© 2021 Children, Youth and Environments Children, Youth and Environments 31(1), 2021 Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science Education, Environmental Education, and Outdoor Science Education S. Brent Jackson Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program, North Carolina State University Kathryn Stevenson Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism Management, North Carolina State University M. Nils Peterson Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program, North Carolina State University Danielle F. Lawson College of Health and Human Development & College of Education, The Pennsylvania State University Ryan A. Olson Muddy Sneakers E. Garland Joseph Lewis and Clark College Citation: Jackson, S. B., Stevenson, K., Peterson, M. N., Lawson, D. F., Olson, R. A., & Joseph, E. G. (2021). Lasting conservation and science-related outcomes associated with science education, environmental education, and outdoor science education. Children, Youth and Environments, 31(1), 116-145. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi Abstract Science and environmental education may promote life-long engagement in science and environmental conservation. We used hierarchical multiple linear regression to investigate how childhood participation in science education, environmental education, and outdoor science education interact to encourage long-term participation in science and support for local environments. Our survey of 231 high school students in North Carolina suggests outdoor science education is positively associated with enjoying time outdoors (p = 0.065) and the perception of the value of local natural resources (p = 0.021) four to seven years later. We also found support for science confidence following a science education program (p = 0.004). Keywords: environmental education, science education, outdoor science education, natural resources, science confidence http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 117 To address current environmental challenges, we need citizens who understand the science of complex environmental problems, have the skills to address them, and are motivated to do so. Environmental challenges including biodiversity loss (Cardinale et al., 2012) and climate change (IPCC, 2018) represent pressing global issues with potentially devastating repercussions. These are complex problems requiring a scientifically and environmentally literate citizenry. Scientific literacy includes scientific knowledge, dispositions, skills, and behaviors (Laugksch, 2000; OECD, 2014). Environmental literacy includes parallel constructs, but emphasizes affective (e.g., pro-environmental attitudes) and behavioral dimensions (Hollweg et al., 2011), and is often developed through nature-based learning (Ballantyne & Packer, 2002; Kuo, Barnes, & Jordan, 2019). In short, scientific literacy includes what people know and can do about science, and environmental literacy includes a focus on what people know and how people feel and act with regard to the environment. Perhaps because the fields have developed in parallel, science education (SE) and environmental education (EE) can result in synergistic benefits for learners. These fields have distinct instructional approaches, with SE efforts most often situated in formal settings like classrooms and focusing on outcomes related to knowledge and skills, and EE efforts focusing more on outcomes related to affect and behavior in non-formal and informal settings like the outdoors (Dillon & Scott, 2002; Gough, 2002; Littledyke, 2008; Wals, Brody, Dillon, & Stevenson, 2014). Despite these differences, SE and EE have been intertwined for decades, creating significant overlap (Wals et al., 2014). For instance, SE was presented as the primary tool for solving environmental problems (Gough, 2002), early conceptualizations of EE emphasized science learning (e.g., the Tbilisi Declaration; UNESCO, 1977), and, when included in formal settings, EE is typically conducted in conjunction with science instruction rather than other subjects such as social studies, English, or art (Gough, 2002; Rickinson, 2001). Outdoor science education (OSE) explicitly bridges SE and EE by focusing on science content knowledge while simultaneously encouraging pro-environmental attitudes (Carrier et al., 2014; Cronin-Jones, 2000), creating an opportunity to foster both SE- and EE- related outcomes. When SE and EE approaches are employed in tandem through OSE, they may result in long-term gains for both science and environmental literacy outcomes. Specifically, OSE may boost science learning (Cronin-Jones, 2000; Rios & Brewer, 2014), provide context that reinforces recollection of long-term content knowledge (Carrier et al., 2014; Dillon & Scott, 2002; Falk & Dierking, 2010), and promote pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (Ballantyne & Packer, 2005; Bogner, 1998). Research suggests that these synergistic benefits of OSE can result in retention of program content knowledge as well as pro-environmental attitudes up to three months after an OSE experience (Dettmann-Easler & Pease, 1999; Stern, Powell, & Ardoin, 2008). Previous qualitative research focused on the persistence of outcomes demonstrates that OSE experiences can generate vivid memories and perceived pro-environmental attitudes that persist up to a year following an intervention (Farmer, Knapp, & Benton, 2007). More recent research focused on the efficacy of outdoor learning highlights its role in improving student scores on academic assessments across multiple disciplines including science (Dillon et al., Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 118 2016). Carrier and colleagues (2014) found adults were more likely to recall science lessons from their childhood when the lessons occurred outside. Similarly, although EE traditions often emphasize affective learning (Iozzi, 1989; Littledyke, 2008), knowledge-based SE approaches may reinforce EE outcomes. Knowledge alone does not lead to conservation behaviors, but it does play a role (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Similarly, knowledge alone is not a direct driver of behavior, but is essential to sound environmental decision-making (Frisk & Larson, 2011). Further, significant life experience research has identified knowledge-based activities including relevant readings and coursework as influential in life-long environmental engagement (Chawla, 1998; Tanner, 1980). Early interventions are most likely to promote long-term gains in science and environmental literacy. Early learning experiences may change general attitudes and orientations including science interest and motivation (Bruce, Bruce, Conrad, & Huang, 1997; Eshach & Fried, 2005; Tyler-Wood, Ellison, Lim, & Periathiruvadi, 2012) and environmental sensitivity (Chawla, 1998; Peterson, 1982), which may lead to life-long patterns in behaviors such as pursuing a STEM major in college (Maltese & Tai, 2010; Prévot, Clayton, & Mathevet, 2018) and environmental action (Lester, Ma, Lee, & Lambert, 2007), respectively. For instance, childhood SE experiences may lead children to develop positive attitudes toward and interest in science (Eshach & Fried, 2005; Randler & Hulde, 2007), which promote long-term engagement with science (Crawley & Black 1992; Maltese & Tai, 2010). Within the context of EE, interventions early in life play an important role in the development of “life-long attitudes, values, and patterns of behavior toward natural environments” (Wilson, 1996, p. 2). Wells and Lekies (2006) suggest participation in nature-based activities as a child leads to pro-environmental attitudes and to some degree, pro-environmental behavior among adults. Heberlein (2012) strengthens the argument for working with children by suggesting that their attitudes are more susceptible to change than those of adults. What is less understood is the degree to which short-term synergistic benefits of blending SE and EE approaches persist as learners’ age. Much of the previous research on long-term impacts of SE and EE has focused on single domains, such as the perceived benefits of childhood outdoor experiences on life-long environmental engagement (Chawla, 1999; Wells & Lekies, 2006) or early science interventions in building science competencies that translate to sustained interest and motivation regarding science (Eshach & Fried, 2005; Tyler-Wood et al., 2012). Research focused on citizen science efforts that include elements of both SE and EE demonstrate the short-term synergistic potential of OSE (Lewandowski & Oberhauser, 2017; Schuttler, Sorensen, Jordan, Cooper, & Shwartz, 2018), but additional research is needed to explore how these relationships may continue to support one another over time. A review of nature-based citizen science literature conducted by Schuttler and colleagues (2018) highlights SE outcomes such as increased science knowledge, and EE outcomes including increased engagement with nature and the development of an emotional connection with nature, but Schuttler et al. found no studies that examine these variables over time. While OSE may simultaneously build science efficacy and connection to nature (Carrier et al., 2014), we do not know the degree to which that experience will continue to lead to Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 119 long-term outcomes such as interest in science careers or support for conservation. Identifying the degree to which key childhood experiences reinforce both SE and EE outcomes may shed light on how to maximize early interventions to foster a citizenry that has the scientific know-how and deep commitment to addressing environmental challenges. This study seeks to improve our understanding of the mutualistic and long-term impacts of SE, EE, and OSE through a case study of high school students in western North Carolina. We measured the presence of potential intermediate affect-related outcomes (i.e., science confidence, enjoying time outdoors) and long-term behavioral outcomes (i.e., pursuit of a STEM major in college, support for local natural resources) from differing education programs. This approach differs from the methodology of several retrospective studies, which have asked adult participants to self-identify the linkages between experiences and their commitment to the environment as demonstrated by career choice or specific actions (Chawla, 1999, 2007; James, Bixler, & Vadala, 2010; Palmer, Suggate, Robottom & Hart, 1999; Tanner, 1980). These studies may be subject to recall and selection biases, as long-term retrospective recall has been identified as a poor measurement of actual events (Golden, Wrangham, & Brashares, 2013). The present study reduces recall bias by engaging adolescents, versus adults, who are closer in age to participation in the educational programs. It limits selection bias by engaging a broad sample of high school students who were not chosen based on exhibiting extraordinary interest and engagement with the environment. We tested five hypotheses: • H1: Participation in a multi-year long SE program in high school will be positively related to the intention to pursue a STEM major in college, as mediated by individuals’ science confidence. • H2: Participation in a multi-year long EE program will be positively related to support for local natural resources, which will be mediated by enjoying time outdoors. • H3: Participation in a yearlong OSE program in fifth grade will be positively related to the intention to pursue a STEM major in college and support for natural resources in high school, which will be mediated by science confidence and enjoying time outdoors, respectively. • H4: Enjoying time outdoors will strengthen the positive relationship between science confidence and the intention to pursue a STEM major in college. • H5: Science confidence will strengthen the positive relationship between enjoying time outdoors and support for natural resources. Methods Sampling This study sampled high school students, as this group includes emerging adulthood developmental stages, when identities and worldviews are beginning to solidify and influence life paths and career trajectories (Arnett, 2000; Kroger, Martinussen, & Marcia, 2010). Additionally, the high school years (i.e., ages 14-18) are proximate enough to childhood that the recalled memories of childhood Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 120 experiences may be more accurate than those of adults (Brewin, Andrews, & Gotlib, 1993; Halverson, 1988; Stevenson et al., 2014). We surveyed students from two high schools in Transylvania County located in western North Carolina through May and June of 2017. The high schools were selected because the students in these schools would have participated in the OSE program included in this study if they lived in the area during fifth grade, as well as had opportunity to participate in the EE and SE programs of interest. The guidance counseling office at each high school emailed their respective student bodies with a request to complete our survey. In addition, a student volunteer at one of the high schools visited individual classes to encourage students to complete the survey. The possible sample included 1,068 students (731 at school A and 337 at school B), with a total of 186 students responding from school A (25% response rate) and 45 students responding from school B (13% response rate) for a total of 231 responses (22% response rate). Our sample included ninth-grade students (n=51), tenth-grade students (n= 55), eleventh-grade students (n=70), and twelfth-grade students (n=55). A majority (64.1%) of the responding students identified as female (n=148), 32.5% identified as male (n=75), and 3.5% identified as other (n=8). The sample was primarily comprised of students identifying as White (n=186, 85.7%), with fewer Hispanic (n=4, 1.8%), Black (n=4, 1.8%), Asian (n=3, 1.4%), Native American (n=2, 0.9%), and mixed ethnicity students (n=17, 12.8%). Due to the small sample size race was broken into two categories in our analysis with students identifying as White being categorized as White and all other students being categorized as non- White. The socio-economic status of the schools was evaluated by determining the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (Nicholson, Slater, Chriqui, & Chaloupka, 2014). School A had 291 students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, accounting for nearly 40% of the student population, whereas school B had 148 eligible students, accounting for nearly 44% of the student population. Choice of Activities For this study, we assessed whether students participated in programs exemplifying SE, EE, and OSE. The three programs we asked students about were Time 4 Real Science (SE), scouting (i.e., Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts; EE), and Muddy Sneakers (OSE) (see Table 1). Time 4 Real Science is an after-school SE program for high school students, representing a partnership between the local school district and the county 4H Youth Development program. Participants are ninth through twelfth graders who spend 250 hours during and after school conducting scientific research in partnership with teachers and volunteer scientists from the community (Time 4 Real Science, 2019). Participation in the Time 4 Real Science Program varies so some of the students may have been actively involved in the program at the time they completed the survey for this study. In this study, scouting includes participating in either the Boy Scouts of America or the Girl Scouts of the USA. Individuals can participate in scouting from kindergarten through high school (Boy Scouts of America, 2019; Girl Scouts, 2019). Scouts cover a wide range of topics with emphasis on providing “leadership development Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 121 experiences” (Girl Scouts, 2019) as well as youth development and character building (Boy Scouts of America, 2019). Both organizations offer several experiences related to enjoying and appreciating natural resources (Boy Scouts of America, 2019; Girl Scouts, 2019). It is possible that participants in this study were actively involved with Scouts at the time they completed the survey, or that their involvement ended several years prior. Muddy Sneakers teaches fifth-grade science curriculum through experiential learning in local natural settings. The program is integrated into participating fifth- grade public schools in the western and Piedmont regions of the Carolinas. Students participating in the program spend six to ten full school days over the course of the school year in local natural areas engaging in nature-based scientific inquiry focused around the core concepts of the state science curricula (Muddy Sneakers, n.d.). As Muddy Sneakers was operating in all of the Transylvania County elementary schools at the time when the respondents were in fifth grade, our high school study participants likely participated in Muddy Sneakers if they attended one of the county’s elementary schools. Participation in the Muddy Sneakers program would have concluded four to seven years before the survey for this study was administered. Of the three programs, Muddy Sneakers is the only program that is mandatory as it is incorporated into the normal school day. Time 4 Real Science and scouting are both voluntary programs that students can sign up for outside of normal school hours. Though this does represent program variability, it offers an opportunity to contextualize how OSE among a general student population (i.e., not self-selected) may promote SE and EE outcomes as compared with those who self-select, who we might expect to report greater scores on respective outcome variables. Some respondents participated in more than one program; in such instances our study counted them for each program in which they participated. Table 1. Program descriptions, participation age, duration, and enrollment type Programs Program description Participation age range Duration Voluntary/integrated Time 4 Real Science (SE) After school research-oriented SE program 14-18 year olds 250 hours Voluntary opt-in enrollment Scouting (EE) After school EE focused program 5-18 year olds Dependent on individual but typically meet once a week Voluntary opt-in enrollment Muddy Sneakers (OSE) In school OSE in a local natural area 10-11 year olds 6-10 school days Integrated into school field trips for all fifth graders Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 122 We chose these programs for both their availability within the study area as well as their inclusion of approaches linked to our variables of interest. Here, we outline distinctive approaches to which the literature points as emblematic of SE or EE. Note that these approaches are not mutually exclusive (e.g., SE can occur outdoors, EE can employ SE practices), but rather reflect associated emphases from these educational traditions (Gough, 2002; Wals et al., 2014). Time 4 Real Science includes key attributes of impactful SE: starting during childhood (Eshach & Fried, 2005; Maltese & Tai, 2010; Tyler-Wood et al., 2012), allowing for student-directed learning where students can pursue experiences that interest them, and allowing students to make direct connections to their own lives (Carrier & Stevenson, 2017; Dierking, Falk, Rennie, Anderson, & Ellenbogen, 2003; Lawson et al., 2018; Lindemann- Matthies, 2005; Renninger, 2006) (Table 2). Key outcomes of the Time 4 Real Science program are to develop science-related skills and prepare students to become scientists. Time 4 Real Science has been active in the study area since 2006 and partners with the 4H youth development program. Scouting includes key attributes of impactful EE: starting during childhood (Braun & Dierkes, 2017; Wells & Lekies, 2006), using outdoor settings (Braun & Dierkes, 2017; Cronin-Jones, 2000; Martin, 2003), providing opportunities for participants to interact with positive role models (Chawla, 1999; Tanner, 1980), and having longer duration or repeated interventions (Bogner, 1998; Braun & Dierkes, 2017; Cronin-Jones, 2000; Rickinson, 2001; Stern et al., 2008) (Table 2). Scouts have been active in the study area for 100 years (Boy Scouts of America: Daniel Boone Council, 2020). Key outcomes associated with scouting include character development, hands-on learning, and building an appreciation for the natural world. Muddy Sneakers includes all of the attributes listed for both Time 4 Real Science and scouting (Carrier & Stevenson, 2017; Carrier et al., 2014; Priest, 1986) (Table 2). Key outcomes associated with Muddy Sneakers include teaching state science curriculum through outdoor experiences and developing an affective relationship with local natural resources. Table 2. Key attributes supporting educational approaches Educational Approaches Best Practices Supporting Literature Science Education Connection to students’ lives Carrier & Stevenson, 2017 Childhood experiences Eshach & Fried, 2005; Maltese & Tai, 2010; Stake & Mares, 2001; Tyler-Wood et al., 2012 Free-choice learning and learner-centered environments Ballantyne & Packer, 2005; Carrier & Stevenson, 2017; Dierking et al., 2003; Renninger, 2006 Longer duration and/or repeated interventions Carrier & Stevenson, 2017 Environmental Education Childhood experiences Braun & Dierkes, 2017; Chawla, 1999; Dillon et al., 2016; Tanner, 1980; Vadala, Bixler, & James, 2007; Wells & Lekies, 2006 Outdoor settings Ballantyne & Packer, 2002; Carrier, 2009 Positive role models Chawla, 1999; Sivek, 2002; Sward, 1999; Tanner, 1980 Longer duration and/or repeated interventions Bogner, 1998; Braun & Dierkes, 2017; Cronin- Jones, 2000; Stern et al., 2008 Outdoor Science Education All of the above All of the above Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 123 Survey Instrument The survey instrument included questions focused on conservation and science attitudes, as well as questions about participation in specific SE, EE, and OSE programs. Respondents self-reported participation in Time 4 Real Science (SE), scouting (EE), and Muddy Sneakers (OSE) programming. We measured the intermediate SE outcome “science confidence” with a scale consisting of nine questions previously used with adolescents (Unfried, Faber, Stanhope, & Wiebe, 2015). The scale displayed acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94) and a principal component factor analysis indicated all items were associated with a single factor with factor loadings > 0.4 (Table 3) (Comrey & Lee, 2013). The scores for the nine questions were added up for a maximum composite score of 45. We used “intention to pursue a science major in college” as a long-term SE outcome. We asked participants to indicate whether they planned to go to college and if so, what was their intended major. Respondents selected from a list of common majors, and we collapsed those choices into STEM (math, physical sciences, biological sciences, and medicine) and non-STEM majors (English, economics, education, psychology, communications, and history). We measured the intermediate EE outcome enjoying time outdoors with a single question: “Are you someone who enjoys spending time in the outdoors?” and respondents indicated their level of agreement by selecting one of five responses on a Likert scale ranging from “not at all” to “very much.” The long-term EE outcome was measured by asking individuals “Do you think Transylvania County’s natural resources are important to the community?”, which was scored using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all” to “very much.” We used a single item to measure “enjoying time outdoors” and “support for local natural resources” as they captured what we were interested in and contributed to our goal of a parsimonious survey instrument. Students also self-reported grade level, gender, and race. The final survey instrument drew from previously validated instruments and was subject to expert review, as well as review by high school students to ensure its appropriateness for our target population. Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 124 Table 3. Principal component factor analysis of science confidence scale items Science confidence items Factor I am confident in science classes 0.74 I would consider a career in science 0.87 I expect to use science when I graduate from school 0.91 Knowing science will help me earn a living 0.87 I will need science for my future work 0.88 I know I can do well in science 0.79 Science will be important to me in my life’s work 0.91 I can handle most subjects well, but I struggle in science 0.48 I am sure I could do advanced work in science 0.85 Chronbach’s alpha = 0.94 Note: These items come from a previously validated scale (Unfried et al., 2015). Response items included: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree or disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree. Data Analysis We analyzed the data using STATA software, version 14.2. We tested hypotheses 1- 3 using stepwise multiple linear regression to conduct mediation analyses using the Sobel Goodman mediation test, following guidelines laid out by MacKinnon, Warsi and Dwyer (1995). We conducted mediation analyses in three steps: 1) testing in sequence the relationship between each program (Time 4 Real Science, Scouts, and Muddy Sneakers) and its relationship with intermediate outcomes (science confidence, enjoying time outdoors); 2) testing the relationship between each program and long-term outcomes (intention to pursue a STEM major, support for local natural resources); and 3) testing the relationship between each program and long-term outcomes, controlling for intermediate outcomes (Table 4). We first regressed science confidence (Step 1A, Table 6) and enjoying time outdoors (Step 1B, Table 7) on participation in the three programs. Second, we regressed intention to pursue a STEM major (Step 2A, Table 6) and support for local natural resources (Step 2B, Table 7) on participation in the three programs. Third, we regressed intention to pursue a STEM major (Step 3A, Table 6) and support for local natural resources (Step 3B, Table 7) on science confidence, enjoying time outdoors, and participation in the three programs. We tested hypotheses 4 and 5 using stepwise linear regression to conduct moderation analyses in three steps: 1) testing in sequence the relationship between each program and long-term outcomes, controlling for intermediate outcomes; 2) testing the relationship between each program and long-term outcomes, controlling for both SE and EE intermediate outcomes; and 3) testing the relationship between each program and long-term outcomes, controlling for both SE and EE intermediate Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 125 outcomes, as well as the interaction between the two intermediate outcomes (Table 5). We first regressed science confidence (Step 1C, Table 8) and enjoying time outdoors (Step 1D, Table 9) on participation in the three programs. Second, we regressed intention to pursue a STEM major (Step 2C, Table 8) and support for local natural resources (Step 2D, Table 9) on science confidence, enjoying time outdoors, and participation in three programs. Third, we regressed intention to pursue a STEM major (Step 3C, Table 8) and support for local natural resources (Step 3D, Table 9) on science confidence, enjoying time outdoors, science confidence*enjoying time outdoors, and participation in the three programs. Examining the moderating effects of intermediary outcomes allows us to explore the moderating potential of SE intermediate outcomes (science confidence) on EE long-term outcomes (support for local natural resources) and EE intermediate outcomes (enjoying time outdoors) on SE long-term outcomes (intention to pursue a STEM major). In all regression models, we controlled for demographics including the high school attended, grade level, gender, and race. Table 4. Stepwise mediation analysis Mediation Analysis Description of Analysis Steps Intent to Pursue STEM Major (Analysis A) Support for Local Natural Resources (Analysis B) Step 1: Test if program participation predicts intermediary outcome OSE + SE + EE = Science Confidence OSE + SE + EE = Enjoying Time Outdoors Step 2: Test if intermediate outcome predicts long-term outcome OSE + SE + EE = Intent to Pursue STEM Major OSE + SE + EE = Support for Local Natural Resources Step 3: Test if program participation predicts long-term outcome when controlling for intermediate outcome OSE + SE + EE + Science Confidence = Intent to Pursue STEM Major OSE + SE + EE + Enjoying Time Outdoors = Support for Local Natural Resources Note: This table provides a step-by-step roadmap of the mediation analyses. Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 126 Table 5. Stepwise moderation analysis Moderation Analysis Description of Analysis Steps Intent to Pursue STEM Major (Analysis C) Support for local Natural Resources (Analysis D) Step 1: Test if program participation predicts long-term outcome when controlling for intermediate outcome OSE + SE + EE + Science Confidence = Intent to Pursue STEM Major OSE + SE + EE + Enjoying Time Outdoors = Support for Local Natural Resources Step 2: Test if program participation predicts long-term outcome when controlling for both SE and EE intermediate outcomes OSE + SE + EE + Science Confidence + Enjoying Time Outdoors = Intent to Pursue STEM Major OSE + SE + EE + Science Confidence + Enjoying Time Outdoors = Support for Local Natural Resources Step 3: Test if program participation predicts long-term outcome when controlling for both SE and EE intermediate outcomes and the interaction between intermediate outcomes OSE + SE + EE + Science Confidence + Enjoying Time Outdoors + Science Confidence*Enjoying Time Outdoors = Intent to Pursue STEM Major OSE + SE + EE + Science Confidence + Enjoying Time Outdoors + Science Confidence*Enjoying Time Outdoors = Support for Local Natural Resources Note: This table provides a step-by-step roadmap of the moderation analyses. Results Nearly three-quarters of the students surveyed participated in Muddy Sneakers (OSE program) (n = 170, 73.59%), with fewer Scouts (EE Program) (n = 53, 22.94%) and Time 4 Real Science participants (SE program) (n = 21, 9.09%). There was overlap between the three groups with 16 students participating in both Muddy Sneakers and Time 4 Real Science, 36 students participating in Muddy Sneakers and scouts, one student participating in Time 4 Real Science and scouts, and two students participating in all three programs. Aggregate mean scores for students’ enjoyment of time outdoors was 3.85 out of 5.00 (sd = 1.11), and confidence in science was 29.40 out of 45.00 (sd = 8.18). Few students planned to major in science (n = 71, 32.13%). Support for local natural resources was 4.57 out of 5.00 (sd = 0.78). We found partial support for hypothesis 1, as participation in the SE program Time 4 Real Science predicted the intermediate SE outcome science confidence (B = 5.529; p = 0.004) (Step 1A, Table 6, Figure 1), and science confidence predicted the long-term SE outcome interest in pursuing a STEM major (B = 0.030; p < 0.001) (Step 3A, Table 6, Figure 1). Specifically, students participating in Time 4 Real Science (SE program) were 18.09% more confident on average than those that did not participate (SE = 1.908). However, science confidence did not mediate the relationship between Time 4 Real Science and interest in pursuing a STEM major, as there was no relationship between participation in Time 4 Real Science and intention to pursue a STEM major in college (Step 2A, Table 6). Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 127 We did not detect support for hypothesis 2, with no relationship between participation in the EE program scouts and the intermediate EE outcome enjoying time outdoors (Step 1B, Table 7, Figure 1) or the long-term EE outcome support for local natural resources (Step 2B, Table 7, Figure 1). We found partial support for hypothesis 3, as participation in the OSE program Muddy Sneakers served as a weak predictor for the intermediate EE outcome enjoying time outdoors (B = 0.324; p = 0.065) (Step 1B, Table 7, Figure 1), and enjoying time outdoors predicted the long-term EE outcome appreciation for local natural resources (B = 0.279; p = 0.016) (Step 3B, Table 7, Figure 1). Specifically, students participating in Muddy Sneakers reported enjoying time outdoors an average of 10.68% (SE = 0.175) more than those who did not participate and individuals that enjoyed time outdoors were on average 5.01% (SE = 0.046) more supportive of local natural resources. We did not detect a relationship between Muddy Sneakers participation and SE outcomes (Step 1A and 2A, Table 6, Figure 1). We did not find support for hypothesis 4, as the moderating relationship between enjoying time outdoors and the relationship between science confidence and intention to pursue a STEM major was marginal (B = 0.005; p = 0.091) (Step 3C, Table 8, Figure 1). We also failed to detect support for hypothesis 5, the moderating effects of science confidence on the relationship between enjoying time outdoors and support for local natural resources (Step 3D, Table 9, Figure 1). Although we did not have hypotheses associated with demographic control variables, several relationships were detected. Girls expressed a higher level of intention to choose a STEM major in college than boys across models 2A (B = 0.163; p = 0.019), 3A (B = 0.126; p = 0.035) (Table 6), and 3C (B = 0.123; p = 0.039) (Table 8). Students attending high school A and girls were more supportive of local natural resources than boys across model 2B (B = 0.252; p = 0.021), 3B (B = 0.241; p = 0.027) (Table 7), and 3D (B = 0.222; p = 0.040) (Table 9). Given that boys have been shown to demonstrate greater interest and engagement with science than girls during middle school (Catsambis, 1995), and some studies have shown that OSE may be effective at engaging girls (Tyler-Wood et al., 2012), we also tested for an interaction between girls and the OSE intervention. However, we found no moderating relationship of OSE between gender and science confidence (B = 0.951; p = 0.751) or gender and intention to pursue a STEM major (B = 0.143; p = 0.366). Although the relationships were weak, younger students expressed greater enjoyment of time outdoors (B = -0.129; p = 0.066) (Step 1B, Table 7) and students identifying as non-white expressed lower levels of enjoyment of time outdoors and support for local natural resources (B = -0.264; p = 0.086) (model 3D, Table 7). Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 128 Table 6. Mediation Analysis: factors predicting intention to choose a STEM major Science Confidence Step 1A Intention for STEM Major - Step 2A Intention for STEM Major Step 3A Beta Std. Beta p Beta Std. Beta P Beta Std. Beta p Muddy Sneakers 1.240 0.067 0.325 -0.009 -0.008 0.909 -0.044 -0.041 0.506 Scouts 1.410 0.072 0.290 0.006 0.005 0.945 -0.034 -0.030 0.628 Time 4 Real Science 5.529 0.196 0.004** 0.081 0.050 0.474 -0.079 -0.049 0.424 Science Confidence 0.030 0.523 <0.001*** High School 0.428 0.021 0.761 -0.034 -0.029 0.694 -0.043 -0.037 0.554 Grade -0.690 -0.093 0.169 -0.020 -0.046 0.512 -0.002 -0.004 0.947 Gender 1.321 0.077 0.248 0.163 0.164 0.019* 0.126 0.127 0.035* Race 0.894 0.037 0.585 0.010 0.007 0.920 -0.009 -0.006 0.918 Intercept 27.949 0.000 0.302 0.054 -0.549 0.001 P 0.043* 0.431 <0.001*** R2 0.034 <0.001 0.264 N 223 213 213 Notes: Gender (Male = 0, Female = 1), Race (White = 0, non-White = 1) + p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 Table 7. Mediation Analysis: factors predicting support for local natural resources Enjoying Time Outdoors Step 1B Support for Local NR Step 2B Support for Local NR Step 3B Beta Std. Beta p Beta Std. Beta P Beta Std. Beta p Muddy Sneakers 0.324 0.128 0.065+ 0.279 0.155 0.021* 0.243 0.135 0.044* Scouts -0.003 -0.001 0.986 0.100 0.053 0.431 0.101 0.053 0.424 Time 4 Real Science 0.160 0.041 0.547 0.325 0.118 0.076+ 0.307 0.111 0.090+ Enjoy Time Outdoors 0.112 0.157 0.016* High School -0.041 -0.015 0.836 -0.334 -0.168 0.014* -0.329 -0.166 0.014* Grade -0.129 -0.126 0.066+ 0.027 0.038 0.566 0.042 0.057 0.380 Gender 0.104 0.044 0.514 0.252 0.151 0.021* 0.241 0.144 0.027* Race 0.105 0.031 0.647 -0.240 -0.101 0.126 -0.251 -0.105 0.105 Intercept 3.905 <0.001 4.485 <0.001 4.049 <0.001 P 0.263 <0.001*** <0.001*** R2 0.009 0.081 0.101 N 223 223 223 Notes: Gender (Male = 0, Female = 1), Race (White = 0, non-White = 1) + p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 129 Table 8. Moderation Analysis: factors predicting intention to choose a STEM major Intention for STEM Major Step 1C Intention for STEM Major Step 2C Intention for STEM Major Step 3C Beta Std. Beta p Beta Std. Beta p Beta Std. Beta p Muddy Sneakers -0.044 -0.041 0.506 -0.045 -0.042 0.500 -0.042 -0.039 0.528 Scouts -0.034 -0.030 0.628 -0.033 -0.029 0.633 -0.025 -0.022 0.717 Time 4 Real Science -0.079 -0.049 0.424 -0.079 -0.049 0.425 -0.087 -0.054 0.380 Science Confidence 0.030 0.523 <0.001*** 0.030 0.521 0.000*** 0.013 0.222 0.236 Enjoy Time Outdoors 0.004 0.009 0.890 -0.126 -0.289 0.121 Science Confidence *Enjoy Time Outdoors 0.005 0.480 0.091+ High School -0.043 -0.037 0.554 -0.043 -0.037 0.556 -0.032 -0.027 0.660 Grade -0.002 -0.004 0.947 -0.001 -0.003 0.958 -0.004 -0.010 0.870 Gender 0.126 0.127 0.035* 0.126 0.126 0.036* 0.123 0.124 0.039* Race -0.009 -0.006 0.918 -0.009 -0.006 0.917 -0.010 -0.007 0.908 Intercept -0.549 <0.001 -0.560 0.003** -0.103 0.752 P <0.001 *** <0.001 *** <0.001 *** R2 0.264 0.260 0.267 N 213 213 213 Notes: Gender (Male = 0, Female = 1), Race (White = 0, non-White = 1) + p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 130 Table 9. Moderation Analysis: factors predicting support for local natural resources Support for local NR Step 1D Support for local NR Step 2D Support for local NR Step 3D Beta Std. Beta p Beta Std. Beta p Beta Std. Beta p Muddy Sneakers 0.243 0.135 0.044* 0.233 0.129 0.052 0.233 0.130 0.051+ Scouts 0.101 0.053 0.424 0.081 0.043 0.516 0.092 0.048 0.462 Time 4 Real Science 0.307 0.111 0.090+ 0.235 0.085 0.199 0.226 0.082 0.217 Enjoy Time Outdoors 0.112 0.157 0.016* 0.090 0.127 0.056 -0.083 -0.117 0.565 Science Confidence 0.014 0.139 0.038* -0.010 -0.101 0.616 Science Confidence *Enjoy Time Outdoors 0.006 0.390 0.205 High School -0.329 -0.166 0.014* -0.366 -0.169 0.012* -0.320 -0.161 0.017* Grade 0.042 0.057 0.380 0.049 0.066 0.307 0.045 0.062 0.343 Gender 0.241 0.144 0.027* 0.225 0.135 0.037* 0.222 0.133 0.040* Race -0.251 -0.105 0.105 -0.261 -0.110 0.090+ -0.264 -0.111 0.086+ Intercept 4.049 <0.001 3.751 <0.001 4.365 <0.001 P <0.001*** <0.001*** <0.001*** R2 0.101 0.115 0.117 N 223 223 223 Notes: Gender (Male = 0, Female = 1), Race (White = 0, non-White = 1); + p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 Figure 1. Programs, outcomes, and their relationships Note. This figure is a conceptual model of our mediation and moderation findings. Standardized beta coefficient values (β) are provided for significant hypothesized relationships. Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 131 Discussion Local experiences in natural settings, repeated interventions over the course of the school year, and a focus on young students (fifth grade) may explain why Muddy Sneakers participants reported slightly higher enjoyment of time outdoors and greater propensity to consider local natural resources important four to seven years after their OSE experience. A review of research focused on K-12 EE outcomes between 1994-2013 highlighted there were only six studies (18%) collecting follow- up data more than six months post intervention (Ardoin, Bowers, Roth, & Holthuis, 2018). Our results demonstrating the persistence of positive conservation-related attitudes four to seven years after participation in the Muddy Sneakers program align with previous research demonstrating persistence of similar EE outcomes three months after an OSE experience (Dettmann-Easler & Pease, 1999; Stern et al., 2008). Previous research highlights that participating in OSE instills enjoyment of time outdoors (Ewert, Place, & Sibthorp, 2005), which could contribute to the development of an eco-centric versus an anthropocentric worldview and subsequent support for conservation (Ewert et al., 2005; Wells & Lekies, 2006). Some attributes of Muddy Sneakers that likely contribute to the program’s effectiveness at generating these long-term EE outcomes include the young age at which the intervention occurs (Braun & Dierkes, 2017; Chawla, 1999; Dillon et al., 2016; Tanner, 1980; Vadala et al., 2007; Wells & Lekies, 2006), the use of local outdoor settings (Martin, 2003; Rios & Brewer, 2014), longer duration and repeated interventions (Bogner, 1998; Braun & Dierkes, 2017; Cronin-Jones, 2000; Rickinson, 2001), and use of small group sizes, which may increase the potential for an instructor to serve as a role model and provide opportunity for deep affective connections to local natural resources (Chawla, 1999; Sivek, 2002; Tanner, 1980). This study suggests previously identified OSE impacts on interest in science may diminish over time without recurring interventions. Previous studies investigating science outcomes immediately following an OSE experience identified increased science motivation and interest (Dettweiler, Ünlü, Lauterbach, Becker, & Gschrey, 2015; Zoldosova & Prokop, 2006), and increased science content knowledge related to environmental science topics (Cronin-Jones, 2000). While increased interest in science and gains in science knowledge may result in science confidence, maintaining science confidence likely relies on continued interest and regular gains in content knowledge. Previous research demonstrating students’ interest and performance in science declines throughout adolescence (Bøe, Henriksen, Lyons, & Schreiner, 2011; Linn, Lewis, Tsuchida, & Songer, 2000) may help explain why we did not find a relationship between participation in OSE and science confidence or interest in pursuing a STEM major several years later. It is possible that any gains in science confidence associated with childhood OSE may have eroded without reinforcement throughout adolescence. Future research should investigate whether repeated OSE interventions may help these outcomes persist over time. Participation in SE was associated with science confidence, but future research with participants who are not self-selecting and over longer time periods is needed to understand how this may translate to persistent interest and participation in STEM. Additionally, the small sample size for this group (n = 21) makes it difficult to draw any inferences regarding our results. Time 4 Real Science is an after-school Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 132 program for high school students that is focused on improving students’ science- related skills by pairing them with scientists from their community who help them conduct a scientific research project. Because Time 4 Real Science occurs during high school, science confidence effects were still short-term relative to those measured for Muddy Sneakers. As participation in Time 4 Real Science is voluntary, in contrast to Muddy Sneakers, it is possible that higher science confidence among Time 4 Real Science students reflected self-selection bias in addition to effects from the program (Aschbacher, Li, & Roth, 2010). However, the lack of relationship between Time 4 Real Science participation and the choosing of a science major suggests that participation did not translate that confidence towards the intention to pursue a STEM major. Another aspect to consider when comparing potential long-term impacts of OSE on science and environmental engagement is that our measure of engagement with the environment (i.e., support for local natural resources) required less personal commitment than our measure of engagement with science (i.e., choosing a STEM major). Further, the item we used could be interpreted as how much others (i.e., the community) value natural resources rather than self. However, the significant relationship found between participation in OSE and the support for natural resources suggests that aspects of the program likely fostered some sort of lasting connection with local natural resources. Future research should explore how science confidence and interest may relate to long- term science engagement outside of career choice (e.g., science hobbies; Alexander, Johnson & Kelley, 2012; Dabney et al., 2012; Jones, Corin, Andre, Childers, & Stevens, 2017) and seeking scientific evidence in decision making (Bell & Lederman, 2000). Future research should also seek to develop a more nuanced understanding of how OSE in childhood may foster lasting connections with local natural resources. High variability in scouting programming may explain the surprising lack of relationships between scouting participation and enjoyment of time outdoors or support for local natural resources. Although scouts have key attributes linked to EE, participants can choose a participation approach that spans 135 Boy Scout merit badges (Boy Scouts of America, 2019) and over 230 Girl Scout badges (Girl Scouts, 2019), many of which are not directly related to environmental education. Arguably, scouting does aim to promote substantial experiences with the outdoors (Boy Scouts of America, 2019; Girl Scouts, 2019), but at least in this case, those collective experiences may not be enough to promote enjoyment of time outdoors or appreciation for local natural resources. In contrast, we have a firm understanding of the programmatic attributes of the OSE experience related to this study. Future research should continue to explore impacts of participation in scouts, while accounting for the type of participation individuals choose. The weak moderating relationships we identified between SE and EE outcomes suggests that future research should continue to explore the potential for long-term moderating benefits of OSE on engagement with both science and the environment. Previous research suggests that OSE can promote both science learning and environmental engagement in the short term (Stern et al., 2008). Some research suggests that these benefits may be synergistic, where learning science content may promote further environmental engagement (Littledyke, 2008; Wals et al., Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 133 2014), and learning outdoors may enhance science content knowledge and skills more than learning in settings not explicitly outdoors (Carrier et al., 2014; Cronin- Jones, 2000; Rios & Brewer, 2014). Though the interactions we tested were not significant, similar studies with larger sample sizes may increase the chances of detecting these relationships, supporting the notion that OSE, or other interventions providing opportunity for engagement with science in the outdoors (e.g., nature- based citizen science; Schuttler et al., 2018), may work to strengthen life-long engagement with both science and the environment. The positive relationship between female gender and commitment to STEM majors demonstrated in our study may be explained by evidence that OSE contributes to female student engagement with science. Studies from diverse fields related to conservation and environmental education have documented more pro- environmental attitudes and behaviors among females as compared to males (Arnocky & Stroink, 2011; Karpiak & Baril, 2008; Zelezny, Chua, & Aldrich, 2000), which our study mirrored. However, research around the gender STEM gap suggests that girls are consistently less interested in science and less likely to pursue majors and careers, particularly as they age (Brotman & Moore, 2008; Tyler-Wood et al., 2012; Wang & Degol, 2017). Our results suggest a shift in female patterns of STEM participation, perhaps brought on by the numerous efforts in recent decades to mitigate a gender gap in STEM fields (Brotman & Moore, 2008; Holman, Stuart-Fox, & Hauser, 2018; Wang & Degol, 2017). Girls may also gain more interest in STEM majors as a result of OSE interventions (Tyler-Wood et al., 2012; Zoldosova & Prokop, 2006), although we did not find that relationship in our study. The unusually high interest in STEM majors among girls in our study is encouraging in light of efforts to mitigate STEM gender gaps, and our study highlights a need to monitor this issue as educational interventions attempt to address it and gender roles shift over time. Other differences detected based on age and ethnicity are consistent with previous findings, and highlight a need to improve SE and EE curricula for older and more diverse youth. Several studies suggest younger students are more engaged with science (Baram-Tsabari & Yarden, 2009; Potvin & Hasni, 2014; Simpson & Oliver, 1985) and exhibit a greater degree of environmental concern (Buttel, 1979; Liefländer & Bogner, 2014; Stevenson, Peterson, Bondell, Mertig, & Moore, 2013). The parallel findings in our study suggest continued efforts are needed to keep older students engaged in science and the environment. Encouraging efforts with older students include programs like Time 4 Real Science, and our results suggest they do work to boost science confidence. Similarly, non-White people, particularly those identifying as African American, are underrepresented in outdoor recreation (Schwartz & Corkery, 2011), as well as conservation majors (Porter & Umbach, 2006) and careers (Blockstein, 1990; Lawrence, Holland, & Morrin, 1993). Recent boosts in efforts to diversify outdoor recreation and conservation fields are also encouraging (Diversify Outdoors, 2018; Outdoor Afro, 2019), and techniques such as hiring diverse staff who may serve as potential role models (Shin, Levy, & London, 2016) and removing potential barriers (Balcarczyk, Smaldone, Selin, Pierskalla, & Maumbe, 2015; Foster, Blair, Bennett, Bynum, & Sterling, 2014; Tsui, 2007) may help strengthen underrepresented individuals’ sense of belonging in Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 134 recreation, conservation, and STEM fields. Our results suggest that SE and EE communities working with children should employ these strategies to ensure diverse stakeholders are engaged with science, the environment, and building a sustainable and just future. Conclusion This study suggests childhood OSE may help build life-long environmental engagement by promoting support for local natural resource protection up to seven years after program participation. Although we did not find parallel long-term outcomes related to science engagement, future research should continue to explore the short-term science-related benefits of OSE and the conditions under which those may persist. Periodic science-based interventions (e.g., Time 4 Real Science or similar programs) may reinforce the short-term gains related to science confidence others have found associated with childhood OSE (Cronin-Jones, 2000; Dettweiler et al., 2015; Zoldosova & Prokop, 2006). Though it should be repeated with larger sample sizes, our analytical approach of quantitatively linking experiences with intended behaviors and commitments provides new support for the notion that such experiences serve as a mechanism for the persistence of OSE outcomes. Future research should explore other SE outcomes such as content knowledge or skills to understand how OSE may impact science engagement over time. Additionally, our findings regarding the synergistic relationship between SE and EE outcomes hint at a potential relationship that may aid in the development of educational interventions that work towards addressing issues associated with the compounding problems of disinterest in science and a disconnection from the natural world. Brent Jackson is a Ph.D. student in the Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program at North Carolina State University. His research explores the role of childhood experiences in driving life-long engagement with nature. Brent’s research interests include environmental education, conservation biology, and human dimensions of natural resources. Dr. Kathryn Stevenson is an assistant professor in the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management at North Carolina State University. Both her research and teaching focus on environmental education, children & nature, and human dimensions of natural resources. Nils Peterson is a Professor of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology at North Carolina State University. His research focuses on unraveling the drivers of environmental behavior, using environmental education, conservation development, environmental conflict, and environmental policy making as natural experiments to test hypotheses. Nils received his B.S. and M.S. degrees from Texas A&M University, and his Ph.D. from Michigan State University. Additional information about his research, teaching, and service activities is on his web page: https://faculty.cnr.ncsu.edu/nilspeterson/ https://faculty.cnr.ncsu.edu/nilspeterson/ Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 135 Dr. Danielle F. Lawson is an assistant professor in the College of Health and Human Development & the College of Education at The Pennsylvania State University. Her research aims to look at how impacts of environmental education programs targeted at youth trickle up to their parents and local communities. Ryan Alexander Olson joined Muddy Sneakers as Executive Director in January 2012 after previously serving as the Assistant Director of Land Protection for the SC Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. Ryan received a B.A. from The University of the South and a J.D from the Charleston School of Law. Throughout his educational and professional career, Ryan has worked in and on behalf of the environment. Specifically, his legal studies focused on environmental, property, and land use law. He credits his summer camp experiences in western NC and later the Colorado Outward Bound School as the two most transformational experiences of his life. E. Garland Joseph is currently a history major at Lewis and Clark College. Her studies are focused on The Cold War and the different social and political events that occurred during that time. She is currently working for a project sponsored by Watzek Library Archives titled “Vietnamese Portland: Memory, History, and Community.” For the project, she studies the interconnected nature of the Vietnamese community in Portland and transcribes oral histories. References Alexander, J. M., Johnson, K. E., & Kelley, K. (2012). Longitudinal analysis of the relations between opportunities to learn about science and the development of interests related to science. Science Education, 96(5), 763–786. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21018 Ardoin, N. M., Bowers, A. W., Roth, N. W., & Holthuis, N. (2018). Environmental education and K-12 student outcomes: A review and analysis of research. Journal of Environmental Education, 49(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2017.1366155 Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469 Arnocky, S., & Stroink, M. (2011). Gender differences in environmentalism: The mediating role of emotional empathy. Current Research in Social Psychology, 16(9), 1-14. Aschbacher, P. R., Li, E., & Roth, E. J. (2010). Is science me? High school students’ identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 564–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20353 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21018 https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2017.1366155 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20353 Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 136 Balcarczyk, K. L., Smaldone, D., Selin, S. W., Pierskalla, C. D., & Maumbe, K. (2015). Barriers and supports to entering a natural resource career: Perspectives of culturally diverse recent hires. Journal of Forestry, 113(2), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.13-105 Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2002). Nature-based excursions: School students’ perceptions of learning in natural environments. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 11(3), 218–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382040208667488 Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2005). Promoting environmentally sustainable attitudes and behaviour through free-choice learning experiences: What is the state of the game? Environmental Education Research, 11(3), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620500081145 Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2009). Identifying meta-clusters of students’ interest in science and their change with age. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 999–1022. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20294 Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The nature of science in decision making: Lead role, supporting character, or out of the picture? In P. A. Rubba, J. A. Rye, P. F. Keig, & W. J. Di Biase (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2000 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (pp. 484–521). ERIC. Blockstein, D. E. (1990). AIBS News: Women and minorities--how are the AIBS societies doing? BioScience, 40(8), 607–609. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioscience/40.8.607 Bøe, M. V., Henriksen, E. K., Lyons, T., & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science and technology: Young people’s achievement-related choices in late- modern societies. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 37–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.549621 Bogner, F. X. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspective. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(4), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969809599124 Boy Scouts of America: Daniel Boone Council (2020). https://www.danielboonecouncil.org/ Boy Scouts of America (2019). https://www.scouting.org/ Braun, T., & Dierkes, P. (2017). Connecting students to nature–How intensity of nature experience and student age influence the success of outdoor education programs. Environmental Education Research, 23(7), 937–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1214866 https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.13-105 https://doi.org/10.1080/10382040208667488 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620500081145 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20294 https://doi.org/10.1093/bioscience/40.8.607 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.549621 https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969809599124 https://www.danielboonecouncil.org/ https://www.scouting.org/ https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1214866 Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 137 Brewin, C. R., Andrews, B., & Gotlib, I. H. (1993). Psychopathology and early experience: A reappraisal of retrospective reports. Psychological Bulletin, 113(1), 82–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.82 Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20241 Bruce, B. C., Bruce, S. P., Conrad, R. L., & Huang, H. J. (1997). University science students as curriculum planners, teachers, and role models in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199701)34:1<69::AID- TEA6>3.0.CO;2-M Buttel, F. H. (1979). Age and environmental concern: A multivariate analysis. Youth & Society, 10(3), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X7901000302 Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P.,... Naeem, S. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148 Carrier, S. J. (2009). Environmental education in the schoolyard: Learning styles and gender. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.40.3.2-12 Carrier, S. J., & Stevenson, K. T. (2017). Children experiencing the outdoors: A natural setting for learning. In E. Kimonen & R. Nevalainen (Eds.), Reforming teaching and teacher education (pp. 67–88). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-917-1_3 Carrier, S. J., Thomson, M. M., Tugurian, L. P., & Stevenson, K. T. (2014). Elementary science education in classrooms and outdoors: Stakeholder views, gender, ethnicity, and testing. International Journal of Science Education, 36(13), 2195–2220. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.917342 Catsambis, S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320305 Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Education, 29(3), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969809599114 Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969909598628 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.82 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20241 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199701)34:1%3c69::AID-TEA6%3e3.0.CO;2-M https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199701)34:1%3c69::AID-TEA6%3e3.0.CO;2-M https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X7901000302 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148 https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.40.3.2-12 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-917-1_3 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.917342 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320305 https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969809599114 https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969909598628 Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 138 Chawla, L. (2007). Childhood experiences associated with care for the natural world : A theoretical framework for empirical results. Children, Youth and the Environments, 17(4), 144–170. https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.17.4.0144 Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/2348352 Crawley, F. E., & Black, C. B. (1992). Causal modeling of secondary science students' intentions to enroll in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 585-599. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290607 Cronin-Jones, L. L. (2000). The effectiveness of schoolyards as sites for elementary science instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 100(4), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17257.x Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., Almarode, J. T., Miller-Friedmann, J. L., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Hazari, Z. (2012). Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in STEM. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 2(1), 63– 79. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.629455 Dettmann-Easler, D., & Pease, J. L. (1999). Evaluating the effectiveness of residential environmental education programs in fostering positive attitudes toward wildlife. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969909598630 Dettweiler, U., Ünlü, A., Lauterbach, G., Becker, C., & Gschrey, B. (2015). Investigating the motivational behavior of pupils during outdoor science teaching within self-determination theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00125 Dierking, L. D., Falk, J. H., Rennie, L., Anderson, D., & Ellenbogen, K. (2003). Policy statement of the “Informal Science Education” Ad Hoc Committe. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10066 Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2016). The value of outdoor learning: Evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. Towards a Convergence between Science and Environmental Education: The Selected Works of Justin Dillon, 87,(320), 179–185). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315730486 Dillon, J., & Scott, W. (2002). Editorial – perspectives on environmental education- related research in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1111–1117. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210137737 https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.17.4.0144 https://doi.org/10.2307/2348352 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290607 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17257.x https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.629455 https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969909598630 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00125 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10066 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315730486 Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 139 Diversify Outdoors (2018). Retrieved from https://www.diversifyoutdoors.com/about-us Eshach, H., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-7198-9 Ewert, A., Place, G., & Sibthorp, J. (2005). Early-life outdoor experiences and an individual’s environmental attitudes. Leisure Sciences, 27(3), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400590930853 Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2010). School field trips: Assessing their long-term impact. Curator: The Museum Journal, 40(3), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1997.tb01304.x Farmer, J., Knapp, D., & Benton, G. M. (2007). An elementary school environmental education field trip: Long-term effects on ecological and environmental knowledge and attitude development. Journal of Environmental Education, 38(3), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.38.3.33-42 Foster, M. J., Blair, M. E., Bennett, C., Bynum, N., & Sterling, E. J. (2014). Increasing the diversity of U.S. conservation science professionals via the society for conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 28(1), 288–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12182 Frisk, E., & Larson, K. (2011). Educating for sustainability: Competencies & practices for transformative action. Journal of Sustainability Education, 2(1), 1–20. Girl Scouts (2019). Retrieved from https://www.girlscouts.org/en/our- program/grade-levels.html Golden, C. D., Wrangham, R. W., & Brashares, J. S. (2013). Assessing the accuracy of interviewed recall for rare, highly seasonal events: The case of wildlife consumption in Madagascar. Animal Conservation, 16(6), 597–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12047 Gough, A. (2002). Mutualism: A different agenda for environmental and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1201–1215. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210136611 Halverson, C. E. (1988). Remembering your parents: Reflections on the retrospective method. Journal of Personality, 56(2), 435–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1988.tb00895.x Heberlein, T. A. (2012). Navigating environmental attitudes. Oxford University Press. https://www.diversifyoutdoors.com/about-us https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-7198-9 https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400590930853 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1997.tb01304.x https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.38.3.33-42 https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12182 https://www.girlscouts.org/en/our-program/grade-levels.html https://www.girlscouts.org/en/our-program/grade-levels.html https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12047 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210136611 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1988.tb00895.x Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 140 Hollweg, K. S., Taylor, J., Bybee, R. W., Marcinkowski, T. J., McBeth, W. C., & Zoido, P. (2011). Developing a framework for assessing environmental literacy. North American Association for Environmental Education, 122. Retrieved from http://www.naaee.net Holman, L., Stuart-Fox, D., & Hauser, C. E. (2018). The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLoS Biology, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956 Iozzi, L. A. (1989). Viewpoint: What research says to the educator part two: Environmental education and the affective domain. Journal of Environmental Education, 20(4), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1989.9943033 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C. Retireved from https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ James, J. J., Bixler, R. D., & Vadala, C. E. (2010). From play in nature, to recreation then vocation: A developmental model for natural history-oriented environmental professionals. Children, Youth and Environments, 20(1), 231– 256. https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.20.1.0231 Jones, M. G., Corin, E. N., Andre, T., Childers, G. M., & Stevens, V. (2017). Factors contributing to lifelong science learning: Amateur astronomers and birders. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(3), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21371 Karpiak, C. P., & Baril, G. L. (2008). Moral reasoning and concern for the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 203–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.12.001 Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401 Kroger, J., Martinussen, M., & Marcia, J. E. (2010). Identity status change during adolescence and young adulthood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 33(5), 683–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.002 Kuo, M., Barnes, M., & Jordan, C. (2019). Do experiences with nature promote learning? Converging evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 305. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00305 Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098- 237X(200001)84:1<71::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-C http://www.naaee.net/ https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956 https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1989.9943033 https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.20.1.0231 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21371 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.12.001 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.002 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00305 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1%3c71::AID-SCE6%3e3.0.CO;2-C https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1%3c71::AID-SCE6%3e3.0.CO;2-C Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 141 Lawrence, D. M., Holland, M. M., & Morrin, D. J. (1993). Profiles of ecologists: Results of a survey of the membership of the ecological society of America Part I—A snapshot of survey respondents. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 74, 21–35. Lawson, D. F., Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Carrier, S. J., Strnad, R., & Seekamp, E. (2018). Intergenerational learning: Are children key in spurring climate action? Global Environmental Change, 53(November), 204-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.002 Lester, B. T., Ma, L., Lee, O., & Lambert, J. (2007). Social activism in elementary science education: A science, technology, and society approach to teach global warming. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500240100 Lewandowski, E. J., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2017). Butterfly citizen scientists in the United States increase their engagement in conservation. Biological Conservation, 208, 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.029 Liefländer, A. K., & Bogner, F. X. (2014). The effects of children’s age and sex on acquiring pro-environmental attitudes through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 45(2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2013.875511 Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2005). “Loveable” mammals and “lifeless” plants: How children’s interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 655–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038116 Linn, M. C., Lewis, C., Tsuchida, I., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Beyond fourth-grade science: Why do U.S. and Japanese students diverge? Educational Researcher, 29(3), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029003004 Littledyke, M. (2008). Science education for environmental awareness: Approaches to integrating cognitive and affective domains. Environmental Education Research, 14(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701843301 MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3001_3 Maltese, A. V, & Tai, R. H. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 669–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902792385 Martin, S. C. (2003). The influence of outdoor schoolyard experiences on students’ environmental knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and comfort levels. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(2), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.002 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500240100 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.029 https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2013.875511 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038116 https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029003004 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701843301 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3001_3 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902792385 Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 142 https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173843 Muddy Sneakers (n.d.). Retrieved from https://muddysneakers.org/about/organization Nicholson, L. M., Slater, S. J., Chriqui, J. F., & Chaloupka, F. (2014). Validating adolescent socioeconomic status: Comparing school free or reduced price lunch with community measures. Spatial Demography, 2(1), 55–65. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF03354904.pdf OECD (2014). PISA 2012 in Focus: What 15-years-old know and what they can do with what they know. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf Outdoor Afro (2019). Retrieved from https://outdoorafro.com/about/ Palmer, J. A., Suggate, J., Robottom, I., & Hart, P. (1999). Significant life experiences and formative influences on the development of adults’ environmental awareness in the UK, Australia and Canada. Environmental Education Research, 5(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462990050205 Peterson, N. (1982). Developmental variables affecting environmental sensistivity in professional environmental educators. Retrieved from https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10017980690/ Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2006). College major choice: An analysis of person- environment fit. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 429–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-9002-3 Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Analysis of the decline in interest towards school science and technology from grades 5 through 11. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 784–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9512-x Prévot, A. C., Clayton, S., & Mathevet, R. (2018). The relationship of childhood upbringing and university degree program to environmental identity: Experience in nature matters. Environmental Education Research, 24(2), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1249456 Priest, S. (1986). Redefining outdoor education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 17(3), 13–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1986.9941413 Randler, C., & Hulde, M. (2007). Hands-on versus teacher-centred experiments in soil ecology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(3), 329–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140701535091 https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173843 https://muddysneakers.org/about/organization https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF03354904.pdf https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf https://outdoorafro.com/about/ https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462990050205 https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10017980690/ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-9002-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9512-x https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1249456 https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1986.9941413 https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140701535091 Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 143 Renninger, K. A. (2006). Interest and motivation in informal science learning. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpag e/dbasse_080085.pdf Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of the evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 207–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620120065230 Rios, J. M., & Brewer, J. (2014). Outdoor education and science achievement. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 13(4), 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2015.975084 Schuttler, S. G., Sorensen, A. E., Jordan, R. C., Cooper, C., & Shwartz, A. (2018). Bridging the nature gap: Can citizen science reverse the extinction of experience? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 16(7), 405–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1826 Schwartz, A., & Corkery, M. R. (2011). Barriers to participation among underrepresented populations in outdoor programs. Recreational Sports Journal, 35(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1123/rsj.35.2.130 Shin, J. E. L., Levy, S. R., & London, B. (2016). Effects of role model exposure on STEM and non-STEM student engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(7), 410–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12371 Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, J. S. (1985). Attitude toward science and achievement motivation profiles of male and female science students in grades six through ten. Science Education, 69(4), 511–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730690407 Sivek, D. J. (2002). Environmental sensitivity among wisconsin high school students. Environmental Education Research, 8(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220128220 Stake, J. E., & Mares, K. R. (2001). Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls and boys: Predictors of program impact on science confidence and motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(10), 1065– 1088. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10001 Stern, M. J., Powell, R. B., & Ardoin, N. M. (2008). What difference does it make? Assessing outcomes from participation in a residential environmental education program. Journal of Environmental Education, 39(4), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.39.4.31-43 Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Bondell, H. D., Mertig, A. G., & Moore, S. E. (2013). Environmental, institutional, and demographic predictors of environmental literacy among middle school children. PLoS ONE, 8(3), http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_080085.pdf http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_080085.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620120065230 https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2015.975084 https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1826 https://doi.org/10.1123/rsj.35.2.130 https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12371 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730690407 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220128220 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10001 https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.39.4.31-43 Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 144 59519. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059519 Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Carrier, S. J., Strnad, R. L., Bondell, H. D., Kirby-Hathaway, T., & Moore, S. E. (2014). Role of significant life experiences in building environmental knowledge and behavior among middle school students. Journal of Environmental Education, 45(3), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2014.901935 Sward, L. L. (1999). Significant life experiences affecting the environmental sensitivity of El Salvadoran environmental professionals. Environmental Education Research, 5(2), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462990050206 Tanner, T. (1980). Significant life experiences: A new research area in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 11(4), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1980.9941386 Time 4 Real Science (2019). Retrieved from https://time4realscience.org/ Tsui, L. (2007). Effective strategies to increase diversity in STEM fields: A review of the research literature. Journal of Negro Education,76(4), 555–581. Tyler-Wood, T., Ellison, A., Lim, O., & Periathiruvadi, S. (2012). Bringing Up Girls in Science (BUGS): The effectiveness of an afterschool environmental science program for increasing female students’ interest in science careers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9279-2 UNESCO (1977). The Tbilisi Declaration: Final report. Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, October, 1–96. Unfried, A., Faber, M., Stanhope, D. S., & Wiebe, E. (2015). The development and validation of a measure of student attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(7), 622–639. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915571160 Vadala, C. E., Bixler, R. D., & James, J. J. (2007). Childhood play and environmental interests: Panacea or snake oil? Journal of Environmental Education, 39(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.39.1.3-18 Wals, A. E. J., Brody, M., Dillon, J., & Stevenson, R. B. (2014). Convergence between science and environmental education. Science, 344(6184), 583– 584. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250515 Wang, M. Te, & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119–140). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059519 https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2014.901935 https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462990050206 https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1980.9941386 https://time4realscience.org/ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9279-2 https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915571160 https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.39.1.3-18 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250515 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x Lasting Conservation and Science-Related Outcomes Associated with Science… 145 Wells, N. M., & Lekies, K. S. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways to childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Youth and Environments, 16(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.16.1.0001 Wilson, R. A. (1996). Starting early: Environmental education during the early childhood years. ERIC Digest. Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P.-P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). New ways of thinking about environmentalism: Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022- 4537.00177 Zoldosova, K., & Prokop, P. (2006). Education in the field influences children’s ideas and interest toward science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(3–4), 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9017-3 https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.16.1.0001 https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00177 https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00177 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9017-3