Cortney Solum posted an update in the group Interpretation and Education (Recommendations 19 and 20) I would really like to see the plan for Environmental Education focus on students’ “sense of place.” In the section ‘What is Our Vision?’ I appreciate the emphasis on quality over quantity in the number of participants. Also, repeat visitation is the key to creating a connection to a refuge and understanding that this “place” is there for them.
In the ‘National Standards for Refuge System Environmental Education Programs’ section I agree with the statement on pg 5 that programs need to be “designed with students’ knowledge, skills, and abilities in mind.” However, I think in addition to meeting state and national standards and we should focus on creating a connection to nature and appreciation of the land in order to meet the goal of informed action and stewardship. The curriculum guides (Project WET, WILD ect.) mentioned can be tools to teach students about the environment but shouldn’t be the sole tools used. We should educate employees who do not have a background in interpretation and education on how to help students make a connection to nature in addition to teaching them the science.
The activity guide “Exploring the Outdoors” created by the Leopold Education Project would be a good guide to also consider incorporating into the EE plan. The guide relates activities to Aldo Leopold’s “A Sand County Almanac” and uses interpretation to help students relate to the topic and the place. It also has references to the other curriculum guides (Project WET, WILD ect.) so lessons can be expanded.
As for assessing our programs, I think the assessments described in Goal 1 will be beneficial in figuring out our needs and successes and help us understand how we can be better known by the American public. Also, thank you for recognizing the need for an OMB approved survey to evaluate our programs.
Comments: 0