One Bird—Two Habitats: A Model Process
for Developing an Education Program on
Neotropical Migratory Birds
Susan C. Gilchrist
Darrel F. Covell
Abstract—“One Bird—Two Habitats” is a 3-6 week, interdisciplinary environmental education unit for 6-8th grade classes, which
addresses the need for Neotropical migratory bird conservation.
The curriculum contains 22 activities, a videotape, maps, posters,
and a wealth of background information. The major theme of the
unit, interconnectedness, emphasizes the connections among people,
birds, and forests in the Americas. Both the contents of the curriculum and the process of its development reflect a model marriage
between research and education. The program was begun to educate
people about an important issue identified by researchers, uses
background information and activities based on research, and was
piloted and evaluated for its effectiveness through research. The
curriculum is available only through participation in workshops. It
is personalized for Wisconsin students, including state-specific
background information on forests, the selection of one “ambassador” bird, and a focus on our sister state in Latin America. Other
states that wish to use the curriculum must adapt and disseminate
it in a coordinated manner to ensure that background information
is accurate, that balanced messages are conveyed, and that the
value of the unit is maintained. The success of this program
demonstrates that education and research can be complementary
tools. We recommend that the Bird Conservation Plan include an
educational component.
To successfully implement a conservation plan, biologists
and educators must work hand-in-hand. This paper summarizes the development, evaluation, and implementation of
“One Bird—Two Habitats,” a middle-school environmental
education program that bridges the gap between research
and education. The program was developed under the auspices of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
and has been disseminated in partnership with the Cooperative Extension Service at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Both the development process and the completed curriculum are models that other states can adapt and use.
When the “One Bird—Two Habitats” program was first
conceived in 1991, researchers already had identified a
In: Bonney, Rick; Pashley, David N.; Cooper, Robert J.; Niles, Larry,
eds. 2000. Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners in Flight planning process; Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in Flight Workshop; 1995
October 1-5; Cape May, NJ. Proceedings RMRS-P-16. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station.
Susan C. Gilchrist, Integrated Science Services, 1350 Femrite Drive,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Monona, WI 53716. Darrel F.
Covell, Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
WI 53706-1598. Current address: New Hampshire Wildlife Federation,
54 Portsmouth St., Concord, NH 03301.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000
conservation problem: Some populations of Neotropical migratory birds were declining. In its “Neotropical Migratory
Bird Conservation Program,” Partners in Flight identified
the need to educate the public about the effects of large-scale,
international ecosystem changes and their impact on Neotropical migratory birds.
Just as casual observation confirmed what researchers
perceived as bird population declines, it also confirmed the
need for education about the issue. In general, people seemed
familiar with common backyard or feeder birds, but many
did not seem to know that some birds migrate internationally. If people were unaware that some bird species depend
on habitat in different countries, they probably did not
understand that large-scale changes to the land in one place
affect migratory birds in both places.
Staff at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
already were concerned about declining migratory bird
populations when the director of Wisconsin-Nicaragua
Partners suggested developing a videotape on the issue.
Wisconsin-Nicaragua Partners is the state chapter of the
National Association of the Partners of the Americas, and
the issue of Neotropical migratory bird conservation fit the
agency’s mission of building connections between sister
states in North and Latin America. One phone call multiplied into many, and the result was much more than a
videotape. For more information, contact: Partners of the
Americas, 1424 K Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC
20005; telephone: (202-628-3300).
Development Process ____________
The theme of the curriculum is “interconnectedness,” and
it applies to the process of development, the contents of the
curriculum, and the education methods used to convey the
messages.
The program was developed through much networking.
Grants from the National Association of the Partners of the
Americas through Wisconsin-Nicaragua Partners, the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Center for Biology Education, and the USDA Forest Service supported development
of the program through the Department of Natural Resources. Later, grants from the Wisconsin Environmental
Education Board through the Wisconsin Society for Ornithology and from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
supported the initial dissemination effort.
Many people contributed to the curriculum in other
ways, too. Beginning with a writers’ workshop in 1992,
experts in forest management, ornithology, Latin American culture, and education contributed to the activities
255
and background information. Along with researchers and
teachers, middle-school students assisted in creating and
reviewing the videotape. During the development stages of
the program, we sent the curriculum to approximately 90
reviewers.
It is not only the tremendous networking and broad-based
support, but also the adherence to the research-educationresearch cycle, that defines the process of developing “One
Bird—Two Habitats” as an exemplary model to follow. While
the initial ideas for the curriculum and its contents were
based on research about birds and an identified need for
education, the program’s framework grew from education
research. We learned from the experience of other environmental education programs such as Project WILD and Project
Learning Tree. We learned about current education trends
and incorporated them into the curriculum. We also included
activities to teach about avian research, and to explain how
we learned the things we know. We conducted a formative
evaluation of the program, so that research was part of the
method of developing the program, too. In the end, we revised
the curriculum based on the evaluation of the pilot as well as
the feedback from reviewers. Ideally this research-educationresearch cycle should continue with an evaluation of the
effectiveness of the program after it has been in use for several
years. The effectiveness should be measured both as it affects
teachers and students, and as it influences conservation
efforts, and impacts the birds in trouble.
The Curriculum _________________
In the belief that some students learn better through
interactive, hands-on, or participatory activities, we expanded the initial idea of a videotape into creation of a whole
curriculum including not only the video, but also 22 activities, a wealth of background information, maps, and posters.
The curriculum emphasizes science and social studies, but is
also interdisciplinary, including activities using math, art,
language arts, Spanish, and physical education skills. While
some of the activities are borrowed from other projects, the
combined focus on birds, forests, and people is unique.
The issue of declining migratory bird populations is complex. To clarify the issue, we boiled it down and narrowed our
focus, first by selecting middle school (6th-8th grades) as our
target audience. We selected this audience over high school
because the older grades mean compartmentalization, reduced flexibility in schedules and curriculum content, and
potential problems incorporating an interdisciplinary unit
into single subjects. Also, some educators suggested that the
middle-school level showed more of a need for environmental
education materials and programs, and we knew that Projects
WILD and Learning Tree experienced more success in the
elementary level than in high schools (Fleming 1983; Zosel
1989). We also considered the advantages of striving for
“vertical articulation,” so that the same students would be
less likely to experience the same few activities year after
year. Because of the WILD and Learning Tree experiences
and the complexity of the issue, we decided to create an
interwoven unit, rather than a loose collection of activities.
To weave such a unit, we needed to further “boil down” or
focus on our subject. In just one unit, we could not adequately
represent all the ecosystems important to migratory birds.
256
We decided to focus the curriculum on forest habitat, so that
we could include specific forest background information
without overwhelming teachers.
The curriculum emphasizes the point that environmental
issues are global: That birds, people, and forests are interconnected, and that human actions in the U.S. affect people
in Latin America, and vice versa. To personalize this large
concept, we focused on the connection with our sister state,
Nicaragua. In one activity, “Cultural Exchange,” Wisconsin
students send pictures and letters to a school in Nicaragua.
To further personalize the issue, we identified one species
as our “Ambassador Bird.” We selected the Ovenbird (Seirus
atricapillus) because it is an interior forest bird, it is common
in Wisconsin yet not popularly known, and Breeding Bird
Survey trends since 1996 show significant population declines in the Central U.S. Other states may wish to choose
their own ambassador birds.
The activities in “One Bird—Two Habitats” address key
concepts related to forest ecology, bird ecology,
interconnectedness, management options, scientific inquiry,
and conservation. Within these concept areas, the curriculum treats topics such as the intrinsic value of birds,
biodiversity, the mysteries of migration and navigation,
forest fragmentation, cowbird parasitism, bird banding and
other research techniques, carrying capacity, and forest
management. The dependence of both birds and humans on
forests is a recurring theme. The messages are multifaceted
because conservation of migratory forest birds and their
habitats is a controversial and complex issue.
To package our messages about migratory bird conservation in a way that would both appeal to and be useful to
teachers, we incorporated current trends in education. In
keeping with the current trend in middle schools, “One
Bird—Two Habitats” is an interdisciplinary unit addressing
an issue. We also incorporated cooperative learning into
many of the activities. This educational method supports the
theme of interconnectedness. The basic elements of cooperative learning are: Positive interdependence (sharing goals,
resources, roles, and rewards), individual accountability,
group processing, social skills, and face-to-face interaction
(Johnson and others 1990, 1991). To help teachers use the
curriculum within the structure of the education system, we
incorporated suggestions for alternative assessment into
the activities. We designed two specific activities to function
as assessment tools, and added an appendix on alternative
assessment techniques.
Pilot Evaluation _________________
Although the initial idea for “One Bird—Two Habitats”
came from Partners of the Americas, it was the Bureau of
Research (now renamed Integrated Science Services) in the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources that took on
the project. The research base was an important element in
selling the idea to the Bureau, and the incorporation of
research into the development process was vital.
In March 1993, 22 sixth, seventh, and eighth grade teachers attended a day-long workshop to launch the pilot. Not only
did more teachers participate in the pilot than the four we
initially had recruited, but many of them spent more time on
the program than the three weeks we had requested. Rather
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000
than drop activities, many of the teachers expanded their
time commitment to 4-6 weeks. We considered this expanded
commitment a strong vote of confidence in the program.
Our research design included qualitative and quantitative methods. Researchers conducted 98 classroom observations and 250 student interviews. A random selection of 430
(215 pre- and 215 post-unit) student tests were statistically
analyzed. Twenty-two teachers completed questionnaires
and attended focus groups following the pilot. A simulated
“Town Meeting” from the curriculum was used to help
ascertain whether core concepts were being conveyed.
We found the curriculum and workshop worthwhile. Teachers and students generally liked the activities. Students
especially liked active, participatory kinds of activities and
going outside. Although we had considered creating a curriculum specifically for use outside, feedback from the teachers validated our decision to make this a program that could
be used in any middle-school setting, with or without access
to a forest. All 22 teachers completing the questionnaire said
that they would teach the unit again.
As with other programs, lack of time was probably the
main obstacle (Gilchrist 1999; Zosel 1989). We changed the
curriculum description to reflect the time commitment more
accurately, added “Key Points” to help focus the learning
efficiently, honored the request for a “List of Materials by
Activity,” and continued to provide workshops to expedite
teacher preparation. Unable to create more time in a school’s
curriculum plan or a teacher’s day, we took what measures
we could to diminish the time barrier and further the success
of the program.
The incorporation of current education trends was successful, with a few modifications. Some teachers were anxious about using cooperative learning beforehand, but they
liked the method in the end. Although specific cooperative
learning techniques were not always evident, students liked
working in cooperative groups. Sometimes the cooperative
group process required more time than teachers had available, so we reduced the amount of cooperative learning in the
unit. As a response to teachers who had difficulty assessing
student performance in participatory activities, we added an
appendix on alternative assessment.
Students particularly liked the cultural exchange with
Nicaraguan classes, although responses from Nicaragua
were rare. Problems with the activity are largely due to
differences in transportation and communication systems,
economic and political conditions, language, and culture. We
remain committed to the connection with Nicaragua, and
expect that connecting with a Latin American sister state
will be easier for others than it has been for Wisconsin.
Learning took place at all three grade levels, with
significantly more at the sixth grade than the eighth.
Researcher observations, teacher feedback, and statistical analysis of student tests all confirmed the age appropriateness of the activities. In a paired t-test of student
test scores, improvements from pre- to post-unit tests were
highly significant. Teachers reported student learning and
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000
increased interest in birds. The unit successfully introduced the Ovenbird, placed Nicaragua on the map, demonstrated that environmental issues are global, introduced research methods used to study birds, and conveyed
the messages that human changes in land use affect birds
and that people in both Latin and North America depend
on forest products.
Although the curriculum emphasizes environmental
awareness more than direct student action, activities in this
unit can be coupled with action projects. In one school,
students found out about plans to bulldoze a forest to build
a parking lot. On their own, they approached the principal
and discussed the needs of birds dependent on that forest
habitat. The principal listened, conducted an environmental
assessment, and decided not to bulldoze the woods.
We have used the evaluation results to revise the curriculum, to support dissemination through workshops, and to
market the program both in Wisconsin and to other states.
Unless major changes are made, states adopting the program
need not conduct a formative evaluation of this magnitude.
Program Dissemination __________
“One Bird—Two Habitats” is more than a curriculum; it’s
a whole program. Feedback from the pilot teachers, staff
observations, experience of other environmental education
programs, and concern for balanced representation of a
complex issue led us to disseminate the curriculum through
teacher workshops rather than the mail.
Teacher workshops are designed to prepare teachers to
use the curriculum with their students. The first, presented by the Department of Natural Resources, took place
in March, 1994. Responsibility for dissemination to Wisconsin educators shifted to the University of WisconsinMadison Cooperative Extension Service, through the Department of Wildlife Ecology. A series of six teacher
workshops distributed the curriculum around the state in
1994-1995.
People who have attended a teacher workshop may then
attend a Facilitator Training, which prepares them to conduct teacher workshops on their own. The Department of
Natural Resources and the University of Wisconsin cooperated to produce the first Wisconsin Facilitator Training in
June, 1995.
People outside the state have been requesting the curriculum. But, personalized for Wisconsin, it requires adaptation
for use in other places. To facilitate national dissemination,
we designed coordinator workshops to prepare people from
outside Wisconsin to adapt and disseminate the program in
their own state or region. With support from the USFWS, we
held Coordinator workshops in Virginia, Illinois, Maine, and
Minnesota. The curriculum has already been adapted into
programs in other states such as Illinois, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Iowa, and Minnesota. A need for workshops in
the western and southeastern region remains.
257