Adapting Traditional Field Activities in Natural History Education to an Emerging Paradigm in Biodiversity Informatics

Abstract The use of Web-based informatics tools such as eBird, iNaturalist, and NatureAtlas that allow anyone to find and share occurrences and observations of organisms in nature could readily be integrated with the time-honored specimen collection and field journaling components of taxon-based natural history courses. We find, however, that fewer than 2% of such courses have used any such tool. Consequently, the far majority of students receive no formal exposure to the 21st-century technologies and concepts that are transforming the data landscapes of the very fields the courses should be preparing them to enter. We conducted a seven-year, empirical assessment of the integration of such technology with coursework, and our results reveal why recognizing and correcting this shortcoming is critical. Our data indicate that such technology can enhance student engagement and student perception of learning, and that its broader integration with coursework could be a boon to regional and global efforts to document and conserve biodiversity. We conclude that the academic community is missing a tremendous opportunity to better engage future biologists and potential citizen-scientists in a critically important, emergent paradigm in biodiversity informatics.

[1]  Y. Wiersma Birding 2.0: Citizen Science and Effective Monitoring in the Web 2.0 World , 2010 .

[2]  Graeme M. Buchanan,et al.  Identifying Priority Areas for Conservation: A Global Assessment for Forest-Dependent Birds , 2011, PloS one.

[3]  P. Ehrlich,et al.  Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction , 2015, Science Advances.

[4]  Jon Rosewell,et al.  Crowdsourcing the identification of organisms: A case-study of iSpot , 2015, ZooKeys.

[5]  L. Alan Prather,et al.  The Decline of Plant Collecting in the United States: A Threat to the Infrastructure of Biodiversity Studies , 2004 .

[6]  Bryan N. Alexander Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning? , 2006 .

[7]  Jari Niemelä,et al.  Biodiversity monitoring for decision-making , 2000 .

[8]  Arthur Georges,et al.  A Global Analysis of Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Distributions with Identification of Priority Conservation Areas , 2009 .

[9]  Torsten Dikow,et al.  Significance of Specimen Databases from Taxonomic Revisions for Estimating and Mapping the Global Species Diversity of Invertebrates and Repatriating Reliable Specimen Data , 2004 .

[10]  D. Wake,et al.  Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  J. Silvertown A new dawn for citizen science. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[12]  Dennis Burton,et al.  The Plants of Pennsylvania: An Illustrated Manual, 2nd ed , 2008 .

[13]  Corinna Gries,et al.  Symbiota – A virtual platform for creating voucher-based biodiversity information communities , 2014, Biodiversity data journal.

[14]  Allen H. Hurlbert,et al.  Spatiotemporal Variation in Avian Migration Phenology: Citizen Science Reveals Effects of Climate Change , 2012, PloS one.

[15]  Robert P Guralnick,et al.  Towards a collaborative, global infrastructure for biodiversity assessment , 2007, Ecology letters.

[16]  R. Bonney,et al.  Next Steps for Citizen Science , 2014, Science.

[17]  Loren B. Byrne,et al.  Biodiversity loss and the taxonomic bottleneck: emerging biodiversity science , 2006, Ecological Research.

[18]  Claire L. Kirkhope,et al.  Eu-Social Science: The Role of Internet Social Networks in the Collection of Bee Biodiversity Data , 2010, PloS one.

[19]  Anders Telenius,et al.  Biodiversity information goes public: GBIF at your service , 2011 .