Cultural probes for environmental education: Designing learning materials to engage children and teenagers with local biodiversity

Fig 8. Distribution of ‘productive’ and ‘strategic’ questions (n = 93) of younger participants (ages 10–14) according to the stations where they were formulated (the total number of questions produced in each station varies between 15 and 16). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853.g008 PLOS ONE Cultural probes for environmental education PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853 February 10, 2022 18 / 30

Fig 9. Distribution of ‘productive’ and ‘strategic’ questions (n = 71) of older participants (between the ages of 15–18) according to the stations where they were formulated (the total number of questions produced in each station varies between 11 and 12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853.g009 Fig 10. Distribution of ‘productive’ and ‘strategic’ questions (n = 164) according to the question tokens used in their production. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853.g010 PLOS ONE Cultural probes for environmental education PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853 February 10, 2022 19 / 30

1. The “experience of the natural context”. 2. The “assessment of the activities”. 3. The “description of the immediate context”. Responses categorized under (1) ‘‘experience of the natural context” are those in which the answer, or the dominant tone, of the answer emphasizes qualities of the lived experience in the natural context. Even when it includes descriptive elements, the description is usually associ- ated with the perception of the natural environment through the senses or feelings. For exam- ple, ‘‘nature, joy, happiness, beauty” (Table 5) emphasizes sentiments aroused through the experience of the nature-rich context. Responses categorized under (2) ‘‘assessment of the activities” correspond to answers whereby the answer itself, or the dominant tone, focuses on assessing the trail walk and/or the activities that it comprises. E.g., the participant response ‘‘This activity was interesting because I was able to pay attention to details and ask questions that I had never thought of before”. Those categorized under (3) ‘‘description of the immediate context” correspond to responses which enumerate, in an emotionally neutral way, elements of the participant’s direct experience. For example, ‘‘nature, birds, river, pond, scouting” describes only the fea- tures present in the external context (natural or not). Results also show that almost half of the participants (47%; n = 17) emphasized experiences in and with nature, as recollected during the open-ended activity. Less than one-third (28%; n = 10) focused their responses

on the assessment of the activity itself, while one-fifth (21%; n = 7) described the immediate context (Fig 11). Differences between age groups show that the assessment of the activity is more frequent in the older group, while younger participants represent the totality of descriptions of the imme- diate context, and the generality of the experiences relating to the natural context (Fig 11; χ2 (2) = 23,989; p < .001). The general prevalence of aesthetic, sensory, and emotional experiences in the final free, open-ended activity (signaled through words such as "beauty, delight, rest, smell") suggests that the CP offered an outdoor learning opportunity that builds on participants’ experience of nature. Moreover, we believe that experiences lived during the study might have been recog- nized by more participants if we had asked them to do so directly. Nonetheless, the indirect way in which responses were elicited gave us greater access to the relevance and authenticity of Table 5. Illustrative responses from the final free, open-ended activity according to three types of ‘‘dominant themes”, inspired by Litfin [1995]. Dominant theme Examples of responses Experience of the natural context ‘‘beauty, delight, rest, smell” ‘‘nature, joy, happiness, beauty” ‘‘Nature is the best that we can have because with her we can feel her sounds and fresh air, that is the contrary of the city.” Assessment of the activities ‘‘This activity was interesting because I was able to pay attention to details and ask questions that I had never thought of before.”

‘‘With this activity we were able to learn a little about some concepts of nature and about existent and non-existent animals in the lagoon or on the island.“ ‘‘I really liked the project. I think it is good that we can help in this kind of creative activity.” Description of the immediate context ‘‘nature, birds, river, pond, scouting” ‘‘rain, wind, mud, grass, islands, handkerchief” ‘‘trees, plants, wood, squirrels, scoutmaster, moss” https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853.t005 PLOS ONE Cultural probes for environmental education PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853 February 10, 2022 20 / 30

their experience. The open-ended nature of the questioning further allowed for assessing par- ticipants’ direct awareness of their experience. RQ3 • Were the participants engaged with the CP? How did the CP promote their motivation and satisfaction in natural-rich environments? All participants completed the proposed activity tasks, suggesting that they engaged with the activities, despite a certain awkwardness displayed by a few participants towards some of the more hands-on activities (as communicated in the notes from adult volunteers), e.g., when asked to touch wet vegetation. Furthermore, comments collected by volunteers in each station indicate that participants showed "focus and commitment", a positive attitude ("good synergy between them") and were responsive to all tasks proposed at each station. The volunteers also observed that participant groups engaged in conversations focusing on performed activities or the natural context. These seem conducive to questioning, as demonstrated in the extracts of dialogues between participants collected by volunteers: "What is peat?", "It’s an animal?", "Who lives here?", "Why do invasive species harm the forest?", "What can we use moss for?". Notes were also indicative of curiosity among some groups regarding natural phenomena ("Why do invasive species harm the forest?"). Additionally, the notes taken by adult volunteers suggest that younger par- ticipants showed "satisfaction and a positive attitude", while indicating that those participants were also more "enthusiastic" than the older ones.

activity allowed me to get to know nature more closely and to know how to better appreciate my surroundings”), or favorable implicit evaluations (e.g., ‘‘birds, life, love, peace”, and ‘‘This activity made me look at nature differently and that we must preserve our surroundings”). Results show that responses did not reflect negative evaluative judgments. More than two- thirds of participants (71%; n = 24) expressed ‘positive’ or ‘very positive’ evaluative judgments, with the older ones always positively appreciating the trail walk (Fig 12; χ2(2) = 11,051; p = .004). In the positive or very positive comments, we did not find significant differences within domi- nant themes–the activities and the experience of the natural context (χ2(1) = 0,341; p = .559). To understand participants’ satisfaction levels, we analyzed the similarity of the semantic field for both ’positive’ and ’very positive comments. The resulting maximum tree (Fig 13) shows a very expressive cluster (orange group) where the pleasantness of nature’s aesthetics predominates ("beautiful"; "beautiful landscapes"; "delight"; etc.). Blue and dark orange clus- ters, on the other hand, reveal a respective focus on the experience of nature ("sounds of birds"; "experience fresh air"; "peace"; etc.) and the natural context itself ("nature"; "laurissilva"; "silence"; etc.), involve multiple senses and sensations. The pink cluster also reveals a focus on the natural context, but with more attention to the specific elements perceived. In the remain-

ing three clusters, participant satisfaction was focused on the trail walk itself, its qualities ("fun"; "creative activity"; etc.) and outputs ("nature observation"; "expanded thinking"; change of perspectives about nature"; "promoted the sense of nature preservation"; etc.). The willingness to return to the trail also constitutes an indirect indicator of participant sat- isfaction when exploring the nature-rich environment. Apart from three of the 36 participants who were absent from the post-trial activity, all remaining participants expressed a willingness to return to the trail. From an inductive analysis of the 35 valid self-reported motivations to return to the trail (Fig 14), we identified three primary motivations: the activities, the nature, and the trail of Mis- te´rios Negros itself. Some participants expressed arguments that focus on their enjoyment of the trail walk and its activities (e.g., ‘‘Because I liked the experience.”; ‘‘It was fun”), others focus on the experience of being in the outdoors (e.g., ‘‘Because I love hiking, exploring and nature”), while still others focus on certain characteristics of the trail itself (e.g., ‘‘Because it is an interesting trail”). Fig 12. Distribution of participants (n = 34), according to age groups, by the degree of the evaluative judgements expressed in their responses to the final free, open- ended activity. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853.g012 PLOS ONE Cultural probes for environmental education PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853 February 10, 2022 22 / 30

From the data analysis, we can observe that 71% (n = 25) of motivations focus on the trail itself, 20% (n = 7) on the natural context, and 9% (n = 3) on the activities performed during the trail walk, with no significant differences found between age groups (Fig 14; χ2(3) = 4,867; p = .118). Discussion Our results suggest that the CP effectively promoted participants’ engagement with a nature- rich environment during visits to the trail of Miste´rios Negros. Nonetheless, we conclude that Fig 13. Results of the lexical similarity analysis representing the relationships between the 34 responses to the final free, open-ended activity. Line thickness and numbers correspond to the frequency of co-occurrence, circle sizes to evocation frequency, and each color aggregates clusters of meaning. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853.g013 PLOS ONE Cultural probes for environmental education PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853 February 10, 2022 23 / 30

the way a CP toolkit introduces questioning in proposed activities can influence participant responses. During analysis, the need to avoid a saturation of question forming within each activity became evident as an essential consideration in the design of IBL-inspired CP. For example, the task associated with Activity 6 already presupposed questions. When asked to write two more questions, the fatigue may have resulted in participants adopting a strategic approach with the view of quickly concluding the activity. Question prompts should then be subtle and well-integrated when questioning is part of an activity. In addition, the ages of par- ticipants appear to positively influence the generation of productive questions, although for the current study, we are unable to draw a more robust conclusion regarding age, considering that the activities were different for each group. Nonetheless, it was clear that overall, some tokens produced more strategic questions. Also, tokens were not equally significant in generating questions concerning nature. Tokens prompting comparisons ("How are. . . and. . . similar?", and "How do. . . and. . . differ?") and those relating to the utility of something ("How could. . . be used to. . .?") were less used. It is possible that such tokens limit the expressive power of participant-generated questions, com- pared to the other tokens. For example, the question "How do trees and mosses differ?" was created only by adding two nouns to the question. The token that asks participants to identify

a concrete purpose or utility for something resulted in questions such as "How could the water from the lagoon be used?". In this instance, participants did not use the complete token, possi- bly considering that it was not easy to find a concrete purpose when contemplating the utility of the water in the lagoon. Although we have no evidence to suggest how our participants might favor ’doing’ versus ’knowing’ (procedural knowledge/experiential learning), we specu- late that a question token that requires focus on the utility of something can pose challenges. Results gathered in response to RQ1 shed light on the application of IBL in the design of learning materials for EE. Drawing on the broader literature, as in the work of Lazonder and Harmsen [37], questioning is effective when supported. However, as detailed above, there are various ways to support inquiry. The study we describe here relied on question tokens. Given the authors’ categorization of support as "unguided, minimally guided, (or) guided", and the data obtained in this study, question tokens only "minimally guided" participants in posing questions. As a result, we believe that more consistent guidance would be a necessary precur- sor for achieving better results in the quality and quantity of productive questions generated. Fig 14. Distribution of self-reported motivations (n = 35) to return to the trail, collected in the post-trail activity from the 33 participants, according to focus and age group. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853.g014 PLOS ONE Cultural probes for environmental education

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853 February 10, 2022 24 / 30

This also begs a new research question: what level of guidance in questioning activities can CP provide in the context of place-based learning in EE? Productive questioning benefits from using question tokens as proposed in our study. Still, we need more data that would allow us to compare different ways of integrating question guidance within a CP toolkit. For example, although tokens facilitated the production of questions and did not significantly constrain par- ticipants, future studies should include testing that assesses the output of questions with and without tokens, along with a participant debrief aimed at exploring participants’ perceptions on the utility of such tokens. Considering "the impact of culture on inquiry" [29], designing a CP toolkit within the con- text of EE would benefit from a more comprehensive integration of IBL within participants’ broader learning experiences, both within and outside the school environment. Lack of studies on the use of IBL in the Portuguese curriculum [45] might not necessarily entail a lack of ques- tioning and inquiry-related experiences on behalf of children and teenagers enrolled in the Portuguese school system. Nonetheless, using a CP toolkit for EE that is grounded in IBL could provide an opportunity through which questioning, and ultimately inquiry, are intro- duced to children and teenagers. In response to RQ2, we can infer that the CP toolkit effectively promoted experiences grounded in sensory, emotional, and aesthetic qualities in a nature-rich environment. None-

theless, and considering the data collected in response to RQ1, we noticed some discrepancies. Activity 3, for example, raised more strategic questions than productive ones. We believe that this could express the general prevalence given to sight or sound in Western culture. Further- more, and aligning with the broader literature, e.g., Stevenson et al. [46], we speculate that as children and teenagers do not often explore smell, this activity raised more strategic than pro- ductive questions. Rather than avoiding working with multiple senses in designing a CP toolkit for EE, we believe the contrary; this information highlights the opportunity to use EE to expose children and teenagers to various sensory experiences in nature-rich environments. A CP toolkit could be an ideal potential technique for achieving this. We further noticed that the experience of the trail, as guided by the CP toolkit designed for this study, was very present in the participants’ awareness of the trail walk. However, there are age differences, with older participants tending to make more assessments, while younger peo- ple focused more on experiencing and describing the external context. We believe this reflects differences in child and teen learning, which are affected by changes in behavior, cognition, and the brain [47], as well as the effects of different types of schooling, which impacts students in different ways [48]. This information feeds back on the type of activities and their suitability for the different age groups. It also begs further research for uncovering how to best use CP in

the context of EE, and when designing for children versus teenagers. Finally, and in response to RQ3, the CP toolkit designed for this study promoted partici- pants’ positive experiences of a nature-rich environment, such as the trail of Miste´rios Negros. We believe that the design of the various station activities influenced this outcome. They pro- vided information regarding different elements, such as the native, endemic, and exotic species that characterize the trail, along with geographical information, such as the lagoon. Station activities also engaged participants through their senses, providing a springboard for imagina- tive exploration, as observed in response to the activities of Stations 11 and 13. We also understand that working with a protected area with pristine nature was paramount to participants’ experience of the CP toolkit. Exposure to nature positively impacts our mood and sense of general well-being [49]. While the FG project focuses on the appreciation of Azor- ean biodiversity, we believe that data obtained in response to RQ3 begs further testing of the CP technique in what Saari and Mullen [50] have termed ’dark places’. Such places require a shift from our view of nature "from pristine, ’natural’ places in place-based pedagogy to PLOS ONE Cultural probes for environmental education PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853 February 10, 2022 25 / 30

including their crossings and layerings with urban, industrial and polluted spaces"—Saari and Mullen referring to Garrard [51]. Such places are as important in the promotion of biodiversity conservation as pristine ones. They might generate a host of different thoughts and experi- ences on behalf of children and teenagers that are nonetheless relevant. Of course, this does not exclude the value that nature-rich environments provide to humans and how their impact on physical and psychological well-being is vital to their conservation [49]. The CP literature, concepts drawn from IBL and the value of sensory, emotional, and aes- thetic experiences in EE were paramount in the design of an appropriate CP for FG and the present study. Nonetheless, we derive certain key practical implications that support the crea- tion and application of CP in the context of EE, as follows: 1. Create probes that balance information regarding nature-rich environments with opportu- nities to experience nature through imagination and the senses directly. 2. Ground the design of CP in relevant pedagogical framework, such as inquiry-based learning. 3. If using IBL, consider participants’ experience with questioning and inquiry, and devise probes that support prior experience or lack thereof. 4. Provide genuine opportunities for feedback without saturating participants with requests for information through questioning. In this instance, subtle integration is key. Limitations and future work Our study was limited in time and participant numbers. We recruited participants through

two local Scout groups, thereby assembling a convenience sample even though participant demographics align with the project’s target audience: local school-aged children and teenag- ers (ages 10 to 18). In addition, when conducting the study, we did not have prior information regarding participants’ knowledge of the local environment. Despite this, as we walked the trail, notes from the research team suggest that even though exposure to the outdoors is crucial to Scouts’ activities, participants appeared to know little about local and native species and had little experience on nature trails. For most, this was their first visit to the trail. Furthermore, we were aware that word association exercises could pose challenges. The qualitative nature of the activity demands a capacity on the part of researchers to interpret par- ticipants’ subjective responses. However, we were also aware that such exercise could elicit more deep-seated and personal interpretations of the activity which are valuable for future design [52]. We were confident that the trade-off would be worthwhile. As well, we did not want to risk breaking the flow of the activity with a post-activity questionnaire or interview. Thus, the creation of stations with accompanying exercises designed to encourage free-word association was deemed optimal. Nonetheless, we recognize that supplementary reflection on the activity could further substantiate some of our claims. Continuous exposure to the CP technique in the context of EE is essential to draw more

robust conclusions regarding all three research questions. Despite this, we can say in hindsight that a question-based strategy provided research participants with a rich experience during data-gathering. We retrieved a high number of questions (168 in total), suggesting that ques- tioning could be a rich topic for the discussion of CP within the context of EE. Conclusion The purpose of this paper was to present a research method to EE; in doing so, we experi- mented with the CP technique, a qualitative research strategy that holds potential for involving PLOS ONE Cultural probes for environmental education PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853 February 10, 2022 26 / 30

a local community of participants. Our goal was to understand what interests’ children and teenagers as they interact with nature-rich environments. Akin to the early “community con- tent-based instruction” model [6], we intend to use the results to aid in the subsequent design of materials for the FG project. Additionally, and in line with the CP literature [19, 21], this study was an opportunity to build a rapport with research participants who also represent a local community of children and teenagers. We achieved this by designing a CP toolkit that affords an informal learning experience in a nature-rich environment. We were keen to use the toolkit to invite participants to share their curiosity in interacting with the surrounding natural world with our research team. Preliminary results suggest that a CP toolkit containing question-based activities can afford positive meaningful experiences in and with nature. By situating this study’s findings within EE research, we hope that the unique characteristics of CP can be understood and utilized by the EE community. Although these strategies are born out of design-related inquiry and qualitative research more broadly, our analysis shows that we can apply CP to create EEM. However, further research is needed to support our argu- ment and better implement the CP technique within the range of contexts that characterize contemporary EE. Supporting information S1 Dataset. (XLSX) S1 Fig. (TIF) Acknowledgments We are grateful to the Azorean Scouts of Lajes (Group 344), of Santa Ba´rbara (Group 630),

and their respective coordinators: He´lder Nunes, Luı´sa Mendes, Daniela Nunes, Daniela Lima, So´nia Toste, Beatriz Cabral, João Toste, Telma Espı´nola, Celso Mendonc¸a, and Gonc¸alo Mar- tins. We are thankful to the research assistants who contributed to the data collection, namely: Cla´udia Garcia, Ene´sima Pereira, Juami Marı´n, and U´ rsula Cuevas. We also acknowledge the contribution of Paulo A. V. Borges, Director of the Azorean Biodiversity Group, Cristina Ma´guas, Director of the Centre of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes, and Mar- garida Luı´s representing the Nature Park of Terceira Island. We are also thankful to both reviewers for their excellent feedback during the submission of the first manuscript of this paper. Their comments helped us significantly improve all sections of the text. Author Contributions Conceptualization: So´nia Matos, Duarte Sousa, Ana Picanc¸o, Isabel R. Amorim, Simone Ashby, Rosalina Gabriel, Ana Moura Arroz. Data curation: So´nia Matos, Alexandra R. Silva, Ana Picanc¸o, Ana Moura Arroz. Formal analysis: So´nia Matos, Alexandra R. Silva, Ana Moura Arroz. Investigation: Duarte Sousa, Ana Picanc¸o, Isabel R. Amorim, Rosalina Gabriel, Ana Moura Arroz. Methodology: So´nia Matos, Alexandra R. Silva, Simone Ashby, Ana Moura Arroz. Supervision: So´nia Matos, Rosalina Gabriel, Ana Moura Arroz. PLOS ONE Cultural probes for environmental education PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853 February 10, 2022 27 / 30

Validation: So´nia Matos, Alexandra R. Silva, Ana Picanc¸o, Ana Moura Arroz. Writing – original draft: So´nia Matos, Alexandra R. Silva, Duarte Sousa, Ana Picanc¸o, Isabel R. Amorim, Simone Ashby, Rosalina Gabriel, Ana Moura Arroz. Writing – review & editing: So´nia Matos, Alexandra R. Silva, Duarte Sousa, Isabel R. Amorim, Simone Ashby, Rosalina Gabriel, Ana Moura Arroz. References 1. Monroe M, Andrews E, Biedenweg K. A framework for environmental education strategies. Applied Environmental Education & Communication. 2008; 6(3–4):205–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15330150801944416 2. Iared VG, de Oliveira HT, Payne PG. The aesthetic experience of nature and hermeneutic phenomenol- ogy. The Journal of Environmental Education. 2016; 47(3):191–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964. 2015.1063472 3. Ardoin NM, Clark C, Kelsey E. An exploration of future trends in environmental education research. Environmental Education Research. 2013; 19(4):499–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012. 709823 4. Simmons B. Environmental Education Materials: Guidelines for Excellence [Internet]. North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE); 1996. https://naaee.org/eepro/publication/ environmental-education-materials-guidelines-excellence 5. Chou J. Criteria for selecting quality environmental education teaching materials in Taiwan. Applied Environmental Education and Communication. 2003; 2(3):161–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15330150390218289 6. Peace Corps. Adapting Environmental Education Materials. Peace Corps, Center for Field Assistance

and Applied Research, Information Collection and Exchange; 1999. https://tinyurl.com/7aa773hv 7. Mcclam S, Diefenbacher L. Over the fence: learning about education for sustainability with new tools and conversation. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development. 2015; 9(2):126–36. https://doi. org/10.1177/0973408215588243 8. Andrews E, Stevens M, Wise G. A model of community-based environmental education. In: National Research Council New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information, and Voluntary Mea- sures [Internet]. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2002:161–82. https://doi.org/https:// doi.org/10.17226/10401 9. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J, Mittermeier CG. Biodiversity hotspots for conserva- tion priorities. Nature. 2000; 403(6772):853–8. https://www.nature.com/articles/35002501 https://doi. org/10.1038/35002501 PMID: 10706275 10. Borges P, Bried J, Costa A, Cunha R, Gabriel R, Gonc¸alves V, et al. Description of the Terrestrial and Marine Azorean Biodiversity. In: A List of the Terrestrial and Marine Biota from the Azores. Cascais: Princı´pia Editora. 2010: 9–33. 11. Gabriel R, Coelho M, Henriques D, Borges P, Elias R, Kluge J, et al. Long-term monitoring across eleva- tional gradients to assess ecological hypothesis: a description of standardized sampling methods in oceanic islands and first results. Arquipelago—Life and Marine Sciences. 2014 Jan 1; 31:45–67. http:// hdl.handle.net/10400.3/3296 12. Gaspar C, Gaston KJ, Borges PAV, Cardoso P. Selection of priority areas for arthropod conservation in

the Azores archipelago. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2011; 15(5):671–84. http://hdl.handle.net/ 10400.3/1694 13. Patiño J, Mateo RG, Zanatta F, Marquet A, Aranda SC, Borges PAV, et al. Climate threat on the Macar- onesian endemic bryophyte flora. Scientific Reports. 2016; 6(1):29156–29156. https://doi.org/10.1038/ srep29156 PMID: 27377592 14. Ferreira MT, Cardoso P, Borges PAV, Gabriel R, de Azevedo EB, Reis F, et al. Effects of climate change on the distribution of indigenous species in oceanic islands (Azores). Climatic Change. 2016; 138(3–4):603–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1754-6 15. Borges PAV, Santos AMC, Elias RB, Gabriel R. The Azores Archipelago: Biodiversity Erosion and Con- servation Biogeography. In: Goldstein MI, DellaSala DA, editors. Encyclopedia of the World’s Biomes [Internet]. Oxford: Elsevier; 2020:101–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.11949-9 PLOS ONE Cultural probes for environmental education PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853 February 10, 2022 28 / 30

16. Borges PAV, Lamelas-Lopez L, Amorim IR, Danielczak A, Boieiro M, Rego C, et al. Species conserva- tion profiles of cave-dwelling arthropods from Azores, Portugal. Biodiversity Data Journal. 2019; 7: e32530–e32530. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.7.e32530 PMID: 31105442 17. Field Guide [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 15]. https://field-guide.info 18. Sousa D, Silva A R, Amorim I R, Ashby S, Arroz AM, Piasentin F, et al. The Field Guide app: connecting island communities to local conservation through mobile interaction. Proceedings of the 10th Interna- tional Conference on Communities & Technologies (C&T). Seatlle, WA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2021. https://dl.eusset.eu/handle/20.500.12015/4200 19. Gaver B, Dunne T, Pacenti E. Design: cultural probes. interactions. 1999; 6(1):21–9. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1145/291224.291235 20. Celikoglu OM, Ogut ST, Krippendorff K. How do user stories inspire design? A study of cultural probes. Design Issues. 2017; 33(2):84–98. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00441 21. Gaver W, Boucher A, Pennington S, Walker B. Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. interac- tions. 2004; 11(5):53–6. https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/september-october-2004/cultural- probes-and-the-value-of-uncertainty1 22. Thoring K, Luippold C, Mueller R. Opening the cultural probes box: A critical reflection and analysis of the cultural probes method. 5th International Congress of International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR). 2013. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252627658_Opening_the_

Cultural_Probes_Box_A_Critical_Reflection_and_Analysis_of_the_Cultural_Probes_Method 23. Braus J, Wood D. Environmental education in the schools: creating a program that works! Washington, DC: North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) in conjunction with the ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, The Ohio State University. 1994. https://files.peacecorps.gov/multimedia/pdf/library/M0044.pdf 24. Tolppanen S, Aksela M. Identifying and addressing students’ questions on climate change. The Journal of Environmental Education. 2018; 49(5):375–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2017.1417816 25. King A. Facilitating Elaborative Learning Through Guided Student-Generated Questioning. Educational Psychologist. 1992; 27(1):111–26. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_8 26. Nappi J. The Importance of Questioning in Developing Critical Thinking Skills. Delta Kappa Gamma Bul- letin. 2017; 84(1):30–41. https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/cobblearning.net/dist/6/3101/files/2018/05/ The-Importance-of-Questioning-2aqkc5j.pdf 27. Jørgensen K-A. Bringing the jellyfish home: environmental consciousness and “sense of wonder” in young children’s encounters with natural landscapes and places. Environmental Education Research. 2016; 22(8):1139–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1068277 28. Lindholm M. Promoting curiosity? Possibilities and pitfalls in science education. Sci & Educ. 2018; 27: 987–1002. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0015-7

29. Kidman G, Casinader N. Differences in Perspective: The Impact of Culture on Inquiry. In: Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning across Disciplines: Comparative Theory and Practice in Schools [Internet]. Lon- don: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2017:47–62. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53463-7_3 30. Sauve´ L. Currents in environmental education: mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field. Cana- dian Journal of Environmental Education. 2005; 10(1):11–37. https://cjee.lakeheadu.ca/article/view/175 31. Lyotard J. F. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. University of Minnesota Press. 1984. 32. Jickling B. Making ethics an everyday activity: how can we reduce the barriers? Canadian Journal of Environmental Education. 2004; 9(1): 11–26. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ881761 33. Iared VG, Oliveira HT de, Reid A. Aesthetic experiences in the Cerrado (Brazilian savanna): contribu- tions to environmental education practice and research. Environmental Education Research. 2017 Oct 21; 23(9):1273–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1312290 34. Silva LF, Ojeda Land E, Luengo JLR, editors. Flora e Fauna Terrestre Invasora na Macarone´ sia: TOP 100 nos Ac¸ores, Madeira e Cana´ rias. Ponta Delgada, Azores: ARENA; 2008. 35. Presidência do Governo-Região Auto´noma dos Ac¸ores. Decreto Regulamentar Regional n.o 17/2011/ A [Internet]. 2011. https://dre.pt/web/guest/analisejuridica/-/aj/31812818/init/maximized?p_p_auth= 1Ja0rsxy&mode=dt 36. Xavier H. Statistics of EE Actions of Schools in Areas of the Terceira Natural Park (2014/15 to 2020/21). 2021.

37. Lazonder AW, Harmsen R. Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: effects of guidance. Review of Edu- cational Research. 2016; 86(3):681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366 38. King A. Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal. 1994; 31(2):338–68. https://doi.org/10. 3102/00028312031002338 PLOS ONE Cultural probes for environmental education PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853 February 10, 2022 29 / 30

39. Caeiro A. Aquela Senhora tem um Piano. Arquivo Pessoa. http://arquivopessoa.net/textos/3514 40. Silva L, Silva L, Smith CW, Smith CW. A quantitative approach to the study of non-indigenous plants: an example from the Azores archipelago. Biodiversity & Conservation. 2006; 15(5):1661–79. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-5015-z 41. Ratinaud P. IRaMuTeQ: Interface de R pour les Analyses Multidimensionnelles de Textes et de Ques- tionnaires. 2009. http://www.iramuteq.org 42. Alves-Mazzotti AJ. Representac¸ões da identidade docente: uma contribuic¸ão para a formulac¸ão de polı´ticas. Ensaio: Avaliac¸ão e Polı´ticas Pu´ blicas Em Educac¸ão. 2007. https://www.scielo.br/j/ensaio/a/ pqgh43MXqYxz7LzgXJS7Vwg/abstract/?lang=pt 43. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Armok: IBM Corp.; 2020. 44. Litfin KT. Framing science: precautionary discourse and the ozone treaties. Millennium. 1995 Jul 1; 24 (2):251–77. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298950240020501 45. Varela P, Costa MF. Explore the concept of “light” and its interaction with matter: an inquiry-based sci- ence education project in primary school. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2015; 605(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/605/1/012041 46. Stevenson RJ, Mahmut M, Sundqvist N. Age-related changes in odor discrimination. Developmental Psychology. 2007; 43(1):253–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.253 PMID: 17201523 47. Blakemore S. J, Choudhury S. Development of the adolescent brain: implications for executive function

and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.2006; 47(3–4):296–312. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01611.x PMID: 16492261 48. Cornelius-White J. Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2007; 77(1):113–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298563 49. Brauman Kate A., Garibaldi Lucas Alejandro, Polasky Stephen, Zayas Cynthia, Thomas Aumeeruddy, Yildiz Brancalion, Pedro, et al. Chapter 2.3 Status and trends—Nature’s Contributions to People. In: Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [Internet]. Intergovernmental Sci- ence-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES); 2020. https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.3832035 50. Saari A, Mullen J. Dark places: environmental education research in a world of hyperobjects. Environ- mental Education Research. 2020 Oct 2; 26(9–10):1466–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018. 1522618 51. Problems Garrard G. and prospects in ecocritical pedagogy. Environmental Education Research. 2010; 16(2):233–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504621003624704 52. Gaver W. Science and Design: The Implications of Different Forms of Accountability. Ways of Knowing in HCI. 2014:143–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_7 PLOS ONE Cultural probes for environmental education PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262853 February 10, 2022 30 / 30