary knowledge, influence of charismatic animals (how the students felt about them, which animal they remember ed seeing, how the animal impacted their learning). Students who participated in the comparison groups were given the same interview worksheet with the influence of charismatic animal section eliminated. Qualitative Research Research Context As a graduate student from the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida , I partnered with the Tampa Bay Estuary Program to create a set of VR 360 degree tours for public school students in grades 6– 11 to learn more about the Tampa Bay estuary system, its importance, and examples of animals that live there. While this VR tour could focus on a ny type of environmental subject to research the influence of charismatic animals, due to the partnership between TBEP and the graduate student conducting research for this master’s thesis, the information content of the VR tour focus ed on estuaries, primarily the Tampa Bay Estuary. As part of TBEP content deliverables, this study explored types of animals found in the estuary and also

PAGE 46

46 serve d as a learning tool for educ ators in the Tampa Bay area to learn more about their surrounding habitats, what TBEP is, and how they can help conserve the environment. A VR tour was chosen as the study platform because of its ease of access and emphasis on visuals. The study focuses on charismatic animals, which emphasizes visual contact between the participant and animal involved. With an improvement in technology and accessibility, VR has the potential to reshape classroom structure by providing a way to engage students, improve learning, and better prepare students to have knowledge about post graduation topics (Feng, 2018; Irby & Strong, 2013; Strong & Palmer, 2021). Mobile technology is rapidly changing how students learn in higher education. A gricultural ( i.e. , science ) educators especially would benefit from a better understanding of how VR and 360 degree tours can improve and innovate agricultural education (Irby & Strong, 2013). Data Collection In the proposed project, three 360degree (VR) tours outlining estuary systems and the Tampa Bay estuary were created. Google Cardboard VR viewers were purchased and distributed to five different participating schools (grades 6– 11) as an incentive for research participation. The objectives of the VR tours were for students to be able to: (a) indicate knowledge and awareness of what an estuary is , and (b) to explain the different way s to protect the Tampa Bay estuary. Each of the three VR tours were the same in both delivery and content, except for an independent variable—the animal interest approach. One VR tour utilized a charismatic megafauna (e.g., bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops t runcates ), the second a visually uncharismatic animal (e.g., sea squirt, Tunicata sp. ), and the third included no animal example as a comparison (Appendix M) . After the implementation of the three 360degree VR tours, surveys were

PAGE 47

47 distributed to all participants. As a follow up to the survey, we went back and randomly interviewed selected participants to better understand the thought process es that went into their survey responses. Before data was collected, a formal review was conducted and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Appendix C). Throughout the study, participants (both students and their teachers) were reminded that this stu dy is voluntary and that they are free to stop at any time. With any paperwork that was distributed, they were reminded of their rights , and only those who provided their consent were included in data collection. Multiple forms were given throughout the st udy that participants read and signed before participation, including a teacher informed consent (Appendix D), which informed the teachers of the parameters of the study, what would be required of them, projected timeline, compensation, risks/benefits, par ticipant confidentiality, voluntary participation, right to withdraw, and how to get more information. Only teachers who signed this form were eligible for participation and data collection. Eligible teachers then sent out a parent takehome information l etter (Appendix E) and opt out form (Appendix F). Parents received the same information included above, and if they did not wish for their student to participate in the study, they could sign the opt out form and return it. Additionally, all youth particip ants were required to sign a youth survey assent form (Appendix G) that described what this 360 degree tour was, what the study entailed, and if they gave consent to having their data anonymously collected. Students who did not sign the form were eliminate d from data collection, but could still participate in the activity. Teachers were then able to go through their assigned VR tour with their students (with or without the Google Cardboard as a visual

PAGE 48

48 supplement). Once the activity was done, students were e ligible to participate in data collection and were given the instrument , either electronically through Google Forms or on paper. Following the post survey, each teacher was asked to select two students to complete an interview worksheet that asked more indepth questions about the VR tour . Questions for the students included such items as what they learned, their thoughts on using VR in classrooms, and the influence of the animal (if any) used in the tour , and how it impacted their learning. The students w ho were selected had another informed consent document (Appendix H) sent home for their parents to sign, which went over the same information the post survey document did, with the inclusion of interview procedures and student compensation of a $10 Amazon gift card upon completion of the worksheet. Only students who signed the youth interview assent document (Appendix I) , and whose parents signed the interview informed consent document , participated in the interview worksheet (Appendix J). These were the only students whose data was collected. Data Analysis The instrument was given to five public middle and high schools ( n=366) to students in grades 612 in the Tampa Bay area (Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, and Sarasota Counties). The sections of this survey included both quantitative and qualitative questions that students had the option to answer following the conclusion of the VR tour experience on estuaries. The first section included qualitative questions asking students what the top three things they learned were, followed by the most and least interesting aspects of the VR tour, what could have been improved with the tour, and to recall which animal they remember ed seeing throughout. The next

PAGE 49

49 section asked students to retrospectively determine their CTW before and after the tour based on the CTW Likert scale developed by Warner & Diaz (2020). Following the CTW section, there is a section with five Likert scale type questions that examine student perceptions and knowledge of VR tours (idea, cost, implementation) and estuaries (urban and natural) . The next two sections asked about familiarity of terms (estuary, mangrove forest, urban estuary, saltmarsh, red tide, brackish water, artificial oyster reefs, and seagrass beds) and thirtee n true/false/do not know style questions related to content provided in the tour. These two sections were not analyzed in this particular study analysis and will be examined in future studies. The last section of the instrument included demographics, asking students their gender, ethnicity, race, and grade, should they choose to answer. The first part of the instrument administered to students after participating in the VR tour asked them , “W hat are the top three things you learned” from this VR tour? Students were asked to write in their responses should they choose to answer the question. A list of 20 codes were provided to two coders, who then went through the process of deductive coding, where two or more people start out with a fixed set of codes/t hemes and then allocate those codes/themes to qualitative data and establish inter rater reliability via a constant comparison method (Dye et al., 2000) . E ach of the surveys and coded student responses were based on the frequency of the presence of a deter mined code /theme. The score of both coders was averaged to determine the frequency of code s used in survey response, as well as the percent similarity score between each rater to determine that the ratings were reliably coded.

PAGE 50

50 All codes between all three treatments had a reliability percentage higher than 50%, deeming the coding credible. The total inter rater similarity for both treatments and the comparison group was 94.6%, 91.4%, and 94.8% respectively. The codes identified for survey analysis include d the following: estuary, animals, VR , mangroves, people, protect, water, ecosystem/ environment, Florida/places in Florida, fresh/saltwater, plants, Tampa Bay, urban es tuary, brackish water, pneumatophores, red tide, saltmarsh, and seagrass. Treatments 1 and 2 included a unique code denoting the specific animal examples (Dolphin for T reatment 1 and Tunicate and/or Sea Squirt for Tr eatment 2) while the comparison group ha d no additional code, leaving this treatment with only 19 codes overall. One section of this survey asked students to determine their CTW through the implementation of 11 questions, developed by Warner & Diaz (2020): 1. I often feel a sense of oneness with the water around me. 2. I think of the water around me as a community to which I belong . 3. I appreciate the plants and animals that live in the water around me. 4. I think of humans as part of the water cycle . 5. I feel a relationship with the animals and plants that live in the water around me. 6. I feel as though I belong to the water around me as equally as it belongs to me. 7. I have a deep understanding of how my actions affect the water around me. 8. I often feel part of the water cycle. 9. I feel that eve ryone and everything connected to the water around me shares a common energy . 10. Like a drop of water can be part of the ocean, I am connected to the water around me.

PAGE 51

51 11. I often feel like I am only a small part of the natural world around me, and that I am no more important than the water in the streams or the fish in the rivers . Likert scale values were as follows: 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Agree, 5 – Strongly Agree. Reliability analysis was calculated by determining the Cronbach’s Alpha for the pre and post responses of each of the three treatments. Once reliability was established due to all treatments attaining a score of 0.70 Cronbach’s Alpha or higher, the 11 questions were transformed into an index variable to creat e a Pre CTW survey items index variable and Post CTW survey items index variable. Following this, a RelatedSamples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was performed on each question (CTW Q uestion 1 pre and post, CTW Q uestion 2 pre and post, etc.) for significance between pre and post instrument items. This also included the newly formatted index variables for each treatment , which also underwent the RelatedSamples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. The third section of the survey contained five questions designed to deter mine the peripheral learning methods and cues of the students who participated in the VR tour. The types of learning methods asked about included three questions regarding the virtual tour experience (what it was , if it was complicated, and if it was expen sive) and two questions regarding the students’ perceptions of what natural and urban estuaries were retrospectively following the conclusion of the VR tour. The Likert scale values were as follows: 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Agr ee, and 5 – Strongly Agree. Questions 2 and 3 were inverse coded due to the nature of the way the questions were asked (1 – Strongly Agree, 2 – Agree, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Disagree, 5 – Strongly Disagree). Descriptive statistics were used to determine the mean and standard deviation of each of the three treatments. The mean from the pre survey items

PAGE 52

52 was subtracted from the mean from the post survey items for each of the five questions to determine the degree of change before and after students experienced the VR tour. The questions included: 1. I know what a virtual reality tour is . 2. Virtual reality tours are complicated. 3. Virtual reality tours are expensive. 4. I know what an estuary is . 5. I know what an urban estuary is . For the final part of the data analysis, the interview worksheets were analyzed. Despite the fact that each teacher was asked to only provide two interviews, many of them provided more than was required. Overall, 81 interview worksheets were completed by selected student s and submitted by their teachers. Treatment 1 had 9 interviews (D1 D9), T reatment 2 had 10 interviews (T1T10), and the comparison groups had 62 interviews (C1C62). Each interview was numbered within each treatment as indicated in the prior parenthesis, and the G oogle random number generator selected two random numbers for each of the three treatments , for a total of six selected interviews to examine for this study. The selected six interviews were D4 (Dolphin Interview #4) , D9 (Dolphin Interview #9) , T4 (Tunicate Interview #4) , T6 (Tunicate Interview #6) , C28 ( Comparison Interview #28) , and C41 ( Comparison Interview #41). Full transcripts of the interviews are available in Appendix K. The interviews were analyzed based upon answers to the two main sections of the interview worksheet. The first section asked students about their insights into the VR tour. The second section asked students questions about the animal used in their VR tour , including their perceptions of the animal and how it was used through out. The comparison group did not include the second section in the

PAGE 53

53 interview worksheet provided. From there, the short answers to each question were analyzed based on positive or negative context within three main groups: estuaries, VR, and animals. Ass umptions To acknowledge the level of credibility of the study, the following assumptions were identified: It was assumed that all student participants filled out the surveys and answered interview questions truthfully and to the best of their ability. The researcher’s background in marine science was acknowledged as a potential source of bias when analyzing qualitative written and interview responses. Teachers presented the VR tour and information in accordance with the written instructions provided by the researcher. It was assumed that the results gained from this study were attributed to the independent variable —the change of charismatic megafauna used as the interest approach and educational example of the VR tours. Study participants had adequate ability to comprehend, understand, and utilize the VR tours with proper instruction. Limitations To acknowledge the level of credibility of the study, the following limitations were identified: The population of the study was small, and as such was considered a limitation. The sample size of the study and selection of participants cannot be generalized to the entire population of 6 – 11 grade students in the world. It only reflects a small population of students in Florida, and only regarding the retention of knowledge about the Tampa Bay E stuary in selected counties. Additionally, not all six counties surrounding Tampa Bay participated (sans Pinellas County) , and thus one county had twice as much representation as the others. The sample sizes were not equally distributed across three treatments .

PAGE 54

54 Different schools utilized in the study were assumed t o be at different standing points in their science background and curriculum depending on the students’ age and grade. Human error exists, especially within the samples, when surveys were not turned in or were only partially complete. Additionally, some t eachers modified the instructions to best fit their particular students and classroom models into the study. There was a programming error with the VR tour on the host site, Theasys. Students across all treatments were unable to see the left eye vision when using the Google Cardboard viewers to participate in the tour. Because of this, negative reactions and emotion due to frustration with the tour colored many of the responses in both quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. One school from the fi ve selected counties had to be eliminated from the CTW and ELM data due to a data recording error. The section on the top three things learned was kept. The interview time was constrained into a worksheet given by their teachers that the students filled ou t , and was therefore a limitation, as it limited the amount of information shared and the structured question set. Fidelity of treatment was compromised due to the way the VR tours were administered. This was because of delayed release of grant funding; COVID 19 protocols limiting visitors in public school classrooms; and because Florida State Testing was conducted during the time of data collection. All of these factor s prevented me from initiating data collection myself and in a uniform manner. Summary of Methodology In this chapter, general methodology and data credibility was processed and explained. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was chosen as the research model of choice, identifying the main variables of the study to be the type of charismatic megafauna utilized as interest approaches (independent) , and utilizing the knowledge retention of study participants (dependent). The structure of this study was designed to create three identical VR tours about the Tampa Bay estuary system, with the only difference between them being the charismatic megafauna interest approach. A highly charismatic and not as charismatic animal , alongside a comparison “no animal , ”

PAGE 55

55 were utilized. After the implementation of the VR tours, students were given a quantitative survey that ask ed them their thoughts about the tours, attitudes, and knowledge about the Tampa Bay estuary system. Following this survey , qualitative interv iews were conducted for more in depth analysis. This chapter also went over the CTW scale and how this scale was used to interpret student attitudes towards water and environmental change, as well as presenting an introduction to both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the study. The sample of schools from Hernando, Hillsborough, Pasco, and Manatee counties were used to represent the population of students grades 6– 11 in the Tampa Bay area.

PAGE 56

56 Figure 31. Tampa Bay Area Map (U.S. Census Bureau) .

PAGE 57

57 Table 31 . Survey Participant Demographics . Characteristic Treatment 1 (Dolphin) Treatment 2 (Tunicate) Treatment 3 ( Comparison) Total % Gender Male 41 78 22 141 38.5 Female 47 83 43 173 47.3 Prefer not to say 7 9 3 19 5.2 Hispanic/Latino Yes 50 75 16 141 38.5 No 41 85 48 174 47.5 Prefer not to say 4 10 4 18 4.9 Race White 54 86 48 188 51.4 African American 7 26 4 37 10.1 American Indian/ Alaska Native 2 6 1 9 2.5 Asian 3 10 2 15 4.1 Other 16 31 2 49 13.4 Two or more 14 19 9 42 11.5 Prefer not to say 6 11 5 22 6.0 Grade 6 0 0 40 40 10.9 7 11 31 21 63 17.2

PAGE 58

58 Characteristic Treatment 1 (Dolphin) Treatment 2 (Tunicate) Treatment 3 ( Comparison) Total % 8 2 0 3 5 1.4 9 63 78 0 141 38.5 10 14 41 1 56 15.3 11 3 16 3 22 6.0 12 0 1 0 1 0.3 Total (N) 105 191 68 366

PAGE 59

59 CHAPTER 4 RESULT S Introduction to Results After the analysis of participant surveys, quantitative results and qualitative results are reported in this chapter. The first two research objectives assess the quantitative aspects of the convergent mixed methods design given to students through the instrument . The first research objective examined the impacts of VR tours featuring charismatic and noncharismatic animals on student CTW and shows the data analysis of the CTW instrument elements , both overall/ between treatments and broken down within e ach treatment. The second research objective asks about student perceptions of the different VR flagship species treatments and how they view VR. The parts of the data that answer this objective are the pre and post ELM survey questions asking students abo ut their experience with VR both before and after participating in the activity. Results are shown both overall and broken down within each treatment. The second two research questions highlight the qualitative data. The first research question seeks to determine the impacts of VR tours on student knowledge retention using charismatic and noncharismatic animals. The data that best answers this question was found when students qualitatively wrote into the survey what the top three things they learned from the VR tour was. This section shows the process of coding and which codes were most frequent between the three treatments. Finally, the second research question seeks to understand how students describe learning from the different VR treatments . This was a nswered by the qualitative interview worksheets distributed to the students at the same time as the

PAGE 60

60 instrument . The interviews were broken down into three themes: estuaries, VR, and animals. This following sections present the three qualitative themes supported by interview quotes . Research Objectives RO1. Determine I mpacts of V irtual R eality T ours F eaturing C harismatic and N onC harismatic A nimals on S tudents’ C onnectedness to W ater All but one CTW and index variable comparison came back as significant , with positive trends indicating students had higher CTW after undergoing the VR tour. The only question that came back as not significant was Question 10 from Treatment 2, as the instrument responses reported were similar , with no significant change in CTW . Within each treatment, there was a significant and positive response to the VR tour on student CTW, but it did not indicate how these three treatments compared to one another. Table 41 shows the oneway Tukey HSD Post Hoc test for pre CTW index variables between all three treatments , while Table 42 shows the oneway Tukey HSD PostHoc test for post CTW index variables between all three treatments. The pre and post CTW index variables for the three treatments indicated no significan t difference between any of the three groups. There was not enough data to support the idea that one treatment (including the comparison group) had a greater effect than the other whe n it came to changing student CTW. Treatment 1 – Dolphins Treatment 1 included repeated exposures to a bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ) and had n=103 responses. The calculated Cronbach’s Alpha for the n=11 pre questions of the instrument was 0.837 and for the n=11 post questions was 0.885. Both of these alphas indicated moderately high reliability as they were greater than 0.70.

PAGE 61

61 High reliability allowed for transform ation of all of the pre questions and all of the post q uestions into an index variable, and to then a Related Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was performed on each question, as seen in Table 43. Each question came back significant , with a positive trend showing a higher CTW at the end of the VR experience f or those who had a dolphin animal example throughout. Treatment 2 – Tunicates/Sea Squirts Treatment 2 included repeated exposures to a tunicate/sea squirt organism ( Tunicata sp) and had a total of n=186 responses. The calculated Cronbach’s Alpha for the n=11 pre questions of the instrument was 0.808 and for the n=11 post questions was 0.826. Both of these alphas indicate d moderately high reliability , as they were greater than 0.70. A reliability level higher than 0.70 allowed for transformation of the pre and post values into two pre and post index variables, upon which we then performed a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, as seen in Table 44. Each question came back as significant except for Question 10 (“ like a drop of water can be part of the ocean, I am connected to the water around me”) where no significant change was detected , as p=0.059. With the exception of this question, there was a positive trend showing a higher CTW at the end of the VR tour experience for those who had a tunicate/sea squirt animal example throughout. Comparison Group The comparison group did not include repeated exposures of a particular animal and yielded a total of n=64 responses. While there were some instances of animals mentioned throughout the tour, no purposeful example was yielded or highlighted throughout the tour experience. The calculated Cronbach’s Alpha for the n=11 prequestions of the instrument was 0.772 and for the n=11 post questions was 0.769. Both

PAGE 62

62 of these alphas indicated an adequate reliability score which prove d to be acceptable for analysis . However, this was not an extremely high indication of cohesiveness throughout the responses to the questions as they barely pass ed the threshold of 0.70 for acceptable reliability. Table 45 shows that each item came back significant , with a positive trend after undergoing the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, showing there was a higher CTW in students after experiencing the VR tour despite no animal example being frequently noted throughout. RO2. Determin e S tudents’ P erceptions of the D ifferent V irtual R eality F lagship S pecies T reatments In the following subsections, the results for the ELM survey items are reported by breaking down each treatment into frequency of response (n) and mean differences between pre and post instrument questions. Treatment 1 – Dolphins Treatment 1 included repeated exposures to a dolphin example throughout the VR tour. This treatment had a total of n = 95 (pre) and n=96 (post) valid responses (listwise) from two different schools, one middle school and one high school. The mean differences of student perceptions of the VR tours and estuary terms (Question 1 – 0.19, Question 2 – 0.09, Question 3 – 0.23, Question 4 – 0.85, and Question 5 – 0.80) can be found in Table 4-6, alongside the standard deviations. This data shows that students had the most change in know ledge of an estuary before the VR tour and knowledge of an estuary after the VR tour. The direction of this change was positive (pre 2.63 and post 3.48), indicating that a majority of students felt more confident in their knowledge of what an estuary was a fter the VR tour compared to before experiencing the tour.

PAGE 63

63 The question that had the least amount of change was Question 2 which asked students their perceptions of how complicated a VR tour was before and after experiencing the VR tour. The low mean (pre3.39 and post 3.48) difference indicated that a majority of students felt neutrally about the complication of VR tours both before and after experiencing one. Treatment 2 – Tunicate/Sea Squirt Treatment 2 included repeated exposures to a tunicate/sea squirt example throughout the VR tour. This treatment had a total of n=165 (pre) and n=166 (post) valid responses (listwise) from two different schools, one middle school and one high school. The mean differences in student perceptions of the VR tours and estuary terms for Questions 1– 5 (Question 1 – 0.26, Question 2 – 0.19, Question 3 – 0.23, Question 4 – 0.87, and Question 5 – 0.76) can be found in Table 4-7, alongside the standard deviations. This data shows that students had the most amount of change between knowledge of an estuary before the VR tour and knowledge of an estuary after the VR tour. The direction of this change was positive (pre2.73 and post 3.60), indicating that a majority of students felt more confident in their knowledge of what an estuary is after the VR tour compared to before experiencing the tour. The question that had the least amount of change was Question 2, which asked students their perceptions of how complicated a VR tour was before and after experiencing the VR tour. The low mean (pre 3.36 and post 3.54) difference indicates a majority of the students felt neutrally about the complication of VR tours both before and after experiencing one. Comparison Group The comparison group did not include any exposures to a particular animal example throughout the VR tour . H owever , animals were mentioned neutrally

PAGE 64

64 throughout. This treatment had a total of n=58 (pre) and n=50 (post) valid responses (listwise) from only one middle school. The mean di fferences in student perceptions of the VR tours and estuary terms for Questions 1– 5 (Question 1 – 0.24, Question 2 – 0.10, Question 3 – (0.08), Question 4 – 1.29, and Question 5 – 1.04) can be found in Table 48 alongside the standard deviations. This data shows that students had the most amount of change between knowledge of an estuary before the VR tour and knowledge of an estuary after the VR tour. There was an outlier indicated in Question 3, where the mean difference between student perceptions decreased after experiencing the VR tour. The direction of this change was positive (pr e2.69 and post 3.98), indicating that a majority of students felt more confident in their knowledge of what an estuary was after the VR tour compared to their knowledge before experiencing the tour. The question that had the least amount of change was Question 3 which asked students their perceptions of how expensive a VR tour was before and after experiencing the VR tour. The low mean (pre3.07 and post 3.15) difference indicates that a majority of students felt neutrally about the complication of VR tours both before and after experiencing one. Research Questions RQ1. How Do V irtual R eality T ours F eaturing C harismatic and N on-C harismatic A nimals I mpact S tudents’ K nowledge R etention? Of the three treatments, Treatments 1 and 2 (which provided a dolphin or tunicate animal example throughout the VR tour) demonstrated that the highest code mentioned in student response to the top three things they learned had to do with “animals” (20.3% of responses in treatment 1 and 17.5% of responses in treatment 2). The second highest coded element was “estuaries” (18.5% of responses in Treatment 1

PAGE 65

65 and 16.5% of responses in Treatment 2). In the comparison group (no animal example throughout) the top coded term was “estuaries” (25.5%) fol lowed by “red tide” (16.7%) , with “animals” denoting only 10% of responses. Tables 4(9 11) show the full rater and item coding in order from most frequent term to least frequent term by treatment order. RQ2. How D o Students Describe Learning F rom the Dif ferent Virtual Reality Flagship Species Treatments? From the 81 interviews provided, six interviews were randomly selected via a random number generator from the three treatments. The interviews had two main sections . The first asked students about their perceptions and experience with the VR tour and the second section (specific to only Treatment 1 and 2 interviews with an animal example) asked students about their emotions, thoughts, and ideas about the animal used in their VR tour, what they thought of it, and how their interest in the animal compared to interest in the information about estuaries in Tampa Bay, Florida. Interview responses were grouped into three main elements: estuaries, VR, and animals. Estuaries Prompted by the interview worksheet, students from the dolphin treatment gave the following quotes regarding their thoughts on estuaries: “how estuaries and ecology affect our water,” that an estuary is “when the mouth of the river meets the stream” and “where the stream and tide meet,” an urban estuary is “a town where the stream and tide meet .” One participant stated that they felt that “estuaries [are more interesting than animals/dolphins] because they felt more exciting [and] show all the components to make a nice place in nature.” Treatment 2 students containing the tunicate/sea squirt animal example had the following thoughts regarding estuaries after experiencing their VR tour: “ An estuary is

PAGE 66

66 where saltwater meets freshwater , ” and a “coastal place with brackish water.” Regar ding urban estuaries, they were described as “areas where there is wildlife like fish” and “are habitats for marine life.” The tour helped them “learn about the area [they] live in” and “about different ecosystems in Tampa Baywhat is [in] them[and] to pr eserve them.” The comparison group students talked about how they learned that “red tide affects the world,” “how red tide works,” “how red tide can affect Florida’s citizens and estuary systems” and wished there was more information “about red tide.” Th e way the interview worksheets and qualitative survey portions of the comparison group data came back indicated the teacher might have spent more time talking with students about red tide with further information beyond the scope of this VR tour. They identified that “an estuary is a partially enclosed, coastal water body where freshwater from rivers and streams mixes with saltwater from the ocean. ” They also said that an urban estuary is a “habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife, as well as humans.” VR Responses Regarding VR, Treatment 1 students interviewees stated that they “used cardboard VR headsets and [their] phones to view the tour . ” They added that “you could see the tour on the computer but not on the phone.” They stated that VR “helps visual learners the most in identifying what is happening in the experience” and that “the tour was fun and did show a lot of info. ” But they also stated that they w ishe d that the researchers could “make it more accessible for iPhone users . ” In addition, they said that the “left side of the screen would not load” and that they had to “put on and take off the headset a lot to press theinfo.” These students felt that VR was “useful when used

PAGE 67

67 p roperly ” and think it would help to have VR “[point] at the information [with their actions] and it opens up like other VR items.” One of the Treatment 2 students talked about how “the technology wasn’t working correctly” and that they “don’t think [VR] is helpful” in science education. They wanted the experience to be “more interactive and interesting.” The other Treatment 2 student “viewed the tour on a computer” which “went well because [they] could access the website easily” other than times when “the website would glitch out” and when “the phone on the left eye didn’t work . ” They also said “it was hard to click” [information]. This student believes that “virtual reality in science education is productive [as] it allows for more hands on learning activi ties.” Students in the third treatment session had no designated animal example repeating throughout their VR tour experience, so this served as our comparison tour. The students indicated that they used their “computer” and “VR headset” to view the tour and the “graphics were good. ” They described how “exploring and learning all about Florida’s estuaries” went well although “when [they] would turn [their] head the screen would not move with [them]” and that their “iPhone loaded for a while.” They still felt that VR was a “mostly good experience” and “explains more and helps [them] understand more” and it would help if “more information and pictures” were included and if there was “an easier way to access informational slides .” Animals A student from the dolphin treatment stated that they have seen dolphins before “in Barbie movies,” and felt that the inclusion of the dolphin did help them learn more about estuaries “because it helped describe how dolphins affect our water and marine life.” This student also indicated that they felt the animal was more interesting than the

PAGE 68

68 information on estuaries “because the experiment explained it more thoroughly.” The other Treatment 1 student interviewees described the physical attributes of the dolphin as “grey ish blue, smooth, flippers, and fins on both side[s]” and stated that they “love them because they are very playful and smart.” This student has seen dolphins before “at a lot of beaches [they] have been to” and felt that the inclusion of animals was “helpful, as it expands on the estuaries and what is in them.” Students in Treatment 2 were given the typically noncharismatic animal, the tunicate (commonly known as a sea squirt). They described the animal one they “had not heard of before,” as “a squirt fish” that was “weird” and “squirts water and looks like a tube.” Despite this student having a more negative experience with the VR technology, they still stated that the animal “was helpful because it informed [them] about what animals live in estuaries” and that “animals [were more interesting than estuaries] because it’s fun to learn about weird things.” The other student also indicated it was their first time seeing the animal and felt that the sea squirt was “interesting” and “looked squishy and weird.” They also believed that the animal helped them learn more about estuaries “because it was consistent and helped grasp the idea of what lives in estuaries” and that the sea squirt was more interesting than the estuary information “because [they] had never heard about it before.” Chapter Summary This chapter divided the survey data between the corresponding four research objectives and questions. The results relat ed to th e data were explained. The quantitative research objectives demonstrated a significant and positive trend in student CTW across all three treatments , with no one treatment being more impactful than the other. Students exhibited the most growth in estuary understanding after participating in

PAGE 69

69 the study and had the least growth in understanding the complexity of VR tours after participating in the study. When asked what the top three things they learned was from the study, t he qualitative research questions demonstrated that students from Treatments 1 and 2 denoted “animals” as the most frequently coded item. The comparison group had “estuaries” as the most frequent item. The interview portion was divided into three main themes: estuaries, VR, and animals. Selected interview quotes were assigned to each of these categories.

PAGE 70

70 Table 41 . One way ANOVA Tukey HSD Post Hoc Test for Pre CTW Index Variables Multiple Comparisons . (I) group (J) Group Mean Difference (I J) Std. Error Sig. 95% CI Lower Bound 95% CI Upper Bound Dolphin Tunicate 0.78 0.76 0.56 1.01 2.57 Dolphin Comparison 1.91 1.04 0.16 0.54 4.36 Tunicate Dolphin 0.78 0.76 0.56 2.57 1.01 Tunicate Comparison 1.13 0.96 0.46 1.12 3.39 Comparison Dolphin 1.91 1.04 0.16 4.36 0.54 Comparison Tunicate 1.13 0.96 0.46 3.39 1.12 Tukey HSD 0.99

PAGE 71

71 Table 42 . One way ANOVA Tukey HSD Post Hoc Test for Post CTW Index Variables Multiple Comparisons . (I) group (J) Group Mean Difference (I J) Std. Error Sig. 95% CI Lower Bound 95% CI Upper Bound Dolphin Tunicate 1.16 0.82 0.34 0.78 3.09 Dolphin Comparison 0.40 1.16 0.94 2.33 3.12 Tunicate Dolphin 1.16 0.82 0.34 3.09 0.78 Tunicate Comparison 0.76 1.07 0.76 3.28 1.76 Comparison Dolphin 0.40 1.16 0.94 3.12 2.33 Comparison Tunicate 0.76 1.07 0.76 1.76 3.28 Tukey HSD 0.50

PAGE 72

72 Table 43 . Treatment 1 Dolphin CTW RelatedSamples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test CTW N Significance 1 100 0.002 2 102 0.000 3 101 0.004 4 102 0.000 5 102 0.000 6 101 0.005 7 101 0.000 8 101 0.000 9 101 0.000 10 101 0.000 11 99 0.005 Index 95 0.000

PAGE 73

73 Table 44 . Treatment 2 Tunicate/Sea Squirt CTW RelatedSamples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test . CTW N Significance 1 182 0.000 2 184 0.000 3 185 0.000 4 183 0.000 5 182 0.000 6 182 0.000 7 182 0.000 8 181 0.000 9 180 0.000 10 178 0.059 11 179 0.014 Index 169 0.000

PAGE 74

74 Table 45 . Comparison Group CTW Related Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test . CTW N Significance 1 61 0.000 2 55 0.000 3 58 0.001 4 55 0.000 5 56 0.000 6 51 0.005 7 53 0.000 8 54 0.001 9 53 0.002 10 54 0.001 11 54 0.007 Index 43 0.000

PAGE 75

75 Table 46 . Treatment 1 Dolphin ELM Descriptive Statistics . ELM N (Pre) Mean (Pre) Std. Deviation (Pre) N (Post) Mean (Post) Std. Deviation (Post) Mean Difference (Post – Pre) 1 95 4.17 0.90 96 4.36 0.822 0.19 2* 101 3.39 1.03 102 3.48 1.12 0.09 3* 101 3.03 1.01 102 3.27 1.05 0.23 4 101 2.63 1.08 102 3.48 1.13 0.85 5 101 2.52 0.99 102 3.32 1.11 0.80 Valid N (listwise) 95 96 Note: “ * ” indicates statistics were calculated after reverse coding the question

PAGE 76

76 Table 47 . Treatment 2 Tunicate/Sea Squirt ELM Descriptive Statistics . ELM N (Pre) Mean (Pre) Std. Deviation (Pre) N (Post) Mean (Post) Std. Deviation (Post) Mean Difference (Post – Pre) 1 168 4.17 0.91 168 4.43 0.82 0.26 2* 183 3.36 1.12 183 3.54 1.14 0.19 3* 184 3.04 0.99 181 3.28 1.05 0.23 4 183 2.73 1.00 182 3.60 1.01 0.87 5 182 2.65 1.01 182 3.41 1.03 0.76 Valid N (listwise) 165 166 Note: “ * ” indicates statistics were calculated after reverse coding the question

PAGE 77

77 Table 48 . Comparison Group ELM Descriptive Statistics . ELM N (Pre) Mean (Pre) Std. Deviation (Pre) N (Post) Mean (Post) Std. Deviation (Post) Mean Difference (Post – Pre) 1 61 4.46 0.62 61 4.70 0.59 0.24 2* 61 3.38 0.86 53 3.43 1.03 0.10 3* 62 3.15 0.97 55 3.07 1.03 0.08 4 62 2.69 1.18 55 3.98 0.78 1.29 5 62 2.56 1.14 55 3.60 0.83 1.04 Valid N (listwise) 58 50 Note: “ * ” indicates statistics were calculated after reverse coding the question

PAGE 78

78 Table 49 . Top Three Things Learned Treatment 1 – Dolphin VR tour . Code Rater 1 Rater 2 Average % Rater Similarity % Total Animals 53 57 55 92.3 20.3 Estuary 62 58 50 93.5 18.5 Virtual Reality 17 24 20.5 70.8 7.6 Mangroves 19 17 18 89.5 6.7 People 16 18 17 88.9 6.3 Protect 12 19 15.5 63.2 5.7 Water 14 16 15 87.5 5.5 Ecosystem/Environment 13 14 13.5 92.9 5.0 Florida/places in FL 12 12 12 100 4.4 Fresh/Salt water 10 10 10 100 3.7 Plants 9 10 9.5 90.0 3.5 Tampa Bay 9 8 8.5 88.9 3.1 Dolphin 7 7 7 100 2.6 Urban Estuary 4 3 3.5 75.0 1.3 Brackish Water 3 3 3 100 1.1 Pneumatophores 3 2 2.5 66.7 0 .9 Red Tide 0 0 0 100 0.0 Salt Marsh 0 0 0 100 0.0 Seagrass 0 0 0 100 0.0 TOTAL 263 278 270.5 94.6 100 Note. See APA manual beginning on p. 210 for additional examples.

PAGE 79

79 Table 410. Top Three Things Learned Treatment 2 – Tunicate/Sea Squirt VR tour . Code Rater 1 Rater 2 Average % Rater Similarity % Total Animals 110 107 113.5 97.3 17.5 Estuary 98 115 106.5 85.2 16.5 Water 64 89 76.5 71.9 11.8 Ecosystem/Environment 51 53 52 96.2 8.0 Mangroves 51 48 49.5 94.1 7.7 Tampa Bay 46 36 41 78.3 6.3 Florida/places in FL 32 43 37.5 74.4 5.8 People 33 36 34.5 91.7 5.3 Protect 27 30 28.5 90.0 4.4 Tunicate/Sea Squirt 24 25 24.5 96.0 3.8 Fresh/Salt water 20 22 21 90.9 3.2 Plants 13 17 15 76.5 2.3 Virtual Reality 10 19 14.5 52.6 2.2 Brackish Water 12 16 14 75.0 2.2 Urban Estuary 14 10 12 71.4 1.9 Pneumatophores 11 8 9.5 72.8 1.5 Red Tide 2 2 2 100 0.3 Salt Marsh 0 0 0 100 0.0 Seagrass 0 0 0 100 0.0 TOTAL 618 676 647 91.4 100

PAGE 80

80 Table 411. Top Three Things Learned – Comparison Group. Code Rater 1 Rater 2 Average % Rater Similarity % Total Estuary 83 70 76.5 84.3 25.5 Red Tide 50 50 50 100 16.7 Water 35 36 35.5 97.2 11.9 Animals 30 30 30 100 10.0 People 25 25 25 100 8.3 Ecosystem/Environment 12 12 12 100 4.0 Florida/places in FL 10 11 10.5 90.0 3.5 Mangroves 11 10 10.5 90.9 3.5 Tampa Bay 12 7 9.5 58.3 3.2 Urban Estuary 10 9 9.5 90.0 3.2 Protect 9 8 8.5 88.9 2.8 Fresh/Salt water 5 6 8 83.3 2.7 Plants 4 6 5 66.7 1.7 Brackish Water 4 4 4 100 1.3 Salt Marsh 2 2 2 100 0.7 Virtual Reality 2 2 2 100 0.7 Seagrass 1 1 1 100 0.3 TOTAL 305 289 299.5 94.8 100

PAGE 81

81 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Summary Introduction This chapter presents a summary of the study and key findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the research done. The key findings and conclusions are organized and discussed based on the two research objectives an d two research questions found in Chapter 1. Recommendations subsequently follow and round out the end of the chapter. Summary of Study The purpose of this study was to determine how the use of charismatic animals as examples in educational materials and c ommunication strategies impact ed student understanding of Tampa Bay estuary systems and their CTW . The study sought to accomplish this by determining whether differences exist ed between three educational VR tours containing various degrees of charismatic animals as interest approaches for student CTW and retention of overall knowledge. The main questions raised from this research were to determine impacts of VR tours with charismatic and noncharismatic animals on student CTW and knowledge retention, as wel l as developing an understanding of how the students perceived the different tours and the animals used, and how they described learning from them. This was accomplished by creating three relatively similar VR tours (excluding animal examples used) about estuaries in Tampa Bay , with the independent variable changing throughout ( Treatment 1 – charismatic dolphin, Treatment 2 – non charismatic tunicate, Comparison Group – no animal). Students were then asked to complete a retrospective survey that had both qualitative and quantitative aspects. Additionally,

PAGE 82

82 students from each treatment were asked to complete an interview worksheet to gain further insight on their survey responses. Six interviews were randomly selected to qualitatively code. Overall, the findings of this research show that regardless of which animal was used, students had a significant and positive CTW and knowledge about estuaries after participating in t he VR experience. There was no significant difference between the treatment groups. No one group was better or worse than the other , and they all fostered positive responses. Participating students also expressed interest in the noncharismatic animal due to their unfamiliarity with a new and exciting creature, demonstrating that diversification of animals in education and communication can still yield significant and positive results , as well as more exposure to threatened and endangered animals outside the realm of charismatic. Results f or RO1 . Determine Impacts of Virtual Reality Tours Featuring Charismatic and Non Charismatic Animals on Students’ Connectedness t o Water Each of the three treatments, regardless of the type or presence of animal used, qua ntitatively reported a significantly positive change in student CTW after participating in the VR tour. Therefore, VR tours have an impact on student CTW regardless of whether or not they feature charismatic or noncharismatic animals. While each treatment individually demonstrated that there was a significantly positive internal change in CTW after participating in the VR tour, further statistical analysis shows that there is no statistical difference between the three treatments. No one treatment had more or less of an effect on student understanding and learning than the other. Essentially, it appears that in this study, it does not matter if a charismatic animal, a non charismatic animal, or no animal at all is used to facilitate a higher CTW and/or kno wledge of a subject . The effects were all the same: a positive and increasing change

PAGE 83

83 in learning. This supports the notion that there is no need to focus solely on charismatic animals due to visual or empathetic appeal or reports showing that charismatic animals yield more interest ( Mazzoldi et al., 2019). W hen used effectively, proper tools and engagement such as VR can contribute to yield ing significant interes t results in a targeted topic . We can promote effective and positive CTW with animals outside of the realm of the charismatic, promoting a diversity of organisms for showcasing and acknowledgement. While this can be seen as a win for sea squirts and Galp agos red lipped batfishes (see dedication page), there is a caveat that educators, communicators, and conservationists should take into consideration. Quantitative results demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the studies. However , minute details that surfaced within the qualitative responses on the instrument and on the takehome interviews, indicated a tendency for students to report being more interested in “weird” and/or “interesting” animals that they had not previously been exp osed to. This was further elaborated in the RQ2 conclusions section below. Results for RO2. Determine S tudents’ P erceptions of the D ifferent V irtual R eality F lagship S pecies T reatments After each of the three treatments, there was a significant and positive increase in student understanding of what an estuary is compared to their understanding before participation in the VR tour . This increase did not fluctuate significantly between treatments , showing that all students reported higher instances of u nderstanding across all animal examples (or no animal example). Unexpectedly, the comparison group did not yield different results or lower engagement. Students still found the content of the VR tours on estuaries to be interesting, engaging, and informati onal.

PAGE 84

84 The reason this study uses ELM as the theoretical framework is due to the central and peripheral routes of understanding. The central and more elaborated route relies on knowledge and evidence of research in order to persuade an intended audience. T he peripheral route is more of a shortcut and relies on short term aspects of communication, such as liking a charismatic animal, to induce persuasion (Dainton & Zelley, 2019; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). This study demonstrated that , regardless of how much students liked or disliked the animal example or even the complexity of VR technology used, they still indicated significant and positive change in their understanding of what an estuary is. Even when the VR technology was malfunctioning and there was evidence that it frustrated many students who participated in the surveys, they also indicated instances of learning, growth, and environmental awareness. This information is a good contribution to the literature because it emphasizes the benefits of charismatic animals for communication and education interest approaches. While this study is similar to research that emphasizes the effectiveness of using charismatic and familiar animals for conservation engagement, it also supports the contrasting opinions well: non charismatic animals can be just as effective and engaging to people (Mazzoldi et al., 2019; LindemannMatthies, 2005; Schlegal & Rupf, 2010). Instead of supporting one particular idea, this study supports the notion that charismatic, non charismatic, a nd even no animal can be equally effective. Results for R Q1. How D o V irtual Reality T ours F eaturing C harismatic and Non C harismatic Animals Impact Students’ Knowledge Retention? Another section of data analyzed in this thesis asked students to write about the top three things they had learned. In T reatment 1 with the dolphin charismatic animal,

PAGE 85

85 the word “animal” was referenced in about 20.3% of all responses. This was followed by a mention of estuaries (18.5%) and VR (7.6%). Similarly, T reatment 2 wit h the typically noncharismatic animal (tunicate/sea squirt) had students showing 17.5% of their answers to be about animals , followed closely by estuaries (16.5%) and water (11.8%). The entire tour about the ecology of estuaries demonstrated that animals were more interesting to the students than the estuaries themselves. Both T reatments 1 and 2 had students mention the word “animal,” something about animals, or the specific animal in their treatment more times than that of the subject word that the VR tour was designed to explain. In the comparison group, animals were still referenced occasionally throughout . H owever , there was no specific repeated animal example used. The theme with the most frequent occurrence was “estuary” at 25.5% , followed by red tide (16.7%) and water (11.9%). There was a clear increase in how much students talked about estuaries, water, and elements of the ecosystem taught to them in the comparison VR tour compared to the treatments that utilized a specific animal example. While there may have been a significant and positive change in CTW in students before and after the tour , and an increased understanding of estuaries across all three treatments , of their own volition when qualitatively responding to what the top three things they learned, the students who were exposed to specific animal examples dominated the answer sections with what they learned about animals. It is impossible to determine exactly what element of the tour inspired students to have a more positive change in their CTW or estuary understanding, but perhaps it could be a combination of all the elements.

PAGE 86

86 Regardless of the statistical quantitative results, it is important to look qualitatively at what they deemed important enough to write down as one of the top things they got out of the tour. This might suggest that , while it does not matter if a charismatic or noncharismatic animal was used for education or communication practices , completely eliminating an animal representative could motivate students to focus more on the issue at hand, and still have a positive response to the message or lesson. It depends on the context of the message being communicated, how the message should be received, or if it is an educational lesson. Depending on context , the sender can decide how they want to incorporate (if at all) an animal example into their message, since there is reason to believe receivers will still react positively and with interest , regardless of animal presence. The current study carried out this research objective in a classroom, where the tour was given to a more captive audience than those who wish to communicate a message in the open world. In future iterations, it would be best to give the tours simultaneously and ask which the students preferred, and then to test them cognitively to see which one the students learned more from. Just because someone is more interested in something does not necessarily guarantee that this is the option they learn th e most from, as shown from the combination of quantitative and qualitative results produced from this study. Results for RQ2. How Do Students Describe Learning F rom The Different Virtual Reality Flagship Species Treatments? The takehome interviews yielde d three major themes throughout the student responses which included their thoughts on estuaries, animals, and the VR itself.

PAGE 87

87 Estuaries Regarding estuaries, students across all three treatments were able to give an accurate depiction of what an estuary was after participating in the VR tour. There was not much difference between how the students from all three treatments defined an estuary: a place where “the saltwater meets freshwater.” Virtual Reality There was a commonality among response types when it came to expressing their thoughts and opinions about the VR tour. There were clear indications that the technology of the website that hosted the tour was having issues during the time of testing and data collection. Multiple students from all five schools reported having issues with the mobile version of the VR tour when using it in conjunction with the provided Google Cardboard sets. This was an unanticipated problem and was also not reported by any of the teacher s. The prob lem was only known once the researcher began going through the data and sorting through responses. Because of the technological error, responses about the VR tour were colored mostly negatively. Oftentimes, the negative perspectives due to the tour impacted how the participants viewed estuary systems and the other knowledge content. Dissatisfaction with the experience yielded interesting responses. There was a clear discrepancy in answers, with some saying that the VR tour was “interactive and interesting” and that “virtual reality in science education is productive [as] it allows for more hands on learning activities . ” This shows that students could still see the longterm benefit of the technology despite shortcomings during the moment of viewing. By con trast , others stated that “the technology wasn’t working correctly” and that they “don’t think [VR] is helpful” in science education as they wished the experience had

PAGE 88

88 been “more interactive and interesting.” There was no difference in these types of answer s across all three treatments. Each treatment had both positive and negative opinions about their VR experience. Regardless of how the technological site failed, a lot of students expressed dissatisfaction with the Google Cardboard and 360degree tour for mat of the VR set up. They explained that they wished they could “[point] at information [with their actions]” to open up information points and that they wanted the experience to be more immersive. The way students responded and reacted to the VR tour despite technological shortcomings and economically friendly pricing was that they would have preferred more quality put into the tour than accessibility due to the quantity of cardboard headsets provided. Google cardboard is extremely cost effective for publ ic schools as they are around $10 a headset compared to the electronic headsets created for a total immersive experience. One student summed up the VR experience in science communication and education quite succinctly, that VR is “useful when used properly.” All the quantitative data came back showing that , after experiencing the tour, despite its faults, students still underwent a positive and significant change , whether it was through their CTW or understanding of estuaries. Do the quantitative results override the qualitative complaints? Despite negative feedback, there was still growth and change, so the economically feasible headsets still accomplished the goal of the tour. In a new technological age, there is less time to spark i nterest before attention starts to wane. New and improving social media and technologies have people wanting a shorter and

PAGE 89

89 more explosive hook or typing character limit before their attention shifts to the next attention grabbing thing (Spreen et al., 2019) . Animals Only T reatments 1 and 2 had a second section in the interview worksheet that focused specifically on questions relating to the animal example they saw. The comparison group did not have to answer these questions. Surprisingly, there was a clear trend in students being more engaged with Treatment 2 (noncharismatic tunicate) over Treatment 1 (charismatic dolphin). One Treatment 1 student interviewee was not interested in the dolphins because they did not like how it looked and they had seen them already in “Barbie movies . ” The other student liked them because they were “playful and smart , ” and they felt that they were “helpful, as it expands on the estuaries and what is in them.” Treatment 2, with a typically non charismatic sea squirt , had more iterations of interest than Treatment 1, as both students indicated that tunicates were “interesting” and “weird.” Because the students “had never heard about [tunicates] before” they felt it was more interesting than the estuary content the VR tour set out to educate them on, and that it was “fun to learn about weird things.” This was an unexpected yet appreciated result, further solidifying the idea that a weird, novel, and/or interesting animal can be just as effective in gaining student interest as an animal deemed charismatic by media or popular literature. Recommendations The findings of this thesis benefit a wide spectrum of individuals including, but not limited to: conservationists, zoos & aquariums, environmentalists, educators, communicators, parents, youth, governments, and brands (e.g. , Coca Cola’s polar bear

PAGE 90

90 campaign). Youth are an especially important audience demographic, as they are the next generation of innovators and communicators who will handle climate change. Instead of leaving the problem of sea level rise and warming climates to them, we need to find ways to promote genuine interest and expose youth to the new and fascinating things the world has to offer – and therefore why it needs to be protected. Many people associate the urgency of the issue of climate change with a doomsday approach (van der Leeuw, 2020) . While this can certainly prompt an immediate reaction, this is not the longterm emotional coloration of the issue that we should be using to approach and facilitate climate change solutions and empathy among future generations. Instead, this research supports the notion of using “interesting” and “weird” animals to promote climate change solutions to audiences in a positive and engaging manner. The articles supporting the notion of the effectiveness of charismatic animals are supported with research. However, it is the definition of charismatic that can be expanded upon (Dainton & Zelley, 2019; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). We can utilize more species and new species as the flagship species for environmental conservation. This study shows that charismatic animals are not limited to thos e that are solely visually or empathetically appealing (Mazzoldi et al., 2019) . This study shows that there is just as much CTW and growth in understanding and knowledge content with a typically noncharismatic animal simply because it is novel, weird, int eresting, and/or exciting. By introducing people to a larger diversity of animals, we are also introducing the idea of fostering a new generation of innovation and ideas for problem solving and persuasion tactics. Mazzoldi et al . (2019) earlier explained t hat charismatic animals were a type of animal that is “visually and/or

PAGE 91

91 empathetically appealing. ” I t may be prudent to expand upon this definition to incorporate animals that are weird, interesting, and novel into the charismatic animal fold. If a visually interesting and weird animal can stimulate interest and foster change, is it not then charismatic? The beauty bias of charisma is not infallible, and this study shows that we should start shifting away from repeated exposures of the same types of animals into a more refreshing and different culture of science communication to attract the interest of our audiences. This also leads to the question about whether we can break away from the fauna part of charismatic megafauna and look for interesting, weird, and novel experiences with other organisms in the realm of flora and people to introduce a variety o f other subjects that need attention.

PAGE 92

92 APPENDIX A 2021 BAY MINI GRANT Project Deliverables: The proposed project is part of lead researcher Barnett’s master’s thesis and supports the Tampa Bay Estuary System’s ( TBEP) mission and stakeholders. Schools i nvited to participate will be from Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, and/or Pinellas counties. We will develop and provide participating schools with a lesson plan about the Tampa Bay Estuary System, sponsored by the TBEP and the University of Florida Streaming Science Project. TBEP will have access and rights to use the completed 360degree VR tours as a resource for future outreach efforts. Data collected and results will also be completely accessible to TBEP, and research presentations and publications will acknowledge TBEP. Data collected will help with communication best practices when selec ting and utilizing animals in campaigns for best participant retention of knowledge and message. VR tours and all associated programs and publications will be branded with the tarpon tag logo for more viewership. Quarterly reports and final report will be submitted by specified due dates. Table 1: Report Due Dates Report Due Date Quarter 1 Report April 15, 2022 Quarter 2 Report July 15, 2022 Quarter 3 Report October 15, 2022 Final Report December 15, 2022

PAGE 93

93 Project Budget: $4,988 Table 2: Project Budget Item Cost Quantity Total Funding Source Teacher stipends (incentive for full project participation) $300/teacher x 6 teachers $1,800 TBEP Google Cardboard (VR viewers for students to use with mobile phones) $100/10 units x 250 students $2,500 TBEP TBEP PVC Indoor Sign $50 x 1 sign $50 TBEP University of Florida Indirect Costs $625 x 1 fee $625 TBEP Total Cost $4,988 Signature GRANTEE : By signing, I, Caroline Barnett certify that I understand and agree to perform the Scope of Work and abide by its terms. ________________________ _9/14/21______ _____59 6002052________ Signature Date Federal ID Number

PAGE 94

94 APPENDIX B STUDENT INSTRUMENT ( POST SURVEY) School Name:_____________________________ Your grade level:___________ Please write short answers for each of the following questions: 1. 2. 3. What did you find the MOST interesting about the scientist’s presentation and why? What did you find the LEAST interesting about the scientist’s presentation and why? What could have been improved about the scientist’s presentation? Which animal was used as an example in your VR tour? participating virtual reality (VR) tour and how you the VR tour. Please select one column and one response column.

PAGE 95

95 Connection to Water Items participating in the VR tour.... participating in the VR tour... 1. I often feel a sense of oneness with the water around me. Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

PAGE 96

96 Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree energy. Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree important than the water in the streams or the fish in the rivers. Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

PAGE 97

97 Elaboration Likelihood Model and Virtual Reality Tours Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree For the following terms, please indicate if you know what the term means, have heard of the term but don’t know its meaning or have not heard of the term at all. (Circle one). 1. Estuary (Yes/No/Not Sure) 2. Mangrove Forests (Yes/No/Not Sure) 3. Urban Estuary (Yes/No/Not Sure) 4. Saltmarsh (Yes/No/Not Sure)

PAGE 98

98 5. Red Tide (Yes/No/Not Sure) 6. Brackish Water (Yes/No/Not Sure) 7. Artificial Oyster Reefs (Yes/No/Not Sure) 8. Seagrass Beds (Yes/No/Not Sure) Estuary K nowledge Test An estuary is a coastal water body where freshwater and saltwater meet . ( true /false/do not know) Estuaries are not very productive areas. (true/ false /do not know) Humans and human disturbances are not threats to estuaries . (true/ false /do not know) The Tampa Bay Estuary is Florida’s largest openwater estuary . ( true /false/do not know) Estuaries are great places for animals to have their young. ( true /false/do not know) Black mangroves have small spiky roots called pneumatophores . ( true /false/do not know) Estuaries are important to fisheries, tourism, and recreational industries. ( true /false/do not know) Invasive species are plants and/or animals native to the area . (true/ false /do not know) Urban estuaries connect residents and visitors with nature. ( true /false/do not know) Planting native and other drought tolerant plants in your yard can help conserve water . ( true /false/do not know) There are three types of mangroves: red, black, and grey . (true/ false /do not know) The Tampa Bay Riverwalk is an example of an urban estuary . ( true /false/do not know)

PAGE 99

99 Estuaries are ideal areas for migratory birds to rest . ( true /false/do not know) Demographics What is your gender? Do you consider yourself to be Hispanic or Latino/a? Yes No Prefer not to say Which one or more of the following would you say is your race? Select all that apply. Black or African American A merican Indian or Alaska Native Asian Two or more races Prefer not to say What grade are you in (circle one)? 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, Other: ____________

PAGE 100

100 APPENDIX C IRB APPROVAL

PAGE 101

101 APPENDIX D TEACHER INFORMED CONSENT Please read this document carefully before you decide to participate in this research study. Your participation is voluntary, and you can decline to participate, or withdraw consent at any time, with no consequences. Study Title: Inside Red Persons conducting the research: Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this s tudy is to look at best practices for utilizing charismatic animals and flagship species in environmental materials in a way that compliments lesson objectives and does not overshadow the purposes of the lesson or information What you will be asked to do in the study: As part of regular classroom activities, you will ask students to participate in a virtual reality tour of Tampa Bay estuary systems and the impact of red tide located in the Tampa Bay area in Florida. Conduct the lesson plan according to the virtual tour outline and plan. Give your students the provided post survey. As part of this research study, your student will also be asked to answer a quick survey after participation in the VR tour. The survey and activity will take about 1520 minutes. Scan/mail/give survey test results to give to Caroline Barnett or Dr. Jamie Loizzo. Only the researchers will have access to the information we collect from your student. There is a minimal risk that the security of any online data may be breached, but since no identifying information will be collected, and the online survey host (Qualtrics) uses encryption and other forms of protection, it is unlikely that a security breach of the online data will result in any adverse consequence for you or your students. As part of this research, we ask that you also randomly select students to participate in a voluntary interview with the lead investigator regarding their opinions about the interview. We will not know your child’s name, and we will use pseudonyms to refer to participants. Students selected to participate will be additionally compensated with a $10 gift card. Students’ identities will be kept confidential. Researchers will only have access to any demographic information about your st udent, not their names. Their responses will be anonymous. We ask that you randomly code the students selected for the qualitative interviews with pseudonyms, so no identifying information is collected during the interview other than demographic informati on.

PAGE 102

102 Stay in the room while qualitative interviews are being given at a certain date after the virtual reality tour lesson has been conducted. The interview will take place in the school and with supervision of the classroom teacher and will take 1520 min utes and will be audiorecorded for transcribing purposes. The audio file will only be accessible by lead researchers in a password protected UF Microsoft Teams file and will be destroyed after transcribing. Whether or not you choose to participate in t he study will not help or harm your relationship with the researchers, teachers at the school/after school program, or the school. You are completely free to decide to do the study or not. Time required: 3045 minutes to conduct the lesson 1520 minutes to complete and collect the survey. 1520 minutes to complete the interview. Risks and Benefits: There are no direct benefits to your student for participating in this study. However, their participation could provide insights into how future science lesson plans could be better designed and implemented to promote engagement and connection with charismatic animals in middle/high school and after school programs. One risk of this study could be a breach of confidentiality, which is addressed in the confidentiality section below. Compensation: Each teacher randomly selected to voluntarily participate in this study will be compensated with a $300 VISA gift card. If you are paid more than $199 for taking part in this study, your name and social security number will be reported to the appropriate University employees for purposes of making and recording the payment as required by law. You are responsible for paying income taxes on any payments provided by the study. Payments to nonresident aliens must be processed through the University of Florida Payroll and Tax Services department. If the payments total $600 or more in a calendar year, the University must report the amount you received to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS is not provided with the study name or its purpose. If you have questions about the collection and use of your Social Security Number, please visit: http://privacy.ufl.edu/SSNPrivacy.html. Confidentiality : Your student’s identity will remain confidential. We will not collect your student’s name in the research interview. Research results will remain anonymous and only demographic information will be reported in research presentations and publications from this study. Your student’s individual interview responses will not be shared outside of our research team. Although there is always a slight risk that any online data may be compromised, the interview recordings will only be accessible to the research team via

PAGE 103

103 a passwordprotected Microsoft Teams folder. The interview recordings will be destroyed after transcription. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without cons equence. Questions about the study: If you wish to discuss the information above or any discomforts you may experience, please ask questions now or contact the research team member listed at the top of this form. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject, please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB02) office (University of Florida; PO Box 100173; Gainesville, FL 32610; (352) 3920433 or irb2@ufl.edu.) Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure, and I have received a copy of this description. _________________________________________________ Participant Name _________________________________________________ Participant Signature Date _________________________________________________ Name of Teacher obtaining informed consent _________________________________________________ Signature of Teacher obtaining informed consent Date

PAGE 104

104 APPENDIX E PARENT TAKEHOME LETTER Dear Parent/Guardian: My name is Caroline Barnett, and I am a University of Florida graduate student in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication. I am conducting a 3 60degree virtual reality (VR) tour to connect students with water and climate change issues on Florida estuary systems. As part of this experience, I want to understand how students engage with and learn from VR tours through different charismatic animal interest approaches. Your students will get the chance to share their opinions about the program and attitudes toward science, science careers, and water. The research includes the following steps: As part of regular classroom activities, your student’s t eacher will ask them to participate in a virtual reality tour of Tampa Bay estuary systems. As part of this research study, your student will also be asked to answer a quick survey after participation in the VR tour. The survey and activity will take about 15 20 minutes. Only the researchers will have access to the information we collect from your student. There is a minimal risk that security of any online data may be breached, but since no identifying information will be collected, and the online survey host (Qualtrics) uses encryption and other forms of protections, it is unlikely that a security breach of the online data will result in any adverse consequence for you or your child. Students’ identities will be kept confidential. Researchers will only hav e access to any demographic information about your student, not their names. Their responses will be anonymous. Only students participating in the VR tour will have the opportunity to take part in this study. Whether or not your child participates in the study will not help or harm your child’s relationship with the researchers, teachers at the school/after school p rogram, or the school. You and your child are completely free to decide to do the study or not. Children can participate in the virtual tour even if they choose not to be part of the study.

PAGE 105

105 There are no direct benefits to you or your student to participat e in this study. However, your participation could provide insights about how future science lesson plans could be better designed and implemented to promote engagement and connection with charismatic animals in middle/high school and after school programs . Your child will have the opportunity to decline to participate in the survey at any time. Their teacher simply would not have them participate in the research procedures. Your child can still take part in the VR tour activity without taking the survey at the end. I am happy to answer any questions you might have about this research. You can reach me by email at carolinepbarnett@ufl.edu or by phone at (727) 4392610. For questions regarding the rig hts you or your child have as a research participant contact the IRB (Institutional Review Board) at 352392 0433. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Caroline Barnett, Graduate Student Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, University of Florida carolinepbarnett@ufl.edu (727) 4292610

PAGE 106

106 APPENDIX F PARENT OPT OUT FORM Dear Parent/Guardian: My name is Caroline Barnett, and I am a University of Florida graduate student in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication. I am con ducting a 360degree virtual reality (VR) tour to connect students with water and climate change issues through the impact of red tide on Florida estuary systems. As part of this experience, I want to understand how students engage with and learn from VR t ours through different charismatic animal interest approaches. Your students will get the chance to share their opinions about the program and attitudes toward science, science careers, and water. The research includes the following steps: As part of regular classroom activities, your student’s teacher will ask them to participate in a virtual reality tour of Tampa Bay estuary systems and the impact of red tide located in St. Petersburg, FL. As part of this research study, your student will also be asked to answer a quick survey after participation in the VR tour. The survey and activity will take about 1520 minutes. As part of this research, your child’s teacher will also randomly select students to participate in a voluntary interview with the le ad investigator and classroom teacher regarding their opinions about the interview. We will not know your child’s name, and we will use pseudonyms to refer to participants. Students selected to participate will be additionally compensated with a $10 gift c ard. Only the researchers will have access to the information we collect from your student. There is a minimal risk that security of any online data may be breached, but since no identifying information will be collected, and the online survey host (Qualt rics) uses encryption and other forms of protections, it is unlikely that a security breach of the online data will result in any adverse consequences for you or your child. Students’ identities will be kept confidential. Researchers will only have access to any demographic information about your student, not their names. Their responses will be anonymous. Only students participating in the VR tour will have the opportunity to take part in this study. Whether or not you allow your child to participate in the study will not help or harm your child’s relationship with the researchers, teachers at the school/after school program, or the school. You and your child are completely free to decide to do the study or not. Children can participate in the virtual tour even if they choose not to be part of the study.

PAGE 107

107 There are no direct benefits to you or your student to participate in this study. However, your participation could provide insights into how future science lesson plans could be better designed and implemented to promote engagement and connection with charismatic animals in middle/high school and after school programs. If you decide to allow your child to be part of the study, you do not need to do anything, and your child will be ask ed to participate in the research at the school/the after school program. If you decide not to allow your child to participate in the research, they can still participate in the VR tour. Their teacher simply would not have them participate in the research procedures. If you decide you do not want your child to participate in this research, please complete and return the attached form within one week. Please consider allowing your child to be a part of this study. I think they will enjoy it, and it will h elp the research a great deal. We will learn the most about the potential of best practices in utilizing charismatic animals as interest approaches in education and VR materials. I am happy to answer any questions you might have about this research. You can reach me by email at carolinepbarnett@ufl.edu or by phone at (727) 4392610. For questions regarding you or your child's rights as a research participant contact the IRB (Institutional Review Board) at 352392 0433. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Caroline Barnett Graduate Student Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, University of Florida Frequently Asked Questions Q. Why is this research being done? A. Researchers at the University of Florida are working with teachers at your school/after school program to understand how much students learn through virtual tours when varying levels of charismatic animals are used as interest approaches for the educational material. Q. What is my chil d being asked to do? A. Your child’s participation in the study will consist of completing a survey related to the virtual tour that will take 1520 minutes in total. Q. If my child completes the anonymous survey, will they be required to participate i n the follow up interview?

PAGE 108

108 A. No. Students will be randomly selected by teachers from the classroom roster list of students and sent home with another consent form to confirm additional participation. Q. How will you interview my child and keep their identity protected? A. The classroom teacher will oversee randomly selecting students whose parents have indicated approval of study participation. The teacher will then anonymously code the student names , using pseudonyms to give to the lead investigator , and the child will be referred to by the pseudonym only. Q. Are there any direct benefits to my child for participation in the survey? A. No. There are no direct benefits to them as a research participant in the survey. Q. Are there any direct benefits to my child for participation in the interview? A. Yes. If your child is randomly selected and further approved to take part in the interview as a research participant, they will be compensated with a $10 gift card. Q. Are there any risks and/or discomforts? A. There are no risks to taking part in this study. Q. How will the data be kept confidential? A. Findings from the research may be published in scholarly journals or presented at scientific meetings. All data will be kept completely confidential and will be saved in a passwordprotected online Microsoft Teams folder only accessible to the researchers for up to three years, and no student or location will be mentioned by name in a report of the results. Q. Is participatio n voluntary? A. Participation in this study is voluntary. You and your child can refuse to participate or withdraw at any time without harming yours and their relationship with the researchers, their teachers, the school/after school program. Also, their grades will not be affected by their participation or withdrawal from the research. Q. Who should I contact if I have questions about this study? A. You and your child may ask any questions concerning this research and have those questions answered before agreeing to participate in or during the study. You may contact Caroline Barnett, by telephone at (727) 4392610 or email at carolinepbarnett@ufl. edu. Please contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at (352) 3920433 to voice concerns about the research or if you have any questions about your child’s/legal ward’s rights as a research participant.

PAGE 109

109 Influence of Charismatic Animals on Youth Environmental Knowledge and Connection to Water Through the Application of Virtual Reality Tours Notification Form I have read the information about the study being conducted by the University of Florida. Please check the box below only if y ou do not want your child to take part in the research. Name of student________________________________________________ Grade________ Signature of parent/guardian______________________________________ Date_________ Please have your child return this form to his/her teacher within one week ONLY if you DO NOT wish them to participate. Thank you so much for your assistance with this important proj ect. Investigator Information: Caroline Barnett, Graduate Student, Agricultural Communication, Department of carolinepbarnett@ufl.edu , (727) 4292610 If you have questions or concerns about your child’s rights as a study participant that have not been answered by the investigators, or to report any concerns about the project, please contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at (352) 3920433. Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, University of Florida

PAGE 110

110 APPENDIX G YOUTH SURVEY ASSENT Ecology of an Estuary Virtual Reality Tours because Knowledge this participate, may be asked to participate in an additional short interview ab If you have a quest @ufl.edu Phone: (727) 439________________________________ Name Date

PAGE 111

111 APPENDIX H INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT Research Participant Parent Interview Informed Consent Please read this document carefully before you decide to participate in this research study. Your participation is voluntary, and you can decline to participate, or withdraw consent at any time, with no consequences. Study Title: Persons conducting the research: Education and Communication, (727) 439Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to look at best practices for utilizi ng charismatic animals and flagship species in environmental materials in a way that compliments lesson objectives and does not overshadow the purposes of the lesson or information What you will be asked to do in the study: As part of regular classroom activities, your student’s teacher will ask them to participate in a virtual reality tour of estuary systems in the Tampa Bay area in Florida. As part of this research study, your student will also be asked to answer a quick survey after participation in the VR tour. The survey and activity will take about 15– 20 minutes. Only the researchers will have access to the information we collect from your student. There is a minimal risk that the security of any online data may be breached. But since no identifying information will be collected, and the online survey host (Qualtrics) uses encryption and other forms of protection, it is unlikely that a security breach of the online data will result in any adverse consequence for you or your child. As part of this research, your child’s teacher will also randomly select students to participate in a voluntary interview with the lead investigator and classroom teacher regarding their opinions about the interview. We will not know your child’s name, and we wil l use pseudonyms to refer to participants. Students selected to participate will be additionally compensated with a $10 gift card.

PAGE 112

112 Students’ identities will be kept confidential. Researchers will only have access to any demographic information about your student, not their names. Their responses will be anonymous. For the students whose parents' consent , and for the students who have assented to participate, all student names will be replaced by the teacher with pseudonyms and no identifying information w ill be collected other than demographic information. The interview will take place in the school and with supervision of the classroom teacher or other classroom adult . The interview will take 15 20 minutes and will be administered via a worksheet. Only students participating in the VR tour will have the opportunity to take part in this study. Whether or not you allow your child to participate in the study will not help or harm your child’s relationship with the researchers, teachers at the school/after school program, or the school. You and your child are completely free to decide whether to do the study or not. Children can participate in the virtual tour even if they choose not to be part of the study. Time required: 15– 20 minutes to complete the i nterview. Risks and Benefits: There are no direct benefits to your student for participating in this study. However, their participation could provide insights into how future science lesson plans could be better designed and implemented to promote engagement and connection with charismatic animals in middle/high school and after school programs. One risk of this study could be a breach of confidentiality, which is addressed in the confidentiality section below. Compensation: Each student randomly selected to voluntarily participate in the post interview will be compensated with a $10 gift card. Confidentiality : Your student’s identity will remain confidential. We will not collect your student’s name in the research interview. Researc h results will remain anonymous and only demographic information will be reported in research presentations and publications from this study. Your student’s individual interview responses will not be shared outside of our research team. Although there is always a slight risk that any online data may be compromised, the interview data will only be accessible to the research team via a passwordprotected Microsoft Teams folder. The interview data will be destroyed after data collection. Voluntary participa tion: Your student’s participation in this study is completely voluntary.

PAGE 113

113 Right to withdraw from the study: You and your student have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Questions about the study: If you wish to d iscuss the information above or any discomforts you may experience, please ask questions now or contact the research team member listed at the top of this form. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject, please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB02) office (University of Florida; PO Box 100173; Gainesville, FL 32610; (352) 3920433 or irb2@ufl.edu.) Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure, and I have received a copy of this description. _________________________________________________ Parent Name _____________________________________________ Parent Signature Date _________________________________________________ Name of Teacher obtaining informed consent _________________________________________________ Signature of Teacher obtaining informed consent Date

PAGE 114

114 APPENDIX I YOUTH INTERVIEW ASSENT Ecology of an Estuary Virtual Reality Tour because experi interactive is study. We have randomly selected this student to participate in the anonymous, short interview taking place with the investigator. The interview will be 15– Zoom r be conducted via a worksheet . All icipate in the this Caroline Barnett, Graduate Student, Universit Phone: (727) 439________________________________ Name Date

PAGE 115

115 APPENDIX J INTERVIEW WORKSHEET Student Interview Protocol Thank you for volunteering to participate in this interview about our virtual reality (VR) tour on Just a reminder —this interview is voluntary — and you can stop participation at any $10 gift cards to give to you. Your teacher has assigned you random pseudonyms for this interview to maintain your confidentiality. To get star ted, could you please tell me your Grade level? Subject of class in which you participated in the VR tour. Was the class in person/online/hyflex? About how many students are in your class? You may remember the virtual reality tour we sent out about how red tide impacts Florida estuary systems. These could be viewed online on websites , or on mobile Could you please describe how you viewed the tour? What went well? What did not go What did your teacher tell you about red tide? And how does it impact estuary systems in Florida while you were viewing the VR tour? In your own words, what is an estuary? What is an urban estu ary?

PAGE 116

116 Influence of Charismatic Animals This section will only be administered to the four schools that participated in the VR tour that included a (non)charismatic animal. The two schools that were the comparison groups with no animal will not be asked anything from this section. You may remember the virtual reality tour included an animal example in the VR tour. Which animal did your tour have? Describe the animal. How did you feel about the animal? What did it look like? Had you ever heard of this animal before your participation in the VR tour? If so, where have you heard about it or seen it before? Did you feel as though including the animal in the lesson helped you learn more about estuaries? Was the inclusion of the animal distracting or helpful for learning t he content? If yes, how was it distracting/helpful? Which information on the tour was more interesting: information about estuaries or the animal? Why? ENDING Thank you so much for your participation! We value your feedback and are excited to learn more about how to use animals as interest approaches in education materials through the use of virtual reality tours. We will soon email your teacher your compensator y $10 gift cards to give to you. If you have any further questions about the

PAGE 117

117 APPENDIX K INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS INTERVIEW 1 (D4) 1. Could you please describe how you viewed the tour? a. You could see the tour on the computer but not on the phone for the VR part 2. What went well? 3. What did not go well? 4. What did you learn from the tour? a. How estuaries and ecology affect our water 5. In your own words, what is an estuary? a. When the mouth of the river meets the stream 6. What is an urban estuary? 7. In general, what are your thoughts on using virtual reality in science education? a. It helps visual learners the most in identifying what is happening in the experience 8. Any ideas for how we could improve future VR tours? a. Make it more accessible for iPhone users 9. Which animal did your tour have (describe the animal) a. Dolphin 10. How did you feel about the animal/What did it look like? a. I am terrified of dolphin[s]. I don’t like their straight teeth and beady eyes. 11. Have you ever heard of this animal before your participation in the VR tour? (If so, where have you heard about it or seen it before?) a. Yes, in Barbie movies 12. Did you feel as though including the animal in the lesson helped you learn more about estuaries? a. Yes 13. Was the inclusion of the animal distracting or helpful for learning the content? (If yes, how was it distracting/helpful?) a. It was helpful because it helped describe how dolphins affect our water and marine life 14. Which information on the tour was more interesting: information about the estuaries or the animal? Why? a. The animal because the experiment explained it more thoroughly

PAGE 118

118 INTERVIEW 2 (D9) 1. Could you please describe how you viewed the tour? a. We used cardboard VR headsets and our phones to view the tour. 2. What went well? a. The tour was fun and did show a lot of the info. 3. What did not go well? a. For me, the left side of the screen would not load and you had to put on and take off the headset a lot to press the “i” info 4. What did you learn from the tour? a. What an estuary was 5. In your own words, what is an estuary? a. Estuary – where the st ream and tide meet 6. What is an urban estuary? a. Urban estuary – in a town where the stream and tide meet 7. In general, what are your thoughts on using virtual reality in science education? a. I think it’s very useful when used properly. 8. Any ideas for how we could improve future VR tours? a. Make it so the screen is pointed at the info cards for 5 seconds and it opens up like other VR items 9. Which animal did your tour have (describe the animal) a. We had a dolphin (grey ish blue, smooth, flippers, a nd fins on both side[s] 10. How did you feel about the animal/What did it look like? a. I love them as they are very playful and smart 11. Have you ever heard of this animal before your participation in the VR tour? (If so, where have you heard about it or seen it before?) a. Yes, at a lot of beaches I’ve been to 12. Did you feel as though including the animal in the lesson helped you learn more about estuaries? a. Yes 13. Was the inclusion of the animal distracting or helpful for learning the content? (If yes, how was it distracting/helpful?) a. Helpful as it expands on the estuaries and what is in them 14. Which information on the tour was more interesting: information about the estuaries or the animal? Why? a. Estuaries, because they felt more exciting because they show all the components to make a nice place in nature.

PAGE 119

119 INTERVIEW 3 (T4) 1. Could you please describe how you viewed the tour? 2. What went well? a. I learned about the area I live in 3. What did not go well? a. The technology wasn’t working correctly 4. What did you learn from the tour? a. I learned about the different ecosystems in Tampa and what is [in] them. I learned to preserve them. 5. In your own words, what is an estuary? a. An estuary is where salt water meets fresh water 6. What is an urban estuary? a. Urban estuaries are habitats for marine life 7. In general, what are your thoughts on using virtual reality in science education? a. Personally, I don’t think it’s helpful 8. Any ideas for how we could improve future VR tours? a. Make it more interactive and interesting 9. Which animal did your tour have (describe the animal) a. It had a squirt fish. It squirts water and looks like a tube. 10. How did you feel about the animal/What did it look like? a. I thought the animal was weird and it looked like a tube 11. Have you ever heard of this animal before your participation in the VR tour? (If so, where have you heard about it or seen it before?) a. No, I haven’t heard of this animal before 12. Did you feel as though including the animal in the lesson helped you learn more about estuaries? a. Yes, it did help 13. Was the inclusion of the animal distracting or helpful for learning the content? (If yes, how was it distracting/helpful?) a. It was helpful because it informed me about what animals live in estuaries. 14. Which information on the tour was more interesting: information about the estuaries or the animal? Why? a. The animals were interesting because it’s fun to learn about weird things.

PAGE 120

120 INTE RVIEW 4 (T6) 1. Could you please describe how you viewed the tour? a. I viewed the tour on a computer. 2. What went well? a. It went well because I could access the website easily. 3. What did not go well? a. What did not go well is the website would glitch out 4. What did you learn from the tour? a. I learned about many different animals and how they live in their aquatic ecosystems. 5. In your own words, what is an estuary? Urban estuary? a. Coastal place with brackish waters? b. Areas where there is wildlife like fish 6. In general, what are your thoughts on using virtual reality in science education? a. I think virtual reality in science education is productive, it allows for more hands on learning activities 7. Any ideas for how we could improve future VR tours? a. The phone on the left eye didn’t work and it was hard to click “i” 8. Which animal did your tour have (describe the animal) a. Sea squirt b. Invertebrates are found in brackish water 9. How did you feel about the animal/What did it look like? a. It was interesting and it was clear and looked squishy and weird 10. Have you ever heard of this animal before your participation in the VR tour? (If so, where have you heard about it or seen it before?) a. No, this is the first I have seen t his animal 11. Did you feel as though including the animal in the lesson helped you learn more about estuaries? a. Yes, because it was consistent and helped grasp the idea of what is in estuaries 12. Was the inclusion of the animal distracting or helpful f or learning the content? (If yes, how was it distracting/helpful?) a. [Indicated to see the above answer] 13. Which information on the tour was more interesting: information about the estuaries or the animal? Why? a. The sea squirt because I have never heard about it before

PAGE 121

121 INTERVIEW 5 (C28) 1. Could you please describe how you viewed the tour? a. I used my computer and VR 2. What went well? a. The graphics were good 3. What did not go well? a. When I was in the VR when I would turn my head the screen would not move with me 4. What did you learn from the tour? a. A lot about how red tide affects the world and how red tide works 5. In your own words, what is an estuary? a. An estuary is a partially enclosed, coastal [body of] water where freshwater from rivers and streams mixed with salt water from the ocean 6. What is an urban estuary? a. An urban estuary is habitats for fish, birds, and other wildlife, as well as humans 7. In general, what are your thoughts on using virtual reality in science education? a. I think that it explains more and helps us understand more 8. Any ideas for how we could improve future VR tours? a. More information and pictures to understand. More about red tide.

PAGE 122

122 INTERVIEW 6 (C42) 1. Could you please describe how you viewed the tour? a. I just used VR headset. 2. What went well? a. What went well was exploring and learning all about Florida’s estuaries. 3. What did not go well? a. What went wrong was my iPhone loaded for a while and also put the [info] setting 4. What did you learn from the tour? a. I learned how red tide can affect Florida’s citizens and estuary systems 5. In your own words, what is an estuary? a. An estuary is a partially enclosed, coastal water body where freshwater from rivers and streams mixes with salt water from the ocean 6. What is an urban estuary? 7. In general, what are your thoughts on using virtual reality in science education? a. I think it can be extremely helpful for learning experience and can teach a lot while st ill being an interactive activity 8. Any ideas for how we could improve future VR tours? a. It was a mostly good experience, but maybe an easier way to access informational slides.

PAGE 123

123 APPENDIX L MAILCHIMP EMAIL CAMPAIGN

PAGE 124

124 APPENDIX M CHARISMATIC AND NONCHARISMATIC ANIMAL VR TOUR EXAMPLES

PAGE 125

125 LIST OF REFERENCES Andelman, S. J., & Fagan, W. F. (2000). Umbrellas and flagships: Efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97(11), 5954 – 5959. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.10012 6797 Ando, A. W., & Langpap, C. (2018). The Economics of Species Conservation. Annual Review of Resource Economics , 10 , 445 – 467. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev resource100517022921 Ardoin, N. M., Bowers, A. W., & Gaillard, E. (2020). Environmental education outcomes for conservation: A systematic review. Biological Conservation, 241 (November 2019), 108224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108224 Barua, M. (2011). Mobilizing metaphors: The popular use of keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(7), 1427 – 1440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531011 0035y Census Reporter. (2020). TampaSt. PetersburgClearwate r, FL metro area. https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US45300tampa st petersburgclearwater fl metro area/ Clayton, S., Fraser, J., & Saunders, C. D. (2009). Zoo experiences: Conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biology , 28(5), 377 – 397. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20186 Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. Dainton, M., & Zelley, E. D. (2019). Applying Communication Theory for Professional Life: A Practical Introduction (4th ed.). SAGE Publishing. Daly, B., & Suggs, S. (2010). Teachers’ experiences with humane education and animals in the elementary classroom: Implications for empathy development. Journal of Moral Education, 39(1), 101 – 112. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240903528733 Douglas, L. R., & Winkel, G. (2014). The flipside of the flagship. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23(4), 979 – 997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1053101406470 Ducarme, F., Luque, G. M., & Courchamp, F. (2013). What are “charismatic species” for conse rvation biologists? BioSciences Master Reviews , 1 (July), 1 – 8. http://biologie.ens lyon.fr/biologie/ressources/bibliographies/pdf/m11112biosci reviews ducarmef 2c m.pdf?lang=fr

PAGE 126

126 Dye, J. F., Schatz, I. M., Rosenberg, B. A., & Coleman, S. T. (2000). Constant Comparison Method: A Kaleidoscope of Data. The Qualitative Report , 4 (1), 1 10. https://doi.org/10.46743/21603715/2000.2090 Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs principles and practices. Health Services Research , 48(6 Pt 2), 2134– 2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117 Feng, Y. (2018). Facilitator or inhibitor? The use of 360degree videos for immersive brand storytelling. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 18(1), 2842. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2018.1446199 F ischhoff, B. (2019). Evaluating science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116 (16), 7670– 7675. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805863115 Fischhoff, B., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). The science of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(SUPPL. 3), 14031 – 14032. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312080110 B etween People and the Sea. Montana: The Magazine Of Western History , 3 (2), 5– 38. Gerber, A. (2014). Opening Science. Opening Science , 73 – 80. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319 00026 -8 Greenwald, N., Suckling, K. F., Hartl, B., & Mehrhoff, L. A. (2019). Extinction and the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Peer J, 2019(4), 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6803 Hanski, I. (2011). Habitat loss, the dynamics of biodiversity, and a perspective on conservation. Ambio , 40 (3), 248 – 255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s132800110147-3 Irby, T.L., Strong, R. (2011). Agricultural education students' acceptance and self efficacy of mobile technology in classrooms. North American Colleges and Teachers of Agr iculture Journal, 57(1), 8287. https://www.nactateachers.org/index.php/volume57num -1march 2013/2034agricultural educationstudents -acceptanceand self -efficacyof mobile technology in -classrooms Jepson, P., & Barua, M. (2015). A Theory of Flagship Species Action. Conservation and Society , 13(1), 95 – 104. https://doi.org/10.4103/09724923.161228

PAGE 127

127 Johnson, R. Burke, Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. In Journal of Mixed Methods Research (Vol. 1, Issue 2, pp. 112 – 130). https://assets.ctfassets.net/hk7rjv5qs0cy/2qFknHkf9qGIIAeG4o4gsg/ea3bbc44498 da1882dd2f87bd5d5aebc/Johnson_Onwuegbuzie_Turner_2007_MMR_Definition.p df Krause, M., & Robinson, K. (2017). “Charismatic Species and Beyond: How Cultural Schemas and Organisational Routines shape Conservation.” Conservation and Society , 15(3), 313 – 321. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_16_63 Krger, O. (2005). The role of ecotourism in conservation: Panacea or Pandora’s box? Biodiversity and Conservation, 14(3), 579 – 600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531004 3917-4 LindemannMatthies, P. (2005). “Loveable” mammals and “lifeless” plants: How chi ldren’s interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 655 – 677. https://doi.or g/10.1080/09500690500038116 Lorenz Spreen, P., Mnsted, B., Hvel, P. and Lehmann, S., 2019 . Accelerating dynamics of collective attention. Nature Communications , 10(1). Lorimer, J. (2007). Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space , 25 (5), 9 11– 932. https://doi.org/10.1068/d71j Martin, V. Y. (2019). Research undertaken by natural scientists. BioScience , XX(X), 1 – 4. Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. P. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24 (4), 503 – 515. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2004.10.001 Mazzoldi, C., Bearzi, G., Brito, C., Carvalho, I., Desider, E. , Endrizzi, L., Freitas, L., Giacomello, E., Giovos, I., Guidetti, P., Ressurreio, A., Tull, M., & MacDiarmid, A. (2019). From sea monsters to charismatic megafauna: Changes in perception and use of large marine animals. In PLoS ONE (Vol. 14, Issue 12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226810 Mazzotti, F. J. (1990). Conserving Biological Diversity SSWIS14 . September 2002, 1 – 3. Monroe, M. C., Krasny, M. E., Biendenweg, K., & Wojcik, D. J. (2016). Across the spectrum. Africa Spectrum , 51(1), 3 – 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/000203971605100101

PAGE 128

128 O’Keefe, D. J. (2013). Elaboration Likelihood Model. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiece011.pub2 Oh , J., Sudarshan, S., Jin, E., Nah, S., & Yu, N. (2020). How 360 Degree Video Influences Content Perceptions and Environmental Behavior: The Moderating Effect of Environmental Self Efficacy. Science Communication , 42 (4), 423 – 453. https://doi.org/10.1177/107 5547020932174 Ojala, M. (2012). Hope and climate change: The importance of hope for environmental engagement among young people. Environmental Education Research, 18(5), 625 – 642. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.637157 Parsons, E. C. M. (2012). The Negative Impacts of WhaleWatching. Journal of Marine Biology , 2012, 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/807294 Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 19(C), 123 – 205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00652601(08)60214 2 Ripple, W. J., Chapron, G., Lpez Bao, J. V., Durant, S. M., Macdonald, D. W., Lindsey, P. A., Bennett, E. L., Beschta, R. L., Bruskotter, J. T., Campos Arceiz, A., Corlett, R. T., Darimont, C. T., Dickman, A. J., Dirzo, R., Dublin, H. T., Estes, J. A., Ev eratt, K. T., Galetti, M., Goswami, V. R., Zhang, L. (2016). Saving the World’s Terrestrial Megafauna. BioScience , 66(10), 807 – 812. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw092 Schlagloth, R., Santamaria Dr., F., Golding, B., & Thomson, H. (2018). Why is it I mportant to Use Flagship Species in Community Education? The Koala as a Case Study. Animal Studies Journal , 7 (1), 127. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2009.12.002 Sibarani, M. C., Di Marco, M., Rondinini, C., & Kark, S. (2019). Measuring the surrogacy potential of charismatic megafauna spec ies across taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity on a megadiverse island. Journal of Applied Ecology , 56(5), 1220– 1231. https://doi.org/10.1111/13652664.13360 Simberloff, D. (1998). Flagships Umbrellas and keystones: Is single management pass in the Landscape Era. Biological Conservation, 83 (3), 247 – 257. ScienceDirect__Biological_Conservation_Flagships_umbrellas_and_keystones_Is_ single species_management_pass_in_the_landscape_era_Simberloff_1998.pdf.

PAGE 129

129 Skibins, J. C., Powell, R. B., & Hallo, J. C. (2013). Charisma and conservation: Charismatic megafauna’s influence on safari and zoo tourists’ proconservation behaviors. Biodiversity and Conservation , 22 (4), 959 – 982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531013 0462-z Strong, R., & Palmer, J. M., III. (2021, June 2124). Does the adoption of virtual technology increase student contentious topics learning [Paper presentation]. North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture 67th Conference, Virtual. Tampa Bay Estuary Program. (n.d.). About TBEP. https://tbep.org/about tbep/ Thomas Walters, L., & J Raihani, N. (2017). Supporting Conservation: The Roles of Flagship Species and Identifiable Victims. Conservation Letters , 10(5), 581– 587. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12319 Thompson, B. S., & Rog, S. M. (2019). Beyond ecosystem services: Using charismatic megafauna as flagship species for mangrove forest conservation. Environmental Science and Policy , 102 (September), 9 – 17. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.09.009 Thompson, K. L., & Gullone, E. (2003). Promotion of Empathy and Prosocial Behaviour in Children through Humane Education. Australian Psychologist , 38 (3), 175 – 182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060310001707187 An epistemological glance at the Constructivist Aproach: Constructivist learning in Dewey, Piaget and Montessori, International Journal of Instruction , 5 (2), 1694609X. United States Census Bureau. (2020). [US Census Bureau map outlining Hillsborough, Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas, Sarasota, and Manatee Counties]. Retrieved May 22, 2022, from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/map?q=DP04&g=0400000US12_0500000US12053, 12057,12081,12101,12103,12115&cid=DP04_0001E&vintage=2020&layer=VT_2 0 20_050_00_PY_D1&mode=selection&loc=27.8632, 82.8302,z7.7551 van der Leeuw, S. The role of narratives in humanenvironmental relations: an essay on elaborating winwin solutions to climate change and sustainability. Climatic Change 160 , 509 – 519 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s1058401902403 -y VarelaCandamio, L., NovoCorti, I., & Garca lvarez, M. T. (2018). The importance of environmental education in the determinants of green behavior: A meta-analysis approach. Journal of Cleaner Production , 170, 1565– 1578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.214

PAGE 130

130 Verssimo, D., Fraser, I., Giro, W., Campos, A. A., Smith, R. J., & Macmillan, D. C. (2014). Evaluating conservation flagships and flagship fleets. Conservation Letters , 7 (3), 263 – 270. ht tps://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12070 Warner, L. A., & Diaz, J. M. (2020). Amplifying the Theory of Planned behavior with connectedness to water to inform impactful water conservation program planning and evaluation. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension , 0 (0), 1 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1844771

PAGE 131

131 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Caroline Paxton Barnett was born in St. Petersburg, Florida and is the daughter of two loving parents , J. Paxton Barnett, a Florida citrus grower, and Janice Cooper Barnett, a regional apartment manager. Despite being incredibly prone to sunburns, Caroline was determined to become a marine biologist from the tender age of five when she saw a sea turtle for the first time. Her love for the ocean and sea turtles grew and expanded until it encompassed all elements of the ocean, including weird, interesting, and novel “noncharismatic” animals like the Galapagos redlipped batfish. With a passion for the ocean and learning, she decided to pursue a bachelor’s degree at the University of Florida in marine sciences but found it incredibly difficult to talk to her friends and family about what exactly she studied in school in a way that was easy to understand and relatable. This led to her taking an agricultural communications class. She (virtually) graduated in May of 2020 with a bachelor’s degree in marine sciences with minors in agricultural communications, international studies in agricultural and life sciences, and classics. She also regrets having three minors. Caroline was extremely fortunate to meet her current advisor, Dr. Jamie Loizzo, who helped her merge her love for the ocean and need for communicating it , and who encouraged her to pursue her master’s degree in agricultural communications at the University of Florida again. This led to the completion of the master’s thesis presented here. She is now organizing ideas for her doctoral dissertation as she enters directly into her PhD program this fall, again at the University of Florida. Caroline is extremely proud to be a triple gator in Gainesville, where she currently resides with her dog, Bucky.