Southeastern Naturalist
A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman
2017
58
Vol. 16, Special Issue 10
An Inquiry-based Approach to Engaging Undergraduate
Students in On-campus Conservation Research Using
Camera Traps
Andrew J. Edelman1,* and Jennifer L. Edelman2
Abstract - Inquiry-based instruction has been shown to increase student motivation,
engagement, and achievement in biology education. In this paper, we describe how we
used an open-inquiry–based approach to engage undergraduate and graduate students in
an upper-level conservation-biology class. As part of this course, students designed and
implemented a research project using camera traps to examine questions related to wildlife
conservation on their local campus. Students derived their research question through introductory
readings and discussion regarding on-campus conservation issues. This approach
allowed students to take ownership of the project, fueling enthusiasm and motivation, and
promoting the development of core scientific skills. The students organized themselves
into research teams at the beginning of the semester, a technique that mimicked how realworld
conservation biologists collaborate on large-scale projects that require a range of
knowledge and skills. In addition, teamwork allowed students to develop collaboration
and communication skills and made them accountable to their peers for class performance.
Given the applied nature of this course, the students also engaged in public outreach related
to their research via social media and public presentations. These activities gave students
the opportunity to learn how to interact with multiple stakeholders and deal with controversial
issues in conservation biology.
Introduction
“[Scientific] knowledge can never be learned by itself; it is not information, but a
mode of intelligent practice, an habitual disposition of mind. Only by taking a hand
in the making of knowledge, by transferring guess and opinion into belief authorized
by inquiry, does one ever get a knowledge of the method of knowing” (Dewey
1910:125).
Although John Dewey issued a call for inquiry-based science instruction as
early as 1910, it has taken almost 100 y for the emergence of a unifying vision
of how to transform undergraduate biology education in this way (American Association
for the Advancement of Science 2011, National Research Council 2003).
Inquiry-based instruction goes by many synonyms (e.g., problem-based learning,
place-based learning, and experiential learning) and modes (e.g., confirmation inquiry,
structured inquiry, guided inquiry, and open inquiry); in all cases, it typically
seeks to involve students in an authentic mirroring of the work that scientists do,
and employs a pedagogical method that allows for extensive investigations (Banchi
1Department of Biology, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA 30118. 2Department
of Early Childhood through Secondary Education, University of West Georgia, Carrollton,
GA 30118. *Corresponding author - aedelman@westga.edu.
Manuscript Editor: Roger Applegate
The Outdoor Classroom
2017 Southeastern Naturalist 16(Special Issue 10):58–69
Southeastern Naturalist
59
A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman
2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10
and Bell 2008, Minner et al. 2010). Inquiry-based pedagogy encourages students to
maintain ownership of the processes and products of their scientific investigation
and facilitates development of core scientific skills such as formulating questions,
collaborating with others, and communicating their information. Research demonstrates
that inquiry-based instruction benefits students (Derting and Ebert-May
2010, Goldey et al. 2012). For example, inquiry-based instruction has been shown
to increase understanding of scientific concepts (Dalton et al. 1997) and to expand
retention of that knowledge far longer than occurs with traditional lecture-based
instruction (Bay et al. 1992, Chang and Barufaldi 1999, Lumpe and Staver 1995,
Smith et al. 1997). Student motivation and engagement is also positively affected
by the use of inquiry-based instruction (Minner et al. 2010, Palmer 2009, Patrick et
al. 2009).
Many undergraduate biology students’ first encounter with scientific research is
not in the classroom, but through less-formalized experiences as part of a research
lab where they collaborate with professors, mentors, and graduate students on existing
projects (Gonzalez-Espada and LaDue 2006, Hunter et al. 2007, Kardash 2000,
Seymour et al. 2004). Undergraduate students who participated in such experiences
were retained in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields
at a greater rate than those who did not participate (Nagda et al. 1998). Participating
students also reported a greater interest in attending graduate school (Russell et
al. 2006), and perceived that they were better prepared to succeed in post-secondary
education (Hunter et al. 2007). Overall, experience in collaborative research projects
as an undergraduate student provides a clear understanding of what it means to be a
scientist and how to prepare for such a career (Campbell 2002, Russell et al. 2006).
Although the benefits of inquiry-based instruction are numerous (Anderson
2002, Derting and Ebert-May 2010, Goldey et al. 2012, Keys and Bryan 2001),
the barriers to incorporating this pedagogy into a field-based biology course at the
university level (e.g., conservation biology, ecology, wildlife biology, etc.) can
be daunting, particularly for instructors not familiar with this mode of teaching.
These barriers include the cost of research equipment, logistics of field trips, lack
of student experience with methodology, and time constraints (McCleery et al.
2005). One way to overcome these barriers is to incorporate students into on-going
research projects that are set up by the instructors and in which students cycle in and
out as part of courses (McCleery et al. 2005, Millenbah and Millspaugh 2003, Moen
et al. 2000). For example, McCleery et al. (2005) described the implementation of
on-campus wildlife-research projects as a way to overcome some of the barriers to
including experiential learning in coursework. These course experiences provided
students with opportunities to develop important skills in wildlife-research techniques,
including data collection and analysis; however, because the projects were
set up ahead of time, students may have lacked a feeling of ownership in the process
and did not have the opportunity to develop other important research skills such as
formulating their own research questions and methodology.
Currently, there are few practical examples of how to incorporate open-inquiry
pedagogy (i.e., students formulate a research question and carry out all aspects of
Southeastern Naturalist
A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman
2017
60
Vol. 16, Special Issue 10
the study) in field-based biology courses at the university level. In this paper, we
describe how we implemented an open-inquiry conservation-biology course at the
University of West Georgia, including the various steps involved in guiding development
and completion of the research project by students: data collection and
analysis, and project communication and outreach. Our goal in creating the course
was to engage students in activities that mimicked the scientific research process
in conservation biology. To do this, we began with the idea that students should
be responsible for all aspects of research, from formulating a question, designing
data-collection methods, analyzing collected data, presenting the findings of the
study, and making recommendations for conservation and management. To reduce
logistical barriers to involving novice undergraduate learners in authentic research,
we used camera traps to study on-campus wildlife-conservation issues. The cameratrap
methodology was easy to learn and allowed students to quickly accumulate
large datasets (Swann and Perkins 2014).
Course Implementation
Course description
The University of West Georgia (UWG) is a comprehensive, regional university
of over 12,000 students. The UWG campus is located in Carrollton, GA,
and contains 261 ha (644 ac) of wooded land and access to the Little Tallapoosa
River (Fig. 1). Approximately 65% of UWG students are female and about
45% self-identify as minorities (UWG Fact Book 2015). UWG first offered the
conservation-biology course (see Table 1 for a course description) in the autumn
2014 semester. The course was cross-listed as an upper-level elective of 4
semester-credit hours and a graduate course of 3 semester-credit hours. Andrew
Edelman, a conservation biologist, was the course instructor, and Jennifer Edelman,
a STEM-education specialist, provided pedagogical-design guidance. In its
first year, 12 undergraduate and 7 graduate students, of whom 13 were male and 6
were female, enrolled in the course. The class met for 110 min twice a week and
Table 1. The University of West Georgia conservation biology course description and objectives.
Course description and objectives
Conservation biology is a “mission-oriented, crisis-driven, problem-solving field” (Sodhi and Ehrlich
2010:12). This interdisciplinary science’s main goal is to preserve biodiversity in all its forms. Students
in the course will actively participate as part of a scientific team to learn and apply key concepts
from this field. Class sessions will focus on mastering the course material through a variety of activities
and discussions. A major component of the course includes a campus-centered conservationresearch
project designed, implemented, and presented by the students.
1. Summarize fundamental concepts in conservation biology and apply them to issues related to
sustainability and protecting biodiversity.
2. Master basic research skills and techniques used in conservation biology.
3. Analyze and interpret scientific data for application to conserv ation problems.
4. Work effectively as part of a collaborative scientific team.
5. Communicate scientific knowledge, through a variety of media, to general and scientific audiences.
Southeastern Naturalist
61
A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman
2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10
had no traditional lecture component. One day each week consisted of discussionbased
learning activities focused on readings primarily from Sodhi and Ehrlich
(2010). Students read the assigned textbook chapter and electronically submitted
a graded reading-response prior to coming to class. During the weekly discussion
session, students worked with their team to master and apply concepts through
case studies (Withey and Kennedy 2012), instructor-designed assignments, and
construction of concept maps. The other class day each week was reserved for
working on the course research-project. The research project allowed students to
accomplish higher-order learning goals and develop skills that were directly tied
to the course objectives (Table 1). The research project was both student-designed
and implemented. Throughout the process, the instructor served as a guide to direct
students toward relevant and feasible research questions and methodology.
The project was scaffolded to prevent students from being overwhelmed and to
gradually build their confidence and skills throughout the semester. The instructor
calculated students’ final course-grades based on the following components:
30% for the class project (data collection/entry, outreach materials, and final
poster presentation), 40% for exams (midterm and final exams), 10% for in-class
Figure 1. The conservation biology course study-area located on the University of West
Georgia campus. Forested patches are outlined in white and locations of camera traps during
autumn 2014 are marked by white circles.
Southeastern Naturalist
A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman
2017
62
Vol. 16, Special Issue 10
activities, 10% for concept maps, and 10% for reading responses. In addition,
graduate students were assigned to serve as team leaders and prepare a final oral
presentation on the research project.
Scientific team formation
At the start of the course, the students were organized into self-selected research
teams of 4–6 individuals. Students worked extensively with their team on activities,
discussions, and the course project. This technique mimicked how real-world
conservation biologists work in groups to tackle large-scale projects that require a
range of knowledge and skills. In addition, teamwork allowed students to develop
vital collaboration skills and made them accountable to their peers for class performance.
The first task after formation was for each team to draft a contract that
described the expectations for individual involvement (e.g., attendance, participation,
work load, etc.) and consequences for failing to meet these expectations.
Teams and the instructor evaluated members 3 times during the semester to provide
feedback for improvement. If peer and instructor evaluations were consistently
low, then the student’s group-project grade was adjusted accordingly. Peer evaluations
were administered through the CATME SMARTER Teamwork online system
(http://info.catme.org/).
Project development
Prior to beginning the course research-project, the instructor narrowed the
range of research possibilities by providing the following set of project requirements
to the class: (1) address campus-based issues related to conservation biology,
(2) utilize camera-trap methodology, and (3) include a public outreach component.
In preparation for developing the project, students were assigned 2 readings (Kays
and Slauson 2008, Rovero et al. 2013) that provided overviews of the technological
and research capabilities of camera traps. Camera traps require little training to use
effectively; thus, they are easy to implement with novice undergraduate researchers
and they allow students to quickly amass large datasets (Swann and Perkins 2014).
On the first project-design day (typically the second week of class), the instructor
gave each team a game camera, instruction booklet, and original packaging (Moultrie
990i Mini GameCam, EBSCO Industries, Inc., Calera, AL) to review. Teams
were then directed to use these materials to determine the top 10 features of game
cameras that are important to consider when designing camera-trap projects as
outlined by Rovero et al. 2013: (1) trigger speed; (2) flash type; (3) detection zone;
(4) number of photos taken, recovery time, and video capabilities; (5) sensitivity;
(6) flash intensity; (7) power autonomy; (8) image resolution, sharpness, and clarity;
(9) camera housing and sealing; and (10) camera programming and settings. Students
were also encouraged to use online resources (e.g., as http://www.trailcampro.
com/) that independently tested the manufacturer’s claims, particularly for trigger
speed, detection zone, and recovery time. After discussing their findings as a team
and a class, the instructor asked teams to brainstorm at least 1 (if not more) campusbased
research questions that could be addressed given the project criteria and
equipment capabilities in each of 4 categories (modified from Rovero et al. 2013):
Southeastern Naturalist
63
A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman
2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10
(1) faunal detection and inventory, (2) abundance and density estimation, (3) habitat
associations, and (4) species-specific studies or other projects. After some discussion,
teams presented and justified their research questions to the entire class.
Given their basic knowledge, the class brainstormed ≥ 30 potential research questions.
After removing redundant questions, the instructor facilitated several rounds
of discussion and voting to reach consensus on a final research question. During
the discussion, it was important for the instructor to provide expert opinion on the
feasibility and appropriateness of potential research questions. Once the research
question was determined, the students and the instructor discussed the methodology
needed to answer the research question, including camera-trap setup (site location,
bait, duration, etc.) and habitat measurements. As part of this process, the instructor
selected a relevant scientific paper on a similar research topic for students to read to
get information about potential methodology. The entire development process took
about 2 class sessions and allowed students to take ownership of the project, which
fueled enthusiasm and motivation. In autumn 2014, the students decided to examine
the influence of forested-patch characteristics (patch size and fragmentation) on occurrence
of mammalian fauna on the UWG campus.
Implementation and analysis
After the class determined the project’s research-question and methodology, the
instructor provided them with the camera-trap equipment and a list of survey sites.
Each research team was given a storage box containing 2 sets of camera traps and
associated equipment: digital game-camera, camera security box, cable lock with
key, 32 GB secure digital (SD) memory card, universal serial bus (USB) SD card
reader, rechargeable batteries, global positioning unit (GPS), hand pruner, 50-m
measuring tape, and laminated campus map and equipment checklist ($625 estimated
total value). On the first day of camera deployment, the instructor demonstrated
how to correctly install a camera trap before the research teams were allowed to
proceed to their assigned locations. After 1 week of deployment, the research teams
checked their camera traps and made adjustments as necessary. After 2 weeks, students
moved the camera traps to new sites and downloaded the stored pictures. In
total, students deployed the camera traps 3 times over a 6-week period, 1 camera
per group (5 total) the first week and 2 cameras per group (10 total) the second and
third weeks, resulting in 25 total sites across 6 forested patches (Fig. 1). To organize
collected data and facilitate team collaboration, the instructor created shared team
folders on a cloud-based file-storage space. Teams uploaded their game camera
files to their shared folder after each deployment. The instructor also created and
uploaded a standardized data entry spreadsheet to each shared folder. Teams were
provided guidance by the instructor on how to process the camera-trap data and
correctly perform data entry. This step ensured that all data were analyzed similarly
and could be pooled for final analysis and presentation. The instructor set appropriate
due dates for data-entry tasks, and graded teams for accurately completing their
data-entry requirements by the deadlines. Once all data entry was complete, teams
had access to the entire data set for preparation of the capstone presentation.
Southeastern Naturalist
A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman
2017
64
Vol. 16, Special Issue 10
Scientific outreach
The course involved 2 major scientific-communication components: (1) outreach
to the community via social media and an interpretative poster-display, and
(2) research presentations. Each team was assigned to create 2 short blog-posts
(less than 300 words) based on pictures collected from their camera traps. Students were
directed to write blog posts in a manner that provided information on the conservation
and natural history of their photographed subjects, avoided unnecessary
jargon, and entertained the general public. After students completed the posts, the
instructor performed minor copy-editing to ensure that the content was accurate
and appropriate. Edited blog-posts were published on Tumblr (http://uwgconservationblog.
tumblr.com/) and disseminated via Facebook and Twitter. The class
also created an interpretative outreach poster on their research findings for the
UWG biology department’s lobby. This poster included engaging camera-trap
photographs, natural history of each recorded mammal species, and general results
from the research project.
Each team gave a formal presentation on the research project. Undergraduate
students created a team research-poster that was the focus of a 5-min presentation.
Graduate students prepared an oral presentation that was open and advertised to the
UWG community. In preparation, the instructor provided a short workshop on poster-
and oral-presentation techniques and allocated in-class time to allow feedback on
rough drafts. Students were expected to include introduction, objectives, methods,
results, discussion, and management-recommendation sections in their presentations
along with figures portraying their main results. The undergraduate students
presented their research posters during the final day of class. The graduate students
gave 2 public research-presentations that were well attended by community members
and university staff. One unexpected outcome of the public presentations was
the students’ exposure to the controversial aspects of conservation biology. UWG
has a large feral-cat population and these animals were frequently photographed at
camera traps. During their presentation, the graduate students gave a brief overview
of the negative impacts of feral cats on wildlife and included recommendations for
humanely eliminating this invasive species from campus. At one presentation, community
members that were involved in maintaining the feral-cat population were
strongly outspoken in their opposition to these management recommendations. This
situation provided an excellent experience for the students in dealing with multiple
stakeholders that may have opposing views or agendas, a frequently encountered
situation in conservation biology.
Discussion
Ultimately, our goal in designing and teaching this course was to assist students
to develop skills in the scientific method as they engaged in activities that paralleled
the work of conservation biologists. Working within the limitations of a classroom
setting (e.g., equipment, time, and experience levels), the students in the course
designed and carried out an on-campus scientific investigation, the results of which
were shared with multiple stakeholders from our community. Students in our course
Southeastern Naturalist
65
A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman
2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10
had the opportunity to acquire many of the skills needed by professional wildlife
and conservation biologists (Blickley et al. 2013, Noss 1997). They learned to ask
questions and evaluate those lines of inquiry in order to select a relevant project
with implications for their local community. Students learned how to participate
in a scientific research team as they worked to set up the camera traps in areas of
campus that they had previously not explored. They combined their smaller data
sets into a larger pool of data in order to explore the effects of a larger sample size
on the conclusions. The community outreach provided these students with practice
interacting with the public on controversial conservation topics, such as the issue
of how to manage a feral-cat population on campus. A variety of barriers exist to
implementing open-inquiry–based instruction in field courses at the university
level, including concerns about adopting new pedagogy, student attitudes, and logistical
issues (Bay et al. 1992, Crawford 1999, Crawford et al. 1999, Marx et al.
1994, McCleery et al. 2005, Tobin et al. 1990). However, many of these barriers
were removed in our conservation-biology class through strategic course-design.
Students and instructors might be intimidated by the overall complexity of completing
a research project within a class setting. In our experience, the best way to
ensure success of the class project is to use an instructional technique known as
scaffolding—providing students with support (e.g., training, readings, and expert
advice) that allows them to learn necessary skills and make informed decisions
(Vygotsky 1978). By using this technique, as the students become more confident
and experienced over time, the complexity of the tasks and expectations can be
gradually raised. In our class, before asking students to develop the research project,
we provided them with introductory reading on camera traps and allowed them
to interact with the equipment. As the project progressed, the instructor provided
resources and training on important tasks such as camera-trap set up, data entry,
writing outreach-posts, and presenting research. It was also important to assign
deadlines and grades for each step of the project to provide feedback and keep the
students on track.
Initially, negative student attitudes toward inquiry-based learning can be expected,
particularly in environments where traditional lecture-based pedagogy is
standard practice. Common student complaints often mention a perceived increase
in workloads because they are asked to actively participate during class rather than
passively listen (Crawford et al. 1999). In our course, we actively promoted student
buy-in to inquiry-based pedagogy. On the first day of class, we asked the students
to reflect on how they could effectively learn and apply course concepts and skills
by asking them to think about and discuss a series of metacognitive questions as
presented by Smith (2008). This activity allowed students to decide for themselves
that traditional lecture is a less effective means of mastering the course’s higherorder
learning objectives (Table 1) compared to inquiry-based techniques. Probably
the most effective student buy-in tool in our course was the sense of ownership
students felt when they were directly involved in designing the research question
and methodology. In addition, student accountability was an important component
for implementing an effective open-inquiry–based project. Rather than exclusively
Southeastern Naturalist
A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman
2017
66
Vol. 16, Special Issue 10
making students accountable to the instructor, by working in teams, students were
also accountable to their peers. Teams designed and signed a contract that contained
expectations and consequences for behavior and quality of work. They also
provided peer feedback through the CATME SMARTER Teamwork online system
(http://info.catme.org/). The instructor used these peer evaluations to encourage
high-quality student involvement and adjust individual grades for the group project
when necessary.
The use of camera-trap methodology and an on-campus study area made the
project feasible for novice researchers. Compared to other methods, camera traps
are a popular tool for citizen-based and K-12 science projects because novice
learners can be easily trained to use them and process related data (Jachowski et
al. 2015, Kays et al. 2015, Swann and Perkins 2014). The instructor can also scale
the camera-trap project to meet the available course budget through purchase of
less expensive and fewer game cameras and by forgoing optional accessories (e.g.,
security boxes, GPS unit, etc.). Freely available cloud-based data storage and associated
software also facilitate collaboration among students on data entry and
analysis. The total cost to implement our project was approximately $3200 for a
class of 20–30 students ($160–$107 per student). We plan to replace damaged or
lost equipment through a small student course-fee ($35) that generates $700–$900
each year. Using the local campus setting removed the cost and hassle of organizing
field trips and contributed to the ownership the students felt for the project.
Although UWG contains many forested and riparian areas that facilitate conservation
research, urban wildlife-conservation questions (Adams and Lindsey 2012)
can also be addressed on more developed campuses.
Bolstered by the success of the first class, we taught the conservation biology
course again during the autumn 2015 semester. At the beginning of its second year,
the course included 21 undergraduate and 5 graduate students, of whom 9 were
male and 17 were female. Building on the previous research findings, students in
the latest class decided to study how culvert and underpass designs impact use of
these structures by mammalian fauna on the UWG campus and surrounding community.
In addition, the accomplishments of the first class have encouraged other
faculty to include campus-based research in existing courses (A.J. Edelman, pers.
observ.).
In this paper, we have sought to introduce readers to open-inquiry–based
instruction for an upper-level conservation-biology course. By incorporating a
locally based and student-designed research project into our course, we were able
to accomplish higher-order learning objectives that would have been difficult
to address in a lecture-based course. Students in our course gained experience
in how to ask scientific questions, and design, conduct, and present research, as
well as collaborate effectively with peers and communicate with the general public.
All these skills are necessary for careers in conservation biology and other
scientific fields, yet they are often the least developed in students (Blickley et
al. 2013, Noss 1997). As a result of their work, students raised awareness about
native mammals, invasive species, and land-development impacts in their local
Southeastern Naturalist
67
A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman
2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10
community through social media and other forms of outreach. Although we did
not collect and analyze data on the class, anecdotally we can report that our
experiences and those of the students aligned with the assertions made about
inquiry-based instruction in existing research. Students in this course were able
to communicate complex scientific concepts clearly and effectively, demonstrating
an understanding of core concepts (Dalton et al. 1997) and retention of those
same concepts (Bay et al. 1992, Lumpe and Staver 1995, Smith et al. 1997). Student
motivation throughout the course was high (Minner et al. 2010), and several
students were inspired to pursue future research at the undergraduate and graduate
level. Through participation in this conservation biology course, students engaged
in authentic practices of scientists and continued to develop the “habitual disposition
of mind” described in 1910 by John Dewey.
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, we thank the past and present students enrolled in the University of
West Georgia’s conservation biology course for their enthusiasm for and dedication to the
class. We also thank the University of West Georgia, Department of Biology for their support
of the development of the conservation-biology course and acquisition of the necessary
equipment to carry it out.
Literature Cited
Adams, C.E., and K.J. Lindsey. 2012. Urban Wildlife Management. CRC press, Boca Raton,
FL. 432 pp.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2011. Vision and change in undergraduate
biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC. 79 pp.
Anderson, R.D. 2002. Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal
of Science Teacher Education 13:1–12.
Banchi, H., and R. Bell. 2008. The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children 46:26–29.
Bay, M., J.R. Staver, T. Bryan, and J.B. Hale. 1992. Science instruction for the mildly
handicapped: Direct instruction versus discovery teaching. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 29:555–570.
Blickley, J.L., K. Deiner, K. Garbach, I. Lacher, M.H. Meek, L.M. Porensky, M.L. Wilkerson,
E.M. Winford, and M.W. Schwartz. 2013. Graduate student’s guide to necessary
skills for nonacademic conservation careers. Conservation Biolo gy 27:24–34.
Campbell, A.M. 2002. The influences and factors of an undergraduate research program in
preparing women for science careers. Ed.D. Dissertation. Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
TX. 157 pp.
Chang, C.-Y., and J.P. Barufaldi. 1999. The use of a problem-solving–based instructional
model in initiating change in students’ achievement and alternative frameworks. International
Journal of Science Education 21:373–388.
Crawford, B.A. 1999. Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based
classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education 10:175–194.
Crawford, B.A., J.S. Krajcik, and R.W. Marx. 1999. Elements of a community of learners
in a middle-school science classroom. Science Education 83:701– 723.
Dalton, B., C.C. Morocco, T. Tivnan, and P.L.R. Mead. 1997. Supported-inquiry scienceteaching
for conceptual change in urban and suburban science classrooms. Journal of
Learning Disabilities 30:670–684.
Southeastern Naturalist
A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman
2017
68
Vol. 16, Special Issue 10
Derting, T.L., and D. Ebert-May. 2010. Learner-centered inquiry in undergraduate biology:
Positive relationships with long-term student achievement. CBE-Life Sciences Education
9:462–472.
Dewey, J. 1910. Science as subject-matter and as method. Science 31: 121–127.
Goldey, E.S., C.L. Abercrombie, T.M. Ivy, D.I. Kusher, J.F. Moeller, D.A. Rayner, C.F.
Smith, and N.W. Spivey. 2012. Biological inquiry: A new course and assessment plan in
response to the call to transform undergraduate biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education
11:353–363.
Gonzalez-Espada, W.J., and D.S. LaDue. 2006. Evaluation of the impact of the NWC REU
program compared with other undergraduate research experiences. Journal of Geoscience
Education 54:541–549.
Hunter, A.-B., S.L. Laursen, and E. Seymour. 2007. Becoming a scientist: The role of
undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development.
Science Education 91:36–74.
Jachowski, D.S., T. Katzner, J.L. Rodrigue, and W.M. Ford. 2015. Monitoring landscapelevel
distribution and migration phenology of raptors using a volunteer camera-trap
network. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39:553–563.
Kardash, C.M. 2000. Evaluation of undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of
undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology
92:191–201.
Kays, R.W., and K.M. Slauson. 2008. Remote cameras. Pp. 110–140, In R. Long, P. MacKay,
W. Zielinski, and J. Ray (Eds.). Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores. Island
Press, Washington, DC. 385 pp.
Kays, R., R. Costello, T. Forrester, M.C. Baker, A.W. Parsons, E.L. Kalies, G. Hess, J.J.
Millspaugh, and W. McShea. 2015. Cats are rare where Coyotes roam. Journal of Mammalogy
96:981–987.
Keys, C.W., and L.A. Bryan. 2001. Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers:
Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
38:631–645.
Lumpe, A.T., and J.R. Staver. 1995. Peer collaboration and concept development: Learning
about photosynthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32:71–98.
Marx, R.W., P.C. Blumenfeld, J.S. Krajcik, M. Blunk, B. Crawford, B. Kelly, and K.M.
Meyer. 1994. Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle-grade teachers.
Elementary School Journal 94:517–538.
McCleery, R.A., R.R. Lopez, L.A. Harveson, N.J. Silvy, and R.D. Slack. 2005. Integrating
on-campus wildlife-research projects into the wildlife curriculum. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 33:802–809.
Millenbah, K.F., and J.J. Millspaugh. 2003. Using experiential learning in wildlife courses
to improve retention, problem solving, and decision-making. Wildlife Society Bulletin
31:127–137.
Minner, D.D., A.J. Levy, and J. Century. 2010. Inquiry-based science instruction: What is
it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis, years 1984 to 2002. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 47:474–496.
Moen, A.N., G.S. Boomer, and M.C. Runge. 2000. Professional development of undergraduates
in wildlife ecology and management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:180–190.
Nagda, B.A., S.R. Gregerman, J. Jonides, W. von Hippel, and J.S. Lerner. 1998. Undergraduate
student–faculty research partnerships affect student retention. Review of Higher
Education 22:55–72.
Southeastern Naturalist
69
A.J. Edelman and J.L. Edelman
2017 Vol. 16, Special Issue 10
National Research Council. 2003. BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for
Future Research Biologists. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 208 pp.
Noss, R.F. 1997. Editorial: The failure of universities to produce conservation biologists.
Conservation Biology 11:1267–1269.
Palmer, D.H. 2009. Student interest generated during an inquiry-skills lesson. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 46:147–165.
Patrick, H., P. Mantzicopoulos, and A. Samarapungavan. 2009. Motivation for learning
science in kindergarten: Is there a gender gap and does integrated inquiry and literacy
instruction make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46:166–191.
Rovero, F., F. Zimmermann, D. Berzi, and P. Meek. 2013. “Which camera-trap type and
how many do I need?” A review of camera features and study designs for a range of
wildlife-research applications. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 24:148–156.
Russell, S.H., M.P. Hancock, and J. McCullough. 2006. Evaluation of NSF Support for Undergraduate
Research Opportunities. National Science Foundation, SRI International,
Arlington, VA. 37 pp.
Seymour, E., A.-B. Hunter, S.L. Laursen, and T. DeAntoni. 2004. Establishing the benefits
of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a threeyear
study. Science Education 88:493–534.
Smith, C., D. Maclin, L. Grosslight, and H. Davis. 1997. Teaching for understanding: A
study of students’ preinstruction theories of matter and a comparison of the effectiveness
of two approaches to teaching about matter and density. Cognition and Instruction
15:317–393.
Smith, G.A. 2008. First-day questions for the learner-centered classroom. National Teaching
and Learning Forum 17:1–4.
Sodhi, N.S., and P.R. Ehrlich. 2010. Conservation Biology for All. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, UK. 344 pp.
Swann, D.E., and N. Perkins. 2014. Camera trapping for animal monitoring and management:
A review of applications. Pp. 3–11, In P. Meek and P. Fleming (Eds.). Camera
Trapping: Wildlife Management and Research. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia.
392 pp.
Tobin, K.G., J.B. Kahle, and B.J. Fraser (Eds.). 1990. Windows into Science Classrooms:
Problems Associated with Higher-level Cognitive Learning. Falmer Press, Bristol, PA.
256 pp.
UWG Fact Book. 2015. The University of West Georgia 2014–2015 Fact Book. University
of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA. 88 pp.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 159 pp.
Withey, J.C., and C.M. Kennedy. 2012. Does the matrix matter? Testing the influence of
matrix type on bird responses to forest fragmentation. National Center for Case-study
Teaching in Science, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
10 pp.