Perspective
Revising the Economic Imperative for US STEM Education
Brian M. Donovan1*, David Moreno Mateos2, Jonathan F. Osborne1, Daniel J. Bisaccio3
1 Stanford Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America, 2 Centre D’Ecologie Fonctionnelle & Evolutive-CNRS (UMR
5175), Montpellier, France, 3 Department of Education, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America
This Perspective is part of the Education
Series
Summary: Over the last decade
macroeconomic studies have established a clear link between student
achievement on science and math
tests and per capita gross domestic
product (GDP) growth, supporting
the widely held belief that science,
technology, engineering, and math
(STEM) education are important factors in the production of economic
prosperity. We critique studies that
use science and math tests to predict
GDP growth, arguing that estimates
of the future economic value of
STEM education involve substantial
speculation because they ignore the
impacts of economic growth on
biodiversity and ecosystem functionality, which, in the long-term, limit
the potential for future economic
growth. Furthermore, we argue that
such ecological impacts can be
enabled by STEM education. Therefore, we contend that the real
economic imperative for the STEM
pipeline is not just raising standardized test scores, but also empowering students to assess, preserve, and
restore ecosystems in order to reduce ecological degradation and
increase economic welfare.
The Perspective section provides experts with a
forum to comment on topical or controversial issues
of broad interest.
The economic imperative for STEM
education is one of many different justifications for the teaching of science, but it is
one of the most influential [1]. Advanced
economies need to innovate, the argument
goes, in order to grow their GDP and,
therefore, need a continuous supply of
scientists and engineers to drive innovation
[1–3]. STEM education is the pipeline
that provides these future scientists. Without this steady flow of scientists, policy
makers and academics have argued US
economic competitiveness will decline [4].
Consequently, raising student achievement on standardized science and math
tests has become an economic imperative
for education [2].
Our contention, however, is that the
economic imperative for STEM education
ignores not only the damage market
economies often inflict on biodiversity
and ecosystem functionality but also the
negative consequences of these impacts on
future economic welfare, including the
costs of restoration. Moreover, economic
activity is subsidized by multiple ecosystem
services, such as crop pollination provided
by insects or water purification provided
by wetlands that are often overlooked in
economic modeling. We argue that because economic modeling correlating
STEM achievement tests to per capita
GDP growth ignores the ecological consequences of economic growth, predictions
of the future value of STEM education
using achievement tests and GDP are
flawed. And by teaching the knowledge
and skills that allow drastic manipulations
of the environment STEM education can
indirectly enable ecological degradation.
Given that well preserved ecosystems with
higher biodiversity render more ecosystem
services to society [5,6], we contend that a
major economic imperative for STEM
education should be to empower students
to assess, preserve, and restore ecosystems.
Presumed Economic Benefits of
STEM Education
Education contributes to economic
growth by producing human capital.
Student performance on standardized
tests, such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and
Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS), has emerged as a
measure of the cognitive skills and knowledge that constitute human capital [7].
Because they are highly correlated [7],
TIMSS and PISA results are commonly
aggregated by country into a single
variable and used to predict national
GDP growths. For example, Hanushek
and colleagues [2] looked at the relationship between a country’s standardized test
scores and per capita GDP growth from
1960 to 2000 and found that countries
with higher test scores in 1960 experienced
greater GDP growth than countries with
lower test scores in the subsequent decades
after 1960. The authors argued that these
correlational results demonstrate the value
of science-related human capital for GDP
growth [2,7,8] going so far as to contend
that if the United States had raised its
PISA test scores by 50 points during the
1990s, the American economy would have
experienced sufficient economic growth to
pay for the entire US education system in
2015 and thereafter. Indeed, it is a widely
held belief that the cognitive skills mea-
Citation: Donovan BM, Moreno Mateos D, Osborne JF, Bisaccio DJ (2014) Revising the Economic Imperative for
US STEM Education. PLoS Biol 12(1): e1001760. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001760
Series Editor: Cheryl A. Kerfeld, University of California Berkeley, United States of America
Published January 14, 2014
Copyright: ß 2014 Donovan et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* E-mail: briand79@stanford.edu
PLOS Biology | www.plosbiology.org
1
January 2014 | Volume 12 | Issue 1 | e1001760
sured by science and math achievement
tests have some causal influence over GDP
growth because scientists and engineers
produce knowledge and innovations that
lead to new markets, new jobs, and future
consumption [3]. But assigning such
extraordinary predictive value to science
and math tests assumes a narrow view of
economic growth. Moreover, such predictions are arguably based upon flawed
assumptions about the relationships between STEM knowledge, the economy,
and the environment.
The Questionable Assumptions
of the Economic Imperative
Traditionally, macro-economic models
have not considered the ecological consequences of economic growth or their
effects on future economic growth [9].
This relationship, modeled by The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) [9],
hypothesizes that as incomes rise, so does
environmental degradation but that degradation declines with further income
growth. Under this model society can
outgrow environmental problems simply
by raising average income.
The EKC, however, is not supported by
what is known about many forms of
ecological degradation [9,10]. Data demonstrate that as incomes rise, most pollutants and flows of waste increase monotonically, thus signaling prolonged global
environmental degradation [9,10]. Further, the model assumes that any environmental harm from economic activity
would not impede future economic growth
[9]. Theoretical analyses show, however,
that neither the marketplace nor technological innovation reverse ecological degradation because economic markets currently undervalue the natural capital
embodied in ecosystems [10]. Indeed,
raising income is unlikely to break destructive consumption patterns of natural
resources because increased capital and
increased exploitation of resources tends
to go hand in hand, limiting future
economic growth by damaging ecosystems
[11,12]. For example, as GDP increased
between 1950 and 2005 in the United
States, the amount of biologically productive land available for resources and
waste absorption, or biocapacity, decreased [13].
Biocapacity decreases as a function of
the degradation of the biodiversity and
functionality of terrestrial, aquatic, and
marine ecosystems. The organisms in
ecosystems (for example, fish stocks) are a
source of natural capital for humans, and
the interactions between them, and other
PLOS Biology | www.plosbiology.org
abiotic factors, provide ecosystem services
to humans. However, the economic value
of ecosystems is often established only after
they have sustained damage [14,15]. For
example, American horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus) are bled non-destructively
to produce amoebocyte lysate, which is
used to detect bacterial endotoxin that
causes septic shock and death in
humans [16]. Despite the clear benefit of
this stock of capital to human welfare and
the biomedical industry, horseshoe crab
populations have been decimated over
the last 20 years by overfishing and other
human induced causes [16]. A broader
estimate of the value of ecosystem services
indicates that the entire biosphere provides on average US$58 trillion (estimated
2013 US$ value) of ecological subsidies per
year [17]. New Jersey wetlands, for
example, provide disturbance regulation
at the rate of US$3 billion per year [18].
Likewise, by investing US$1.5 billion on
watershed protection, New York City
avoided US$6 billion in water treatment
costs [19].
Wetland destruction also provides a
unique perspective for examining the
purported economic benefits of STEM
education [i.e., 2,8]. Approximately
5,119,000 hectares of wetlands were
destroyed between the mid-1950s and
the late 1990s in the US [20], and it is
estimated that each hectare of wetland
produces US$14,785 worth of ecosystem
services each year [17]. Thus, the total
cost of US economic development in the
latter half of the twentieth century, in
terms of wetland destruction, could be
estimated as US$135 billion (estimated
2013 US$ value). Yet this cost of wetland
damage does not figure into models of
the future economic value of STEM
education [i.e., 2,8], even though these
damages occurred during the period
of economic development upon which
the models of its value were based. Indeed,
reviews of the modeling methods used
in studies on the relationship between
STEM based human capital and GDP
growth include no discussion of how to
correct per capita GDP estimates for the
ecological costs of economic development
[7], such as reductions in US biocapacity
[13].
But, if STEM education produces
STEM based human capital—capital that
is responsible for technological innovations
and economic growth—what responsibility does STEM education bear for the
economic costs associated with reductions
in US biocapacity? The same science
related human capital that allows one to
improve the productivity of farming,
2
construct new dams, engineer urban
sprawl, or produce new chemicals is
the same human capital that reduces the
biocapacity of wetlands [19]. And when
markets undervalue natural capital, the
same human capital that produces technological innovations can, and often does,
result in the rapacious consumption of
natural capital [10]. Furthermore, the
standard environmental education model
offers little promise of remediation
because it often operates upon inaccurate
models of human behavior change and
so often fails to produce the lifestyle changes that reduce ecological
degradation [21]. Thus, STEM education
creates future economic costs by teaching
the knowledge and skills that enable
ecological degradation, albeit unintended,
while failing to promote the kinds of
behaviors that might effectively mitigate
such degradation.
It is simply untenable to predict the
future value of STEM education over the
next 80 years [e.g., 2,8] without considering
the ecological degradation that can ensue
from enhanced economic activity and its
consequences for human welfare [9–
13,22]. Since history shows that ecological
degradation is brought about by the
economic activities that are a product of
science and technology that are supported
by STEM education, it is a paradox that
ecological externalities are discussed pervasively in environmental economics yet so
absent from discussion of the economic
consequences of STEM education. Thus,
we contend that an education that fails to
acknowledge the ways in which STEM
knowledge might impede economic growth
indirectly by enabling ecosystem degradation is, at best, guilty of ignorance and, at
worst, deception.
This is not to argue that we should not
teach STEM subjects, or that STEM
education has not increased public understanding of environmental problems, or
that there is no good economic rationale
for STEM education. For example, increasing the representation of women and
people of color in the STEM pipeline to
improve their access to better jobs is a
worthy economic imperative for STEM
education [3]. Likewise, the integration of
environmental justice [23], climate change
[24], and socio-scientific issues [25] into
school science arguably improves environmental literacy. But all too often, economic rhetoric about the value of STEM
education results in the imperative to raise
achievement on science and math tests
[i.e., 2,8]. When this occurs, curriculum
and instruction in school science can
become myopically focused on the transJanuary 2014 | Volume 12 | Issue 1 | e1001760
mission of a body of disconnected and
decontextualized facts [1]—facts that are
only important because they need to be
mastered in order to be successful on the
next test within the STEM pipeline. It is
this kind of education that does not afford
students the opportunity to think deeply or
critically about their life in relationship to
STEM, the economy, and the environment.
Rhetoric about the economic value of
STEM education is all the more concerning because GDP is a flawed indicator of
economic welfare. As Kubriszewski and
colleagues [13] point out, GDP was never
designed to measure economic welfare.
Other indicators, like the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) and the Index of
Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW),
measure economic welfare produced
through economic activity. GPI, for example, adjusts the personal consumption
component of GDP using measures of
environmental degradation and income
inequality to create a better approximation of the sustainability of economic
growth [13]. By comparing GPI and
GDP growth amongst 17 countries representing 53% of the world population
between 1950 and 2005, Kubriszewski
and colleagues [13] found that GDP
growth improves human welfare to a
threshold point of US$7,000 per capita
GDP (reached in 1978), after which
further increases in GDP growth are
associated with decreased economic welfare (i.e., GPI), in part, because of impacts
on ecosystems. Thus, we contend that the
real economic imperative for US STEM
education in the 21st century is not
teaching to the test to increase GDP,
rather it is teaching the knowledge and
skills that might increase economic welfare.
Producing Economic Welfare
through STEM Education
One way an economically motivated
STEM education policy can increase
economic welfare is by reducing environmental degradation. Toward that end,
STEM education must teach students
about the benefits of biodiversity and
ecosystem functions [14–19,22] to redress
the devaluation of ecosystems [10–15,17].
Furthermore, it should teach students how
to assess, preserve, and restore ecosystems
in their local communities because research suggests that large increases in
biodiversity and ecosystem services can
result from restoration efforts carried out
locally [26].
PLOS Biology | www.plosbiology.org
To promote a nuanced view of environmental issues, this curriculum should
stress that economic growth can increase
human welfare up to a point, after which
human welfare can deteriorate along with
ecosystems [13]. We are not suggesting
that lessons pit economy against ecology,
but that they challenge students to envision social and technological solutions to
environmental problems that are economically feasible. By the same token, these
solutions should not overlook the fact that
the burden of environmental degradation
falls disproportionately on the poor and
people of color [11,27,28]. Thus, the
curriculum should ask students to envision
equitable solutions to environmental problems. Finally, research suggests that introducing students to careers in science
[29,30] and building science related
social relationships enhances students’
STEM career aspirations [29,30]. Consequently, the STEM curriculum should
explicitly introduce students to gainful
‘‘Green Jobs’’ [31] as well as individuals
who have these jobs, in order to increase
the likelihood that students pursue STEM
career tracks that contribute to a sustainable economy.
Our revision of the economic goals of
STEM education is therefore projectbased and interdisciplinary (see Table 1).
It requires the collaboration of researchers, science educators, and students on
projects directed towards the assessment,
preservation, and restoration of ecosystem
services found within the geographical
reach of a school community in order to
improve human welfare. The knowledge
of researchers will be needed to ensure the
collection of quality data that can be used
for the purposes of ecosystem service
management [15]. The knowledge of
educators will be needed to construct a
valuable educational experience using this
data—an experience that is different from
lab work, which rarely requires students to
integrate scientific concepts with phenomena using a scientific model [32], and an
experience that would engage students in
collaborative and critical discourse [33] to
understand the scientific and economic
complexities inherent in environmental
problems. The knowledge that students
possess about their home communities is
needed to communicate effectively the
findings of these projects to diverse
audiences. Cooper and colleagues [34]
outline community science research models with high research, management, and
education value that could be used to
organize these field projects. Likewise,
Kloser and colleagues [35] propose a
framework for integrating research into
3
teaching that could be used to organize
classroom instruction for these projects,
which, if used, can also improve students’
competency at experimental design and
data interpretation [36].
Our proposals could be incorporated
into existing educational initiatives. The
Globe Program, for instance, brings scientists, educators, and students together
on research projects that investigate the
environment [37]. Similarly, the HabitatNet program engages high school students
in biodiversity monitoring of tropical and
temperate forests [38] through participatory action research [34]. Both of these
programs train teachers to use established
field research protocols with students.
Such programs could be adapted to train
teachers to empower students to assess,
preserve, and restore ecosystems. Afterwards, long-term teacher support could be
offered through Massive Online Open
Courses (MOOCs). Furthermore, initiatives like the Ecology Society of America’s
SEEDs program, which seeks to increase
the diversity of the ecology profession
through ecology club opportunities that
promote ecological awareness and action
[39], might be used as a platform to
organize the ecological research projects
that are integral to our plan. For example,
undergraduates and professors involved in
SEEDs could work with school science
programs to design adaptive co-management research projects [34] in local
ecosystems. Finally, our revision of STEM
is aligned with the Next Generation
Science Standards [40], thus making it
easy to assimilate within contemporary K–
12 science instruction.
Conclusion
Justifying STEM education through the
economic imperative demands a consideration of what the limitations of this
imperative might be. The purported
relationship between STEM education
and economic growth rests upon the
questionable assumption that economic
development has no ecological costs or
that those costs can be eliminated through
continued GDP growth. A good education
enables students to live an economically,
socially, culturally, and politically responsible life. It helps students to put their lives
in order, which means knowing which
things are more important, or as important, as other things. If science and
technology facilitates ecological degradation, then an essential economic imperative for 21st century STEM education is
making students aware of the possible
outcomes of their actions as scientists and
January 2014 | Volume 12 | Issue 1 | e1001760
Table 1. Suggested objectives and projects for STEM education at each grade level.
Grade Level
Objectives and Rationale
Examples of Interdisciplinary Projects
Elementary school
Build positive attitudes towards non-human organisms by
stressing how they help humans because pro-environmental
attitudes are an important baseline predictor of
pro-environmental behavior [21].
(i) Learn about organisms essential to food production and carry
out descriptive studies on them in school gardens. Then,
communicate findings to the school community.
(ii) Learn about the cultural practices that local indigenous peoples
use(d) to manage natural capital and have older students educate
younger students about how and why these groups value(d) nonhuman kinds.
Middle school
Teach in depth about one local ecosystem service and its
benefits because particular attitudes towards specific
environmental problems predict whether one engages in
environmental behavior [21]. Introduce students to green
jobs and local professionals who have them in order to
lay the foundation for a sustainable economy.
(i) Monitoring of a local ecosystem service where students work
collaboratively to choose appropriate sampling techniques,
analyze and interpret data, argue about its meaning, and
effectively communicate these interpretations to different
audiences outside of school (i.e., local politicians, business people,
family).
(ii) An interview project where students are introduced to local
professionals with green jobs and interview them to learn about
the job. Students present their findings to the class.
High school
Teach particular strategies used to solve environmental
problems and have students apply these strategies to a
local environmental issue, because: (i) knowledge of
environmental action strategies reinforces the relationship
between pro-environmental attitudes and pro-environmental
behavior [21]; (ii) building upon self-efficacy and locus
of control can influence the desire to engage in newly
developed environmental behaviors [21].
(i) Design and carry out adaptive co-management projects [34]
around a local ecosystem service in conjunction with a local
scientist or through a MOOC offered by a university.
(ii) Discuss the sociological dimensions of ecological degradation,
such as EJ issues [28]. Then, envision solutions to local EJ issues
and present them to local policy makers in the community.
(iii) Apply environmental action strategies to address a local
environmental issue in collaboration with local STEM professionals
who are environmental advocates.
Undergraduate
Deepen students’ awareness of the complex relationships
inherent in human-ecological interactions in order to create
a new generation of STEM workers who are capable of
working across disciplinary boundaries to assess, preserve,
and restore ecosystems in order to improve human welfare.
(i) Participation in faculty led research programs that investigate
the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services,
restoration ecology, conservation biology, environmental
economics, and social ecology.
(ii) Engage mathematics students in projects that model the nonlinear relationships between population growth, poverty,
consumption, and ecology [10].
(iii) Engage social science students in projects that require them to
envision win-win solutions to biodiversity issues, which are
interventions that can benefit both the rural poor and biodiversity
[11,27].
(iv) MOOCs that engage participants in ecological research using
community science research protocols [34] and which also require
people to adopt behaviors to reduce their ecological footprint.
EJ, environmental justice.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001760.t001
technologists and empowering students to
assess, preserve, and restore ecosystems,
and hence the services they render to
society. To deny that human civilization is
dependent upon nature, and thus, to
dismiss the ecological costs of economic
activity, can only further undermine our
children’s future economic welfare.
7. Hanushek EA, Woessmann L (2010) The
economics of international differences in educational achievement. Cambridge (Massachusetts):
National Bureau of Economic Research. 116
pp.
8. Shultz GP, Hanushek EA (2012 April 30) Education is the key to a healthy economy. Wall Street
Journal. Available: http://online.wsj.com/news/
articles/SB10001424052702303513404577356422
025164482/
9. Stern DI (2004) The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 32: 1419–1439.
10. Dasgupta PS, Ehrlich PR (2013) Pervasive
externalities at the population, consumption,
and environment nexus. Science 340: 324–328.
11. CBD (2010) Linking biodiversity conservation
and poverty alleviation: a state of knowledge
review. CBD Technical Series number 55.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity. Available: http://www.cbd.int/doc/
publications/cbd-ts-55-en.pdf
12. Arrow K, Dasgupta P, Goulder L, Daily G,
Ehrlich P, et al. (2004) Are we consuming too
much? J Econ Perspect 18: 147–172.
13. Kubiszewski I, Costanza R, Franco C, Lawn P,
Talberth J, et al. (2013) Beyond GDP: measuring
and achieving global genuine progress. Ecol Econ
93: 57–68.
14. Farber SC, Costanza R, Wilson MA (2002)
Economic and ecological concepts for valuing
ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 41: 375–392.
15. Heal G, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Salzman J (2001)
Protecting natural capital through ecosystem service districts. Stanf Environ Law J 20: 333–364.
16. Botton ML (2002) The conservation of horseshoe
crabs: what can we learn from the Japanese
experience? Tanacredi JT,. Limulus in the
limelight. New York: Springer. pp. 41–51.
17. Costanza R, d’Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S,
Grasso M, et al. (1997) The value of the world’s
ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature
387: 253–260.
References
1. Osborne J (2000) Science for Citizenship. Osborne J, Monk M, editors. Good practice in
science teaching: What research has to say.
Berkshire: Open University Press. pp. 46–67.
2. Hanushek EA, Jamison DT, Jamison EA, Woessmann L (2008) Education and economic growth:
It’s not just going to school, but learning something
while there that matters. EdNext 8: 62–70.
3. Roschelle J, Bakia M, Toyama Y, Patton C (2011)
Eight issues for learning scientists about education
and the economy. J Learn Sci 20: 3–49.
4. Augustine NR, Barrett C, Cassell G, Grasmick N,
Holliday C, et al. (2010) Rising above the
gathering storm, revisited. Washington (D.C.):
National Academy Press. 103 p.
5. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU,
Perrings C, et al. (2012) Biodiversity loss and its
impact on humanity. Nature 486: 59–67.
6. Loreau M, de Mazancourt C (2013) Biodiversity
and ecosystem stability: a synthesis of underlying
mechanisms. Ecol Lett 16: 106–15.
PLOS Biology | www.plosbiology.org
4
January 2014 | Volume 12 | Issue 1 | e1001760
18. Costanza R, Wilson M, Troy A, Voinov A, Liu S,
et al. (2006) The value of New Jersey’s ecosystem
services and natural capital. Trenton (New
Jersey): New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection. 177 p.
19. Postel SL, Thompson BH (2005) Watershed
protection: capturing the benefits of nature’s water
supply services. Nat Resour Forum 29: 98–108.
20. Dahl TE (2000) Status and trends of wetlands in
the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997.
Washington (D.C.): US Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 84 p.
21. Heimlich J, Ardoin N (2008) Understanding
behavior to understand behavior change: a
literature review. Environ Educ Res 14: 215–237.
22. Dı́az S, Fargione J, Chapin III FS, Tilman D
(2006) Biodiversity loss threatens human wellbeing. PLoS Biol 4:1300–1305. doi:10.1371/
journal.pbio.0040277
23. Barton AC, Tan E (2010) ‘‘It Changed Our
Lives’’: activism, science, and greening the
community. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 10: 207–222.
doi:10.1080/14926156.2010.504480
24. Lester BT, Ma L, Lee O, Lambert J (2006) Social
activism in elementary science education: a science,
technology, and society approach to teach global
warming. Int J Sci Educ 28: 315–339.
PLOS Biology | www.plosbiology.org
25. Sadler TD (2004) Informal reasoning regarding
socioscientific issues: a critical review of research.
J Res Sci Teach 41: 513–536.
26. Benayas JMR, Newton AC, Diaz A, Bullock JM
(2009) Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem
services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis.
Science 325: 1121–1124.
27. Adams WM (2004) Biodiversity conservation and
the eradication of poverty. Science 306: 1146–
1149.
28. Cutter SL (1995). Race, class and environmental
justice. Prog Hum Geog 19: 111–122.
29. Aschbacher PR, Li E, Roth EJ (2010) Is science me?
High school students’ identities, participation and
aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine.
J Res Sci Teach 47: 564–582.
30. Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B,
Wong B (2012) Science aspirations, capital, and
family habitus: how families shape children’s
engagement and identification with science. Am
Educ Res J 49: 881–908.
31. United States Department of Labor. Green jobs.
Available: http://www.dol.gov/dol/green/
32. Abrahams I, Millar R (2008) Does practical work
really work? A study of the effectiveness of
practical work as a teaching and learning method
in school science. Int J Sci Educ 30: 1945–1969.
5
33. Osborne J (2010) Arguing to learn in science: the
role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science
328: 463–466.
34. Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Phillips T, Bonney R
(2007) Citizen science as a tool for conservation in
residential ecosystems. Ecol Soc 12: 11 p.
35. Kloser MJ, Brownell SE, Chiariello NR, Fukami
T (2011) Integrating teaching and research in
undergraduate biology laboratory education.
PLoS Biol 9: e1001174. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001174
36. Kloser MJ, Brownell SE, Shavelson RJ, Fukami T
(2013) Effects of a research-based ecology lab
course: a study of nonvolunteer achievement, selfconfidence, and perception of lab course purpose.
J Coll Sci Teach 42: 90–99.
37. (2013) The Globe Program. Available: http://
globe.gov/about-globe
38. (2013) HabitatNet. Available: http://www.
habitatnetfieldstudies.com/
39. (2013) Strategies for Ecology Education, Diversity
and Sustainability (SEEDS). Available: http://
esa.org/seeds/
40. (2013) Next Generation Science Standards. Available: www.nextgenscience.org/next-generationscience-standards
January 2014 | Volume 12 | Issue 1 | e1001760