Ocean literacy (OL) is an educational approach that acknowledges the importance of ecosystem services, or the benefits humans can get from an ecosystem, provided by the ocean and human impacts on the marine environment. Ocean literacy prompts students to understand the relationship between humans and the ocean and highlights the potential negative implications of damaging this relationship. Though there has been a rise in public engagement, community science, and education initiatives surrounding ocean topics, there is still a general lack of OL in school curricula. There are a few opportunities for students, 16 to 18 years old specifically, to participate in field courses and marine science camps to enhance their ocean literacy. The Field Studies Council (FSC) is an environmental education nonprofit that runs field centers across the United Kingdom that provide outdoor and environmental learning programs for students ages 16 years and up. This study determined how students' levels of ocean literacy were impacted by participation in field courses based on their cognitive/knowledge, behavioral, and affective/emotional responses.
Participants in the study included 937 students between the ages of 16 and 18 years who attended marine-focused residential field courses across three coastal field centers in 2017. Though the participants did not proportionally represent national demographics, students from a range of schools and colleges, geographic backgrounds, and demographics were represented. The study consisted of a pre-course evaluation, the delivery of the program, and a post-course evaluation. In the pre-course evaluation, students were asked to complete a worksheet with word clouds surrounding ocean-related questions—participants added words or phrases related to the question around the central question (about ocean awareness) to complete the word cloud. These questions were designed to evaluate cognitive/knowledge-based responses, while two and additional questions were meant to evaluated emotional and affective/ behavioral responses. Next, students participated in the field course for 3-4 days. For the post-course evaluation, the participants were given their original pre-course worksheet and were asked to add reflections in a different color so students could review, annotate, or correct their initial thoughts. The researchers evaluated 719 responses—218 of the initial participants did not complete the post-course evaluation. Responses were sorted into three categories: cognitive/knowledge, behavioral, and affective/emotional. Each response was also sorted by 28 thematic codes.
The evaluations showed much more cognitive responses than behavioral or affective, both pre- and post. This may be representative of the cognitive focus environmental education often leans towards. However, there were increases in the number of student responses across all three categories, indicating that while cognitive learning was the most influential, these residential experiences influenced all three characteristics.
The most frequently mentioned thematic codes were pollution, climate and cycles, fishing, food, destruction of ecosystems/species, habitats and ecosystems, and ocean life and diversity. These themes were either related to existing curriculum or were emphasized during the experiential opportunities at the field center program, which the researchers noted spoke to the success of field centers as a supplement to classroom instruction. Peace and relaxation were also often-mentioned codes, showing how the program affected participants' nature connection. Codes that showed up the least included human health, campaigning, and renewable energy. The researchers thought this trend could be explained by the far-off nature of these concepts that were not as emphasized in the experiences.
This study had limitations. The students who participated in the study, while representing various schools, demographics, and geographic backgrounds, did not accurately reflect national demographic patterns and therefore did not offer a truly representative sample. Also, because students must pay to attend courses at the field centers, the dataset is further limited to individuals who are able to afford and take the time to attend such courses.
The researchers recommend marine field courses in the UK strive for student outcomes beyond knowledge and consider behavioral and affective outcomes. These programs have the opportunity to invoke a connection to nature for participants. For future research, they recommend considering program length, class sizes, gender, and school demographics when selecting participants.
The Bottom Line
While there has been increased interest in ocean topics, ocean literacy initiatives are still lacking in school curricula. In the United Kingdom, some students have the opportunity to supplement their marine science education by participating in residential field courses. This study aimed to determine the impact of participation in these field courses on students' ocean literacy. A total of 937 students aged 16 to 18 years participated in the study by completing a pre- and post- course evaluation form designed to evaluate cognitive, behavioral, and affective responses. The results showed that the majority of the responses were cognitive-related. However, the field course led to increases in all three responses from the pre- to the post- course evaluation, indicating that the field course did positively impact students' ocean literacy.