11 Connecting Teenagers to Coastal Sciences through Research and Education: Shark Fest Program Samuel D. Clardy1,* and Jill M. Hendon2 Abstract - In 2010, the Marine Education Center collaborated with the Center for Fisheries Research and Development’s Shark Research Program to design an educational program that combined research experiences and educational opportunities for teenage audiences. This program, Shark Fest, educates students about the sharks of the Mississippi Sound and engages them in scientific studies of shark populations and movements. Through 2015, this program has reached 398 participants in grades 7–12. During the program, students assist in conducting a population survey using a 152.4-m (500-ft) bottom longline with 50 hooks and fishing with a rod-and-reel. Students measure, weigh, determine sex, and identify to species all captured sharks, and tag those in good condition prior to release. Program participants also conduct water-quality sampling (salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and water clarity) at each sample site for addition to the database. Students take a pre-test and posttest to assess the level of knowledge gained during the program. Results of a paired-sample t-test on 2015 pre-test and post-test data reflected a significant difference in pre-test (mean = 6.16, SD = 2.36) and post-test (mean = 8.54, SD = 1.93) scores (t[83] = -9.172, P < 0.0001), indicating an increase in content knowledge. Written and verbal post-participation assessments also highlighted a positive student experience. We conducted opportunistic interviews with several students 4 years after they were in the program and found evidence of retained knowledge along with positive overall impressions. Some participants stated that the experience influenced their career pursuits. Introduction The Marine Education Center (MEC; http://www.usm.edu/gcrl/mec/index.php) is the education and outreach arm of The University of Southern Mississippi (USM) Gulf Coast Research Laboratory (GCRL). The MEC was established in 1984 and has been delivering science-based educational programs to youth and adults from local, regional, and national audiences since that time. The mission of the MEC is to connect people to coastal sciences and the research conducted at GCRL. The MEC seeks to develop environmental stewardship by focusing on the importance of environmental conservation, habitat preservation, sustainable fisheries practices, and enjoyment of the rich diversity of our coastal ecosystem. A strength of the MEC is our ability to immerse young people in the coastal environment for a hands-on and feet-wet educational experience. 1Marine Education Center, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, School of Ocean Science and Technology, The University of Southern Mississippi, 703 East Beach Drive, Ocean Springs, MS 39564. 2Center for Fisheries Research and Development, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, School of Ocean Science and Technology, The University of Southern Mississippi, 703 East Beach Drive, Ocean Springs, MS 39564. *Corresponding author - Samuel.clardy@usm.edu. Manuscript Editor: Timothy Zimmerman The Outdoor Classroom 2017 Southeastern Naturalist 16(Special Issue 10):11–25 Southeastern Naturalist S.D. Clardy and J.M. Hendon 2017 12 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 Studying nature outside of the classroom is regarded by some scholars as the most effective way of teaching children about nature and biodiversity (Dickerson et al. 2007, Lindemann-Matthies 2006, Lock 1995, Nadelson and Jordan 2012). Barker et al. (2002) and Lock (1998) suggested that biology lessons can be made more enjoyable by studying living plants and animals first-hand. Behrendt and Franklin (2014) determined that experiential learning during field trips can enhance student interest and motivation when proper preparation and coordination are implemented. Through many of the MEC programs, we strive to use the approach suggested by Behrendt and Franklin (2014) by introducing topics in a classroom setting and then reinforcing information with a hands-on field experience. Experiential learning has been shown to benefit students’ short-term and longterm knowledge retention. For example, having direct contact with nature has been shown to enhance a student’s ecological awareness, positive environmental attitude, and caring approach towards living creatures (Fawcett 2002, Lock 1998, Yore and Boyer 1997). Students are also better able to identify biodiversity and ecological problems following a field experience addressing those topics (Heywood and Watson 1995, Weilbacher 1993). In the long term, Hanneman (2013) found that 75% of the eighty-six 7th–10th-grade students who participated in an experiential learning program were able to identify the relationship between ocean pollution and human behavior during a knowledge-retention survey conducted 2–5 years after involvement in the program. This educational format provides context for the lessons and ultimately can yield a stronger conceptual understanding of the subject. During Fall 2010, the MEC collaborated with the GCRL Center for Fisheries Research and Development (CFRD) Shark Research Program (SRP; http://www. usm.edu/gcrl/fisheries_center/shark.research.program.php) to design an educational program directed at teenage audiences. The SRP has conducted research on sharks and rays in the northern Gulf of Mexico ranging from the nearshore Dasyatis sabina (Lesueur) (Atlantic Stingray) to the offshore Rhincodon typus (A. Smith) (Whale Shark) for over a decade. For Shark Fest, we chose to employ the conventional tag-and-release methodologies that the SRP uses during its population monitoring surveys. Our goal for this new program was to enhance young people’s understanding of the rich biodiversity of the Mississippi Gulf Coast with hopes that increased understanding would lead participants to the same long-term awareness that Hanneman (2013) described. Methods Participants The Shark Fest summer-camp program is designed for 7th–12th-grade participants. Although there are a large number of local attendees, many participants come from great distances to experience the hands-on learning offered by our programs. For many participants, it may be their first time observing a Callinectes sapidus Rathbun (Blue Crab) in its natural habitat or holding a Palaemonetes spp. (grass shrimp) they collected in a local saltmarsh. For others, it may be their first time Southeastern Naturalist 13 S.D. Clardy and J.M. Hendon 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 seeing the Gulf of Mexico or an ocean basin. In an attempt to encompass a broad range of experiences, we developed Shark Fest to ensure that students had the opportunity to experience many facets of the marine ecosystem, including time on a research vessel. The camp is a fee-based program; however, grants and contributions are used to subsidize the cost or provide scholarships to students to ensure that as many interested individuals as possible have the opportunity to participate. Program description Shark Fest is a 5-day program (Table 1). Students are engaged in presentations and hands-on activities on days 1, 3, and 5, whereas they go on research-vessel excursions on days 2 and 4. We use PowerPoint presentations to educate students about what defines an elasmobranch, how to conduct shark identification, how sharks relate to their environment, and what threats sharks face. Students learn about the diversity of sharks in the Gulf of Mexico and how to use the Sharks, Skates, and Rays of the Gulf of Mexico (Parsons 2006) field guide to identify the 10 shark species common in the Mississippi Sound. We teach about internal and external shark anatomy by means of an in-depth dissection of a Squalus acanthias (L.) (Spiny Dogfish Shark) supplemented with a PowerPoint reference guide. In this way, Table 1. Summary of daily topics, activities, and learning measures covered in Shark Fest. Ppt = Power Point presentation Day 1 Topics: introduction to elasmobranch biology, species identification, tagging methods Activities: pretest, introduction to elasmobranchs ppt, shark identification ppt, tagging demonstration Learning measures: define elasmobranch, identify common species, understand tagging methods Day 2 – Vessel trip Topics: field sampling methods, water quality measurement, standa rd protocol implementation Activities: rod-and-reel fishing, longline fishing, shark measuring and tagging, conduct water quality sampling Learning measures: describe sampling methods, explain the importance of standardization of methods, correlate catch to water quality Day 3 Topics: shark nursery habitat, sharks’ role in environment, internal and external shark anatomy, shark sensory systems Activities: shark ecology ppt, seining on Mississippi Sound beach, dissection of Spiny Dogfish Learning measures: understand ecological role of shark, define a shark nursery, identify major shark anatomy, name shark senses and identify corresponding organ Day 4 – Vessel trip Topics: field sampling methods, water-quality measurement, standard protocol implementation Activities: Rod-and-reel fishing, longline fishing, trawl, shark measuring and tagging, conduct waterquality sampling Learning measures: describe sampling methods, explain the importance of standardization of methods, correlate catch to water quality, compare and contrast catch from Day 2 and Day 4 Day 5 Topics: study the food web of Davis Bayou, population threats, u sing sharks in art Activities: kayaking in Davis bayou, shark importance and threa ts ppt, Gyotaku printing, post-test Learning measures: describe a food web using sharks, explain threats affecting sharks, recognize science in the arts Southeastern Naturalist S.D. Clardy and J.M. Hendon 2017 14 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 students learn anatomy through seeing images in the presentation and then finding the structures in their own shark specimen. Participants identi fy all fins externally, with special attention given to the caudal fin and its role in propulsion, and learn about all major internal structures of the digestive and reproductive systems. Students also use the dissected sharks to identify the sensory structures (brain, eyes, ampullae of Lorenzini, lateral line, inner ear, nares) that sharks use to interpret their environment. We include physical activities such as seining or trawling throughout the day to allow the students to observe the diversity of fishes and invertebrates that serve as vital parts of the food web. We reinforce the concept of trophic ecology in the classroom as students begin to visualize where sharks fit into a Mississippi Sound food web. We also introduce the students to the CFRD SRP and the research efforts of this group. We discuss the concept of population-monitoring surveys and the importance of standardized sampling to broaden the students’ understanding of the research process. We introduce the sampling methods that participants will employ and the data they will collect. They also learn the concept of tag-and-recapture sampling, the type of information that can be obtained by this research, and the critical role recreational and commercial fishers play by reporting recap tures. Perhaps the most important component of Shark Fest are the days students spend on-board a GCRL research vessel in the Mississippi Sound (days 2 and 4) working alongside SRP scientists and MEC staff to conduct standard surveys that inform scientists about shark population diversity and structure. We use 2 fishing methods: a 152.4-m (500-ft–)–long 50-hook bottom longline that fishes for 1 hour, and standard rod-and-reel bottom fishing. We use as bait Brevoortia patronus (Goode) (Gulf Menhaden), a widely abundant species in this part of the Gulf of Mexico; this protocol offers another opportunity to discuss food-chain dynamics in the region. When sharks are caught, the students help identify the species, determine the sex, take length (precaudal, fork, stretched total; cm) and weight (kg) measurements, and assess overall condition. The students tag and release any sharks in good condition (active upon landing) to aid in the collection of movement and growth information. The tags are small Roto tags (Premiere One, Washington, IA) attached to the dorsal fin (Figs. 1, 2) and have a unique identifier number as well as the SRP’s phone number, which anglers should call if the shark is recaptured. Students conduct water-quality sampling (salinity, temperature [ºC], dissolved oxygen [mg/L], and water clarity by Secchi disk [cm]) at each fished site, regardless of catch success, to observe the environmental conditions and how they might affect fish catches. This process exposes students to a shark’s physical habitat and provides an opportunity to learn about the dynamics of the ecosystem. When a shark tagged by a Shark Fest group is recaptured, the students get an even more-rewarding experience. The SRP develops a tag report (Fig. 3) for every recaptured shark, which is then sent to the student group. The reports indicate the tagging date, location, shark measurements, and the recapture date, location, and shark measurements. The report also contains a map that shows both the tagging and recapture locations. The recapture reports allow students to see how growth Southeastern Naturalist 15 S.D. Clardy and J.M. Hendon 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 Figure 1. Photo taken during a Shark Fest trip that shows the measuring board and the process of tagging a Sphyrna tiburo (Bonnethead Shark). On the left is a Shark Fest participant and on the right a Shark Research Program Scientist. Photograph © GCRL. Figure 2. Photograph taken during a Shark Fest trip that shows proper tag placement on a Carcharchinus limbatus (Blacktip Shark). Pictured on the left is a Shark Fest participant and on the right is a marine education specialist. Photograph © GCRL. Southeastern Naturalist S.D. Clardy and J.M. Hendon 2017 16 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 rate and movement data can be obtained from this type of work. Most importantly, students gain an understanding of their direct contribution to the research. Figure 3. Example of a recapture report submitted to participating groups when a tagged shark was recaptured. Southeastern Naturalist 17 S.D. Clardy and J.M. Hendon 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 Program evaluation During 2015, we employed a pre-test to gauge students’ preexisting knowledge about sharks. Questions included shark-related topics such as classification, anatomy, tagging, and conservation (Appendix 1), for example: Which organ is used to control a shark’s buoyancy? (A) kidney, (B) liver, (C), bladder, or (D) pancreas; where B is the correct answer. We administered a post-test at the conclusion of the camp to assess program effectiveness and the extent of learning experienced during the program. We employed a paired-sample t-test to compare a change in content knowledge between the pre-test and the post-test. Several former Shark Fest participants have returned to GCRL for various reasons, and we took the opportunity to interview them about the program. This feedback provided significant insight on Shark Fest’s long-term impact on the individuals and their career paths. Results Participants From the inaugural summer through 2015, Shark Fest has reached 398 students ranging in age from 11–18 years. Age and gender of the student participants have been recorded for the last 4 of these years. Twelve-yearolds (n = 90) accounted for the largest proportion of participants (29.5%) and 18-year-olds (n = 4) for the lowest (1.3%) (Fig. 4). There was a high rate of participation (44.9%) for the high-school-age audience (age ≥14), which was our target group for this program. In all years, males participated at a higher rate (64.5%) than females (35.5%) (Fig. 5). Shark Fest participants have taken over 60 trips to study sharks aboard a GCRL research vessel. Participants have sampled a total of 111 sites around 3 Mississippi Sound barrier islands: East Ship, Horn, and Petit Bois islands (Fig. 6). Students have Figure 4. Shark Fest participant age from 2012 to 2015 ( n = 305). Southeastern Naturalist S.D. Clardy and J.M. Hendon 2017 18 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 encountered 8 shark species (n = 812; Rhizoprionodon terraenovae (Richardson) [Atlantic Sharpnose Shark]; Carcharhinus limbatus (Muller & Henle) [Blacktip Shark]; Sphyrna tiburo (L.) [Bonnethead Shark]; Carcharhinus brevipinna (Muller Figure 5. Shark Fest participant gender breakdown (n = 318) from 2012 to 2015. Gray bars represent males, and white bars represent femaless. Figure 6. Map of the Mississippi coastline. Green dots represent stations that were sampled from 2011 to 2015 by Shark Fest participants by either bottom longline or rod and reel. Southeastern Naturalist 19 S.D. Clardy and J.M. Hendon 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 & Henle) [Spinner Shark]; Carcharhinus isodon (Muller & Henle) [Finetooth Shark]; Sphyrna mokarran (Ruppell) [Great Hammerhead Shark]; Carcharhinus acronotus (Poey) [Blacknose Shark]; and Carcharhinus leucas (Muller & Henle) [Bull Shark]) during the bottom-longline sets (Table 2), and 6 species via rod-andreel capture (n = 303) (Table 3). Both methods are effective in showing students the diversity of shark species in the region. Although sharks are the focus of this camp, students also had the opportunity to observe other common species caught in the gear including Ariopsis felis (L.) (Hardhead Catfish), Bagre marinus (Mitchill) (Gafftopsail Catfish), Sciaenops ocellatus (L.) (Red Drum), Rachycentron canadum (L.) (Cobia), Cynoscion arenarius (Gingsburg) (White Trout), Caranx hippos (L.) (Crevalle Jack), and Remora remora (L.) (Shark Sucker), Dasyatis americana (Hildebrand and Schroeder) (Southern Stingray), Dasyatis sabina (Lesueur) (Atlantic Stingray), and Rhinoptera bonasus (Mitchill) (Cownose Ray). Shark Fest students have greatly enhanced the tag-and-release efforts for the CFRD SRP. Of the total 1115 sharks encountered, 77.3% (n = 862) were deemed in good condition and were tagged prior to release, all other sharks were released without a tag. Since 2011, Shark Fest participants have been involved in 7 shark recaptures, either as the tagging entity or the recapturing entity, for a recapture rate of 0.8% for this program alone, which is higher than the overall SRP rate of less than 0.1 %. Program evaluation We used a paired-sample t-test to compare the content knowledge about sharks as demonstrated in the pre-test and post-test surveys administered to participants Table 3. Shark species caught by rod and reel from 201 1 to 2015 by Shark Fest participants. Species Number caught % of total sharks Atlantic Sharpnose Shark 267 88.1 Blacktip Shark 19 6.3 Spinner Shark 11 3.6 Bonnethead Shark 4 1.3 Finetooth Shark 1 0.3 Great Hammerhead Shark 1 0.3 Table 2. Shark species caught by bottom longline from 201 1 to 2015 by Shark Fest participants. Number % of total Species caught sharks Atlantic Sharpnose Shark 643 79.2 Blacktip Shark 114 14.0 Bonnethead Shark 27 3.3 Spinner Shark 15 1.8 Finetooth Shark 8 1.0 Great Hammerhead Shark 3 0.4 Blacknose Shark 1 0.1 Bull Shark 1 0.1 Southeastern Naturalist S.D. Clardy and J.M. Hendon 2017 20 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 as a whole and by question. In 2015, there was a significant difference in overall pre-test (mean = 6.16, SD = 2.36) and post-test (mean = 8.54, SD = 1.93) scores (t [83] = -9.172, P < 0.0001). The results revealed a significant increase in scores between pre-test and post-test (Table 4) with some exceptions. There was a significant difference in pre-test and post-test scores for question 2 (t [82]) = 2.331, P = 0.022), however, the average score was higher on the pre-test (mean = 0.57, SD = 0.499) than on the post-test (mean = 0.40, SD = 0.492). There was no significant difference in pre-test and post-test scores for questions 5 (t [82] = -0.207, P = 0.836), 9 (t [82] = -1.149, P = 0.254), and 10 (t [82] = 0.059, P = 1.000), but the mean score values all reflected an equal or minimal increase between pre-test and post-test scores (question 5: pre-test mean = 0.20, post-test mean = 0.22; question 9: pre-test mean = 0.77, post-test mean = 0.83; question 10: pre-test mean = 0.90, post-test mean = 0.90). The program’s impact on past participants was reflected in opportunistic feedback. For example, a past participant, now a current marine science undergraduate at The University of Southern Mississippi, Long Beach, MS, stated that “Shark Fest was a fantastic opportunity for me to learn about sharks as well as the sampling process involved with studying marine fish. It was completely worthwhile and I had only wished I had gotten to go on it earlier.” This sentiment was further reinforced by a Michigan resident and current student at Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, who stated: “My family drove down to Biloxi, MS, from my home in Michigan and stayed there while I went to Shark Fest. Shark Fest ended up being the best experience I could’ve asked for; we had classroom time where we learned about elasmobranch anatomy and life history and 2 of the 5 days were spent out in the Sound on the R/V Hermes and one of the barrier islands. The field experience was particularly interesting to me because we were given a lot of unique opportunities; we were able to catch sharks on rod and reel and hand-line and were able to take measurements, Table 4. Summary of pre-test and post-test data and associated statistics from Shark Fest participants (n = 83) during the summer of 2015. Mean score, standard deviation (SD), paired sample t-value with degrees of freedom (t[82]), and probability values (P) are presented. Mean score (SD) Question Pre-test Post-test t (82) P 1 0.54 (0.501) 0.83 (0.377) -4.765 less than 0.000 2 0.57 (0.499) 0.40 (0.492) 2.331 0.022 3 0.27 (0.444) 0.73 (0.444) -8.525 less than 0.000 4 0.40 (0.492) 0.69 (0.467) -4.765 less than 0.000 5 0.20 (0.406) 0.22 (0.415) -0.207 0.836 6 0.75 (0.437) 0.95 (0.215) -4.289 less than 0.000 7 0.51 (0.503) 0.86 (0.354) -5.780 less than 0.000 8 0.35 (0.480) 0.76 (0.430) -5.967 less than 0.000 9 0.77 (0.423) 0.83 (0.377) -1.149 0.254 10 0.90 (0.297) 0.90 (0.297) 0.059 1.000 11 0.27 (0.444) 0.51 (0.503) -0.111 less than 0.000 12 0.64 (0.483) 0.84 (0.366) -0.074 0.003 Southeastern Naturalist 21 S.D. Clardy and J.M. Hendon 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 record data, and tag the sharks. Having really enjoyed this experience, it definitely solidified that this is what I wanted to be involved with for th e rest of my life.” This student returned to GCRL as an undergraduate for The University of Southern Mississippi’s 2015 Summer Field Program where she pursued her interest by taking elasmobranch biology coursework through the SRP. The feedback from both of these students was obtained 4 years after their involvement in the Shark Fest program and demonstrates the profound impact that this program had on them; it influenced the area of study they pursued at the under graduate level. Discussion The decline in outdoor opportunities for youth, especially teenagers, is cause for concern. Shark Fest offers some of these opportunities to this age group by providing cost subsidies. Through the program, youth are introduced to the research being conducted by the CFRD SRP. This integration of education and research is a relatively new field (Powers and Tiffany 2006). The camp focuses on a high-profile group of animals—sharks—to attract students to this educational opportunity. The data collected during Shark Fest has a positive influence on the program participants and affords them a unique hands-on field experience. The program also provides valuable research data to the SRP. Janovy (2004) stated that the sense of being a biologist can only be fully realized in the field. This statement rings true with the Shark Fest program and the other MEC programs that provide participants with opportunities for experiential learning that cannot be replicated in a classroom setting. Many schools ranging from primary school to the university level have been forced to eliminate field trips, a pedagogical tool that has been shown to be an indispensable form of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education (DeWitt and Storksdieck 2008, Falk and Dierking 2000, Krupa 2000, Louv 2005, Wilcove and Eisner 2000). Too often, stories are told about cancelled field trips due to changes in school policy, associated expenses, and/or the amount of “red-tape” one must navigate to obtain permission to take students off-campus. Field trips that include vessel excursions may be more challenging given the additional liability concerns. Often, the only opportunity students have to interact with nature is at education centers or living museums that employ naturalists to act as environmental educators (St. Claire 2015). The MEC is supported mainly by grant-funded projects and fee-based programing, which also limits these educational field-experiences to youth, schools, or school districts that can afford it. This situation further compounds the problem of providing students with a meaningful outdoor educational experience. Based on the programs that the MEC has conducted to date, both MEC educator observations and pre-test–post-test data collected from program participants support the idea that Shark Fest is an effective teaching model. Every Shark Fest camp to date has been filled at or near capacity. Very little advertising or marketing have been necessary because the word of mouth from previous participants has been effective, and many elementary-age summer-camp kids eagerly await reaching Southeastern Naturalist S.D. Clardy and J.M. Hendon 2017 22 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 the age when they will be eligible for Shark Fest. This program has been so successful that the demand has resulted in multi-day residential camps for out-of-state participants as well as workshops for the general public that target adult audiences (families, teachers, etc.). During summer 2015, the MEC had its largest group of Shark Fest participants to date, with 93 students participating in 6 camps over a 5-week period. The program attracted students from local areas and from throughout the central and southeastern regions of the US. The students participating in 2015 were from 13 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. In addition to the states represented in 2015, the program has hosted students from Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, and North C arolina. The Shark Fest program has allowed the MEC and SRP staff, who are highly trained in this field of study, to engage youth in the research process. Eberbach and Crowley (2009) noted that “Reliable data, whether collected in the field or laboratory, depend upon skilled observation to ensure the collection and accurate documentation of critical evidence and to build explanations and theories.” Shark Fest participants learn the importance of observing and recording reliable data directly from the SRP scientists and MEC educators conducting the research. Recapture reports enhance the student experience because it allows participants to fully understand how they have contributed to science. Students understand how these data only become useful through the cooperation of many partners in the community. Based on former participant feedback, the experience provides a positive influence on many of the young people even after the camp has concluded. The pre-test and post-test data also indicate that the participants have increased their knowledge and awareness of elasmobranchs (Table 4). Although it is not likely that all participants will pursue STEM-related careers, the experience offers an opportunity to become informed and knowledgeable stewards of the environment. Shark Fest was originally designed for teenagers with the goal of encouraging environmental stewardship and exposure to careers in the STEM fields through working with elasmobranchs and researchers in the Mississippi Sound and the northern Gulf of Mexico. The result is an educational program popular within the local coastal community and nationally. Youth travel from as far away as Michigan and Wisconsin to participate in this program, which provides insight on how excited students can become about science through programs involving a high-profile group of animals. The great travel distances of some of our participants also reflect parents’ willingness to support young people’s interest in science. Conclusions Shark Fest was developed through a partnership between the MEC and CFRD SRP staff. Program results indicate that designing a summer camp that targets teenage audiences by focusing on a high-profile group of animals and incorporating a research component can be an effective model to engage students in environmental and ecological activities. The program draws participants from youth in the local area as well as significant numbers from outside the region. Southeastern Naturalist 23 S.D. Clardy and J.M. Hendon 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 The MEC and CFRD SRP plan to expand this program to incorporate a lesson plan that can be implemented over several months. The lesson plan would cover sharks of the Gulf of Mexico and would focus on broad concepts such as habitat use and fine-scale movement patterns, both horizontal and vertical. The course would require a brief camp at GCRL where the group would participate in the survey work and satellite-tag a shark to be tracked. This expanded program would be especially beneficial for students that attend from other states around the country because they would be able to continue to track the shark’s movements after returning home. This additional component will advance the current research conducted through the SRP and may also inspire participants to choose sciencerelated career paths. In the future, we will make an effort to contact former Shark Fest participants to quantitatively and qualitatively assess knowledge retention and career influence post-high-school graduation. Acknowledgments This program would not have been possible without the support from many organizations and individuals. We thank E. Hoffmayer for his work and dedication to laying the foundation for the Shark Research Program, as well as J. Higgs, S. Ashworth, W. Dempster, M. Donaldson, and G. Gray, from the Center of Fisheries Research and Development. We are grateful to A. Arguelles, B. Barnes, L. Cates, H. Dippold, S. Dorcik, M.A. Dykes, L. Gaines, J. James, E. Jones, J. Kastler, A. Lamey, A. McCoy, B. New, R. Parker, C. Snyder, and B. Weldon from the Marine Education Center. D. Stiller, of Coastal Seafood, provided the highlighted recapture data. The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks Youth Participation Initiative has provided support for many scholarships and the Catch More Fish with Science seminar series. Lastly, we thank our dedicated boat captains, P. Beaugez, R. Block, L. Bosarge, J. Peterson, R. Simmons, and J. White, who constantly ensure the safety of our staff and participants. Literature Cited Barker, S., D. Slingsby, and S. Tilling. 2002. Ecological fieldwork: Is there a problem? Environmental Education 71:9–10. Behrendt, M., and T. Franklin. 2014. A review of research on school field trips and their value in education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 9:235–245. DeWitt, J., and M. Storksdieck. 2008. A short review of school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies 11(2):181–197. Dickerson, D.L., K.R. Dawkins, and L. Annetta. 2007. Scientific fieldwork: An opportunity for pedagogical-content knowledge development. Journal of Geoscience Education 55(5):371–376. Eberbach, C., and K. Crowley. 2009. From everyday to scientific observation: How children learn to observe the biologist’s world. Review of Educational Research 79:39–68. Falk, J.H., and L.D. Dierking. 2000. Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. 288 pp. Fawcett, L. 2002. Children’s wild animal stories: Questioning inter-species bonds. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 7(2):125–139. Southeastern Naturalist S.D. Clardy and J.M. Hendon 2017 24 Vol. 16 Special Issue 10 Hanneman, L.E. 2013. The effectiveness of experiential environmental education: O’Neill Sea Odyssey Program case study. M.Sc. Thesis. San José State University, San José, CA. 100 pp. Heywood, V.H., and R.T. Watson (Eds.). 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 1140 pp. Janovy, J. 2004. On Becoming a Biologist, 2nd Edition. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. 153 pp. Krupa, J.J. 2000. The importance of naturalists as teachers and the use of natural history as a teaching tool. The American Biology Teacher 62(8):553–558. Lindemann-Matthies, P. 2006. Investigating nature on the way to school: Responses to an educational program by teachers and their pupils. International Journal of Science Education 28(8):895–918. Lock, R. 1995. Biology and the environment: A changing perspective? Or “there’s wolves in them-there woods!” Journal of Biological Education 29:3–4. Lock, R. 1998. Fieldwork in the life sciences. International Journal of Science Education 20:633–642. Louv, R. 2005. Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature-deficit Disorder. Algonquin Books, Chapel Hill, NC. 323 pp. Nadelson, L., and R. Jordan. 2012. Student attitudes toward and recall of outside day: An environmental science field-trip. Journal of Educational Researc h 105(3):220–231. Parsons, G.R. 2006. Sharks, Skates, and Rays of the Gulf of Mexico: A Field Guide. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson, MS. 165 pp. Powers, J.I., and J.S. Tiffany. 2006. Engaging youth in participatory research and evaluation. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 12:79– 87. St. Clair, A.M.R. 2015. Naturalist’s perspectives on the use of mobile technology during a nature hike. M.Sc. Thesis. The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS. 62 pp. Weilbacher, M. 1993. The renaissance of the naturalist. The Journal of Environmental Education 25:4–7. Wilcove, D., and T. Eisner. 2000. The impending extinction of natural history. Chronicle of Higher Education B-24. Yore, L.B., and S. Boyer. 1997. College students’ attitudes towards living organisms: The influence of experience and knowledge. The American Biology Teacher 59:558–563. Southeastern Naturalist 25 S.D. Clardy and J.M. Hendon 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 Appendix 1. Test given to 2015 Shark Fest participants at the start and end of the program (pre- and post-test).