to the Final Report

APPENDIX 3

NATIONAL MARINE EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION

MEMBERSHIP PROFILE
You may electronically download this document from:

http://www.oceancommission.gov

This document may be cited as follows: 

National Marine Educators Association Membership Profile

Appendix 3 to An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century

Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

Washington, D.C., 2004

ISBN#0–9759462–4–2
NMEA

SPECIAL REPORT #1

Special Edition • July 2003

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I.

SPECIAL ISSUE LOG

CONTENTS 

I.-V. The National Marine Educators

Association (NMEA) Membership

Profile: Data Analyses and

Interpretations – Executive

Summary

1-14 The National Marine Educators

Association (NMEA) Membership

Profile: Data Analyses and

Interpretations

14 Acknowledgements

14 About the Authors

14 References

15-18 Appendix: NMEA Membership

Profile and Cover Letter

This Special Issue, “The NMEA Membership Profile 

Data Analyses and Interpretations,” is being provided 

to the NMEA membership with the approval of its

Board. This study was requested by the Research,

Education, and Marine Operations (REMO) Working

Group of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The

purpose of this survey was twofold: 1) to collect baseline data regarding formal and informal efforts in marine

and aquatic education based on the NMEA membership

2) to provide the interpretation of these analyses to 

the REMO/Commission. Further, the NMEA Board 

also believes these finding will be beneficial to its future

strategic plans.

Funding for this Special Issue has been provided by the following individuals, institutions of higher learning, and/or 

professional societies: 1) Mr. Alan Rammer of the Northwest Aquatic and Marine Educators Chapter of NMEA; 

2) The University of Southern Mississippi-Scott Aquarium through funding generated by Drs. Sharon Walker and

Howard Walters; 3) The University of Florida and Florida Sea Grant College Program through funding generated 

by Dr. Mike Spranger; and 4) the National Marine Educators Association. 

Sharon H. Walker, Issue Editor 
In December 2002, the National Marine

Educators Association (NMEA) surveyed its

1,182 members at the request of the Research,

Education and Marine Operations (REMO)

Working Group of the U.S. Commission on

Ocean Policy. The purpose of the survey 

(see Appendix) was twofold: 1) to collect baseline data regarding formal and informal 

efforts in marine and aquatic education based

on the NMEA membership and 2) to provide

the interpretation of these analyses to the

REMO/ Commission. The interpretation of

these data should be helpful to the Commission

members in making its education recommendations to President Bush and Congress in late

fall, 2003. In endorsing this survey, the NMEA

Executive Board also believes the findings will

be beneficial to its future strategic plans. Of the

1,182 members surveyed, 516 individuals provided completed surveys—representing a

response rate of 43.8%. It is noted a typical

response rate for educational surveys is approximately 30%, indicating this current survey

response rate is significantly higher than average. Possible reasons for the higher response

rate is the strong communications structure of

NMEA, the strong “investment” of the membership with the potentially significant outcomes

of the Commission’s activities, and the methodological factor of pre-paid postage being included with the survey dissemination. 

NMEA SPECIAL REPORT #1

July 2003

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

THE NATIONAL MARINE EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION (NMEA)

MEMBERSHIP PROFILE

DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Sharon H. Walker1, Howard D. Walters2, and Wendy B. Allen3

The University of Southern Mississippi (USM) • College of Marine Sciences (COMS)

J.L. Scott Marine Education Center and Aquarium (MEC&A), Biloxi, MS 1 and 2

North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR)

University of South Carolina (USC) • Baruch Marine Laboratory, Georgetown, SC3

II.
NMEA

DEMOGRAPHIC FINDINGS (which were optional for respondents) were as listed below:

• Gender of Respondents: 60% female and 

40% male

• Age of Respondents: Over 56% were over 

46 years of age indicating the majority of 

these formal and informal educators are 

nearing 25 years of service.

These data revealed an age distinction in 

professional categories, i.e. the younger

two age brackets (21-30 and 31-45) are

far more likely to be comprised of informal educators. The older two age brackets (46-60 and over 61) are more likely to

be comprised of formal educators—or

informal educators who reported substantive experience in both informal and formal education.

• Ethnicity of Respondents: An overwhelming

majority of the respondents are Caucasian

with limited numbers of Native American,

Asians, Hispanics, African Americans, and

Other.

• Geographic Location of Respondents: 71%

live in coastal areas and 29% live in inland

areas.

TYPES OF DEGREES

The levels of the 720 degrees reported by

respondents were represented by 4% Associate’s

degrees, 47% Bachelor’s degrees, 37% Master’s

degrees, and 12% Ph.D./Ed.D. degrees. Of the 339

Bachelor’s degrees reported, distribution was

reflected by 76% in science, 17% in education, and

7% in a category designated as “Other.” For the

267 Master’s degrees reported, science represented 55% and education represented 45%.

Distribution of Doctoral degrees was reflected by

66% in science and 34% in education. These findings for the NMEA members responding to this

Membership Profile represent a significantly higher

percentage of formal and informal educators with

degrees in science as compared to the National

Sciences Teachers Association Report (2000) stating

that this nation’s 52 million school age children

between the ages of 5 and 19 are being taught by

1.9 million elementary teachers and 186,000 secondary teachers. And, of these teachers, 37% of

the high school teachers, 83% of the middle

school teachers, and practically all of the elementary teachers are teaching science without

degrees in science.

PROFESSIONAL CAREERS

• Of the total responses provided concerning

Formal and Informal Educators by profession, 

47% of the responses were in the Informal

Education Profession while 53% perceived 

themselves as Formal Educators.

Within these two professions, the 53% of 

the Formal Educators placed themselves

as PreK-12 Teachers (60%), Undergraduate Faculty (25%), and Graduate Faculty

(15%).

The Informal Educators, as professionals,

represented employment in: Museums

(5%), Aquariums (21%), Science Centers

(13%), and Other (53%). The “Other”

Informal Educator category representing

53% categorized their employment in

Non-Governmental Organizations (43%),

University-Linked Facilities (25%), or 

Formal Systems (14%).

It is worth noting that 86 respondents 

indicated a profession in both formal and

informal categories, or approximately 17% 

of the total. This finding may reflect a

growth in informal education in university

settings through extramural education

grant funding, through the development of

informal outreach facilities linked to universities, i.e., through cooperative and/or

marine extension programs, or through

the implementation of environmental science centers for K-12 audiences and the

general public.

SPECIAL REPORT #1

July 2003

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III.
• The age distribution for formal and informal 

educators suggests the presence of a transition among the younger professionals in

bypassing the formal education career path for

a variety of reasons—perhaps a lack of availability of an informal education employment

sector 20 years ago. Further, the upper age

bracket of respondents most likely includes

administrative leadership in informal education

and at least for some part of their career,

were employed in formal education. Over

time and based on the current lower age

bracket of informal and formal profession

preferences—individuals with formal education

experience migrating to informal education

represent a diminishing pool of “next generation” leadership for informal education, as

fewer informal educators are obtaining formal

classroom experiences. This scenario is particularly true within the Sea Grant College network, i.e., the majority of the Sea Grant educators > 45 years of age have had both formal

and informal professional experience. Even

though the total experience would be expected to be less, those educators < 45 years of

age have more limited experience in formal

education. Further, this lack of formal education experience is even more pronounced in

informal educators < 30 years of age. 

INSTRUCTIONAL TIME

INVOLVEMENT

• Of the 523 responses to the third question, 

51% reported up to 20% of time each workday is spent in teaching (lecture and activities) 

marine and/or aquatic sciences.

• In reviewing the younger age bracket of

respondents (22-45) 0-20% of their time is

spent in providing instruction, while the older

age bracket (>46) respondents spent 20-40%

of their time involved in teaching marine and

aquatic content with re-enforcement of complementary activities. 

SCIENCE EDUCATION STANDARDS

• It appears curricula alignment with State and

National Standards is important to both informal and formal—marine and aquatic science

educators. Of the total 747 responses to the

standards question, 47% of the NMEA respondents indicated they used their respective

State Standards, 26% of the respondents use

the National Science Education Standards (NSES)

and 13% use Benchmarks; 14% of the respondents use other standards.

• In comparing the use of State and National

Standards by formal and informal educators, 

the formal educators align their curricula in

the following percentages: State Standards—

45%, NSES—24%, Benchmarks—16%, and

other standards—15%. The informal educators align their curricula in the following percentages: State Standards 50%, NSES—26%,

Benchmarks—12%, and other standards—12%.

• In general, these findings indicate that efforts

to include ocean sciences content into the

NSES should be undertaken.

• Textbooks remain the leading source of

resource materials for teaching at 44% with a

close second source of resource materials

being the World Wide Web at 42%. The

remaining 14 percent is represented by the

use of curricular kits.

• In ascertaining “why” the oceans are important to the NMEA membership, those 

members responding listed the categories

NMEA SPECIAL REPORT #1

July 2003

IV. NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
NMEA

below as the most important:

Global Climate Change Issues — 27%

Environmental Stewardship — 25%

Economic Issues — 22% 

(Economic Impact, Consumable 

Resources, and Fisheries Products)

Social Structures — 15% (Coastal Development,

Population Growth, Distribution of

Resources, Use of Coastal Zones)

Human Health — 11%

It is interesting to note the topics of National

Defense and Security and Global Transportation

received only minimal responses; therefore, they

were not included as priorities. It will also be

interesting in future profiles of the NMEA membership to include these two topics and determine increased emphasis in National Security due

to both the Middle East conflict and Global

Transportation issues. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

These data and their interpretations are significant findings in science education, specifically

marine and aquatic education, for precollege and

general public audiences. It is the opinion of the

authors of this manuscript that these findings

should provide continued, proactive support for

the inclusion of marine and aquatic sciences within the following areas: the NSES; in formal and

informal educators’ classrooms, aquariums, science centers, museums, and governmental facilities; or professional organizations whose missions

involve supporting more responsible, environmental decision-making related to marine and

aquatic issues. It is also of critical importance

that researchers and teachers (formal and informal) work together with mutual professional

respect in “bridging the gap” which currently

exists between researchers’ data and the 

relevance of these data to the everyday lives of 

teachers, their students, and the general public.

Further, to have a more scientifically competitive workforce, precollege students must

be involved in enhanced inquiry-based content

courses—founded on sound science—with this

content being reinforced through hands-on activities. To be competitive in the global workforce,

this nation’s students must be empowered by

well-prepared preservice and inservice teachers

who have been involved in high-quality professional development programs.

Lastly, the authors of this manuscript are also

of the opinions, NMEA and its members are in a 

leadership position to make proactive, positive 

changes in helping advance coordinated partnerships to leverage investments in national networking, thereby delivering relevant, current research

and ocean and coastal processes expertise to

teachers (formal and informal) nationwide. As

excerpted from an article by Walker, Brook, and

Lach (2000), these increased partnerships—representing academia, government, industry, professional organizations, and the private sector are

working together to administer and implement

projects and resources to thousands of teachers

and their students. These augmented partnerships

and increased credibility for crossover activities,

enhanced mutual respect, and improved communications between scientists and educators will

result in a “win-win” partnership for both groups

and this country’s precollege teachers, students,

and the general public.

SPECIAL REPORT #1

July 2003

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V.

NMEA

INTRODUCTION

In December 2002, the National Marine

Educators Association (NMEA) surveyed its 

1,182 NMEA members at the request of the

Research, Education and Marine Operations

(REMO) Working Group of the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy. The purpose 

of the survey (see Appendix) was twofold: 1) 

to collect baseline data regarding formal and

informal efforts in marine and aquatic education

based on the NMEA membership and 2) to 

provide the interpretation of these analyses to 

the REMO/U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

The interpretation of these data should be helpful

to the Commission members in making its education recommendations to President Bush and

Congress in late fall, 2003. In endorsing this survey, the NMEA Board also believes the findings

will be beneficial to its future strategic plans. 

Of these 1,182 members surveyed, 516 individuals

provided completed surveys—representing a

response rate of 43.8%. It is noted a typical

response rate for educational surveys is 

approximately 30%, indicating this current 

survey response rate is significantly higher than

average. Possible reasons for the higher response

rate are the effective communications structure of

NMEA, the strong “investment” of its member

ship with the potentially significant outcomes of the Commission’s activities, and the

methodological factor of pre-paid postage included with the survey dissemination. 

The data are both quantitative and qualitative,

as reflected by the analyses and discussions below.

The demographic information, which was optional

for member responses— has been presented first.

The qualitative analyses sections also include brief

methodological descriptions. With regard to the

THE NATIONAL MARINE EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION (NMEA)

MEMBERSHIP PROFILE

DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS

Sharon H. Walker1, Howard D. Walters2, and Wendy B. Allen3

The University of Southern Mississippi (USM) • College of Marine Sciences (COMS)

J.L. Scott Marine Education Center and Aquarium (MEC&A), Biloxi, MS1 and 2

North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR)

University of South Carolina (USC) • Baruch Marine Laboratory, Georgetown, SC3

1

SPECIAL REPORT #1

July 2003

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS 
NMEA SPECIAL REPORT #1

July 2003

demographic items, some questions allowed

respondents to select more than one answer,

resulting in total responses being greater than the

number of respondents in these cases.

Figure 1. Respondents are comprised by 60%

Females and 40% Males.

Figure 2. Over 56% of respondents indicated

they are over 46 years of age. Based on typical

professional development patterns, this would

indicate the majority of respondents are nearing

retirement age with approximately 25 years of

service completed. 

Figure 3. Data indicate an overwhelming lack of

ethnic minorities among those providing responses to this survey. The marine and ocean sciences

education community remains significantly underrepresented by individuals who are not Caucasian.

Figure 4. Respondents indicated they were 

predominantly geographically located coastal.

However, a significant percentage of educators

responding were situated geographically inland.

Gender of Respondents

Male

Female

Age of Respondent

Ethnicity of Respondents

Teacher preparation and professional development

programs are essential in ensuring enhanced content

knowledge and augmented instructional strategies.

Geographic Location of

Respondent

Inland

Coastal

2 NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS 
SPECIAL REPORT #1 NMEA

July 2003

Figure 5. Percentages of degree level from the

720 degrees reported by the participants. 

Figure 6. Doctoral degrees distributed by area of

study for the 86 degrees reported.

Figure 7. Master’s degrees distributed by area of

study for the 267 degrees reported.

Figure 8. Distribution of Bachelor’s degrees by

area of study for the 339 degrees reported. The

“Other” category reflects a varied assortment of

academic programs too diffuse to graph.

Figures 9-11 relate to the NMEA respondents’

selection of professions within formal or informal

education. Of the total 769 responses to this

question, 314 respondents placed themselves in

the informal education while 355 respondents

placed themselves in formal education. Specificity

within each of these professions has been delineated graphically.

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS 

Percentages of Degrees

Reported

AA

BA/BS

MS/M Ed

PhD/Ed

Distribution of Doctoral

Degrees by Area

Science

Education

Distribution of Master’s

Degrees by Area

Science

Education

Distribution of Bachelor’s

Degrees by Area

Science

Education

Other

3

Teachers discussing marsh zonation and

species diversity.
NMEA SPECIAL REPORT #1

July 2003

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Figure 9. Percentages of 314 responses 

in informal education professions.

Figure 10. 165 responses in Informal

Education—Other category of organizational types.

An analysis of the responses reflected 

in Figure 10 indicated this survey item was used

to provide enhanced specificity of affiliation by the

respondents. Consequently, a large proportion of

these responses was duplicated by categories

reported in Figure 9. There were a significant

number of organizations which were not government agencies, nor university or K-12 school systems, which employed personnel engaged in

marine and aquatic education. It should be noted,

however, it appears from the data that numerous

personnel were employed by universities and K12 education systems in capacities other than formal instruction. This finding may reflect a growth

in informal education in university settings

through extramural educational grant funding,

through the development of informal outreach

facilities linked to universities, through cooperative and marine extension programs, and/or

through the implementation of environmental science centers in universities for K-12 audiences

and the general public. In fact, 86 respondents

indicated a profession in both formal and informal

categories, or approximately 17% of the total.

Museum

Aquarium

Science Center

Sanctuary/

Reserve

National Park

Other

University Linked

Formal Systems

Government

NGO

4

Informal Education

Professions

Informal Education

Professions-Other Responses

Professional development programs for precollege teachers (formal and informal) involving estuarine areas, archaeological sediment studies, and species identifications.
SPECIAL REPORT #1 NMEA

July 2003

Figure 11. Percentages of 355 responses in formal education professions.

Figure 12. Combined responses to professional

affiliation/career orientation.

Combining the total responses from Figure 9

(n=314) and the total responses in Figure 11

(n=355), Figure 12 graphically represents that 47%

of the total responses were categorized as informal education professions and 53% of total

responses were in the formal education category;

i.e. classroom teachers from preK-12, undergraduate or graduate levels. Additionally, as noted

above, 17% of respondents indicated overlapping

professional categories between formal and informal areas.

Figure 13. Sorted lower age brackets (ages 22-

30 and ages 31-45) based on formal or informal 

professions.

Figure 14. Sorted upper age brackets (46-60 and

over 60) based on formal or informal professions.

Formal Education Professions

PreK-12 Teacher

Undergraduate

Graduate

Combined Responses to

Professional Affiliation

Informal

Formal

Lower Age Professional

Categories

Formal

Informal

Upper Age Professional

Categories

Formal

Informal

Both

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS 5

Interdisciplinary Summer Institutes involving lectures by guest scientists and educators, followed by field activities to reinforce

increased content knowledge. 
NMEA SPECIAL REPORT #1

July 2003

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS 

Figures

13 and 14 sort the responses

relative to informal or formal professions (Figures

9, 10, and 11) on the responses to the Ages of

Respondents (Figure 2). This sorting of the

respondent data revealed an age distinction in

professional categories. The younger two age

brackets, 22-30 and 31-45, are far more likely to

be comprised of informal educators. The upper

age brackets, 46-60 and over 61, are more likely

to be comprised of formal educators—or respondents who reported substantive experience in

both formal and informal education. The upper

age bracket data appear to indicate a trend of

migration from formal to informal throughout the

professional career. However, this is contrary to

the current lower age bracket data in which an

individual is more than twice as likely to be an

informal rather than a formal educator. These

conflicting views suggest the presence of a transition in direction for the education workforce.

First, younger professionals with an interest in

teaching marine and aquatic sciences may be

bypassing the formal education career path for a

variety of reasons, to include the availability of an

informal education employment sector not available twenty years ago. Second, the current upper

age brackets of respondents most likely include

administrative leadership in informal education

who, for at least some of their professional

career, were invested in formal education. Over

time and based on the current lower age bracket of informal and formal profession preferences—individuals with formal education experience migrating to informal education represent a diminishing pool of “next generation”

leadership for informal education, as fewer

informal educators are obtaining formal classroom experiences. If this finding proves accurate, a disconnect between these two education communities could develop. Specifically,

the strength of the informal education community to provide meaningful professional

development to the formal education community—based on a shared understanding of the

professional demands on classroom teachers—

will lessen as informal educators who have no formal experiences assume positions of leadership in

the informal community. 

Figure 15. Percent of workday in which respondents were involved in marine and/or aquatic education through lectures and/or activities.

Of the 523 responses to this question, 51% of

the responses (266 individual responses) reported

up to 20% of time spent in each workday was

invested in marine or aquatic education through

lectures or activities. 

266

108

58 43 48

Instructional Time

for Marine/Aquatic

Science

6
SPECIAL REPORT #1 NMEA

July 2003

Figure 16. Percent of workday comprised with

marine and/or aquatic education through lectures

and/or activities disaggregated by profession.

Sorting the responses for the percentage of

daily time spent in lectures or activities based on

informal and formal education responses revealed

that those individuals reporting they were formal

educators spend more daily time in instructional

activities on an average than do informal educators. The median response for formal educators

was in the 21-40% time range, while the median

response for informal professions was in the 0-

20% time range (Formal = n142; Informal = n107).

Based on the 60% K-12 teachers completing the survey (Figure 11), these

data could be reasonably interpreted

that a majority of the classroom teachers who are members of NMEA regularly teach other courses than

marine/aquatic sciences. Further, it seems

clear that instruction of students is not

the primary professional responsibility of

the informal educators responding to the

survey—otherwise the amount of daily

time should have been significantly higher

than reported. 

Figure 17. Instructional time spent on marine

and aquatic education activities or lectures sorted

by age of participant.

One additional variable, which related to interpretation of these data, was to compare the

instructional time of formal and informal educators (Figure 17) with the Age of Respondent

(Figure 2.) The time of service for all respondents

indicated a significant number of respondents

were in fact administrators with limited instructional responsibilities. Figure 17, however, limits

the sample by analyzing data only for the lower

two age brackets, i.e. <46 years of age. The median score for this age grouping is n=110 within the

0-20% time bracket. Consequently, administrative

Formal and Informal Educator

Responses—Instructional Time

7

Formal Informal

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS 

Instructional Time for 

Lower Age Brackets

Formal
NMEA SPECIAL REPORT #1

July 2003

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS 

responsibilities due to age in profession does not

appear to explain time on instructional responsibilities for those respondents <46 years of age.

Although 80% of the instructional time is not

spent on marine and aquatic-related activities, this

percentage of time may be interpreted as being

spent on educational activities in other areas of

study—and not in administrative duties. 

Figure 18. Adopted curricular materials are

aligned with both State and National Standards. 

Of the 747 total responses to State Science

Standards and/or National Science Education

Standards [NSES] (National Research Council,

1996) for curricular alignment, the 171 respondents who selected State Science Standards also

selected the NSES and/or Benchmarks (the

American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1993). This would suggest that a significant number of states are incorporating both

State-developed and Adopted Standards, as well

as National Standards documents. If this dual level

of Standards was observed over time, it could be

interpreted as a trend toward either a national

science curriculum or toward accountability

measures within individual states.

Figure 19. Formal Educator responses for alignment of curricular materials to various standards.

Alignment to Instructional

Standards

NSES

Benchmarks

State Standards

Other

Formal Educators Alignment

to Instructional Standards

NSES

Benchmarks

State Standards

Other

8

Hands-on, inquiry-based invertebrate dissections of

crabs and oysters to better understand biological science, to include the economic impact of these resources.
SPECIAL REPORT #1 NMEA

July 2003

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS 

Figure 20. Informal educator responses for alignment of curricular materials to various standards.

Figures 19 and 20 depict the correlation of the

curricular standards alignment based on the professional designation of the respondent, i.e. informal or formal. There was a significant overlap,

due to multiple responses, in the individuals who

selected State and one of the two National

Standards documents indicated. With respect to

the NSES or Benchmarks, there was a clear preference for the NSES among all respondents, with a

slightly larger reliance on the NSES among informal educators than formal educators. It is not

possible to determine rationales for this preference, but it would seem efforts to include ocean

content standards within a national standards document would be more immediately received or

implemented based on the NSES rather than on

Benchmarks. 

Figure 21. Respondents indicate that textbooks

remain the leading source of resource materials

for teaching. However, based on a number of

responses, the World Wide Web (WWW) is

almost equal to textbooks in terms of importance

as a source of information and/or activities. 

Data presented in Figure 21 suggested that

agencies interested in infusing specific content or

activities could incorporate the WWW as a fiscally efficient and effective mechanism, as opposed to

the relatively more expensive development and

publication of print materials. Nevertheless, a

continued reliance on textbooks as indicated by

these data reflected a need to develop relationships with traditional publishing and textbook

companies to ensure that marine and aquatic sciNSES

Benchmarks

State Standards

Other

Source of Resource Materials

Textbooks

WWW

Curricular Kits

9

Informal Educators Alignment

to Instructional Standards

Trawling aboard various research vessels allows

teachers opportunities to gain vertebrate and invertebrate collections for classroom use.
NMEA SPECIAL REPORT #1

July 2003

ences are adequately and appropriately infused in

these materials. 

Figure 22. Informal educators report nearly

two of every three professionals rely on extramural grant support to implement educational

programs. 

Figure 23. Formal educators continue to rely

more heavily on systemic funding for programs;

however, they report an increasing reliance on

grants as government budgets at all levels are

currently being reduced.

Percentages in Figures 22 and 23 indicate

informal educators exceed formal educators in

the use of extramural funds to support programs (survey question eight, see Appendix).

Analyses of comments provided for this question, however, indicate significant concern

among formal educators regarding decreased

government funding, resulting in enhanced

reliance on grant funds among this group of

professionals. Informal educators’ comments

suggest they increasingly rely on grants not only

for programming but for basic operational “survival.” This is alarming given the significant role

informal science education centers serve in providing continuing professional education to formal educators. 

It may be that over time, a system of fundsharing from government sources to support

informal education—as it supports formal education—should be considered. Additionally,

some consideration of the relationship between

the type of extramural funds available for informal education and the types of professional

development programs needed by the formal

community would perhaps reveal pathways

through which these funding arrangements

could be implemented. A precedent for this

10 NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS 

Learning how to start and maintain fresh or saltwater aquariums for students to monitor water

quality parameters is a valuable lesson for precollege teachers.

Informal Educators Use of

Extramural Funds

Formal Educators Use of

Extramural Funds

Yes

No

Yes

No
SPECIAL REPORT #1 NMEA

July 2003

funding pathway can be seen in the now-terminated Dwight D. Eisenhower Program, through

the U.S. Department of Education. Through

this federal funding stream, fiscal support was

made available to informal science education

centers either directly or through subcontracts

with state departments of education or local

school districts in some states. The recently

enacted No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

(2002), while still being refined, will perhaps

support a continuity and expansion of professional development programs for preK-12 educators through informal centers for ocean sciences content. As the funding decisions are

made at state levels, it seems critically important that the informal marine and aquatic education leadership be proactive in leveraging partnerships to stabilize its operational costs in support of programming to enhance the preK-12

systems’ professional development needs.

Question nine on the NMEA Membership

Profile (page 18) was an open-ended response

question to elicit feedback from respondents

regarding perceived importance of the oceans and

watersheds for education among precollege students and the American public. The analyses of

these anecdotal comments were implemented

through a qualitative analysis procedure (phenomenological content analyses) described by Patton

(1980) and others. The responses were scanned

for content similarity and compared to an external compilation of previously described categories

pertaining to the importance of the oceans in

education (Walker, 2002). The use of an external

set of categories for unit clustering is viewed as

an important mechanism to strengthen the validity

and credibility of qualitative data, and their interpretations and uses (Merriam, 1990). 

From the narrative provided by the respondents, 822 discrete units of content were noted.

These units of content were sorted based upon a

set of seven categories provided by Walker

(2002) in testimony to the U.S. Commission on

Ocean Policy on March 7, 2002. These seven categories were related to perceptions that the

oceans are important in education in relation to:

1. National Security;

2. Economic Impact;

3. Human Health;

4. Global Transportation;

5. Fisheries Products;

6. Social Structure; and

7. Aesthetic Qualities.

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS 11

Field activities and subsequent curriculum development through simulation games are essential in reinforcing content knowledge, as well as demonstrating the relevance of marine and aquatic sciences. 
NMEA SPECIAL REPORT #1

July 2003

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS 

The initial sorting of the 822 units of content

into the above delineated categories proved adequate for 344 content areas but revealed the

necessity of establishing additional categories. 

The inclusion of three additional categories, i.e.

Environmental Stewardship/Decision-Making,

Global Climate Change, and Consumable

Resources, increased

the explained content

units from 344 to

779. Additionally,

based on a confidence

interval of +/- 5% for

significance of categories, the Economic

Impact, Consumable

Resource, and

Fisheries Products

categories were combined into a larger

category of Economic Issues. Additionally, the

National Security and Aesthetic Qualities categories were disregarded due to minimal responses. The revised category structure for the narrative with percentage responses has been

described in Figure 24.

Figure 24. Participants’ rationales for 

including the oceans in science education content.

As indicated by Figure 24, the two most important reasons—as perceived by the NMEA membership—to infuse ocean (marine and aquatic) sciences in public education were the global climate

issues impacted by the

world’s oceans and the

need to develop a

sense of environmental

stewardship among students and the general

public. At issue in these

categories appeared to

be the pressing and

increasingly critical

threats to the global

environmental systems,

biological sustainability,

and species survivability on this planet.

Additionally, the population of educators completing the survey had primarily identified education

programs as a mechanism to create social change

through science-based, decision-making by an

informed populace. Significant overlap did exist in

12

Global Climate

Issues

Environmental

Stewardship

Economic Resources

Social Structures

Human Health

10

11

Reasons for the Oceans’ 

Importance in Education

Figure 24.

Professional development programs in which precollege teachers are involved in plotting latitude and longitude

coordinates, as well as discussing field-trip logistics for near-shore submerged vegetation studies.
SPECIAL REPORT #1 NMEA

July 2003

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

the data set among these concepts as a foundation for understanding the significance of economic impacts, social structures such as population

growth and coastal development, and positive

impacts to human health and survivability due to

protein harvesting or biomedical research—or

negative implications as a result of overharvesting of commercial fish stocks or pollution in

coastal waters. In short, the formal and informal

educators completing this survey perceived

that ocean (marine and aquatic) sciences education is in fact an opportunity for the United

States to provide international leadership

based on global climate impact and environmental stewardship concerns.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

These data and their interpretations are significant findings in science education, specifically

marine and aquatic sciences education, for precollege and general public audiences. It is the opinion

of the authors of this manuscript that these findings should provide continued, proactive support

for the inclusion of marine and aquatic sciences

within the following areas: the NSES; in formal

and informal educators’ classrooms, aquariums,

science centers, museums, and governmental facilities; or professional organizations whose missions

involve supporting more 

responsible, environmental decision-making related to marine and aquatic

issues. It is also of critical importance that

researchers and teachers (formal and informal)

work together with mutual professional respect in

“bridging the gap” which currently exists between

researchers’ data and the relevance of these data

to the everyday lives of teachers, their students,

and the general public.

Further, to have a more scientifically competitive workforce, precollege students must be

involved in enhanced inquiry-based content courses—founded on sound science—with this content

being reinforced through hands-on activities. To

be competitive in the global workforce, this

nation’s students must be empowered by wellprepared preservice and inservice teachers who

have been involved in high-quality professional

development programs.

Lastly, the authors of this manuscript are also

of the opinions, NMEA and its members are in a

leadership position to make proactive, positive

changes in helping advance coordinated partnerships to leverage investments in national

networking, thereby delivering relevant current

research and ocean and coastal processes

expertise to teachers (formal and informal)

13

Precollege teachers involved in beach profile studies....

....and investigating invertebrates during low tide.
NMEA SPECIAL REPORT #1

July 2003

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS 

nationwide. As excerpted from an article by

Walker, Brook, and Lach (2000), these

increased partnerships—representing academia, government, industry, professional

organizations, and the private sector are

working together to administer and implement projects and resources to thousands

of teachers and their students. These augmented partnerships and increased credibility for crossover activities, enhanced mutual

respect, and improved communications

between scientists and educators will result

in a “win-win” partnership for both groups

and this country’s precollege teachers, students, and the general public.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors of this manuscript wish 

to express appreciation to the following

organizations and/or individuals: the

NMEA Board, the NMEA members 

completing the Membership Profile, the 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the

REMO Group within the U.S. Commission

on Ocean Policy, staff members within the

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy with 

special thanks to Ms. Roxanne Nikolaus,

USM, and the USM-MEC&A and Gulf 

Coast Research Laboratory staff members:

Johnette Bosarge, Mary Anne Dykes, Bobbie

Martin, Glynda Garriga, LaJoyce Davis, 

and Ann Moran.

About the Authors:

• Dr. Sharon H. Walker is the

Associate Dean for Outreach, USMCOMS; Administrator, MEC&A;

Professor in the COMS-Department of

Coastal Sciences; and Director of

Education for the MS-AL Sea Grant

Consortium.

• Dr. Howard D. Walters is a Senior

Researcher for the USM-COMS-MEC&A 

with extensive experience in educational 

evaluation and assessment and early

childhood development.

• Ms. Wendy B. Allen is the Manager

for the North Inlet-Winyah Bay NERRUSC-Baruch Marine Laboratory and the

2002-2003 NMEA President

References:

American Association for the Advancement

of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science

Literacy, Oxford University Press: New

York.

Merriam, Sharan B. (1988). Case Study

Research in Education: A Qualitative

Approach. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San

Francisco. 226 pp.

National Research Council (NRC, 1996).

National Science Education Standards.

Washington D.C.: The National

Academy Press.

Nation Science Teachers Association

(2000). Science Education Statistics.

Available: <http://www.nsta.org/pressrel/factsheet.asp>.

Patton, Michael Q. (1990). Qualitative

Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage

Publications: Newbury Park. 532 pp.

U.S. Department of Education (2002). No

Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Washington, D.C. <http://nclb.gov/>.

Walker, Sharon H. (2002). “Invited Public

Testimony to the U.S. Commission on

Ocean Policy,” March 7, 2002. New

Orleans, LA.

Walker, Sharon H., R. Dan Brook, Mary

Alyce Lach, Charles M. Calvo (1958-

2000), Reid R. Riggle, Mark H.

Bochenhauer, Cheryl M. Whitfield,

Connie C. Templeton, Elizabeth S. Klein,

and Howard D. Walters. (2001) COAST

A Final Report. January 12, 2001. pp. 1-15.

14
SPECIAL REPORT #1 NMEA

July 2003

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15

Appendix
NMEA SPECIAL REPORT #1

July 2003

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS 

THE NATIONAL MARINE EDUCATORS

ASSOCIATION (NMEA)

MEMBERSHIP PROFILE

This survey, profiling the NMEA membership, has been requested by the U.S. Commission

on Ocean Policy and approved by the NMEA Executive Board. Please take five minutes and

provide your responses as we need and value your input. These membership responses will

collectively provide the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy an enhanced understanding of our

passion for having a more ocean literate society and increased numbers of precollege students

more empowered to make environmentally-sound, ocean-related resource decisions.

Please circle your answers or provide a short response to the questions; more than one answer may apply.

1. Concerning your educational background, do you possess a(n)

a) Associate of Science Degree

Associate of Art Degree

In what subject/discipline? ____________________________________

b) Bachelor of Science Degree

Bachelor of Art Degree

In what subject/discipline? ____________________________________

c) Master of Science Degree

Master of Art Degree

In what subject/discipline? ____________________________________

d) Doctor of Philosophy Degree

Doctor of Education Degree

In what subject/discipline? ____________________________________

e) Other (please specify) ____________________________________________

2. In what educational profession do you work?

a) Informal education, i.e., as a educator in a(n)

• Museum

• Aquarium

• Science center

• National Marine Sanctuary or Reserve

• National Park Service

• Other

If your response is other, please identify your informal working environment.

_______________________________________________________________

16
SPECIAL REPORT #1 NMEA

July 2003

NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS 

b) Formal education, i.e. as a classroom teacher for

• PreK-12 students

• Undergraduate students

• Graduate students

3. How much time do you spend in your workday teaching marine

and/or aquatic education through lectures and/or activities?

a) 0 - 20%

b) 21 - 40%

c) 41 - 60%

d) 61 - 80%

e) 81 - 100%

4. Do your education efforts rely on your curricular materials being

aligned with 

a) The National Science Education Standards (National Research 

Council, 1996)

b) Benchmarks (American Association for the Advancement of 

Science, 1993)

c) State Science Standards

5. Are most of your resource materials derived from:

a) Textbooks

b) Online/web-based materials

c) Other (if this is your answer or one of your answers, please explain)

__________________________________________________________

6. Do you have access to scientists with whom you can regularly contact and/or interact for questions and/or comments?

a) Yes

b) No

7. Would you like to be involved in a science researcher and classroom

teacher partnership?

a) Yes

Why? _______________________________________________________________

17
_____________________________________________________________________

b) No

Why? _______________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

8. Is seeking extramural funding a component in the implementation success of

your program(s) Yes _______ No _______

If your response is yes, please elaborate. . . 

9. In one brief paragraph, why do you believe the oceans and their watersheds

are important to precollege students and/or the general public?

10. Geographically, do you live in an inland or coastal area? (Inland may be

defined as within 60 miles of a coast).

Inland _______ Coastal _______

Optional Questions:

11. What is your gender? Male or Female

12. Your age is represented by which of the following years?

a) 22 - 30

b) 31 - 45

c) 46 - 60

d) over 61

13. You ethnicity is:

a) Caucasian

b) African American

c) Native American

d) Hispanic

e) Asian

f) Other (please identify if desired)

NMEA SPECIAL REPORT #1

July 2003

18 NMEA MEMBERSHIP PROFILE DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY