Teaching Complex and Controversial Issues: Importance of In-Situ Experiences in Changing Perceptions of Global Challenges

Engaging people with controversial and emotive issues that are inherently complex is challenging, especially when those issues are multifaceted or multidisciplinary, span environmental, economic, social, and political contexts, are global in scope, or where circumstances and implications differ spatially. Teaching such issues requires teachers and learners to navigate a challenging landscape of nuance and conflicting perspectives; immersive place-based learning might facilitate more meaningful exploration of such issues, but this has not previously been studied. In a multi-institution international study, we surveyed 164 participants (12 groups; 9 institutions) before and after an immersive fieldtrip in South Africa to assess perceptions on contentious issues. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed that participants had statistically significant opinion shifts for 17 of 18 statements, including those where change was likely due to improved knowledge or indicative of deeper attitude shifts. Generalised Linear Modelling revealed that propensity for opinion shifts was not influenced by demographics (age, gender), location (country of origin) or trip type (formal or informal). We conclude that in an increasingly complex world, context relevant immersive experiences that facilitate deep learning by providing opportunities to explore contentious issues in situ are an ever-more valuable tool, not just for attainment but also for developing personal perspectives and as a catalyst for societal transitions

Can Handheld Thermal Imaging Technology Improve Detection of Poachers in African Bushveldt?

Illegal hunting (poaching) is a global threat to wildlife. Anti-poaching initiatives are making increasing use of technology, such as infrared thermography (IRT), to support traditional foot and vehicle patrols. To date, the effectiveness of IRT for poacher location has not been tested under field conditions, where thermal signatures are often complex. Here, we test the hypothesis that IRT will increase the distance over which a poacher hiding in African scrub bushveldt can be detected relative to a conventional flashlight. We also test whether any increase in effectiveness is related to the cost and complexity of the equipment by comparing comparatively expensive (22000 USD) and relatively inexpensive (2000 USD) IRT devices. To test these hypotheses we employ a controlled, fully randomised, double-blind procedure to find a poacher in nocturnal field conditions in African bushveldt. Each of our 27 volunteer observers walked three times along a pathway using one detection technology on each pass in randomised order. They searched a prescribed search area of bushveldt within which the target was hiding. Hiding locations were pre-determined, randomised, and changed with each pass. Distances of first detection and positive detection were noted. All technologies could be used to detect the target. Average first detection distance for flashlight was 37.3m, improving by 19.8m to 57.1m using LIRT and by a further 11.2m to 68.3m using HIRT. Although detection distances were significantly greater for both IRTs compared to flashlight, there was no significant difference between LIRT and HIRT. False detection rates were low and there was no significant association between technology and accuracy of detection. Although IRT technology should ideally be tested in the specific environment intended before significant investment is made, we conclude that IRT technology is promising for anti-poaching patrols and that for this purpose low cost IRT units are as effective as units ten times more expensive

Empirically testing the effectiveness of thermal imaging as a tool for identification of large mammals in the African bushveldt

Monitoring animal populations often relies on direct visual observations. This is problematic at night when spotlighting can cause misidentification and inaccurate counting. Using infrared thermography (IRT) could potentially solve these difficulties, but reliability is uncertain. Here, we test the accuracy of 24 observers, differing in experience and skill levels, in identifying antelope species from IRT photographs taken in the African bush. Overall, 38% of identifications were correct to species level and 50% were correct to genus/subfamily level. Identification accuracy depended on the confidence and skill of the observer (positive relationship), the number of animals present (positive relationship), and the distance at which it was taken (negative relationship). Species with characteristic features, horn morphology, or posture were identified with ~80% accuracy (e.g. wildebeest, kudu, impala) while others were considerably lower (e.g. blesbok, waterbuck). Experience significantly improved identification accuracy but the effect was not consistent between species and even experienced observers struggled to identify red hartebeest, reedbuck and eland. Counting inaccuracies were commonplace, particularly when group size was large. We conclude that thermal characteristics of species and experience of observers can pose challenges for African field ecologists but IRT can be used to identify and count some species accurately, especially <100m

View of poacher from 20 m in field study area at hiding location 1: (a-b) illumination by an LED flashlight (technology 1) captured with standard digital SLR camera (Canon 7D) mounted on a tripod with a 30 s exposure to replicate, as nearly as possible, what was visible to observers with the naked eye (poacher location is indicated with a white arrow); (c-d) images from low-specification infrared thermography device (Flir i7; technology 2); (e-f) images from high-specification infrared thermography device (Flir T620; technology 3).

<p>In all cases, the images on the left are with the poacher standing up so location can be seen more clearly and the images on the right are with the poacher hiding in the crouched position that was adopted for all trials. IRT settings were as per methods and all IRT images shown are as they appeared on the IRT device in the field (a bush camp and powerlines are also visible in all images).</p

Accuracy of identifying poacher location using different technologies: (a) accuracy at first detection; (b) accuracy at positive detection.

<p>Accuracy of identifying poacher location using different technologies: (a) accuracy at first detection; (b) accuracy at positive detection.</p

Mean distance (m) for accurate detection of poacher location using different technologies: (a) distance between observer and poacher at first detection; (b) distance between observer and poacher at positive detection.

<p>Error bars represent standard error.</p