Southeastern Naturalist A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman 2017 58 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 An Inquiry-based Approach to Engaging Undergraduate Students in On-campus Conservation Research Using Camera Traps Andrew J. Edelman1,* and Jennifer L. Edelman2 Abstract - Inquiry-based instruction has been shown to increase student motivation, engagement, and achievement in biology education. In this paper, we describe how we used an open-inquiry–based approach to engage undergraduate and graduate students in an upper-level conservation-biology class. As part of this course, students designed and implemented a research project using camera traps to examine questions related to wildlife conservation on their local campus. Students derived their research question through introductory readings and discussion regarding on-campus conservation issues. This approach allowed students to take ownership of the project, fueling enthusiasm and motivation, and promoting the development of core scientific skills. The students organized themselves into research teams at the beginning of the semester, a technique that mimicked how realworld conservation biologists collaborate on large-scale projects that require a range of knowledge and skills. In addition, teamwork allowed students to develop collaboration and communication skills and made them accountable to their peers for class performance. Given the applied nature of this course, the students also engaged in public outreach related to their research via social media and public presentations. These activities gave students the opportunity to learn how to interact with multiple stakeholders and deal with controversial issues in conservation biology. Introduction “[Scientific] knowledge can never be learned by itself; it is not information, but a mode of intelligent practice, an habitual disposition of mind. Only by taking a hand in the making of knowledge, by transferring guess and opinion into belief authorized by inquiry, does one ever get a knowledge of the method of knowing” (Dewey 1910:125). Although John Dewey issued a call for inquiry-based science instruction as early as 1910, it has taken almost 100 y for the emergence of a unifying vision of how to transform undergraduate biology education in this way (American Association for the Advancement of Science 2011, National Research Council 2003). Inquiry-based instruction goes by many synonyms (e.g., problem-based learning, place-based learning, and experiential learning) and modes (e.g., confirmation inquiry, structured inquiry, guided inquiry, and open inquiry); in all cases, it typically seeks to involve students in an authentic mirroring of the work that scientists do, and employs a pedagogical method that allows for extensive investigations (Banchi 1Department of Biology, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA 30118. 2Department of Early Childhood through Secondary Education, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA 30118. *Corresponding author - aedelman@westga.edu. Manuscript Editor: Roger Applegate The Outdoor Classroom 2017 Southeastern Naturalist 16(Special Issue 10):58–69 Southeastern Naturalist 59 A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 and Bell 2008, Minner et al. 2010). Inquiry-based pedagogy encourages students to maintain ownership of the processes and products of their scientific investigation and facilitates development of core scientific skills such as formulating questions, collaborating with others, and communicating their information. Research demonstrates that inquiry-based instruction benefits students (Derting and Ebert-May 2010, Goldey et al. 2012). For example, inquiry-based instruction has been shown to increase understanding of scientific concepts (Dalton et al. 1997) and to expand retention of that knowledge far longer than occurs with traditional lecture-based instruction (Bay et al. 1992, Chang and Barufaldi 1999, Lumpe and Staver 1995, Smith et al. 1997). Student motivation and engagement is also positively affected by the use of inquiry-based instruction (Minner et al. 2010, Palmer 2009, Patrick et al. 2009). Many undergraduate biology students’ first encounter with scientific research is not in the classroom, but through less-formalized experiences as part of a research lab where they collaborate with professors, mentors, and graduate students on existing projects (Gonzalez-Espada and LaDue 2006, Hunter et al. 2007, Kardash 2000, Seymour et al. 2004). Undergraduate students who participated in such experiences were retained in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields at a greater rate than those who did not participate (Nagda et al. 1998). Participating students also reported a greater interest in attending graduate school (Russell et al. 2006), and perceived that they were better prepared to succeed in post-secondary education (Hunter et al. 2007). Overall, experience in collaborative research projects as an undergraduate student provides a clear understanding of what it means to be a scientist and how to prepare for such a career (Campbell 2002, Russell et al. 2006). Although the benefits of inquiry-based instruction are numerous (Anderson 2002, Derting and Ebert-May 2010, Goldey et al. 2012, Keys and Bryan 2001), the barriers to incorporating this pedagogy into a field-based biology course at the university level (e.g., conservation biology, ecology, wildlife biology, etc.) can be daunting, particularly for instructors not familiar with this mode of teaching. These barriers include the cost of research equipment, logistics of field trips, lack of student experience with methodology, and time constraints (McCleery et al. 2005). One way to overcome these barriers is to incorporate students into on-going research projects that are set up by the instructors and in which students cycle in and out as part of courses (McCleery et al. 2005, Millenbah and Millspaugh 2003, Moen et al. 2000). For example, McCleery et al. (2005) described the implementation of on-campus wildlife-research projects as a way to overcome some of the barriers to including experiential learning in coursework. These course experiences provided students with opportunities to develop important skills in wildlife-research techniques, including data collection and analysis; however, because the projects were set up ahead of time, students may have lacked a feeling of ownership in the process and did not have the opportunity to develop other important research skills such as formulating their own research questions and methodology. Currently, there are few practical examples of how to incorporate open-inquiry pedagogy (i.e., students formulate a research question and carry out all aspects of Southeastern Naturalist A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman 2017 60 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 the study) in field-based biology courses at the university level. In this paper, we describe how we implemented an open-inquiry conservation-biology course at the University of West Georgia, including the various steps involved in guiding development and completion of the research project by students: data collection and analysis, and project communication and outreach. Our goal in creating the course was to engage students in activities that mimicked the scientific research process in conservation biology. To do this, we began with the idea that students should be responsible for all aspects of research, from formulating a question, designing data-collection methods, analyzing collected data, presenting the findings of the study, and making recommendations for conservation and management. To reduce logistical barriers to involving novice undergraduate learners in authentic research, we used camera traps to study on-campus wildlife-conservation issues. The cameratrap methodology was easy to learn and allowed students to quickly accumulate large datasets (Swann and Perkins 2014). Course Implementation Course description The University of West Georgia (UWG) is a comprehensive, regional university of over 12,000 students. The UWG campus is located in Carrollton, GA, and contains 261 ha (644 ac) of wooded land and access to the Little Tallapoosa River (Fig. 1). Approximately 65% of UWG students are female and about 45% self-identify as minorities (UWG Fact Book 2015). UWG first offered the conservation-biology course (see Table 1 for a course description) in the autumn 2014 semester. The course was cross-listed as an upper-level elective of 4 semester-credit hours and a graduate course of 3 semester-credit hours. Andrew Edelman, a conservation biologist, was the course instructor, and Jennifer Edelman, a STEM-education specialist, provided pedagogical-design guidance. In its first year, 12 undergraduate and 7 graduate students, of whom 13 were male and 6 were female, enrolled in the course. The class met for 110 min twice a week and Table 1. The University of West Georgia conservation biology course description and objectives. Course description and objectives Conservation biology is a “mission-oriented, crisis-driven, problem-solving field” (Sodhi and Ehrlich 2010:12). This interdisciplinary science’s main goal is to preserve biodiversity in all its forms. Students in the course will actively participate as part of a scientific team to learn and apply key concepts from this field. Class sessions will focus on mastering the course material through a variety of activities and discussions. A major component of the course includes a campus-centered conservationresearch project designed, implemented, and presented by the students. 1. Summarize fundamental concepts in conservation biology and apply them to issues related to sustainability and protecting biodiversity. 2. Master basic research skills and techniques used in conservation biology. 3. Analyze and interpret scientific data for application to conserv ation problems. 4. Work effectively as part of a collaborative scientific team. 5. Communicate scientific knowledge, through a variety of media, to general and scientific audiences. Southeastern Naturalist 61 A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 had no traditional lecture component. One day each week consisted of discussionbased learning activities focused on readings primarily from Sodhi and Ehrlich (2010). Students read the assigned textbook chapter and electronically submitted a graded reading-response prior to coming to class. During the weekly discussion session, students worked with their team to master and apply concepts through case studies (Withey and Kennedy 2012), instructor-designed assignments, and construction of concept maps. The other class day each week was reserved for working on the course research-project. The research project allowed students to accomplish higher-order learning goals and develop skills that were directly tied to the course objectives (Table 1). The research project was both student-designed and implemented. Throughout the process, the instructor served as a guide to direct students toward relevant and feasible research questions and methodology. The project was scaffolded to prevent students from being overwhelmed and to gradually build their confidence and skills throughout the semester. The instructor calculated students’ final course-grades based on the following components: 30% for the class project (data collection/entry, outreach materials, and final poster presentation), 40% for exams (midterm and final exams), 10% for in-class Figure 1. The conservation biology course study-area located on the University of West Georgia campus. Forested patches are outlined in white and locations of camera traps during autumn 2014 are marked by white circles. Southeastern Naturalist A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman 2017 62 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 activities, 10% for concept maps, and 10% for reading responses. In addition, graduate students were assigned to serve as team leaders and prepare a final oral presentation on the research project. Scientific team formation At the start of the course, the students were organized into self-selected research teams of 4–6 individuals. Students worked extensively with their team on activities, discussions, and the course project. This technique mimicked how real-world conservation biologists work in groups to tackle large-scale projects that require a range of knowledge and skills. In addition, teamwork allowed students to develop vital collaboration skills and made them accountable to their peers for class performance. The first task after formation was for each team to draft a contract that described the expectations for individual involvement (e.g., attendance, participation, work load, etc.) and consequences for failing to meet these expectations. Teams and the instructor evaluated members 3 times during the semester to provide feedback for improvement. If peer and instructor evaluations were consistently low, then the student’s group-project grade was adjusted accordingly. Peer evaluations were administered through the CATME SMARTER Teamwork online system (http://info.catme.org/). Project development Prior to beginning the course research-project, the instructor narrowed the range of research possibilities by providing the following set of project requirements to the class: (1) address campus-based issues related to conservation biology, (2) utilize camera-trap methodology, and (3) include a public outreach component. In preparation for developing the project, students were assigned 2 readings (Kays and Slauson 2008, Rovero et al. 2013) that provided overviews of the technological and research capabilities of camera traps. Camera traps require little training to use effectively; thus, they are easy to implement with novice undergraduate researchers and they allow students to quickly amass large datasets (Swann and Perkins 2014). On the first project-design day (typically the second week of class), the instructor gave each team a game camera, instruction booklet, and original packaging (Moultrie 990i Mini GameCam, EBSCO Industries, Inc., Calera, AL) to review. Teams were then directed to use these materials to determine the top 10 features of game cameras that are important to consider when designing camera-trap projects as outlined by Rovero et al. 2013: (1) trigger speed; (2) flash type; (3) detection zone; (4) number of photos taken, recovery time, and video capabilities; (5) sensitivity; (6) flash intensity; (7) power autonomy; (8) image resolution, sharpness, and clarity; (9) camera housing and sealing; and (10) camera programming and settings. Students were also encouraged to use online resources (e.g., as http://www.trailcampro. com/) that independently tested the manufacturer’s claims, particularly for trigger speed, detection zone, and recovery time. After discussing their findings as a team and a class, the instructor asked teams to brainstorm at least 1 (if not more) campusbased research questions that could be addressed given the project criteria and equipment capabilities in each of 4 categories (modified from Rovero et al. 2013): Southeastern Naturalist 63 A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 (1) faunal detection and inventory, (2) abundance and density estimation, (3) habitat associations, and (4) species-specific studies or other projects. After some discussion, teams presented and justified their research questions to the entire class. Given their basic knowledge, the class brainstormed ≥ 30 potential research questions. After removing redundant questions, the instructor facilitated several rounds of discussion and voting to reach consensus on a final research question. During the discussion, it was important for the instructor to provide expert opinion on the feasibility and appropriateness of potential research questions. Once the research question was determined, the students and the instructor discussed the methodology needed to answer the research question, including camera-trap setup (site location, bait, duration, etc.) and habitat measurements. As part of this process, the instructor selected a relevant scientific paper on a similar research topic for students to read to get information about potential methodology. The entire development process took about 2 class sessions and allowed students to take ownership of the project, which fueled enthusiasm and motivation. In autumn 2014, the students decided to examine the influence of forested-patch characteristics (patch size and fragmentation) on occurrence of mammalian fauna on the UWG campus. Implementation and analysis After the class determined the project’s research-question and methodology, the instructor provided them with the camera-trap equipment and a list of survey sites. Each research team was given a storage box containing 2 sets of camera traps and associated equipment: digital game-camera, camera security box, cable lock with key, 32 GB secure digital (SD) memory card, universal serial bus (USB) SD card reader, rechargeable batteries, global positioning unit (GPS), hand pruner, 50-m measuring tape, and laminated campus map and equipment checklist ($625 estimated total value). On the first day of camera deployment, the instructor demonstrated how to correctly install a camera trap before the research teams were allowed to proceed to their assigned locations. After 1 week of deployment, the research teams checked their camera traps and made adjustments as necessary. After 2 weeks, students moved the camera traps to new sites and downloaded the stored pictures. In total, students deployed the camera traps 3 times over a 6-week period, 1 camera per group (5 total) the first week and 2 cameras per group (10 total) the second and third weeks, resulting in 25 total sites across 6 forested patches (Fig. 1). To organize collected data and facilitate team collaboration, the instructor created shared team folders on a cloud-based file-storage space. Teams uploaded their game camera files to their shared folder after each deployment. The instructor also created and uploaded a standardized data entry spreadsheet to each shared folder. Teams were provided guidance by the instructor on how to process the camera-trap data and correctly perform data entry. This step ensured that all data were analyzed similarly and could be pooled for final analysis and presentation. The instructor set appropriate due dates for data-entry tasks, and graded teams for accurately completing their data-entry requirements by the deadlines. Once all data entry was complete, teams had access to the entire data set for preparation of the capstone presentation. Southeastern Naturalist A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman 2017 64 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 Scientific outreach The course involved 2 major scientific-communication components: (1) outreach to the community via social media and an interpretative poster-display, and (2) research presentations. Each team was assigned to create 2 short blog-posts (less than 300 words) based on pictures collected from their camera traps. Students were directed to write blog posts in a manner that provided information on the conservation and natural history of their photographed subjects, avoided unnecessary jargon, and entertained the general public. After students completed the posts, the instructor performed minor copy-editing to ensure that the content was accurate and appropriate. Edited blog-posts were published on Tumblr (http://uwgconservationblog. tumblr.com/) and disseminated via Facebook and Twitter. The class also created an interpretative outreach poster on their research findings for the UWG biology department’s lobby. This poster included engaging camera-trap photographs, natural history of each recorded mammal species, and general results from the research project. Each team gave a formal presentation on the research project. Undergraduate students created a team research-poster that was the focus of a 5-min presentation. Graduate students prepared an oral presentation that was open and advertised to the UWG community. In preparation, the instructor provided a short workshop on poster- and oral-presentation techniques and allocated in-class time to allow feedback on rough drafts. Students were expected to include introduction, objectives, methods, results, discussion, and management-recommendation sections in their presentations along with figures portraying their main results. The undergraduate students presented their research posters during the final day of class. The graduate students gave 2 public research-presentations that were well attended by community members and university staff. One unexpected outcome of the public presentations was the students’ exposure to the controversial aspects of conservation biology. UWG has a large feral-cat population and these animals were frequently photographed at camera traps. During their presentation, the graduate students gave a brief overview of the negative impacts of feral cats on wildlife and included recommendations for humanely eliminating this invasive species from campus. At one presentation, community members that were involved in maintaining the feral-cat population were strongly outspoken in their opposition to these management recommendations. This situation provided an excellent experience for the students in dealing with multiple stakeholders that may have opposing views or agendas, a frequently encountered situation in conservation biology. Discussion Ultimately, our goal in designing and teaching this course was to assist students to develop skills in the scientific method as they engaged in activities that paralleled the work of conservation biologists. Working within the limitations of a classroom setting (e.g., equipment, time, and experience levels), the students in the course designed and carried out an on-campus scientific investigation, the results of which were shared with multiple stakeholders from our community. Students in our course Southeastern Naturalist 65 A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 had the opportunity to acquire many of the skills needed by professional wildlife and conservation biologists (Blickley et al. 2013, Noss 1997). They learned to ask questions and evaluate those lines of inquiry in order to select a relevant project with implications for their local community. Students learned how to participate in a scientific research team as they worked to set up the camera traps in areas of campus that they had previously not explored. They combined their smaller data sets into a larger pool of data in order to explore the effects of a larger sample size on the conclusions. The community outreach provided these students with practice interacting with the public on controversial conservation topics, such as the issue of how to manage a feral-cat population on campus. A variety of barriers exist to implementing open-inquiry–based instruction in field courses at the university level, including concerns about adopting new pedagogy, student attitudes, and logistical issues (Bay et al. 1992, Crawford 1999, Crawford et al. 1999, Marx et al. 1994, McCleery et al. 2005, Tobin et al. 1990). However, many of these barriers were removed in our conservation-biology class through strategic course-design. Students and instructors might be intimidated by the overall complexity of completing a research project within a class setting. In our experience, the best way to ensure success of the class project is to use an instructional technique known as scaffolding—providing students with support (e.g., training, readings, and expert advice) that allows them to learn necessary skills and make informed decisions (Vygotsky 1978). By using this technique, as the students become more confident and experienced over time, the complexity of the tasks and expectations can be gradually raised. In our class, before asking students to develop the research project, we provided them with introductory reading on camera traps and allowed them to interact with the equipment. As the project progressed, the instructor provided resources and training on important tasks such as camera-trap set up, data entry, writing outreach-posts, and presenting research. It was also important to assign deadlines and grades for each step of the project to provide feedback and keep the students on track. Initially, negative student attitudes toward inquiry-based learning can be expected, particularly in environments where traditional lecture-based pedagogy is standard practice. Common student complaints often mention a perceived increase in workloads because they are asked to actively participate during class rather than passively listen (Crawford et al. 1999). In our course, we actively promoted student buy-in to inquiry-based pedagogy. On the first day of class, we asked the students to reflect on how they could effectively learn and apply course concepts and skills by asking them to think about and discuss a series of metacognitive questions as presented by Smith (2008). This activity allowed students to decide for themselves that traditional lecture is a less effective means of mastering the course’s higherorder learning objectives (Table 1) compared to inquiry-based techniques. Probably the most effective student buy-in tool in our course was the sense of ownership students felt when they were directly involved in designing the research question and methodology. In addition, student accountability was an important component for implementing an effective open-inquiry–based project. Rather than exclusively Southeastern Naturalist A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman 2017 66 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 making students accountable to the instructor, by working in teams, students were also accountable to their peers. Teams designed and signed a contract that contained expectations and consequences for behavior and quality of work. They also provided peer feedback through the CATME SMARTER Teamwork online system (http://info.catme.org/). The instructor used these peer evaluations to encourage high-quality student involvement and adjust individual grades for the group project when necessary. The use of camera-trap methodology and an on-campus study area made the project feasible for novice researchers. Compared to other methods, camera traps are a popular tool for citizen-based and K-12 science projects because novice learners can be easily trained to use them and process related data (Jachowski et al. 2015, Kays et al. 2015, Swann and Perkins 2014). The instructor can also scale the camera-trap project to meet the available course budget through purchase of less expensive and fewer game cameras and by forgoing optional accessories (e.g., security boxes, GPS unit, etc.). Freely available cloud-based data storage and associated software also facilitate collaboration among students on data entry and analysis. The total cost to implement our project was approximately $3200 for a class of 20–30 students ($160–$107 per student). We plan to replace damaged or lost equipment through a small student course-fee ($35) that generates $700–$900 each year. Using the local campus setting removed the cost and hassle of organizing field trips and contributed to the ownership the students felt for the project. Although UWG contains many forested and riparian areas that facilitate conservation research, urban wildlife-conservation questions (Adams and Lindsey 2012) can also be addressed on more developed campuses. Bolstered by the success of the first class, we taught the conservation biology course again during the autumn 2015 semester. At the beginning of its second year, the course included 21 undergraduate and 5 graduate students, of whom 9 were male and 17 were female. Building on the previous research findings, students in the latest class decided to study how culvert and underpass designs impact use of these structures by mammalian fauna on the UWG campus and surrounding community. In addition, the accomplishments of the first class have encouraged other faculty to include campus-based research in existing courses (A.J. Edelman, pers. observ.). In this paper, we have sought to introduce readers to open-inquiry–based instruction for an upper-level conservation-biology course. By incorporating a locally based and student-designed research project into our course, we were able to accomplish higher-order learning objectives that would have been difficult to address in a lecture-based course. Students in our course gained experience in how to ask scientific questions, and design, conduct, and present research, as well as collaborate effectively with peers and communicate with the general public. All these skills are necessary for careers in conservation biology and other scientific fields, yet they are often the least developed in students (Blickley et al. 2013, Noss 1997). As a result of their work, students raised awareness about native mammals, invasive species, and land-development impacts in their local Southeastern Naturalist 67 A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 community through social media and other forms of outreach. Although we did not collect and analyze data on the class, anecdotally we can report that our experiences and those of the students aligned with the assertions made about inquiry-based instruction in existing research. Students in this course were able to communicate complex scientific concepts clearly and effectively, demonstrating an understanding of core concepts (Dalton et al. 1997) and retention of those same concepts (Bay et al. 1992, Lumpe and Staver 1995, Smith et al. 1997). Student motivation throughout the course was high (Minner et al. 2010), and several students were inspired to pursue future research at the undergraduate and graduate level. Through participation in this conservation biology course, students engaged in authentic practices of scientists and continued to develop the “habitual disposition of mind” described in 1910 by John Dewey. Acknowledgments First and foremost, we thank the past and present students enrolled in the University of West Georgia’s conservation biology course for their enthusiasm for and dedication to the class. We also thank the University of West Georgia, Department of Biology for their support of the development of the conservation-biology course and acquisition of the necessary equipment to carry it out. Literature Cited Adams, C.E., and K.J. Lindsey. 2012. Urban Wildlife Management. CRC press, Boca Raton, FL. 432 pp. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2011. Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC. 79 pp. Anderson, R.D. 2002. Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education 13:1–12. Banchi, H., and R. Bell. 2008. The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children 46:26–29. Bay, M., J.R. Staver, T. Bryan, and J.B. Hale. 1992. Science instruction for the mildly handicapped: Direct instruction versus discovery teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29:555–570. Blickley, J.L., K. Deiner, K. Garbach, I. Lacher, M.H. Meek, L.M. Porensky, M.L. Wilkerson, E.M. Winford, and M.W. Schwartz. 2013. Graduate student’s guide to necessary skills for nonacademic conservation careers. Conservation Biolo gy 27:24–34. Campbell, A.M. 2002. The influences and factors of an undergraduate research program in preparing women for science careers. Ed.D. Dissertation. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. 157 pp. Chang, C.-Y., and J.P. Barufaldi. 1999. The use of a problem-solving–based instructional model in initiating change in students’ achievement and alternative frameworks. International Journal of Science Education 21:373–388. Crawford, B.A. 1999. Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education 10:175–194. Crawford, B.A., J.S. Krajcik, and R.W. Marx. 1999. Elements of a community of learners in a middle-school science classroom. Science Education 83:701– 723. Dalton, B., C.C. Morocco, T. Tivnan, and P.L.R. Mead. 1997. Supported-inquiry scienceteaching for conceptual change in urban and suburban science classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities 30:670–684. Southeastern Naturalist A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman 2017 68 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 Derting, T.L., and D. Ebert-May. 2010. Learner-centered inquiry in undergraduate biology: Positive relationships with long-term student achievement. CBE-Life Sciences Education 9:462–472. Dewey, J. 1910. Science as subject-matter and as method. Science 31: 121–127. Goldey, E.S., C.L. Abercrombie, T.M. Ivy, D.I. Kusher, J.F. Moeller, D.A. Rayner, C.F. Smith, and N.W. Spivey. 2012. Biological inquiry: A new course and assessment plan in response to the call to transform undergraduate biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education 11:353–363. Gonzalez-Espada, W.J., and D.S. LaDue. 2006. Evaluation of the impact of the NWC REU program compared with other undergraduate research experiences. Journal of Geoscience Education 54:541–549. Hunter, A.-B., S.L. Laursen, and E. Seymour. 2007. Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education 91:36–74. Jachowski, D.S., T. Katzner, J.L. Rodrigue, and W.M. Ford. 2015. Monitoring landscapelevel distribution and migration phenology of raptors using a volunteer camera-trap network. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39:553–563. Kardash, C.M. 2000. Evaluation of undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology 92:191–201. Kays, R.W., and K.M. Slauson. 2008. Remote cameras. Pp. 110–140, In R. Long, P. MacKay, W. Zielinski, and J. Ray (Eds.). Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores. Island Press, Washington, DC. 385 pp. Kays, R., R. Costello, T. Forrester, M.C. Baker, A.W. Parsons, E.L. Kalies, G. Hess, J.J. Millspaugh, and W. McShea. 2015. Cats are rare where Coyotes roam. Journal of Mammalogy 96:981–987. Keys, C.W., and L.A. Bryan. 2001. Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38:631–645. Lumpe, A.T., and J.R. Staver. 1995. Peer collaboration and concept development: Learning about photosynthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32:71–98. Marx, R.W., P.C. Blumenfeld, J.S. Krajcik, M. Blunk, B. Crawford, B. Kelly, and K.M. Meyer. 1994. Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle-grade teachers. Elementary School Journal 94:517–538. McCleery, R.A., R.R. Lopez, L.A. Harveson, N.J. Silvy, and R.D. Slack. 2005. Integrating on-campus wildlife-research projects into the wildlife curriculum. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:802–809. Millenbah, K.F., and J.J. Millspaugh. 2003. Using experiential learning in wildlife courses to improve retention, problem solving, and decision-making. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:127–137. Minner, D.D., A.J. Levy, and J. Century. 2010. Inquiry-based science instruction: What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis, years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47:474–496. Moen, A.N., G.S. Boomer, and M.C. Runge. 2000. Professional development of undergraduates in wildlife ecology and management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:180–190. Nagda, B.A., S.R. Gregerman, J. Jonides, W. von Hippel, and J.S. Lerner. 1998. Undergraduate student–faculty research partnerships affect student retention. Review of Higher Education 22:55–72. Southeastern Naturalist 69 A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman 2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10 National Research Council. 2003. BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 208 pp. Noss, R.F. 1997. Editorial: The failure of universities to produce conservation biologists. Conservation Biology 11:1267–1269. Palmer, D.H. 2009. Student interest generated during an inquiry-skills lesson. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46:147–165. Patrick, H., P. Mantzicopoulos, and A. Samarapungavan. 2009. Motivation for learning science in kindergarten: Is there a gender gap and does integrated inquiry and literacy instruction make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46:166–191. Rovero, F., F. Zimmermann, D. Berzi, and P. Meek. 2013. “Which camera-trap type and how many do I need?” A review of camera features and study designs for a range of wildlife-research applications. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 24:148–156. Russell, S.H., M.P. Hancock, and J. McCullough. 2006. Evaluation of NSF Support for Undergraduate Research Opportunities. National Science Foundation, SRI International, Arlington, VA. 37 pp. Seymour, E., A.-B. Hunter, S.L. Laursen, and T. DeAntoni. 2004. Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a threeyear study. Science Education 88:493–534. Smith, C., D. Maclin, L. Grosslight, and H. Davis. 1997. Teaching for understanding: A study of students’ preinstruction theories of matter and a comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching about matter and density. Cognition and Instruction 15:317–393. Smith, G.A. 2008. First-day questions for the learner-centered classroom. National Teaching and Learning Forum 17:1–4. Sodhi, N.S., and P.R. Ehrlich. 2010. Conservation Biology for All. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 344 pp. Swann, D.E., and N. Perkins. 2014. Camera trapping for animal monitoring and management: A review of applications. Pp. 3–11, In P. Meek and P. Fleming (Eds.). Camera Trapping: Wildlife Management and Research. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia. 392 pp. Tobin, K.G., J.B. Kahle, and B.J. Fraser (Eds.). 1990. Windows into Science Classrooms: Problems Associated with Higher-level Cognitive Learning. Falmer Press, Bristol, PA. 256 pp. UWG Fact Book. 2015. The University of West Georgia 2014–2015 Fact Book. University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA. 88 pp. Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 159 pp. Withey, J.C., and C.M. Kennedy. 2012. Does the matrix matter? Testing the influence of matrix type on bird responses to forest fragmentation. National Center for Case-study Teaching in Science, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY. 10 pp.