© 2020 Children, Youth and Environments Children, Youth and Environments 30(2), 2020 Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening: A Reconciled Ecological Approach to Insect Conservation Jaeson Clayborn Suzanne Koptur Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University George O’Brien Department of Teaching and Learning, Florida International University Citation: Clayborn, J., Koptur, S., & O’Brien, G. (2020). “Plugging students into nature through butterfly gardening: A reconciled ecological approach to insect conservation. Children, Youth and Environments, 30(2), 30-71. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi Abstract This study implemented an active-learning curriculum unit involving butterfly conservation and gardening at three schools in south Florida. An experimental group of classes received plants to take home; students maintained their plants and observed insect activity for two months. The control group of classes did not receive take-home items. Students who maintained plants at home retained their knowledge of butterflies, ecosystems and environmental stewardship significantly more than those who did not. Surveys revealed all students demonstrated favorable interest in animals and plants; however, both groups reported lower interest in insects. After project completion, more students in the experimental group had new gardens at home than students in the control group (29 percent increase vs. 5 percent decrease). Keywords: active learning, flagship species, place-based education, reconciliation ecology http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 31 Introduction We are in a distinctive chapter in history: scientists have suggested we are undergoing a geological transition from the Holocene to the Anthropocene epoch (Crutzen, 2002; Lewis & Maslin, 2015), a time when humans have a profound impact on Earth’s systems and living species (Dirzo et al., 2014). Humans have eliminated or severely reduced populations of many species worldwide (Barnosky et al., 2011). Most attention has been focused on imperiled vertebrates such as birds and mammals; however, many invertebrates have experienced significant declines as well (Taki & Kevan, 2007). Global monitoring of 452 invertebrate species has recorded a 45 percent decline in the past 40 years (Dirzo et al., 2014). Development, agricultural activities, and invasive species are the top three major threats to federally endangered and threatened insects in the United States (Wagner & Van Driesche, 2010). Since the early 1900s, south Florida has experienced extensive development at the expense of natural ecosystems (Giannini & Heinen, 2014). Historically, subtropical rockland ecosystems—dry forests and pine rocklands—covered a vast portion of Miami-Dade and Monroe counties (Snyder, Herndon, & Robertson Jr., 1990). Subtropical dry forests are dense, evergreen forests dominated by broad-leaved trees with leaf litter covering a limestone rocky substrate (Snyder et al., 1990). Pine rocklands are fire-dependent, open habitats with pine trees in the overstory and a partially exposed limestone rocky substrate (Snyder et al., 1990). Both ecosystems have been reduced drastically in size because they are situated at relatively higher elevations and highly valued for human habitation and use (Alonso & Heinen, 2011; Giannini & Heinen, 2014). Development can modify the natural environment by loss of species (habitat simplification), increased matrix habitat (unsuitable habitat between remaining natural areas), and distance from viable habitats (loss of corridors). Consequently, many butterflies and other organisms of south Florida’s dry forest and pine rockland ecosystems have experienced significant population reductions with some species going extinct. Many imperiled species are now confined to state and federal parks and preserves, which are often underfunded and threatened by pollution, invasive species, and reduced natural buffer habitats. The protection of natural habitats and restoration of modified areas are two important ways to protect south Florida’s and Earth’s biodiversity (Giannini & Heinen, 2014; Hoekstra, Boucher, Ricketts, & Roberts, 2005; Mathew & Anto, 2007; Oliver, Roy, Hill, Brereton, & Thomas, 2010). Reconciliation ecology is the study and strategy of conservation biology in human- dominated landscapes (Rosenzweig, 2003). For example, rehabilitating green spaces at schools, community centers, and neighborhoods in urban areas by planting native plants, removing invasive plants, and minimizing pesticide application can provide viable habitats that shelter common and rare butterflies (Brown Jr. & Freitas, 2002). Imperiled butterfly species depend on specific host plants in natural areas that are often imperiled themselves (McElderry, Salvato, & Horvitz, 2015; Salvato, 2003; Schultz & Dlugosch, 1999). Outreach programs using butterfly gardening, growing and establishing host plants in backyards, parks, and schoolyards, can help rare and endemic butterflies through species awareness and providing suitable habitat beyond natural areas (Mathew & Anto, 2007; Ramírez- Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 32 Restrepo, Koi, & MacGregor-Fors, 2017; Revathy, Mathew, & Narayanankutty, 2014). Schools provide an opportunity to capitalize on integrative, place-based, botanical education by modifying their green spaces (Sobel, 2005; Waliczek & Zajicek, 1999). Teachers can use the school’s surroundings as a framework where students build their own learning and improve local environmental quality (Lieberman & Hoody, 1998; Sobel, 2005; Tatarchuk & Eick, 2011). Younger students are often receptive to nature (Fisher-Maltese, 2016; Pyle, 2002), and elementary educators can align state standards with activities incorporating gardens (Culin, 2002; Tatarchuk & Eick, 2011), leading to greater environmental awareness later in students’ lives (Culin, 2002; Grunova, Brandlova, Svitalek, & Hejcmanova, 2017; Miller, 2005). Many studies have demonstrated the importance of school gardens as effective teaching tools inside and outside of classrooms (Klemmer, Waliczek, & Zajicek, 2005; Libman, 2007; Sobel, 2005). The hands-on, active-learning approach connects students with the environment as they learn about their surroundings (Pyle, 2002; Waliczek & Zajicek, 1999). For example, edible gardens can change students’ attitudes toward foods, particularly unpopular vegetables (Libman, 2007). Similarly, the capacity to raise butterflies at schools can make inconspicuous invertebrate species salient and facilitate potential action to protect them (Cutting & Tallamy, 2015; Ramírez-Restrepo et al., 2017). Teachable moments and garden failures eventually transform to garden success if teachers scaffold their students to work through adversity and “fail forward” (Culin, 2002; Lieberman & Hoody, 1998; Settlage & Southerland, 2007; Waliczek & Zajicek, 1999). South Florida is a promising place to integrate butterfly gardens and conservation into the school curriculum. Unlike other regions in the U.S., the subtropical climate of south Florida allows people to observe butterfly activity year-round (Hammer, 2015; Minno & Emmel, 1993). Developing native plant butterfly gardening at schools in Miami-Dade County creates an ecological schoolyard (Feinsinger, Margutti, & Oviedo, 1997), an opportunity to apply textbook material to the real world, promote conservation (Caro, Mulder, & Moore, 2003), and reduce “plant blindness” (Wandersee & Schussler, 1999). Plant blindness, the inability to recognize plants in one’s own environment, leads to the inability to appreciate and understand plants as important components in an ecosystem and for people (Allen, 2003; Balick & Cox, 1996; Wandersee & Schussler, 1999). Native plant butterfly gardens can both remediate plant blindness and promote insect conservation. Native plant diversity, especially host plants for butterflies, benefits butterfly populations and other insects dependent on native plants (Koh & Sodhi, 2004). The Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly (Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus) was deployed as the flagship butterfly species and ambassador for butterfly and insect conservation in south Florida (Figure 1). In 1976, the Schaus’ swallowtail was the first butterfly federally listed as endangered, and was declared in danger of extinction in 1984 (Smith, Miller, Miller, & Lewington, 1994; USFWS, 2017). Concerned scientists and staff at the National Park Service South Florida Caribbean Network initiated the Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly habitat enhancement project Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 33 (Whelan & Atkinson, 2015). The habitat enhancement project restored degraded sections of subtropical dry forests on two islands in Biscayne National Park (by planting host plants: sea torchwood [Amyris elemifera] and wild lime [Zanthoxylum fagara]), where Schaus’ swallowtail butterflies still occur (Clayborn, Koptur, O’Brien, & Whelan, 2017; Whelan & Atkinson, 2015). Figure 1. The federally endangered Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly (Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus) inhabits subtropical dry forests in the Florida Keys photo: Susan Kolterman Conservation projects for rare and threatened species are more effective when combined with educational programs in local communities (Grunova et al., 2017; Guiney & Oberhauser, 2009). We sought to make such a connection by developing a three-month curriculum unit to teach 5th-grade students about the endangered Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly and the dwindling coastal hardwood hammock habitat (also known as tropical dry forest). The “Schaus and Coastal Hardwood Hammock” curriculum unit was developed and refined for this study with the aid of veteran teachers, following educational best practices (Clayborn, Koptur, O’Brien, & Whelan, 2017). Part of this curriculum unit was a hands-on “gardening for butterflies” activity for children aged 10–11 years (5th graders). Creating a schoolyard butterfly garden let the students apply some principles highlighted in the lessons about one rare butterfly endemic to south Florida and experience the joy of seeing butterflies Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 34 and their plants firsthand using common butterflies visiting a variety of nectar and host plants. The objectives of our study were to: 1) incorporate a curriculum unit designed to address the plight of a rare butterfly, insect conservation, and forest ecosystems; 2) facilitate the construction of native plant butterfly gardens in school yards; 3) increase the number of butterfly gardens in the extended community; and 4) assess both changes in attitudes and gains in content knowledge from the sequenced lessons in the curriculum unit. We also looked at the influence of personal involvement, via an experimental intervention in which students in the experimental group were given plants to take home, care for, and observe, while control group students did not have that additional involvement. We applied a mixed-methods approach (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Creswell, 1994; Morse, 1991; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) in this study to better understand the impact of extending the classroom experience to the home environment through the applied project of nurturing butterfly plants at home. While knowledge gained can be measured by a content exam, and changes in attitude can be measured through surveys, adding a qualitative component to the study (the interviews) provided a detailed perspective on why students were responding to the surveys in the ways they did (Hanson, Balmer, & Giardino, 2011). We worked with three schools, with two 5th-grade classrooms at each school assigned to either the experimental group, which received an intervention (extended home activities), or the control group, which did not receive extended home activities. We wanted to discern how the extent of student personal involvement with the subject, including extended home activities, would affect their knowledge retention and attitude toward butterflies and environmental stewardship. Our three research questions were: 1) Will students retain more knowledge about butterflies, ecosystems, and environmental stewardship after participating in the intervention (extended home activities)? 2) Will students report and voice more favorable attitudes towards butterflies, ecosystems, and environmental stewardship after participating in the intervention? 3) Is the intervention an effective model for increasing the number of butterfly gardens at home? Our questions led to three testable hypotheses: • Hypothesis 1: Students receiving the intervention (extended home activities) will retain more knowledge about butterflies, ecosystems, and environmental stewardship than students with the same classroom experiences but no intervention. • Hypothesis 2: Students receiving the intervention will report and voice stronger affinities towards butterflies, ecosystems, and environmental stewardship than students with the same classroom experiences but no intervention. Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 35 • Hypothesis 3: The number of home butterfly gardens in the experimental group will increase during the study, whereas the control group will not show this increase. Methods Study Area Miami-Dade County is the southernmost county on the United States mainland. The subtropical climate and proximity to the Lucayan Archipelago and Greater Antilles have contributed to south Florida’s diverse flora and fauna. Many tropical species of Lepidoptera (butterflies, moths, and skippers) reach their northern limits in south Florida, specifically Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties (Smith et al., 1994). Miami-Dade County is ecologically and demographically diverse, with dominant Spanish-speaking populations from numerous countries in the Caribbean and South America. Three schools in Miami-Dade County participated in the study (Figure 2): North Hialeah Elementary, in a densely packed urban, residential area with no natural areas and minimal green space near the school; Air Base K-8 Center, and Whispering Pines Elementary, both adjacent to natural areas of the pine rockland ecosystem, and located within a region harboring protected environmentally endangered lands and natural forest communities (Giannini & Heinen, 2014). Despite being near these natural areas, at the time of this study, neither Air Base K-8 Center nor Whispering Pines Elementary educators actively engaged their students in outdoor learning activities there. Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 36 Figure 2. Map of school locations and their proximity to natural forest communities and environmentally endangered lands AB = Air Base K-8 Center; WPE = Whispering Pines Elementary; NHE = North Hialeah Elementary Study Preparation The study employed a mixed-methods quasi-experimental design that combined elements of quantitative and qualitative approaches (Creswell, 1994; Morse, 1991; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). The qualitative assessment—the interview—was complementary to the quantitative assessments—the tests and surveys. Interviews often provide more detailed information about a topic beyond surveys (Hanson, Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 37 Balmer, & Giardino, 2011). We deployed simultaneous triangulation, using quantitative and qualitative methods at the same time, for this study (Morse, 1991). We selected two 5th-grade classrooms (~20 students per class) from each school based on teachers’ willingness to participate in the study, a form of convenience sampling. At each school, we designated one class as the experimental group, the other class as the control group. Both groups followed the same protocol for the duration of the study, except for one difference: the experimental group at each school was given butterfly and plant identification guides, butterfly host and nectar plants, and a data sheet (for observations) to take home as part of the intervention portion of the study. All participants in the study completed consent forms approved by the Florida International University Institutional Review Board (#IRB- 15-0080). Teachers used the signed consent forms to randomly select eight students from each classroom for pre-study and post-study interviews (n = 48 students; n = 96 interviews). We administered interviews, surveys, and tests at both the beginning and the conclusion of the study. Pre-study surveys and post-study surveys were identical and consisted of 28 statements, which were pilot tested to measure students’ attitudes about wildlife and the environment. Pre-study tests and post-study tests were isomorphic, with similar style questions and concepts selected from a test bank. Tests consisted of 18 questions or statements, which were designed to measure present and gained knowledge about the environment and wildlife. In addition to the general themes, the tests focused on butterflies. Subsequently, we asked 11 identical pre-study and post-study interview questions to capture relevant information not easily acquired through the surveys and tests (Hanson, Balmer, & Giardino, 2011; Peshkin, 1993). (See Appendices A, B, and C for the text of the tests, survey statements, and interview questions.) Initial Assessments (Week One; September 2015) During the first week of the study, teachers administered the pre-survey to their students. Surveys were based on Likert’s five-point scale (Likert, 1932) and coded for student confidentiality. After survey completion, students were given a break before taking the pre-test. Students were allotted 25 minutes to complete the test. Later that day, we individually interviewed eight students, randomly selected from each class. The protocol for initial tests, surveys, and interviews was the same for each class at each school. Interactive Classroom Lecture and Activities (Week Two; September 2015) All classes participated in an interactive presentation titled “Imperiled Butterflies of South Florida: Plight of the Schaus’ Swallowtail and Other Butterflies,” specifically designed for students of south Florida. The presentation was led by the first author and covered several topics: 1) south Florida’s ecosystems, 2) butterfly and insect conservation, and 3) native plant butterfly gardening. Students were engaged during the presentation with visual games and brief discussions, prompted by questions. Afterwards, students played a map game, “Place the Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly in the right habitat” (Figure 3; Clayborn, Koptur, O’Brien, & Whelan, Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 38 2017).1 Finally, students observed living butterfly eggs, caterpillars, and native host and nectar plants. Figure 3. Map of south Florida depicting the historic (outlined in green) and current range (outlined in red) of the federally endangered Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly. The largest populations exist on islands in Biscayne National Park (outlined in blue) Native Plant Butterfly Garden Construction (Week Three; September 2015) The participating classes at each school were given an outdoor space (≈ 8 m2) on the school grounds to construct a native plant butterfly garden, which they worked on as separate classes (Figure 4). With input from teachers and principals, the researchers chose garden plants for their ability to serve as caterpillar host plants and nectar sources for adult butterflies. By providing floral resources and host 1 The objective of the activity was to navigate a magnetic Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly to suitable habitat (outlined in red) on a 5’ x 3’ enlargement of the map in Figure 3. One blind- folded student was selected to hold the butterfly and placed at a random location in the classroom. The rest of the class had to non-verbally navigate the student to the map and the butterfly’s habitat. Classmates were given five to seven minutes to brainstorm and execute a plan to use toy instruments and sounds to assist the blind-folded student. Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 39 plants, we hoped to attract butterflies common in nature that might venture into an urban area. We presented information about each plant to each class, including species name, preferred natural habitat, morphology, and ecological significance in the garden and ecosystem. Students were assigned garden tasks, including weed removal, soil preparation and supplementation, planting of native plants, adding mulch to help in water conservation, and marking plants with small, labeled flags. Students added rocks from the local area to demarcate their garden space and protect against lawn mowers and weed trimmers. Under the supervision of their teachers, students watered and weeded their garden periodically during the entire three months of the study. Figure 4. Teacher and 5th-grade students working together to construct the butterfly garden at North Hialeah Elementary School Experimental Group Home Project (Week Four; October 2015) Students in the experimental group (one class from each school) participated in the home project. Each student was given one native butterfly host plant (Passiflora suberosa), which served as a host plant for three butterflies: the zebra longwing [Heliconius charithonia], gulf fritillary [Agraulis vanilla], and Julia [Dryas iulia]; all three species are common, inhabit wild and urban spaces, and exist in the same habitats as the Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly. Students also received one nectar plant (Salvia coccinea—a hardy, attractive plant with red, tubular flowers) to maintain at home. Plants were kept in one-gallon pots with soil and mulch and labeled with both their common and scientific names. Both of the take-home plant species are easy to grow and attract many butterfly species. Each student received two identification guides, Butterflies of Southeast Florida: A Guide to Common and Notable Species (Minno, 2014) and Wildflowers of Southeast Florida Including the Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 40 Florida Keys and Everglades National Park: A Guide to Common Native Species (Hammer, 2012). The user-friendly, picture-based laminated guides displayed pictures of butterfly, skipper, and plant species in southeast Florida with specific habitat requirements (Figure 5). Figure 5. Two students at Whispering Pines Elementary School reading Butterflies of Southeast Florida: A Guide to Common and Notable Species (Minno, 2014) Students in the experimental group also received verbal and written instructions for how to care for their plants, directing them to place plants outside in partial shade, watering them as needed (they were taught to feel 3 centimeters deep to gauge soil moisture). Once a week, students (using their guides) were asked to look for butterflies on and around their plants, as well as eggs, caterpillars, and chrysalises on the plants. They were also instructed to observe other animal activity on or near both plant species. Plant maintenance and observations lasted approximately two months. Wrap-Up (Final Week; December 2015) The study concluded in the classroom, where post-surveys, post-tests, and post- interviews paralleled week one of the study. Students in the experimental group kept their plants and identification guides. Students in the control group received butterfly and plant identification guides for their participation in the study. Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 41 Data Analysis We performed a Shapiro-Wilk test for normality on pre-test and post-test scores, and analyzed pre-tests and post-tests with paired sample t-Tests. We performed an ANCOVA to assess the influence of the intervention (students in the experimental group maintaining plants at home) on post-test scores with pre-test scores as the covariate. To identify strongly correlated survey statements, which were loaded into factors, we performed an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Factors with only one statement were eliminated; factors with two or more statements were retained. Students’ response scores from strongly correlated survey statements were averaged for each factor. We utilized a Quade’s rank analysis of covariance to assess the influence of (1) gardens present at the place of residence before the study commenced, (2) the intervention of taking host and nectar plants home, and (3) the type of students’ residence for each factor, with pre-survey scores as the covariate (Quade, 1967). All data analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 24. Home garden counts were derived from surveys administered at the beginning and end of the study (pre- and post-surveys) in which students self-reported whether they had a home garden or not. If they did, they were then asked what kind of garden (see Appendix C). Garden data reported in the pre- and post-surveys were interpreted and summarized. We recorded interview responses and later transcribed them by hand. An inductive thematic analysis approach was applied to identify themes that emerged from the data (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun & Clarke, 2006). We followed a six-step theme identification and analysis process: 1) detailed notes were taken on all responses; 2) initial codes were generated from relevant pieces of information; 3) candidate themes were developed for further analysis; 4) candidate themes, initial codes, and detailed notes were reviewed by multiple people for coherence; 5) themes were defined, named, quantified, and analyzed; and 6) findings were described and reported (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun & Clarke 2006). If 20 percent or more of the students from each group (control or experimental) gave a response that fit a theme, then that theme was reported in the results section. Results Knowledge Retention Across all schools, students in the experimental group had post-test scores that were significantly higher than pre-test scores (pre-test mean = 0.68, SD = 0.16; post-test mean = 0.80, SD = 0.13; paired sample t-tests: t = -6.301, p < 0.001, n = 60; Figure 5A), while there was no significant increase in the control group (pre- test mean = 0.63, SD = 0.15; post-test mean = 0.65, SD = 0.17; paired sample t- tests: t = -1.239, p = 0.220, n = 60; Figure 6A). The same trend was seen for each school, separately, as well: • Air Base K-8 Center: experimental group, pre-test mean = 0.75, SD = 0.09; post-test mean = 0.86, SD = 0.08; control group, pre-test mean = 0.74, SD = 0.09; post-test mean = 0.77, SD = 0.10; paired sample t-tests, Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 42 experimental group: t = -3.871, p < 0.001, n = 21; control group: t = - 0.937, p = 0.360, n = 20; Figure 6B; • North Hialeah Elementary: experimental group, pre-test mean = 0.73, SD = 0.10; post-test mean = 0.81, SD = 0.15; control group, pre-test mean = 0.55, SD = 0.15; post-test mean = 0.57, SD = 0.17; paired sample t-tests, experimental group: t = -2.403, p = 0.028, n = 18; control group: t = - 0.573, p = 0.573, n = 20; Figure 6C; and • Whispering Pines Elementary: experimental group, pre-test mean = 0.55, SD = 0.19; post-test mean = 0.72, SD = 0.12; control group, pre-test mean = 0.61, SD = 0.14; post-test mean = 0.63, SD = 0.17; paired sample t-tests, experimental group: t = -4.705, p < 0.001, n = 21; control group: t = - 0.701, p < 0.492; n = 20; Figure 6D. Figure 6. Comparison of pre-test and post-test scores (mean ± SE) for experimental and control groups of students at the three participating elementary schools * indicates significant differences (p < 0.05) between pre-test and post-test scores for each group using paired sample t-tests Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 43 The intervention applied to the experimental groups—i.e., students nurturing and observing their personal host and nectar plants at home—had a significant effect on post-test score gains as demonstrated by the results of ANCOVA (Table 1). Overall, experimental groups’ post-test scores were significantly higher compared to the control groups for all schools combined (experimental group mean = 3.721, SD = 4.574; control group mean = 0.708, SD = 4.427; df = 1, F = 25.771, p < 0.001; Table 1). Post-test scores were also significantly higher for the experimental group at individual schools: • Air Base K-8 Center: experimental group mean = 3.190, SD = 3.777; control group mean = 0.850, SD = 4.056; df = 1; F = 9.926, p = 0.003; Table 1; • North Hialeah Elementary: experimental group mean = 2.458, SD = 4.341; control group mean = 0.725, SD = 5.660; df = 1, F = 6.203, p = 0.018; Table 1; and • Whispering Pines Elementary: experimental group mean = 5.333, SD = 5.195; control group mean = 0.550, SD = 3.509; df = 1, F = 10.986, p = 0.002; Table 1. Table 1. Summary statistics of post-test scores (dependent variable) using Analysis of Covariance Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance All Schools Intercept 0.918 1 0.918 57.985 0.001* Pre-test 0.870 1 0.870 54.953 0.001* Intervention 0.408 1 0.408 25.771 0.001* Error 1.853 117 0.016 Air Base K-8 Center Intercept 0.360 1 0.360 43.615 0.001* Pre-test 0.001 1 0.001 0.026 0.873 Intervention 0.082 1 0.082 9.926 0.003* Error 0.314 38 0.008 North Hialeah Elementary Intercept 0.209 1 0.209 9.089 0.005* Pre-test 0.145 1 0.145 6.304 0.017* Intervention 0.143 1 0.143 6.203 0.018* Error 0.804 35 0.230 Whispering Pines Elementary Intercept 0.440 1 0.440 31.052 0.001* Pre-test 0.297 1 0.297 20.976 0.001* Intervention 0.156 1 0.156 10.986 0.002* Error 0.539 38 0.014 * significance Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 44 Attitudes before and after: Survey Results After performing the EFA, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.688, including a significant Bartlett’s test for Sphericity (χ = 946.401, df = 378, p < 0.001). The KMO Test measures how suited the data are for a factor analysis. The KMO value of 0.688 is adequate to justify additional analyses. Fourteen of the 28 statements loaded into 6 factors: 1 – Stewardship; 2 – Learning Interest [Nature]; 3 – Insects; 4 – Interconnectedness [Bees and Plants]; 5 – Interconnectedness [Animals]; and 6 – Anthropogenic Harm. One factor comprised only one statement and was removed from the analysis (5 – Interconnectedness [Animals]; Appendix D). Quade’s test revealed no significant changes in attitudes for any of the factors based on intervention, type of residence, or presence of gardens at home for all schools combined (Appendix D). However, the intervention was significant regarding post-survey score changes between experimental and control groups at one school, Whispering Pines Elementary, for factor 4 (Interconnectedness [Bees and Plants]: F = 8.213, p = 0.007) and factor 6 (Anthropogenic Harm: F = 6.155, p = 0.018; Appendix D). At Whispering Pines, post-survey scores for factor 4 - Interconnectedness (Bees and Plants) reported an increase for the control group (pre-survey mean = 3.816, SD = 0.831; post-survey mean = 4.237, SD = 0.547; Table 2) and a decrease for the experimental group (pre-survey mean = 4.476, SD = 0.732; post-survey mean = 4.238, SD = 0.453; Table 2). Post-survey scores for factor 6 - Anthropogenic Harm reported a decrease for the control group (pre- survey mean = 4.404, SD = 0.453; post-survey mean = 4.123, SD = 0.594; Table 2) and an increase for the experimental group (pre-survey mean = 3.635, SD = 0.981; post-survey mean = 4.175, SD = 0.985; Table 2). Neither Air Base K-8 Center nor North Hialeah Elementary students showed significant changes in attitude for any of the factors based on intervention, type of residence, or presence of gardens at home before the study began (Appendix D). Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 45 Table 2. Results from the Likert scale (5 – Strongly Agree to 1 – Strongly Disagree) pre- and post-surveys All Schools AB NHE WPE Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Stewardship Pre-con 4.260 0.713 4.317 0.703 4.117 0.777 4.351 0.626 Post-con 4.119 0.726 4.033 0.788 4.250 0.752 4.070 0.598 Pre-ex 4.131 0.871 4.238 0.676 4.386 0.522 3.794 1.148 Post-ex 4.202 0.710 4.333 0.600 4.386 0.533 3.904 0.843 Learning Interest (Nature) Pre-con 4.040 0.762 4.067 0.892 4.300 0.730 3.737 0.491 Post-con 4.136 0.664 4.033 0.690 4.433 0.528 3.930 0.654 Pre-ex 4.093 0.864 4.000 0.756 4.526 0.487 3.794 1.056 Post-ex 4.137 0.718 4.111 0.786 4.316 0.501 4.000 0.777 Insects Pre-con 3.051 1.092 3.400 1.079 3.375 1.023 2.342 0.796 Post-con 3.331 0.977 3.300 1.030 3.65 0.808 3.026 0.980 Pre-ex 3.139 1.083 3.476 1.229 3.211 0.922 2.738 0.921 Post-ex 3.172 0.923 3.357 0.902 3.342 0.744 2.833 0.992 Interconnectedness (Bees and Plants) Pre-con 4.144 0.798 4.650 0.421 3.950 0.805 3.816 0.831 Post-con 4.263 0.653 4.450 0.610 4.100 0.735 4.237 0.547 Pre-ex 4.418 0.691 4.357 0.600 4.421 0.730 4.476 0.732 Post-ex 4.393 0.544 4.476 0.663 4.474 0.443 4.238 0.453 Anthropogenic Harm Pre-con 3.983 0.824 4.200 0.653 3.367 0.888 4.404 0.453 Post-con 4.175 0.645 4.35 0.499 4.050 0.769 4.123 0.594 Pre-ex 3.858 0.779 3.984 0.613 3.965 0.620 3.635 0.981 Post-ex 4.186 0.861 4.095 0.880 4.298 0.657 4.175 0.985 Bold indicates significant changes in students’ attitude. Pre-con = Pre-survey control treatment group; Post-con = Post-survey control treatment group; Pre-ex = Pre-survey experimental treatment group; Post-ex = Pre-survey experimental treatment group. AB = Air Base K-8 Center; WPE = Whispering Pines Elementary; NHE = North Hialeah Elementary. Attitudes before and after: Interview Results Although eight randomly selected students were interviewed from each class twice (pre- and post-interviews) during the study (n = 48 students, n = 96 interviews), some recorded interviews were corrupted due to technical difficulties. As a result, in the experimental group only, sample size was reduced by six for North Hialeah Elementary (post-interview) and by two for Whispering Pines Elementary (pre- and post-interview). The remaining recorded interviews were used for analysis and Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 46 interpretation (n = 48 students, n = 86 interviews). Responses to the most important questions are explained in detail here. 1) What kind of activities do you enjoy doing outdoors? Three themes derived from this question: 1) Sports, 2) Random Play, and 3) Gardening/Yard Exploration. More students in the control group (pre: 67 percent, post: 63 percent) engaged in “Sports” than the experimental group (pre: 41 percent, post: 50 percent). The percentage of students in the experimental group engaged in “Random Play” increased 19 percent during post-interviews (pre: 50 percent, post: 69 percent), but remained the same in the control group (pre: 58 percent, post: 58 percent). Responses regarding “Gardening or Yard Exploration” in the control group increased (pre: 25 percent, post: 38 percent), but responses decreased (pre: 50 percent, post: 31 percent) for the experimental group in post- interviews. 2) Name some things you need to attract butterflies to a garden. From the control group, we derived three themes: 1) Flowers, 2) Plants, and 3) Host Plants. “Flowers” and “Plants” were considered basic responses as they displayed rudimentary understanding of components attracting butterflies. The theme “Host plants” was considered an advanced response because it demonstrated a more specific understanding of plants used to attract butterflies, namely that butterflies need particular plants upon which to lay their eggs. More than 50 percent of the respondents mentioned “Flowers” during both interviews (pre: 58 percent, post: 54 percent). Thirty-eight percent of the respondents mentioned “Plants” during both interviews. Twenty-five percent more respondents mentioned “Host Plants” during post-interviews (pre: 13 percent, post: 38 percent). From the experimental group, we derived five themes: 1) Flowers, 2) Plants, 3) Host Plants, 4) Nectar Plants, and 5) Milkweed. The most prevalent responses during pre-interviews were “Flowers” (50 percent) and “Nectar Plants” (45 percent). The percentage of students that mentioned “Flowers” declined substantially during post-interviews (pre: 50 percent, post: 13 percent). There was a modest decrease for “Nectar Plants” (pre: 45 percent, post: 38 percent). Thirty-two percent of respondents mentioned “Host Plants” during pre-interviews, increasing to 44 percent during post-interviews. The percentage of respondents mentioning “Plants” (pre: 10 percent, post: 38 percent) and “Milkweed” (pre: 10 percent, post: 25 percent) also increased substantially during post-interviews. As before, the themes “Host plants” and “Nectar Plants” were considered advanced responses because they demonstrated complex understanding of relationships between plants and butterflies. Both groups mentioned “Milkweed” (control group < 20 percent, a higher percentage of respondents in the experimental group) as attractors for butterflies, but no other specific plants were named. 3) Would it be easy or difficult for animals and plants to survive in your neighborhood? Briefly explain. In the control group, more than half of the respondents reported, “It would be easy” during both interviews (pre: 54 percent, post: 54 percent). Twenty-nine percent stated, “It would be difficult or somewhat difficult” during pre-interviews, Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 47 but the proportion of responses increased during post-interviews (42 percent). Two themes explained the ease of animal and plant survivorship in their neighborhoods: “Lots of Green Space” and “Lack of Green Space.” Twenty-nine percent of respondents mentioned “Lots of Green Space” during pre-interviews, which increased to 38 percent during post-interviews. “Lack of Green Space” also increased during post-interviews (pre: 8 percent, post: 21 percent). In the experimental group, 59 percent of respondents reported, “It would be easy” during pre-interviews, increasing to 69 percent during post-interviews. Thirty-six percent stated, “It would be difficult or somewhat difficult” during pre-interviews, but the proportion of responses decreased during post-interviews (31 percent). Two themes explained the ease of animal and plant survivorship in their neighborhoods, which were “Lots of Green Space” and “Friendly Neighbors.” Forty-one percent of respondents mentioned “Lots of Green Space” during pre-interviews, which increased to 50 percent during post-interviews. “Friendly Neighbors” also increased during post-interviews (pre: 18 percent, post: 25 percent). 4) Describe some reasons butterflies and other insects are disappearing, going extinct. In the control group, students’ responses to this question comprised five themes: 1) No Food, 2) Predators, 3) Pesticides, 4) People Harming Them, and 5) Habitat Loss. During pre-interviews, “No Food” was the most prevalent response (38 percent), declining during post-interviews (21 percent). Students’ responses for “People Harming Them” (pre: 33 percent, post: 42 percent) and “Habitat Loss” (pre: 33 percent, post: 42 percent) mirrored each other. Responses for “Predators” remained the same (pre: 21 percent, post: 21 percent), but “Pesticides” markedly increased during post-interviews (pre: 8 percent, post: 25 percent). In the experimental group, the four response themes were: 1) No Food, 2) Pesticides, 3) People Harming Them, and 4) Habitat Loss. “People Harming Them” was the most prevalent theme during pre-interviews (50 percent), decreasing by 25 percent during post-interviews. Thirty-six percent of respondents reported “Habitat Loss” during pre-interviews, increasing to 56 percent during post-interviews. Thirty- two percent of respondents reported “No Food” during pre-interviews, decreasing to 25 percent in post-interviews. There was a 15 percent increase in the percentage of students reporting “Pesticides” during post-interviews (pre: 10 percent, post: 25 percent). 5) Would you recommend a butterfly garden to a friend? Can you explain? Most respondents from both groups said they would recommend a butterfly to a friend. While several students in the control and experimental groups said “No” during pre-interviews (control- pre: 8 percent; experimental- pre: 14 percent), all students said “Yes” during post-interviews. Themes derived from the responses included: 1) Increase Butterfly Population, 2) Like Butterflies, and 3) Help Endangered Butterflies. In the control group, the most popular theme was “Like Butterflies” (pre: 50 percent, post: 42 percent). Twenty-five percent of respondents reported “Increase Butterfly Population” during pre-interviews which declined to 17 Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 48 percent during post-interviews. The theme “Help Endangered Butterflies” greatly increased during post-interviews (pre: 8 percent, post: 21 percent). In the experimental group, the most popular theme was “Like Butterflies” during pre-interviews, drastically decreasing during post-interviews (pre: 50 percent, post: 19 percent). Twenty-seven percent of respondents reported “Increase Butterfly Population” during pre-interviews which increased during post-interviews (38 percent). The percentage of respondents that contributed to the theme “Help Endangered Butterflies” more than doubled during post-interviews (pre: 14 percent, post: 31 percent). Butterfly Gardens in the Extended Community Students in the experimental group (all schools combined) reported a net gain of eight new home gardens (a 29 percent increase), compared to a net loss of two home gardens (a 5 percent decrease) in the control group (Table 3). Almost every student in the control group at North Hialeah Elementary had a garden before this study commenced; however, they reported two fewer gardens at the end of the study (this may have been due to moving or other reasons). The other control groups at Air Base K-8 Center and Whispering Pines Elementary maintained the same number of gardens. Each school in the experimental group increased the number of gardens at home by two (Air Base) or three (North Hialeah and Whispering Pines). While the experimental groups had an overall net increase of eight gardens, both the experimental and control groups had a net increase of five butterfly gardens after the study. The increase was greater in the experimental groups (the number doubled, 100 percent gain), while the control groups increased by 83 percent. North Hialeah Elementary students in both groups reported a dramatic increase in the number of butterfly gardens at home (Control Group = 5, Experimental Group = 4; Table 3). Table 3. The number of home gardens reported by students Schools AB NHE WPE AB NHE WPE # of Students 20 20 20 21 18 21 Treatment Control Groups Experimental Groups # of Gardens (Pre-survey) 10 19 11 11 7 10 # of Gardens (Post-survey) 10 17 11 13 10 13 Net Results (Gardens) 0 -2 0 +2 +3 +3 # of Butterfly Gardens (Pre-survey) 1 1 4 3 0 2 # of Butterfly Gardens (Post-survey) 2 6 3 4 4 2 Net Results (Butterfly Gardens) +1 +5 -1 +1 +4 0 AB = Air Base K-8 Center; NHE = North Hialeah Elementary; WPE = Whispering Pines Elementary Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 49 Discussion Focusing on butterflies, using the federally endangered Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly as the flagship species, we engaged students in a variety of activities that described the work being done to rescue its population while highlighting pragmatic solutions for public participation; this project is an example of reconciliation ecology (Rosenzweig, 2003). Knowledge is essential to the changes needed to protect and preserve butterflies and ultimately biodiversity (Allen, 2003; Miller, 2005; Vickery, 1995), and some changes can take place in our neighborhoods, not just in natural areas. Overall, students in the experimental groups performed better on the post-test than students in control groups over the course of this teaching unit. Looking at each school individually, the knowledge gain derived from the intervention was significantly higher for the experimental groups. This demonstrates that personal experiences with nature, in addition to knowledge about butterflies and ecosystems, are foundational to behavioral changes that can promote insect conservation and environmental stewardship (Broom, 2017; Caro et al., 2003; Cheng & Monroe, 2012; Pe’er & Settele, 2008; Waliczek & Zajicek, 1999). Hypothesis 1 was supported as students in the intervention group showed greater knowledge retention about butterflies, ecosystems, and environmental stewardship. Post-survey results revealed most students liked and valued animals, plants, and the environment, but showed lower, though neutral, interest in insects. Independent variables such as the presence of established gardens at home before the study, the extended home activity intervention, and type of residence did not significantly influence post-survey results when all schools were grouped together. Individually, the intervention did significantly influence post-survey results for two factors, Interconnectedness (Bees and Plants) and Anthropogenic Harm, at one (Whispering Pines Elementary) of the three schools. For Interconnectedness, the control group score significantly increased while the experimental group score significantly declined. The opposite occurred for Anthropogenic Harm; these disjointed attitude shifts between the experimental and control groups at this school were perplexing, possibly due to factors not measured in this study, leading to more questions. The surveys did not detect significant explainable trends over time, as significant attitude shifts between the experimental and control groups were minimal. Survey results suggested young students already had a strong appreciation for the environment (Pyle, 2002), which can be harnessed by teachers and educators (Brewer, 2002; Culin, 2002; Tatarchuk & Eick, 2011). Efforts in demystifying insects, often portrayed as “gross,” annoying pests, but as essential components to biological processes on Earth, should be taught inside and outside the classroom (Matthews, Flage, & Matthews, 1997; Rader et al., 2016). Students’ interviews provided them an opportunity to share perceptions about themselves, hobbies, butterflies, gardens, and the environment. Exploratory activities and time spent outside often relates to connection to the environment. For example, students engaged in nature (exploring, gardening, and playing) are more Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 50 likely to advocate for its protection (Broom, 2017; Cheng & Monroe, 2012; Wells & Lekies, 2006). The act of “playing” could be harnessed as an effective means to encourage exploration and inquiry in the butterfly garden, school grounds, and home backyard, promoting environmental stewardship (Fisher-Maltese, 2016; Jacobi-Vessels, 2013; Sobel, 2005). Most students were familiar with basic components of a butterfly garden, mentioning specific butterfly attractors such as flowers, plants, and host plants. A higher proportion of students in the experimental group mentioned host plants as a butterfly attractor than students in the control group during pre- and post- interviews. Students’ recognition of host plants demonstrated a better understanding of enticing butterflies to visit gardens as well as the butterflies’ life history. More than half of the students in the control group mentioned flowers. Some flowers are great attractors for butterflies, but the term “flower” is a generic, loose term. The term “nectar plant” is more specific and focuses on plants that produce food resources for various pollinators including butterflies (Allen, 2003; Hammer, 2015). Post-interview responses from the experimental group demonstrated a deeper understanding for attracting butterflies compared to the control group (Mathew & Anto, 2007; Minno & Emmel, 1993). During the interviews, students made the connection between abundant green space (the presence of herbaceous and woody plants) and wildlife presence. Some students in the experimental group also mentioned their homes were surrounded by friendly neighbors, depicting a positive atmosphere of community and communication. Both are necessary to promote and spread environmental stewardship (Sobel, 2005). During post-interviews, a higher proportion of students in the control group recognized that lack of green space was a reason animals and plants would have a difficult time surviving in their neighborhood. Nature within urban ecosystems is a relatively new concept, although more people are becoming cognizant of synurbization (adaptation of wildlife to urban environments; Andrzejewski, Babińska-Werka, Gliwicz, & Goszczyński, 1978; Ramírez-Restrepo et al., 2017). During post-interview results, a higher proportion of students in both groups recognized that habitat loss and pesticides were deleterious to butterflies and other insects. Lack of food was a popular response from students in both groups during pre-interviews, but that response decreased during post-interviews. It is likely that the “lack of food” response relates to monarch butterflies and milkweed, the most widely known butterfly story, in which population decline is attributed to fewer milkweed host plants, as well as fewer forests and natural areas, along their migratory route (Guiney & Oberhauser, 2009; Howard & Davis, 2009). Students were also aware people could directly harm butterflies and other insects by collecting them for money, and killing them if, as insects, they are perceived a nuisance. During the pre-interviews, several students in both groups stated they would not recommend a butterfly garden to a friend because their friends would have no interest in it. Three months later all interviewed students stated they would Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 51 recommend a butterfly garden to a friend. Interviewed students were conscious of the negative effects on local flora and fauna associated with urban environments and people. People can directly harm insects by squashing them or using pesticides or indirectly through development and removal of viable greenspace. The pre- and post-survey results demonstrated students had a neutral interest towards insects and insects in their space; however, post-interview responses indicated students were willing to advocate for butterflies through butterfly gardening. School butterfly gardens can excite students to care more about their local flora and fauna; moreover, a reconciled ecological approach extending from schools into communities can transform anthropogenic, sterile landscapes into attractive, plant biodiverse habitats suitable for various wildlife including butterflies (Koh & Sodhi, 2004; Rosenzweig, 2003; Rudd, Vala, & Schaefer, 2002). In summary, survey results did not support Hypothesis 2; on the other hand, interviews provided a deeper understanding into what students already knew and felt at the beginning and end of the project. All students in both groups came to value butterfly gardens and stewardship for the environment. Did this translate into an increase in gardens at home? There was a net increase of eight gardens of all types in the experimental group and a net loss of two gardens in the control group. An additional two to three gardens were added to neighborhoods outside of each school, potentially benefiting wildlife. Our third hypothesis was not supported because both the experimental and control groups had a net increase of five butterfly gardens, although the percentage increase was slightly higher for the experimental group. In the future, photo evidence of gardens at home could allow more accurate designation of garden type. Giving students plants to take home presented an opportunity to motivate students to expand gardens beyond the school grounds. Student ownership provided additional care and experiential learning to monitor plant growth and insect activity over time. However, individual plant observations and maintenance at home were likely more successful with parent, teacher, and peer support, which should be integrated into the curriculum (Culin, 2002; Tatarchuk & Eick, 2011). Teacher scaffolding can push the experiential process and teach students how to think critically based on acquired knowledge from the science content and their own observations in butterfly gardens at school and home (Brewer, 2002; Settlage & Southerland, 2007; Tatarchuk & Eick, 2011). Younger students are more subject to the motivation of their guardians; therefore, scaffolding the construction and maintenance of a butterfly garden at home is not mutually exclusive from guardian approval and encouragement. Future studies investigating the impact of nature- based activities in elementary schools should integrate guardians into the study. In addition, follow-through on home garden creation might be further facilitated by providing additional information resources and support (e.g., county extension office contact, web sites of native plant and butterfly groups, etc.). Conclusion Insects are smaller and less noticeable than pandas, tigers, and other “charismatic megafauna” (Leader-Williams & Dublin, 2000; Rohlf, 1991). Many people also have Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 52 unfavorable opinions about insects (Lockwood, 2013; Sumner, Law, & Cini, 2018), even though insects play important roles in ecosystems, serving as pollinators, food producers, nutrient transporters, and decomposers. Of the insects, butterflies are the most attractive to people, and in recent years more attention has been drawn to monarchs, their food plants (milkweed), and their migration (Cutting & Tallamy, 2015; Howard & Davis, 2009). At the same time, scientists have studied imperiled butterflies to better understand their life histories and restore their populations and habitats (McElderry et al., 2015; Ramírez-Restrepo et al., 2017; Salvato, 2003; Schultz & Dlugosch, 1999; Wagner & Van Driesche, 2010). The Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly has been the subject of research for decades (USFWS, 2017). Our first- hand experience in habitat restoration for the Schaus’ swallowtail (Whelan & Atkinson, 2015) led us to develop its story into attractive and teachable lessons; we used the Schaus’ swallowtail as a flagship species to draw in students to become aware of butterflies and care about what happens to them. This approach is applied extensively by zoos and wildlife conservation organizations, teaching the public about rare, charismatic species to instill a sense of compassion and advocacy for their protection and preservation. In this study, the intervention at home significantly increased students’ content knowledge about butterflies and their ecosystems over a two-month timespan. Knowledge about and positive exposure towards a subject can lead to real changes in behavior (Broom, 2017; Caro et al., 2003; Cheng & Monroe, 2012; Waliczek & Zajicek, 1999). Overall, despite negligible shifts in attitudes, students demonstrated high affinities for animals, plants, and the environment. Interviews revealed students had positive experiences from the program. Place-based learning, active participation, and personal involvement are effective strategies to pique students’ interest in butterfly conservation and environmental stewardship (Brewer, 2002; Fisher-Maltese, 2016; Sobel, 2005). South Florida and the Keys have been ideal locations for human habitation at the expense of native wildlife and habitat (Giannini & Heinen, 2014). Through education, butterflies can be used as flagship species (Guiney & Oberhauser, 2009; Pe’er & Settele, 2008), as most people like butterflies, and they are attractive mascots for conservation (Ramírez-Restrepo et al., 2017). Butterfly gardening goes beyond butterflies, as many other species of animals are also attracted to the garden (Hammer, 2015; Minno & Emmel, 1993). A generational paradigm shift is necessary to ameliorate the continued decline of insect biodiversity and abundance. Recognition of ecosystem services and aesthetics through habitat rehabilitation and enrichment such as butterfly gardening can transcend attitudes of environmental mastery towards environmental harmony between humans and wildlife (Alonso & Heinen, 2011; Rosenzweig, 2003). Limitations Findings from this study represent only the study participants and may not necessarily be extrapolated to represent the majority of 5th-grade students in Miami-Dade County, given the dynamics of cultural diversity and experiences in conjunction with socioeconomic factors (Kurlaender & Yun, 2005; Moore 2004). A larger sample size of students (more 5th-grade classes) in both experimental and Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 53 control groups would have strengthened representation. Miami-Dade County is a large cosmopolitan metropolis with 197 elementary schools and 44 K-8 centers. An extension of the study to include more students and schools would provide more opportunities to elucidate the effects on place-based education and the intervention of native plant home assignment. Logistical and financial constraints involving time commitment, plant resources, and identification guides increases as the sample size scales up; however, detailed preparation and experience can alleviate some of the constraints through timed plant cultivation, collaboration with nurseries, dedicated teacher commitment at each school, and reliable support by the scientific community. Acknowledgments We thank the principals at each school: Tamela Brown (WPE), Yanelys Canales (NHE), and Raul Calzadilla, Jr. (AB). The study would not have been feasible without the dedication and support of the teachers involved: Sarah Davio (WPE), Nadia Earl (NHE), Jessica Hernandez (NHE), Sandra Martinez (AB), Carmen Monge (AB), Kamelia Ramnarine (WPE), Vicki Terranova (WPE), and Louis Vazquez (NHE). We thank Dr. Scott Zona for provided FIU greenhouse space and materials. We also thank Leslie Bayas, Lydia Cuni, Darlene Darrican, Michael Foguer, Tanjim Hossain, Eduardo Ibarra, Andrea Salas, and Yadira Reynaldo for leadership roles involved in garden construction, plant care, and transportation. Jennifer Morales provided invaluable consultation on the instruments (tests, survey statements, and interview questions) designed for this study. Constructive comments on the manuscript including statistical support were made by Sarah Eddy. Financial support was provided by: FIU Center for Leadership Global Civic Engagement Mini Grant, Kelly Foundation Botany Scholarship to the first author, and DonorsChoose.org (through which we raised contributions for supplies at the schools). Many butterfly host and nectar plants donated to the students and schools were provided by Mark Glasser. Additional plants were provided by members in the North American Butterfly Association Miami Blue Chapter and Florida Native Plant Society Tillandsia Chapter. Constructive comments on the manuscript were provided by Adel Peña, Maureen Donnelly, Bradley Bennett, and Jeffrey Wells. Jaeson Clayborn participated in the Schaus’ Swallowtail Habitat Enhancement Project in Biscayne National Park as part of his dissertation work at Florida International University. In addition, part of his research focused on developing and implementing an insect conservation curriculum unit applied in classrooms and homes in south Florida communities. He is an Entomological Society of America Policy Fellow (2019). His research interests include insect and landscape conservation and predator-prey interactions. Suzanne Koptur is a plant ecologist and Professor of Biology at Florida International University. Her areas of expertise are insect-plant interactions, pollination ecology, agroecology, and schoolyard ecology. George O’Brien is a Professor of Science Education. He uses social constructivist frameworks to study science and science education teaching and learning; educating pre-service science teachers for sustainability; developing and Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 54 strengthening teacher learning environments based upon the design of Four Levels of Educational Outcomes and specific STEM content themes. References Allen, W. (2003). Plant blindness. Bioscience, 53(10), 926. doi.org\\10.1641\\0006-3568(2003)053[0926:PB]2.0.CO;2 Alonso, J., & Heinen, J. T. (2011). Miami Dade County's environmentally endangered lands program: Local efforts for a global cause. Natural Area Journal, 31(2), 183-189. doi.org\\10.3375\\043.031.0212 Andrzejewski, R., Babińska-Werka, J., Gliwicz, J., & Goszczyński, J. (1978). Synurbization processes in population of Apodemus agrarius. I. Characteristics of populations in an urbanization gradient. Acta Theriologica, 23, 341-358. Balick, M. J., & Cox, P. A. (1996). Plants, people, and culture: The science of ethnobotany. New York: Scientific American Library Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O. U., Swartz, B., Quental, T. B., … & Ferrer, E. A. (2011). Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature, 471, 51-57. doi:10.1038/nature09678 Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. DOI:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Brewer, C. (2002). Conservation education partnerships in schoolyard laboratories: A call back to action. Conservation Biology, 16(3), 577-579. doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01633.x Broom, C. (2017). Exploring the relations between childhood experiences in nature and young adults’ environmental attitudes and behaviours. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 33(1), 34-47. doi.org/10.1017/aee.2017.1 Brown, K. S. Jr., & Freitas, A. V. L. (2002). Butterfly communities of urban forest fragments in Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil: Structure, instability, environmental correlates, and conservation. Journal of Insect Conservation, 6, 217-231. doi.org/10.1023/A:1024462523826 Caro, T., Mulder, M. B., & Moore, M. (2003). Effects of conservation education on reasons to conserve biological diversity. Biological Conservation, 114, 143- 152. doi:10.1038/nature09678 https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01633.x file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1017/aee.2017.1 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1023/A:1024462523826 Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 55 Cheng, J. C. H., & Monroe, M. C. (2012). Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environment and Behavior, 44(1), 31-49. doi:10.1177/0013916510385082 Clayborn, J., Koptur, S., O’Brien, G., & Whelan, K. R. T. (2017). The Schaus swallowtail habitat enhancement project: An applied service-learning project continuum from Biscayne National Park to Miami-Dade County public schools. Southeastern Naturalist, 16(10), 26-46. https://doi.org/10.1656/058.016.0sp1007 Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415, 23. doi:10.1038/415023a Culin, J. (2002). Butterflies are great teachers: The South Carolina Butterfly Project. American Entomologist, 48(1), 14-18. doi.org/10.1093/ae/48.1.14 Cutting, B. T., & Tallamy, D. W. (2015). An evaluation of butterfly gardens for restoring habitat for the monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera: Danaidae). Environmental Entomology, 44(5), 1328-1335. doi.10.1093/ee/nvv111 Dirzo, R., Young, H. S., Galetti, M., Ceballos, G., Isaac, N. J. B., & Collen, B. (2014). Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science, 345(6195), 401-406. doi:10.1126/science.1251817 Feinsinger, P., Margutti, L., & Oviedo, R. (1997). Schoolyard and nature trails: Ecology education outside the university. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 12(3), 115-120. doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(96)20104-1 Fisher-Maltese, C. (2016). “We won’t hurt you butterfly!” Second-graders become environmental stewards from experiences in a school garden. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 4, 55. Giannini, H. C., & Heinen, J. T. (2014). Miami-Dade County's Environmentally Endangered Lands Covenant Program: Creating protected areas on private lands via financial incentives. Natural Areas Journal, 34(3), 338-345. doi.org/10.3375/043.034.0308 Grunova, M., Brandlova, K., Svitalek, J., & Hejcmanova, P. (2017). Environmental education supports conservation action by increasing the immediate and long-term environmental knowledge of children in West Africa. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 16(1), 3-16. doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2016.1273153 doi:10.1177/0013916510385082 https://doi.org/10.1656/058.016.0sp1007 doi:10.1038/415023a file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1093/ae/48.1.14 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.10.1093/ee/nvv111 doi:10.1126/science.1251817 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(96)20104-1 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.3375/043.034.0308 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2016.1273153 Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 56 Guiney, M. S., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2009). Insects as flagship conservation species. Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews, 1, 111-123. Hammer, R. L. (2012). Wildflowers of Southeast Florida including The Florida Keys and Everglades National Park: A guide to common native species. Texas: Quick Reference Publishing. Hammer, R. L. (2015). Attracting hummingbirds and butterflies in tropical Florida: A companion for gardeners. Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida. Hanson, J. L., Balmer, D. F., & Giardino, A. P. (2011). Qualitative research methods for medical educators. Academic Pediatrics, 11(5), 375-386. doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2011.05.001 Hoekstra, J. M., Boucher, T. M., Ricketts, T. H., & Roberts, C. (2005). Confronting a biome crisis: Global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters, 8(1), 23-29. doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x Howard, E., & Davis, A. K. (2009). The fall migration flyways of monarch butterflies in eastern North America revealed by citizen scientists. Journal of Insect Conservation, 13, 279-286. doi:10.1007/s10841-008-9169-y Jacobi-Vessels, J. L. (2013). Discovering nature: The benefits of teaching outside of the classroom. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 41, 4-10. Klemmer, C. D., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (2005). Growing minds: The effect of a school gardening program on the science achievement of elementary students. HortTechnology, 15, 448-452. Koh, L. P., & Sodhi, N. S. (2004). Importance of reserves, fragments, and parks for butterfly conservation in a tropical urban landscape. Ecological Applications, 14(6), 1695-1708. doi.org/10.1890/03-5269 Kurlaender, M., & Yun, J. T. (2005). Fifty Years after Brown: New evidence of the impact of school racial composition on student outcomes. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, and Practice: Reconceptualizing Childhood Studies, 6, 51-78. Leader-Williams, N., & Dublin, H. (2000). Charismatic megafauna as “flagship species.” In A. Entwistle & N. Dunstone (Eds.), Priorities for the conservation of mammalian diversity: Has the panda had its day? (pp. 53-81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, S. L., & Maslin, M. A. (2015). Defining the Anthropocene. Nature, 519, 171- 180. doi:10.1038/nature14258 Libman, K. (2007). Growing youth growing food: How vegetable gardening influences young people’s food consciousness and eating habits. Applied file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2011.05.001 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x doi:10.1007/s10841-008-9169-y file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1890/03-5269 doi:10.1038/nature14258 Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 57 Environmental Education & Communication, 6(1), 87-95. doi.org/10.1080/15330150701319388 Lieberman, G. A., & Hoody, L. L. (1998). Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. San Diego, California: State Environment and Education Roundtable. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22, 1-55. Lockwood, J. (2013). The infested mind: Why humans fear, loathe and love insects. New York: Oxford University Press. Mathew, G., & Anto, M. (2007). In situ conservation of butterflies through establishment of butterfly gardens: A case study at Peechi, Kerala, India. Current Science, 93, 337-347. Matthews, R. W., Flage, L. R., & Matthews, J. R. (1997). Insects as teaching tools in primary and secondary education. Annual Review of Entomology, 42, 269- 289. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.42.1.269 McElderry, R. M., Salvato, M. H., & Horvitz, C. C. (2015). Population viability models for an endangered endemic subtropical butterfly: Effects of density and fire on population dynamics and risk of extinction. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24, 1589-1608. doi:10.1007/s10531-015-0877-9 Miller, J. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(8), 430-434. doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013 Minno, M. C. (2014). Butterflies of Southeast Florida: A guide to common and notable species. Florida: Quick Reference Publishing. Minno, M. C., & Emmel, T. C. (1993). Butterflies of the Florida Keys. Florida: Scientific Publishers. Moore, J. R. (2004). 50 years after Brown: Segregation in the Miami-Dade County public schools. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(3), 289-301. doi.org/10.1080/10665680490491029 Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40, 120-123. Oliver, T., Roy, D. B., Hill, J. K., Brereton, T., & Thomas, C. D. (2010). Heterogeneous landscapes promote population stability. Ecology Letters, 13(4), 473–84. doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01441.x file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1080/15330150701319388 doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.42.1.269 doi:10.1007/s10531-015-0877-9 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1080/10665680490491029 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01441.x Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 58 Pe’er, G., & Settele, J. (2008). Butterflies in and for conservation: Trends and prospects. Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution, 54, 7-17. Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 23–29. doi.org/10.3102/0013189X022002023 Pyle, R. (2002). Eden in a vacant lot: Special places, species and kids in community of life. In P. H. Kahn & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural and evolutionary investigations (pp. 305-327). Massachusetts: MIT Press. Quade, D. (1967). Rank analysis of covariance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, 1187-1200. Rader, R., Bartomeus, I., Garibaldi, L. A., Garratt, M. P. D., Howlett, B. G., Winfree, R., ... & Woyciechowski, M. (2016). Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 146-151. doi:10.1073/pnas.1517092112 Ramírez-Restrepo, L., Koi, S., & MacGregor-Fors, I. (2017). Tales of urban conservation: Eumaeus butterflies and their threatened cycad hostplants. Urban Ecosystems, 20, 375-378. Revathy, V. S., Mathew, G., & Narayanankutty, T. P. (2014). Role of recreated habitats in butterfly conservation: A case study at Thenmala, Kerala, India. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 34(4), 287-295. doi.org/10.1017/S1742758414000472 Rohlf, D. J. (1991). Six biological reasons why the Endangered Species Act doesn't work—and what to do about it. Conservation Biology, 5(3), 273-282. doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00139.x Rosenzweig, M. L. (2003). Win-win ecology: How Earth's species can survive in the midst of human enterprise. New York: Oxford University Press. Rudd, H., Vala, J. & Schaefer, V. (2002). Importance of backyard habitat in a comprehensive biodiversity conservation strategy: A connectivity analysis of urban green spaces. Restoration Ecology, 10(2), 368-375. doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.2002.02041.x Salvato, M. H. (2003). Butterfly conservation and host plant fluctuations: The relationship between Strymon acis bartrami and Anaea troglodyta floridalis on Croton linearis in Florida (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae and Nymphalidae). Holarctic Lepidoptera, 10, 53-57. Schultz, C. B., & Dlugosch, K. M. (1999). Nectar and hostplant scarcity limit populations of an endangered Oregon butterfly. Oecologia, 119, 231-238. doi.org/10.1007/s004420050781 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.3102/0013189X022002023 doi:10.1073/pnas.1517092112 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1017/S1742758414000472 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00139.x https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.2002.02041.x file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1007/s004420050781 Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 59 Settlage, J., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Teaching science to every child: Using culture as a starting point. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Smith, D. S., Miller, L. D., Miller, J. Y., & Lewington, R. (1994). The butterflies of the West Indies and South Florida. New York: Oxford University Press. Snyder, J. R., Herndon, A., & Robertson, W. B. Jr. (1990). South Florida rockland. In R. L. Myers & J. J. Ewel (Eds.), Ecosystems of Florida (pp. 230-277). Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida. Sobel, D. (2005). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms & communities. Massachusetts: The Orion Society. Sumner, S., Law, G., & Cini, A. (2018). Why we love bees and hate wasps. Ecological Entomology, 43(6), 836-845. doi.org/10.1111/een.12676 Taki, H., & Kevan, P. G. (2007). Does habitat loss affect the communities of plants and insects equally in plant–pollinator interactions? Preliminary findings. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16, 3147-3161. doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007- 9168-4 Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 46. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Tatarchuk, S., & Eick, C. (2011). Outdoor integration: Looking to nature to accentuate science and language arts connections. Science & Children, 48, 35-39. United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2017). Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System. Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=I016. Vickery, M. L. (1995). Gardens: The neglected habitat. In A. S. Pullin (Ed.), Ecology and conservation of butterflies (pp. 123-134). Netherlands: Chapman & Hall. Wagner, D. L., & Van Driesche, R. G. (2010). Threats posed to rare or endangered insects by invasions of nonnative species. Annual Review of Entomology, 55, 547-568. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-112408-085516 Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (1999). School gardening: Improving environmental attitudes of children through hands-on learning. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 17, 180-184. Wandersee, J. H., & Schussler, E. E. (1999). Preventing plant blindness. The American Biology Teacher, 61(2), 84-86. doi:10.2307/4450624 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1111/een.12676 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9168-4 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9168-4 http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=I016 file:///D:/Documents/CYE/30(2)/Articles/Plugging%20Students%20In_Clayborn/doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-112408-085516 doi:10.2307/4450624 Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 60 Wells, N. M., & Lekies, K. S. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Children, Youth and Environments, 16, 1-24. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.16.1.0001 Whelan, K. R. T., & Atkinson, A. (2015). Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly (Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus) habitat enhancement in Biscayne National Park. South Florida Coastal Program Project Progress Report. Florida: National Park Service SFCN. Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 61 Appendix A. Pre-Study Test: Butterflies, Gardens, and Conservation Use vocabulary from the box below that best completes each statement (1 - 6) 1) A(n) _________ is the combination of living and non-living things and their interactions. 2) When the last animal of a species dies, the species becomes ____________________. 3) A(n) ___________________ is a chemical used to kill harmful insects. 4) An animal without a backbone is a(n) ____________________. 5) Butterflies lay their eggs on ____________________ which provide food for caterpillars. 6) ___________________ are globally imperiled areas found only in south Florida, the Bahamas, and Turks and Caicos. Short Answers 7) What changes in a habitat would cause butterfly populations to decrease? 8) What would you add to your garden to attract monarch butterflies? 9) What does it mean for an animal to be imperiled? 10) What is the difference between a caterpillar and an adult butterfly? 11) Name two countries near (very close) south Florida that have similar plants and insects. Multiple Choice Choose the letter that best completes the statement or answers the question 12) Butterflies are considered pollinators, what are pollinators? a. Flight behavior used to escape predators b. An animal that transfers pollen from one flower to another flower c. Plants that use wind to disperse their pollen d. Ascended Saiyan who defeated Cell 13) The host plant for the Florida leafwing (butterfly) is the pineland croton plant which grows in a globally imperiled ecosystem in south Florida known to be rocky, what is the correct name for the ecosystem? a. Hardwood Hammock b. Pine Rockland c. Cypress Dome d. Pine Flatwoods Pine Rockland Host Plant Hardwood Hammock Pesticide Extinct Endemic Invertebrate Ecosystem Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 62 14) What would be harmful to a butterfly in your garden? a. Allowing some weeds to grow in the garden b. Watering the plants c. Releasing snakes into your garden d. Spraying the plants with pesticides 15) Photosynthesis is the process plants use __________ to make sugar for food. What do plants need to make food and oxygen? a. Air, Leaves, Soil, and Roots b. Sunlight, Soil, and Clouds c. Sunlight, Water, and Carbon Dioxide d. Sunlight, Water, Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen Cause and Effect 16) Fill in the missing cause and effect Cause It does not rain for four months at the school's butterfly garden Effect The Schaus' swallowtail butterfly becomes in danger of extinction http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QfmjgRFkcRk/UXMz0u06PYI/AAAAAAAAGbo/4hpF5NSNn6s/s1600/photosynthesis_diagram.jpg Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 63 17) Label each picture below in order from beginning to end by writing the different stages (1st Stage, 2nd Stage, 3rd Stage, 4th Stage). 18) Identify which picture below represents a host plant or nectar plant by writing the correct name below each picture (host plant or nectar plant). A) ___________________ B) ____________________ C) ________________________ A B C http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/butterfly/msg0616572221454.0617010427284.jpg Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 64 Appendix B. Post-Study Test: Butterflies, Gardens, and Conservation Use vocabulary from the box below that best completes each statement (1 - 6) 1) When the last animal of a species dies, the species becomes ____________________. 2) A(n) ___________________ species is an organism native or restricted to a certain country or area (found nowhere else). 3) A(n) ___________________ is a chemical used to kill harmful insects. 4) An animal without a backbone is a(n) ____________________. 5) ___________________ are globally imperiled areas found only in south Florida, the Bahamas, and Turks and Caicos. 6) The Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly lives in a ________________________ which is a forest habitat characterized by dense stands of hardwood, broad-leafed trees. Short Answers 7) What changes in a habitat would cause butterfly populations to increase? 8) What would you add to your garden to attract monarch butterflies? 9) The Schaus’ swallowtail butterfly population has decreased over time to very low numbers. Should the butterfly be listed as imperiled, briefly explain? 10) What is the difference between a caterpillar and an adult butterfly? 11) Name two countries near (very close) Florida that have similar plants and animals. Multiple Choice Choose the letter that best completes the statement or answers the question 12) Butterflies are considered pollinators, what are pollinators? a. Flight behavior used to escape predators b. An animal that transfers pollen from one flower to another flower c. Plants that use wind to disperse their pollen d. Ascended Saiyan who defeated Cell Pine Rockland Host Plant Hardwood Hammock Pesticide Extinct Endemic Invertebrate Ecosystem Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 65 13) The host plant for the Bartram’s scrub-hairsteak (butterfly) is the pineland croton plant which grows in a globally imperiled ecosystem in south Florida known to be rocky, what is the correct name for the ecosystem? a. Hardwood Hammock b. Pine Rockland c. Cypress Dome d. Pine Flatwoods 14) What would be harmful to a butterfly in your garden? a. Allowing some weeds to grow in the garden b. Watering the plants c. Releasing snakes into your garden d. Spraying the plants with pesticides 15) Photosynthesis is the process plants use __________ to make sugar for food. What do plants need to make food and oxygen? a. Sunlight, Soil, and Clouds b. Sunlight, Water, and Carbon Dioxide c. Air, Leaves, Soil, and Roots d. Sunlight, Water, Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen Cause and Effect 16) Fill in the missing causes and effects Cause People spray lots of pesticides in their front and backyard Effect Students observe many monarch butterflies in their backyard http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QfmjgRFkcRk/UXMz0u06PYI/AAAAAAAAGbo/4hpF5NSNn6s/s1600/photosynthesis_diagram.jpg Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 66 17) Label each picture below in order from beginning to end by writing the different stages (1st Stage, 2nd Stage, 3rd Stage, 4th Stage). 18) Identify which pictures below represent a butterfly, moth or skipper by writing the correct name below each picture (Butterfly, Moth or Skipper). A) _________________________ B) ____________________________ C) _______________________ A B C Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 67 Appendix C. Survey Statements and Interview Questions All students (n = 120) in the experimental and control groups at each school (Air Base K-8 Center, North Hialeah Elementary, Whispering Pines Elementary) were administered pre- study and post-study survey statements. A total of 48 students (16 students at each school, 8 students per treatment) participated in pre- and post-interviews. Teacher _______________ What is your age? _______ What is your ethnic background (or origin)? Do you have a garden outside of school? Yes or No If yes, what kind (or type) of garden? ____________ What type of place do you live in (please circle one below)? House Apartment Condo Other ___________ Survey Statements 1) I like to learn about animals. 2) I like to learn about insects. 3) I like to learn about plants. 4) I like to learn about the environment 5) Insects are important to the environment. 6) Plants are important to the environment. 7) Animals are important to the environment. 8) Animals are easily harmed by people. 9) Plants are easily harmed by people. 10) Insects are easily harmed by people. 11) The environment is easily harmed by people. 12) I would give some of my money to help save animals. 13) I would give some of my money to help save insects. 14) I would give some of my money to help save plants and trees. 15) I would give some of my money to help save butterflies. 16) I would give some of my money to help save bees. 17) I like to spend time in places that have bees. 18) I like to spend time in places that have plants. 19) I like to spend time in places that have animals. 20) I like to spend time in places that have insects. 21) I like to spend time in places that have butterflies. 22) It makes me sad to see buildings and homes where plants and animals used to be. 23) I would like to help clean up the environment in my neighborhood. 24) People need animals to live. 25) People need plants and trees to live. 26) People need insects to live. 27) People need butterflies to live. 28) People need bees to live. Interview Questions 1) What kind of activities do you enjoy doing outdoors? 2) What kind of activities do you like to do indoors? 3) How much time do you spend outside during school? Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 68 4) How much time do you spend outside after school? 5) Can you describe a butterfly garden? 6) Name some things you need to attract butterflies to a garden? 7) Do you have a garden outside of school? 8) (If yes to #7) Tell me about some of the plants in your garden. 9) Would it be easy or difficult for animals and plants to survive in your neighborhood, briefly explain? 10) Describe some reasons butterflies and other insects are disappearing, going extinct. 11) Would you recommend a butterfly garden to a friend? Can you explain? Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 69 Appendix D. Quade’s rank analysis of covariance was used to analyze survey results. Post- survey score was the dependent variable, pre-survey score was the covariate with the influence of gardens present at the place of residence before the study commenced, intervention of taking host and nectar plants home, and type of students’ residence as independent variables. We tested type of residence for all schools; however, we did not test it for individual schools due to small sample size. Factor 1 – Stewardship #12 I would give some of my money to help save animals. #14 I would give some of my money to help save plants and trees. #23 I would like to help clean up the environment in my neighborhood. Factor 2 – Learning Interest (Nature) #1 I like to learn about animals. #3 I like to learn about plants. #4 I like to learn about the environment. Factor 3 – Insects #2 I like to learn about insects. #20 I like to spend time in places that have insects. Factor 4 – Interconnectedness (Bee and Plants) #6 Plants are important to the environment. #28 People need bees to live. Factor 6 – Anthropogenic Harm #8 Animals are easily harmed by people. #9 Plants are easily harmed by people. #11 The environment is easily harmed by people. All Schools Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance Stewardship Intervention 451.077 1 451.077 0.384 0.537 Residence 3628.042 1 3628.042 1.568 0.213 Garden at Residence 103.698 1 103.698 0.088 0.767 Learning Interest (Nature) Intervention 23.124 1 23.124 0.019 0.889 Residence 418.668 1 418.668 0.175 0.840 Garden at Residence 33.724 1 33.724 0.028 0.867 Insects Intervention 1048.373 1 1048.373 0.889 0.348 Residence 68.363 1 68.363 0.029 0.972 Garden at Residence 735.246 1 735.246 0.622 0.432 Interconnectedness (Bees and Plants) Intervention 1449.649 1 1449.649 1.298 0.257 Residence 2641.917 1 2641.917 1.184 0.310 Garden at Residence 4031.248 1 4031.248 3.683 0.057 Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 70 Anthropogenic Harm Intervention 708.809 1 708.809 0.602 0.439 Residence 3186.678 1 3186.678 1.367 0.259 Garden at Residence 530.940 1 530.940 0.451 0.503 Air Base K-8 Center Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance Stewardship Intervention 183.083 1 183.083 1.329 0.256 Garden at Residence 68.882 1 68.882 0.490 0.488 Learning Interest (Nature) Intervention 21.712 1 21.712 0.155 0.696 Garden at Residence 5.393 1 5.393 0.038 0.846 Insects Intervention 1.092 1 1.092 0.008 0.931 Garden at Residence 42.212 1 42.212 0.298 0.588 Interconnectedness (Bees and Plants) Intervention 2.364 1 2.364 0.019 0.890 Garden at Residence 4.995 1 4.995 0.041 0.841 Anthropogenic Harm Intervention 93.283 1 93.283 0.694 0.410 Garden at Residence 106.634 1 106.634 0.795 0.378 North Hialeah Elementary Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance Stewardship Intervention 9.892 1 9.892 0.079 0.780 Garden at Residence 18.018 1 18.018 0.144 0.706 Learning Interest (Nature) Intervention 43.925 1 43.925 0.361 0.552 Garden at Residence 20.354 1 20.354 0.166 0.686 Insects Intervention 251.296 1 251.296 2.177 0.149 Garden at Residence 13.323 1 13.323 0.109 0.743 Interconnectedness (Bees and Plants) Intervention 289.663 1 289.663 2.468 0.125 Garden at Residence 320.376 1 320.376 2.749 0.106 Anthropogenic Harm Intervention 55.336 1 55.336 0.445 0.509 Garden at Residence 14.691 1 14.691 0.117 0.734 Whispering Pines Elementary Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance Stewardship Intervention 6.073 1 6.073 2.146 0.151 Garden at Residence 5.654 1 5.654 1.948 0.171 Plugging Students into Nature through Butterfly Gardening… 71 Learning Interest (Nature) Intervention 0.011 1 0.011 0.542 0.466 Garden at Residence 0.012 1 0.012 0.550 0.463 Insects Intervention 5.125 1 5.125 2.186 0.148 Garden at Residence 0.079 1 0.079 0.033 0.856 Interconnectedness (Bees and Plants) Intervention 6.185 1 6.185 8.213 0.007* Garden at Residence 0.073 1 0.073 0.080 0.778 Anthropogenic Harm Intervention 15.608 1 15.608 6.155 0.018* Garden at Residence 0.487 1 0.487 0.167 0.686