The “Green Classroom” in the Botanical Garden of the University of Ulm is a learning forum outside school. Its educational concept is based on experiential learning and is geared towards expanding students’ biological knowledge and developing positive attitudes towards small animals such as invertebrates. In the first study, we assessed attitudes towards small animals of 43 students before and after they visited the “Green Classroom”, and we compared the answers they gave in their questionnaires with those of 46 students from a control group. Although the students spent only one morning in the “Green Classroom”, some of their attitudes improved after their visit. In the second study, 102 secondary-school students (56 who had previously visited the “Green Classroom”) were asked to write an essay about small animals. Students who had visited the “Green Classroom” before portrayed more positive emotions towards small animals and showed more biological understanding than their peers.
Sustainable development is seen as the key to securing decent living conditions for future generations. Ecological, economical, and cultural aspects must be considered globally. Every person and every institution is encouraged to make a contribution towards sustainable development. Educational institutions obviously play a major role in this endeavour. The basic educational aspects for sustainable development for the German school system are already mapped out [
In addition to the German concept [
What do children already know about animals? When asked to list the species they know, children generally talk about animals that are not found in their own environment [
What would the learning process entail in an educational programme that wants to address knowledge, emotions, and attitudes, and that needs to raise awareness of invertebrates at the same time? Opinions about the relationship between knowledge on the one hand and environmental attitudes and ecological awareness on the other hand vary considerably. However, many researchers assume that an important positive relationship actually exists [
Studying nature outside the classroom is the most effective and, at the same time, the most pleasurable way to teach children about various species and biodiversity. This approach should, in fact, be adopted more often [
With the above mentioned ideas in mind, learning in the “Green Classroom” is organised in such a way that students encounter animals in their natural habitat, and what they observe will be explained and put into context. Questions that arise from these encounters will be addressed immediately. The topics that students deal with in the “Green Classroom” are topics about small animals that can be found in the environment of the children. The Botanical Garden allows students to explore the animals in their original habitat, for example, meadow, forest, and lake. Students receive an instruction about the habitat and its importance as well as about how to deal respectfully with the animals that live there. After that students explore the habitat and carefully catch animals in special small boxes. These boxes will be taken to the “Green Classroom” that is integrated in all of the habitats listed above. There the animals will be observed through magnifying glasses. While working with the small animals, scientific facts are presented in order to introduce specific invertebrates and possibly initiate “personal relationships”. Students will be asked to produce, depending on their age, drawings of animals themselves or of their food chains and habitats. Observations in the “Green Classroom” show that students begin to empathise and care for these animals in this process. For further information, see (
Some of the goals of the “Green Classroom” (e.g., to expand knowledge of especially small animals such as invertebrates and insects and to improve emotions and attitudes towards small animals in our own environment) were evaluated in this study.
A Wilcoxon test for paired samples was used to analyse the development of the groups (see Table
Means for pre- and posttest of attitudes towards small animals for intervention and control groups. Statistical significance of differences was computed by the nonparametric Wilcoxon test for paired samples.
Intervention group ( |
Control group ( |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Boring | Fascinating | 4,11 | 5,14 | 3,76 | 0,000*** | 4,04 | 4,02 | 0,46 | 0,649 |
Dangerous | Safe | 5,23 | 5,52 | 1,71 | 0,086 | 5,07 | 5,23 | 0,40 | 0,690 |
Useless | Valuable | 4,34 | 5,14 | 2,51 | 0,012* | 4,07 | 4,30 | 0,90 | 0,368 |
Disgusting | Cute | 3,30 | 3,82 | 2,48 | 0,013* | 3,22 | 3,26 | 0,89 | 0,376 |
Uninteresting | Interesting | 4,73 | 5,45 | 2,72 | 0,006** | 4,48 | 4,13 | 1,21 | 0,226 |
Unnecessary | Necessary | 4,61 | 5,20 | 2,58 | 0,010** | 4,48 | 4,19 | 1,37 | 0,170 |
Bad | Good | 4,45 | 5,48 | 3,24 | 0,001** | 4,50 | 4,28 | 0,84 | 0,399 |
Morbid | Natural | 6,05 | 6,27 | 1,29 | 0,198 | 5,70 | 5,57 | 0,58 | 0,563 |
Repulsive | Appealing | 4,68 | 4,95 | 1,12 | 0,265 | 4,33 | 4,28 | 0,27 | 0,790 |
Uncool | Cool | 4,32 | 5,00 | 2,88 | 0,004** | 4,20 | 3,85 | 1,99 | 0,046* |
Dull | Funny | 4,70 | 4,86 | 0,65 | 0,517 | 4,22 | 4,28 | 0,32 | 0,746 |
Weird | Harmless | 4,66 | 5,32 | 2,77 | 0,006** | 5,11 | 5,02 | 0,56 | 0,572 |
Worthless | Precious | 5,23 | 6,05 | 2,52 | 0,012* | 4,43 | 4,66 | 1,16 | 0,246 |
*
The study showed gender-specific differences (results are presented in Tables
Means for pre- and posttest of attitudes towards small animals for intervention and control groups (boys). Statistical significance of differences was computed by the nonparametric Wilcoxon test for paired samples.
Intervention group: boys ( |
Control group: boys ( |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Boring | Fascinating | 4,23 | 5,08 | 2,31 | 0,021* | 4,09 | 4,18 | 0,04 | 0,970 |
Dangerous | Safe | 5,23 | 5,35 | 0,97 | 0,334 | 4,97 | 5,35 | 0,95 | 0,341 |
Useless | Valuable | 4,38 | 5,00 | 1,06 | 0,289 | 4,21 | 4,47 | 0,81 | 0,420 |
Disgusting | Cute | 3,46 | 3,85 | 1,91 | 0,555 | 3,55 | 3,59 | 0,97 | 0,332 |
Uninteresting | Interesting | 5,04 | 5,50 | 0,94 | 0,351 | 4,82 | 4,38 | 1,36 | 0,175 |
Unnecessary | Necessary | 4,92 | 5,08 | 0,59 | 0,556 | 4,82 | 4,41 | 1,65 | 0,100 |
Bad | Good | 4,54 | 5,62 | 2,40 | 0,016* | 4,61 | 4,35 | 0,80 | 0,426 |
Morbid | Natural | 5,85 | 6,15 | 1,56 | 0,120 | 5,58 | 5,56 | 0,04 | 0,965 |
Repulsive | Appealing | 4,96 | 5,04 | 0,34 | 0,733 | 4,39 | 4,35 | 0,24 | 0,808 |
Uncool | Cool | 4,38 | 5,19 | 2,32 | 0,020* | 4,27 | 3,97 | 1,46 | 0,145 |
Dull | Funny | 4,77 | 4,88 | 0,33 | 0,740 | 4,33 | 4,32 | 0,02 | 0,986 |
Weird | Harmless | 4,73 | 5,38 | 2,30 | 0,022* | 5,24 | 5,26 | 0,10 | 0,920 |
Worthless | Precious | 5,50 | 6,00 | 1,04 | 0,300 | 4,58 | 4,91 | 1,39 | 0,165 |
*
Means for pre- and posttest of attitudes towards small animals for intervention and control groups (girls). Statistical significance of differences was computed by the nonparametric Wilcoxon test for paired samples.
Intervention group: girls ( |
Control group: girls ( |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Boring | Fascinating | 3,94 | 5,22 | 3,06 | 0,002** | 3,92 | 3,62 | 0,98 | 0,327 |
Dangerous | Safe | 5,22 | 5,78 | 1,50 | 0,132 | 5,31 | 4,92 | 0,77 | 0,441 |
Useless | Valuable | 4,28 | 5,33 | 2,73 | 0,006** | 3,69 | 3,85 | 0,40 | 0,686 |
Disgusting | Cute | 3,06 | 3,78 | 1,57 | 0,117 | 2,38 | 2,38 | 0,00 | 1,000 |
Uninteresting | Interesting | 4,28 | 5,39 | 2,90 | 0,004** | 3,62 | 3,46 | 0,70 | 0,944 |
Unnecessary | Necessary | 4,17 | 5,39 | 2,94 | 0,003** | 3,62 | 3,62 | 0,06 | 0,953 |
Bad | Good | 4,33 | 5,28 | 2,39 | 0,017* | 4,23 | 4,08 | 0,10 | 0,917 |
Morbid | Natural | 6,33 | 6,44 | 0,36 | 0,721 | 6,00 | 5,62 | 0,95 | 0,343 |
Repulsive | Appealing | 4,28 | 4,83 | 1,22 | 0,221 | 4,15 | 4,08 | 0,40 | 0,686 |
Uncool | Cool | 4,22 | 4,72 | 1,65 | 0,099 | 4,00 | 3,54 | 1,42 | 0,155 |
Dull | Funny | 4,11 | 4,83 | 0,56 | 0,576 | 3,92 | 4,15 | 0,84 | 0,401 |
Weird | Harmless | 4,56 | 5,22 | 1,57 | 0,117 | 4,77 | 4,38 | 0,91 | 0,363 |
Worthless | Precious | 4,83 | 6,11 | 2,45 | 0,014* | 4,08 | 4,00 | 0,06 | 0,953 |
*
One hundred and two secondary students (grade 6), 56 who had visited the “Green Classroom” before (intervention group), were asked to write an essay about small animals such as insects and other invertebrates. The students of the test group visited the “Green Classroom” up to one year before (min. 2, max. 12 months). Classes consisted of intervention group students as well as students who had never visited the “Green Classroom” before; that is, intervention group and control group learned in the same school with the same teacher.
The written essays were evaluated in terms of the following aspects: number of scientifically correct statements: for example, small animals are an important part of the food chain, number of misconceptions (scientific incorrect statements): for example, the ladybug shows its age by the number of spots on its back, number of positive emotions: for example, spiders are peaceful creatures, number of negative emotions: for example, small animals are disgusting and annoying.
The students who did not visit the “Green Classroom” wrote more scientifically incorrect statements (misconceptions) than the intervention group, whereas the students of the intervention group showed more positive emotions towards small animals (insects and other invertebrates). Detailed results are presented in Table
Knowledge of and attitude towards small animals. Means for the intervention group and the control group (Mann-Whitney
Intervention |
Control |
|
|
|
---|---|---|---|---|
Scientifically correct statements | 9,14 | 8,80 | 0,76 | 0,448 |
Misconceptions | 0,55 | 1,50 | −3,98 | 0,000*** |
Knowledge | 8,59 | 7,11 | 1,82 | 0,068(*) |
Positive Emotions | 0,59 | 0,17 | 2,77 | 0,006** |
Negative Emotions | 0,27 | 0,54 | −0,11 | 0,911 |
Emotions | 0,32 | −0,37 | 3,04 | 0,002** |
*
Knowledge: difference between correct and incorrect statements.
Emotions: difference between positive and negative emotions.
The study also showed gender-specific differences. The boys of the control group wrote more scientifically incorrect statements (misconceptions), whereas the test group showed a better knowledge (difference between correct and incorrect statements) of the small animals. Detailed results are presented in Table
Knowledge of and attitude towards small animals. Means for the intervention group and the control group (boys, Mann-Whitney
Boys | Intervention |
Control |
|
|
---|---|---|---|---|
Scientifically correct statements | 9,39 | 8,09 | 1,11 | 0,269 |
Misconceptions | 0,54 | 1,52 | −3,44 | 0,001*** |
Knowledge | 8,84 | 6,58 | 2,03 | 0,042* |
Positive Emotions | 0,48 | 0,24 | 0,84 | 0,404 |
Negative Emotions | 0,23 | 0,73 | −0,71 | 0,477 |
Emotions | 0,26 | −0,48 | 1,80 | 0,072 |
*
Knowledge: difference between correct and incorrect statements.
Emotions: difference between positive and negative emotions.
The girls of the test group showed more positive emotions towards these animals. Detailed results are presented in Table
Knowledge of and attitude towards small animals. Means for the intervention group and the control group (girls, Mann-Whitney
Girls | Intervention |
Control |
|
|
---|---|---|---|---|
Scientifically correct statements | 8,84 | 10,62 | −0,51 | 0,610 |
Misconceptions | 0,56 | 1,46 | −1,74 | 0,821 |
Knowledge | 8,28 | 8,46 | 0,00 | 1,000 |
Positive Emotions | 0,72 | 0,00 | 3,10 | 0,002** |
Negative Emotions | 0,32 | 0,08 | 1,02 | 0,308 |
Emotions | 0,40 | −0,08 | 2,66 | 0,008** |
*
Knowledge: difference between correct and incorrect statements.
Emotions: difference between positive and negative emotions.
The children who attended the “Green Classroom” displayed in an essay about small animals fewer misconceptions and more positive emotions towards them.
This may not be a big deal, but it does matter. Small animals are crucial for our ecosystem. Yet, many of them are endangered species. Small animals receive little attention from media in comparison to birds or large vertebrates. Therefore, children are more aware of birds and large vertebrates. But if children are not even aware of small animals, then how can they be protected by future generations? Against this background, many authors [
An educational programme that helps to improve the attitudes towards small animals is very important in light of the increasingly smaller number of children valuing the animals in their environment, despite the fact that they are ecologically extremely important [
These results support a previous study with older students about the same intervention: Drissner et al. [
The intrinsic motivation of students to interact with small animals and to find them fascinating could provide a sound basis for generating further interest in fauna. It could be presumed that contact with the small animals encountered in the “Green Classroom” environment triggers students’ interest and approach towards small animals, subsequently establishing a more positive attitude towards these animals. This rise of intrinsic motivation, shown by Drissner et al. [
The positive results (e.g., better attitudes and emotions towards small animals) noted in the intervention group but not in the control group are remarkable considering the duration of the visit. The students only attended the “Green Classroom” for half a day. This is extremely short-term participation. According to other studies conducted to date, short-term participation takes at least a few days, possibly even weeks, in order to have any impact (see, e.g., [
The results of both studies taken together suggest that the outdoor setting of an educational programme can have a valuable formative influence, helping to develop opinions and emotions towards specific animals that could lead to a stronger long-term knowledge and a more positive attitude towards these animals and their importance.
The authors are especially grateful to Marian Kazda, the Director of the Botanical Garden of the University of Ulm, for his kind support. The authors also wish to extend their thanks to the teachers and students who took part in the evaluation.