The role of automated feedback in training and retaining biological recorders for citizen science

Conservation Biology

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 550-561

  van der Wal, René ^a   Sharma, Nirwan ^a   Mellish, Chris ^a   Robinson, Annie ^a   Siddharthan, Advaith ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biological recording; Bumblebee identification; Natural language generation; Training; Volunteer motivation and retention

Indexed keywords

BEE; BIODIVERSITY; FEEDBACK MECHANISM; IDENTIFICATION KEY; INTEGRATED APPROACH; PHOTOGRAMMETRY; SENSOR; SUPERVISED LEARNING; TRAINING; WORLD WIDE WEB;

ANIMAL; AUTOMATION; BEE; BIODIVERSITY; CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK; EDUCATION; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HUMAN; PHOTOGRAPHY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZATION; RESEARCH; VOLUNTEER;

ANIMALS; AUTOMATION; BEES; BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; EDUCATION; FORMATIVE FEEDBACK; HUMANS; PHOTOGRAPHY; RANDOM ALLOCATION; RESEARCH; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; VOLUNTEERS;

EID: 84964721035     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12705     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Adams WM, Sandbrook C. 2013. Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx 47:329-335.
2. Beirne C, Lambin X. 2013. Understanding the determinants of volunteer retention through capture-recapture analysis: answering social science questions using a wildlife ecology toolkit. Conservation Letters 6:391-401.
3. Bell S, et al. 2008. What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity. Biological Conservation 17:3443-3454.
4. Blake S, Siddharthan A, Nguyen H, Sharma N, Robinson A, Mellish C, Van der Wal R. 2012. Natural language generation for nature conservation: automating feedback to help volunteers identify bumblebee species. Pages 311-324 in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Available from http://anthology.aclweb.org/C/C12/C12-1020.pdf (accessed November 2015).
5. Blaschke LM. 2014. Heutagogy and lifelong learning: a review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. International Review in Open and Distant Learning 13:56-71.
6. Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, Rosenberg KV, Shirk J. 2009. Citizen Science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 59: 977-984.
7. Butler DL, Winne PH. 1995. Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research 3:245-281.
8. Clary EG, Snyder M, Ridge R, Copeland J, Stukas AA, Haugen J, Miene P. 1998. Understanding and assessing the motivation of volunteers: a functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74:1516-1530.
9. Conrad CC, Hilchey KG. 2011. A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 176:273-291.
10. Danielsen F, Burgess ND, Balmford A. 2005. Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:2507-2542.
11. Davis MH. 1994. Empathy: a social psychological approach. Westview Press, Boulder.
12. Devictor V, Whittaker RJ, Beltrame C. 2010. Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography. Diversity and Distributions 16:354-362.
13. Ellis R. 2011. Jizz and the joy of pattern recognition: virtuosity, discipline and the agency of insight in UK naturalists' arts of seeing. Social Studies of Science 41:769-790.
14. Greenwood JJD. 2007. Citizens, science and bird conservation. Journal of Ornithology 148(Suppl 1):S77-S124.
15. He J, Van Ossenbruggen J, De Vries AP. 2013. Do you need experts in the crowd? A case study in image annotation for marine biology. Pages 57-60 in Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Open Research Areas in Information Retrieval. Le Centre de Hautes Etudes Internationales D'Informatique Documentaire, Paris. Available from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id = 2491792 (accessed November 2015).
16. Hill A, et al. 2012. The notes from nature tool for unlocking biodiversity records from museum records through citizen science. ZooKeys 209:219-233.
17. Hochachka WM, Fink D, Hutchinson RA, Sheldon D, Wong W-K, Kelling S. 2012. Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27:130-136.
18. Hopkins GW, Freckleton RP. 2002. Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. Animal Conservation 5:245-249.
19. Karasimos A, Isard A. 2004. Multi-lingual evaluation of a natural language generation system. Pages 829-832 in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. European Language Resources Association, Paris. Available from http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2004/pdf/134.pdf (accessed November 2015).
20. Kelling S, Lagoze C, Wong W-K, Yu J, Damoulas T, Gerbracht J, Fink D, Gomes C. 2013. eBird: a human/computer learning network to improve biodiversity conservation and research. AI Magazine Spring 2013:10-20.
21. Lawrence A, Van Turnhout E. 2010. Personal meaning in the public sphere: the standardisation and rationalisation of biodiversity data in the UK and the Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies 26:353-360.
22. Leacock C, Chodorow M, Gamon M, Tetreault J. 2010. Automated grammatical error detection for language learners. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies 3:1-134.
23. Mansfield P, Boase-Jelinek D. 2010. Optimising automated feedback systems to motivate students. eCULTURE 3:95-109.
24. Mol APJ. 2008. Environmental reform in the information age: the contours of informational governance. Cambridge University Press, New York.
25. Ponnamperuma K, Siddharthan A, Zeng C, Mellish C, Van der Wal R. 2013. Tag2Blog: Narrative generation from satellite tag data. Pages 169-174 in Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Available from http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P13-4029 (accessed November 2015).
26. Portet F, Reiter E, Gatt A, Hunter J, Sripada S, Freer Y, Sykes C. 2009. Automatic generation of textual summaries from neonatal intensive care data. Artificial Intelligence 173:789-816.
27. Rotman D, Preece J, Hammock J, Procita K, Hansen D, Parr C, Lewis D, Jacobs D. 2012. Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. Pages 217-226 in Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). Association for Computing Machinery, New York. Available from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id = 2145238 (accessed November 2015).
28. Sadler DR. 1989. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science 18:119-144.
29. Siddharthan A, Lambin C, Robinson A, Sharma NN, O'Mahony E, Mellish C, Van der Wal R. 2015. Crowdsourcing without a crowd: using Bayesian models to minimise crowd size for reliable online species identification. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 5. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2776896.
30. Silvertown J, Buesching CD, Jacobson SK, Rebelo T. 2013. Citizen science and nature conservation. Pages 124-142 in Macdonald DW, Willis KJ, editors. Key topics in conservation biology 2. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts.
31. Theobald EJ, et al. 2015. Global change and local solutions: tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research. Biological Conservation 181:236-244.
32. van der Wal R, Anderson H, Robinson A, Sharma N, Mellish C, Roberts S, Darvill B, Siddharthan A. 2015. Mapping species distributions: a comparison of skilled naturalist and lay citizen science recording. Ambio 44 (Suppl. 4):S584-S600.
33. Wals AEJ, Brody M, Dillon J, Stevenson RB. 2014. Convergence between science and environmental education. Science 344:583-584.
34. Webster G, Sripada S, Mellish C, Melero Y, Arts K, Lambin X, Van der Wal R. 2014. Determining content for unknown users: lessons from the MinkApp case study. Pages 113-117 in Proceedings of the 8th International Natural Language Generation Conference (INLG). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Available from http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W14-4417 (accessed November 2015).
35. Worthington JP, Silvertown J, Cook L, Cameron R, Dodd M, Greenwood RM, McConway K, Skelton P. 2012. Evolution MegaLab: a case study in citizen science methods. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3:303-309.