Combining formal education and citizen science: A case study on students’ perceptions of learning and interest in an urban rat project

Citizen science is a valuable tool in environmental and formal education in creating scientific knowledge for the researchers and facilitating learning and fostering a positive relationship toward the environment and study species. We present a case study on the Helsinki Urban Rat Project in which students surveyed rat occurrence in their own near environments. According to our results, experientiality, involvement, meaningfulness, freedom to choose, ease of participation, and the rats themselves contributed to students’ increased interest in participation. Furthermore, students described diverse factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge that they acquired during their participation. In general, students described negative attitudes toward rats, but they described fewer negative views on rats after participation. We reflect on the success of the citizen science project and implications of planning a future citizen science project and incorporating citizen science in formal education.


0
Tel.: +358 40 828 6466 1 1 Teachers were free to organize the participation in the research however it best fit their teaching.

8
The minimum requirements were that four plates were left in one site, kept there for four days, and 2 2 9 photographed daily. Furthermore, when sending the research data, students described the overall 2 3 0 environment where the plates were left and counted the rat tracks on the plates. The students sent 2 3 1 data to us through the Epicollect5 mobile application (Aanensen et al. 2009). In general, the 2 3 2 students were free to decide where they set the plates, and they were encouraged to study 2 3 3 environments with which they were familiar, such as near their homes, schools, or places where 2 3 4 they otherwise spend time. We asked students to place the track plates in places where rats are 2 3 5 likely to move, so students were compelled to reflect on their study area from the point of view of 2 3 6 rats and how they use space. We recruited students for interviews from the classes that had already participated in the HURP 2 4 0 citizen science project during the past month. We interviewed 2-4 students at a time semi- was based on volunteers. There was a total of 29 interviewees, of which 14 were from lower-2 4 3 secondary school (4 girls and 10 boys whose ages ranged between 15 and 16 years) and 15 from 2 4 4 upper-secondary school (10 girls and 5 boys with an unknown age range but likely between 16 and 2 4 5 19 years). The length of interviews was from 12 minutes to 31 minutes, with a mean length of 25 2 4 6 minutes.

4 7
We chose a group interview as the data collection format because it allowed for interviewing more have been as reflective when interviewed individually. The interviews contained two main themes: 2 5 0 1) interest and perceived learning and 2) attitudes toward rats. They were conducted in the school 2 5 1 during regular classroom times. The research permit was granted by the City of Helsinki on April 5, 2018, and the permit from an 2 5 5 individual private school on October 1, 2018. The requirements of the research permit included 2 5 6 permission from both the principal and the biology teacher to ask students to participate. All 2 5 7 participants were over 15-years old so, which placed them under the guidelines from the City of from their guardians. The parents were informed prior to the interview by electronic letter. All participants were informed about the aim of the study and how the materials would be collected, 2 6 1 stored, and handled anonymously. It was made clear that participation was voluntary, participation 2 6 2 could be ended at any time, no data would be given to their teachers, and participation would not 2 6 3 affect their grades. We performed an iterative, theory-guided content analysis. We started transcribing interviews after 2 6 7 the very first interviews and we continued doing it concurrently as we performed further interviews. In an iterative fashion, after each interview we refined the interview frame by modifying questions 2 6 9 and choosing expressions that were understood by most students. We also began to analyze the data 2 7 0 as soon as the first interviews were transcribed. The analysis units in the transcribed texts varied from a full sentence to individual words. During 2 7 2 the analysis, the units were simplified, classified and grouped. As we had no prior experience on 2 7 3 how students react or what they perceive to learn during the project, the interviews were quite 2 7 4 exploratory. Thus, we had to use three different theoretical frameworks to analyze the interviews to 2 7 5 provide a rich interpretation of student experiences during their participation. Firstly, as the theoretical framework for student interest, we used the division of situational and 2 7 7 personal interests (Ainley, Hidi, and Berndorff 2002). Secondly, for the analysis of learning 2 7 8 outcomes, we classified student interviews with the revised Bloom's taxonomy (Krathwohl 2002).

7 9
Thirdly, for student descriptions of attitudes toward animals, the theoretical background used was 2 8 0 Kellert's (1985) classification of feelings directed toward animals. Through themes and types, 2 8 1 original student comments were compared to the theoretical background and disconfirming data 2 8 2 were highlighted and new categories were created when needed. The credibility of the study was enhanced by using interviews as the data collection method. Interviews allowed for asking further questions to ensure that the student meanings were understood 2 8 7 correctly. Furthermore, interviewing provided direct evidence of the students' perceptions of the project. The selection of interviewees was based on which students volunteered, which could bias what experiences of participants were heard by researchers. Nevertheless, the school groups were 2 9 0 small; the groups consisted of students who worked together with other students in doing the track 2 9 1 plates surveys, and they had broadly similar experiences. Transferability is a challenging aspect of 2 9 2 this study because it is a case study based on a unique project. We kept a detailed audit trail of the 2 9 3 research context, data collection, and analysis to make reporting as accurate and detailed as 2 9 4 possible. Confirmability was established by the audit trail and taking into account researcher 2 9 5 positionality and bias. Both researchers confess to having positive attitudes towards rats, and this 2 9 6 was considered during the analysis of attitudes toward rats. The first author is the principal 2 9 7 investigator in HURP and is leading the citizen science project. Thus, he encouraged critical 2 9 8 handling of the project during the analysis phase. In relation to the dependability, the analysis was In every interview at least one interviewee said that participation in the project was interesting. This interest was classified in 10 subclasses that were in turn grouped to 6 main classes, which were 3 0 9 divided in two types of interest (Table 1). Situational interest was exhibited in five different main classes. Experientiality consisted of 3 1 2 mentions where participation was something different compared to usual schoolwork or everyday to choose where to set the plates and the project being easy to do and straightforward were also seen 3 1 7 as positive aspects. The only personal interest-related comments were made when students 3 1 8 expressed their positive attitudes toward rats and how happy they were to study rats.

1 9
In comparison, the aspects that decreased interest related to the same issues. The most common 3 2 0 aspect was a lack of reward: The project was seen as rather long and time-consuming compared to itself. Lack of experientiality and meaningfulness were also mentioned: Students were disappointed 3 2 3 when there were no rat tracks on the plates, or because they did not live within the study area, and could not study their own near environment. We classified students' descriptions of their learning experiences with the framework of the revised 3 2 8 Bloom's taxonomy (Table 2). We did not observe all cognitive processes included in the taxonomy, 3 2 9 such as analyzing or creating, because most of the mentions were on remembering and  Factual knowledge was also understood and applied specifically in the context of the students' own  learning was related to procedural knowledge on different cognitive process levels. While students 3 4 5 described learning how to study rats in an urban environment, they also described different, broader 3 4 6 topics, such as understanding how difficult it is to collect scientific data and how that knowledge  needs to be properly researched." In addition, students described metacognitive processes such as understanding how they can plan 3 5 1 the research and how they were able to work by following the instructions. More "higher"-level 3 5 2 cognitive processes involved applying the research protocol in diverse authentic settings and being 3 5 3 effective during group work. Furthermore, participation led the students to critically think about 3 5 4 their accomplishments and the reliability of the data that they had collected. In addition, one case of described learning did not fit the revised Bloom's taxonomy because it was 3 5 9 more related to attitudes toward performing research and an appreciation of the hard work needed to 3 6 0 collect research data. [research] data that are available on the Internet." In most of the interviews (six out of nine), students described negative feelings toward rats, while in 3 6 6 the other three interviews, students described positive feelings toward rats (Table 3). When asked 3 6 7 about the effect of participating in the project on their attitudes toward rats, seven students 3 6 8 mentioned that they now have more positive attitudes. Student 5-1: "Rats are kind of stigmatized, but [that idea] kind of disappeared during 3 7 0 this project as they do not seem to transmit diseases, so it does not really matter   In contrast, one student mentioned having more negative feelings toward rats. They had not 3 7 4 previously thought about rats and did not really understand that they are present everywhere in 3 7 5 cities.

7 6
Rat activity was seen as problematic through the lens of perceived risks of contagion from rats or "another personal risk", but this was not reflected in detail. The habitus of rats was seen as toward rats has been learned from society, or from school.

8 4
In contrast, the positive feelings described by two interviewees were linked to participation in the suggested that having pets in general would lead to more positive feelings toward rats.

8 7
Though students commonly had negative feelings toward rats, none of the students suggested that 3 8 8 these feelings would have prevented them from doing the study. The students mentioned that the 3 8 9 research setting felt safe; thus, any worries they might have had were mitigated. Interestingly, when 3 9 0 those students who had observed rat tracks in their own backyard or other near environment were 3 9 1 asked whether that led to any actions, such as telling their parents, or whether they reflected on if 3 9 2 that should affect their use of urban spaces, students did not describe any consequences as a result 3 9 3 of observing rats. We aimed to uncover how well participating in a citizen science project and surveying in the near 3 9 8 environment the occurrence of an animal that usually elicits negative feelings can fit into a formal  Students were curious about the urban rat research. As participation in the citizen science project al. (2002), this authenticity was not only a major motivational factor but also ensured that students 4 1 7 would be more careful in working and generating reliable data. Secondly, contextuality was linked near environment. Our findings suggest that the students appreciated that they could use 4 2 0 environments with which they were already familiar in their everyday lives as a study context. As 4 2 1 such, citizen science projects in environments that are important for students can be very valuable 4 2 2 contexts in facilitating learning (Pintrich, Marx, and Boyle 1993).

2 3
The factors that reduced interest in the research were most commonly the opposite of the factors 4 2 4 that increased interest. While this is no surprise, one interesting tradeoff emerged in our analysis.

2 5
While failure in the research or lack of rat tracks were seen as demotivating issues, they were still  Our findings revealed a diverse set of perceived learning that the students described in their 4 3 7 interviews. While students mainly participated in the collection of data, as our project was 4 3 8 contributory, this still led to potential substantial learning, although it has been suggested that  Rats evoke many kinds of feelings in students who study them. As in Kellert's (1985) classification, 4 5 0 rats were perceived as dangerous to humans, damaging pests, aesthetically suspect, and negatively 4 5 1 linked through society and history to humans, though we did not find other Kellert's classes. Both Ribeiro 2014). We were not able to assess how attitudes changed during the project because we did 4 5 7 not measure them prior to participation. Some students described themselves as having more 4 5 8 positive attitudes toward rats, but it was more common that students had a simple acknowledgment 4 5 9 of the presence of rats. Interestingly, rats are ever-present in the urban areas, but students have rarely considered their  Nevertheless, there are encounters between students and rats, when rats run on the plates set by 4 6 6 students, and students can observe these tracks, and thus opportunities for common worlds (Taylor  While students were interested in knowing whether there were rats in their near environment, actual observations of rat presence did not lead to any substantial actions, such as reflections on their 4 7 0 relationship to rats in an urban space or discussions with other people about rats. Thus, even though 4 7 1 rats are an integral part of the urban ecosystem and demonstrably present in the nearest of near 4 7 2 environments for students, the relationship between students and rats remains distant. Students 4 7 3 described that they learned in school that rats spread diseases, which enforces the human-nature  The main limitation of our study was that we did not track actual learning outcomes but rather 4 8 1 students' perceptions and reports of what they had learned. As our study is based on the students'  It would be interesting to enrich this understanding of student experiences to observe actual 4 8 6 research practices by shadowing students in the field while they are setting the plates.

8 7
The sample size was limited but the participants came from different age groups and different 4 8 8 schools, so they were a good representation of the participants of the study overall. Even though the 4 8 9 results might not be representative of all possible experiences, they describe well the experiences of 4 9 0 the participants in the urban rat citizen science project. We do not know how much the motivation 4 9 1 of the participants to take part in the interview biases our results. On the other hand, the most 4 9 2 motivated students might be more willing to take part in interviews but it is also true that less 4 9 3 motivated students might want to take part in interviews so they do not need to be in a biology class. Nevertheless, these are general problems related to the research interviews; therefore, any 4 9 5 interview-based study is susceptible to these biases.

9 6
Our theoretical framework was not equipped to explore affective and emotional domains of learning 4 9 7 about animals. Prior research suggests this is a very important part of learning with more-than-4 9 8 humans (Taylor, and Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2015;Boileau, and Russell 2018;Rautio et al. 2017;Lloro-4 9 9 Bidart 2018). Consequently, our project aims to delve deeper into the affective reactions to rats in 5 0 0 further studies.

0 1
Notwithstanding the limitations in our study, we had similar results to many previous studies Jordan et al. 2011;Mitchell et al. 2017;Silva et al. 2016;Bonney et al. 2016;Phillips et al. 2018).

0 3
They suggest that citizen science projects can be a valuable tool in the palette of environmental 5 0 4 education. Our results also suggest that students can learn higher skills in evaluation and planning research (Bonney, Ballard, et al. 2009;Phillips et al. 2018) and these student perceptions should be 5 0 6 further studied by actually tracking learning outcomes. There is commonly a potential conflict in citizen science projects because participants have Zoellick, Nelson, and Schauffler 2012). This is understandable as scientists wish to collect as much 5 1 2 reliable data as possible, whereas participants look for personal experiences (Rotman et al. 2012).

1 3
Based on our results, we have evidence that the HURP is a citizen science project that provides science project was one of the advantages because students described the ease of participation as 5 1 6 one of the characteristics that increased their interest in participating in the project. The role of guiding and mentoring participation is emphasized in citizen science projects. As such, participation is facilitated by their teachers. This provides helping hands for the project, as well- trained teachers are an asset in ensuring participation and providing support to participants.

2 1
Nevertheless, this creates an additional level of requirements for the citizen science projects because 5 2 2 the projects need to be aligned to the school curricula. However, with a well-designed project, this 5 2 3 can be a valuable asset because one of the perceived benefits of citizen science is learning, which is 5 2 4 also the aim of school curricula. Our results support the idea that citizen science can be a valuable part of formal education in 5 2 8 incorporating authentic research practices to everyday classroom practice. Furthermore, participating in a study coordinated by outside (i.e., academic) partners is seen as more valuable 5 3 0 than experimental work done in school "for the school's sake." Especially in the cases where data 5 3 1 collection occurs outside the school setting and even in the near environment for students, the 5 3 2 motivational aspects of citizen science projects are significant.

3 3
Our study highlights some critical points that need to be considered for participation in citizen 5 3 4 science projects to be successful. Firstly, the aims of teachers and students need to be aligned with 5 3 5 the researchers who are running the project. In an optimal case, the citizen science project can fit 5 3 6 perfectly to a curriculum and provide a ready-made package for teachers to use. Secondly, teachers 5 3 7 cannot be passive participants in the project, but they need to react to the experiences and outcomes 5 3 8 of student participation. We suggest that there is a need for discussion in the classroom on the 5 3 9 objectives, problems related to, and eventually experiences during the citizen science project. While 5 4 0 some students might acquire meaningful learning experiences just by participating, a chance to 5 4 1 reflect on the project in a classroom would provide many more opportunities for learning. Thirdly, 5 4 2 analysis of the data would provide further opportunities for learning; a collaborative or co-created 5 4 3 citizen science project could be even more valuable from an educational point-of-view.

4 4
Nevertheless, there is a trade-off on how much course time teachers can dedicate to a citizen 5 4 5 science project and how deeply students can become involved (Silva et al. 2016). We suggest that 5 4 6 our approach can enable teachers to participate because it does not take much time, but this comes 5 4 7 with a possible trade-off for more shallow learning experiences. Our case study of participation in a larger citizen science project suggests that studying one's own 5 5 2 near environment can be meaningful and experiential for students. Furthermore, autonomy and 5 5 3 freedom in choosing study sites increased their described interest in the participation. Students knowledge. In general, conceptual knowledge was less common than in previous studies of learning 5 5 6 in citizen science projects, whereas procedural knowledge seems to have been more common.

7
For several reasons, students described negative attitudes toward rats. These included rat habitus and behavior, such as rats moving around in garbage and in sewers, but also cultural or personal 5 5 9 experience, such as learning about rats in school lessons. Our results also suggest that studying a 5 6 0 species that is commonly perceived as an unpleasant urban animal can have the potential to reduce 5 6 1 negative attitudes towards the species.