Introduction
The grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) is Australia’s largest native bat, and plays a pivotal role in pollination activities, including of important native plant species (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2025), encapsulated in the popularised “no me, no tree” catch cry (Sii, Reference Sii2020). They consume pollen and nectar and fruit from >100 species of native plants, as well as from exotic trees (Eby & Law, Reference Eby and Law2008). The importance of flying-foxes is highlighted in Australian state government websites (Box 1).
Importance of flying-foxes (excerpt from Queensland Government, 2024)
Flying-foxes play an important role in dispersing seeds and pollinating flowering plants and are crucial to keeping native forests healthy. Because flying-foxes are highly mobile, seeds can be moved locally and over great distances. When seeds are able to germinate away from their parent plant, they have a greater chance of surviving and growing into a mature plant. Seed dispersal also expands the gene pool within forests. Mature trees then share their genes with neighbouring trees of the same species and this transfer strengthens forests against environmental changes.
High mobility also makes flying-foxes very effective as forest pollinators. Pollen sticks to their furry bodies and as they crawl from flower to flower, and fly from tree to tree, they pollinate the flowers and aid in the production of honey. This reinforces the gene pool and health of native forests.
In turn, native forests provide valuable timber, act as carbon sinks, and stabilise river systems and water catchments, and provide recreational and tourism opportunities worth millions of dollars each year.
Grey-headed flying-foxes are protected as a vulnerable species under New South Wales (NSW) state and federal Australian law (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2025; Australian Government, 2001). They were added to the International Union for Conservation of Nature ‘Red List’ in 2021 (Australian Conservation Foundation, n.d.) highlighting that the survival of this species is threatened. Threatening processes, such as loss of foraging habitat (Eby & Law, Reference Eby and Law2008), are partly under human control. Despite their vulnerability and importance to the native ecosystem, grey-headed flying-foxes, along with other members of the bat family, have been “threatened and misunderstood” or ignored altogether (Lunney & Moon, Reference Lunney, Moon, Law, Eby, Lunney and Lumsden2011, page 44). Mo et al (2024) point out the diversity of perspectives from which flying-foxes may be considered, from the scientific to the legal, to the ecological, to the economic, to the public health context, to socio-cultural perspectives, and within each of these, the often polarised view-points. In addition to more traditional approaches adopted to improve public perceptions of flying-foxes, there is also the concept of ‘normalising’ them as a natural, and highly-esteemed, part of our native wildlife, as proposed by Mo and colleagues (Reference Mo, Timmiss, Pearson, Treadwell Kerr, Steves and Welbergen2024). Although school education can provide an ideal opportunity to embed such normalisation, flying-foxes rarely featured within formal education. However, the potential power of such an approach is that “there is the potential to leave a lasting impression on children that will lead them as adults to perceive flying-foxes as native wildlife, even after they then become aware of flying-foxes as subjects of contentious issues” (Mo et al., Reference Mo, Timmiss, Pearson, Treadwell Kerr, Steves and Welbergen2024, page M).
School-aged students often express environmental concern and indicate a strong willingness to protect the environment (Chan, Reference Chan1996). Improving knowledge and interest in wildlife and biodiversity may improve conservation efforts, and in fact may be ‘critical to securing the future of Australia’s wildlife’ (Crisp et al., Reference Crisp, Holness and Winter2022), with Lunney et al. (Reference Lunney, Moon, Law, Eby, Lunney and Lumsden2011) also pointing out the importance of education in countering negative perceptions of bats in particular. Børresen et al. (Reference Børresen, Ulimboka, Nyahongo, Ranke, Skjærvø and Røskaft2022, page 148) point out, “Local appreciation of ecosystem services and knowledge of how the foundation of these services is affected by local livelihoods are important for the sustainability of natural resources and thus may fundamentally affect human well-being”. In a study of older students’ attitudes towards environmental conservation, Mutisya et al. (Reference Mutisya, Kipgetich and Rono2013) reported that most pupils had positive attitudes towards environmental education and conservation. The importance of younger children’s approach to nature and conservation has also been highlighted, with Green (Reference Green2015, page 207) noting that “exploring how young children think, feel, engage, and act with various places and their environments are enduring topics of inquiry prompting scholarship in environmental education and other related fields, particularly in considering the early years as a critical time when children are actively constructing foundational aspects of their environmental identity”. While multiple opportunities and resources exist to support younger children in Australia to learn about wildlife and biodiversity conservation (e.g. Taronga Conservation Society Australia, 2025; Sustainable Schools NSW, 2023), there have been no published studies reporting on current levels of knowledge of the grey-headed flying-fox or other bat species, nor potentially gap-remediating interventions, in primary or secondary school children.
In educational settings, interventions commonly comprise ‘focused teaching sessions’ (Hawthorne, Reference Hawthorne2023). Classroom-based interventions often take place to support learners within their classroom environment, and are a practical option whereby a structured intervention can swiftly help progress knowledge or close gaps in an important area (Hawthorne, Reference Hawthorne2023). Furthermore, it has been proposed that children have the right to “participate in matters of relevance to them” and may offer “unique perspectives . . . of their own and other environments” (Barrett-Hacking et al., Reference Barratt Hacking, Cutter-Mackenzie, Barratt, Stevenson, Brody, Dillon and Wals2013, page 438; Green, Reference Green2015, page 207). Peer-led interventions, for example to facilitate health learning have been promoted for many reasons, including “the important role peers play within the lives of young people, a perception that this approach involves relatively few resources, and the more even balance of authority than in teacher-led lessons”, with additional benefits to the peer educator, such as the fostering of confidence and leadership (Dodd et al., Reference Dodd, Widnall, Russell, Curtin, Simmonds, Limmer and Kidger2022).
In this context, we conducted a pilot study to explore baseline levels of knowledge regarding grey-headed flying-foxes, and the introduction of a simple education intervention, developed by a classmate-peer, in a group of Australian year 3 students. We hypothesised that baseline knowledge about grey-headed flying-foxes would be suboptimal, but that a simple peer-developed educational intervention would be feasible and that knowledge would improve following same.
Methods and materials
The population comprised year 3 students (aged 8–9) in a primary school in the greater Sydney metropolitan area. Students participated in the questionnaires and intervention voluntarily, during regular class time.
The questionnaires (pre- and post-intervention) were designed to assess knowledge about grey-headed flying-foxes, including categorisation, appearance, habitat, activity, diet and travel patterns. In line with the idea of involving children as researchers, the questionnaires and intervention were developed by a classmate-peer who was in the same class as the participants (author A.W.), and refined with stakeholder input from local conservationists and a primary school aged ‘consultant’ who gave feedback regarding understandability and design. To maximise accessibility, the language used was pitched at an appropriate reading level, and questions required either short written answers or included ‘tick box’ multiple choice. All children in the school speak, read and write English, and translation was not considered necessary. Questionnaires were anonymised, and all children completed the questionnaires at the same time-points: immediately prior to the educational intervention, and then later that same day, after the educational intervention. In order to preserve anonymity, and given the small sample size, respondent characteristics were not sought.
Development of the peer-developed educational intervention
In keeping with the tenets of an effective educational intervention (Hawthorne, Reference Hawthorne2023), consideration was given to: What is the aim?; Why are we doing it?; What will we be doing?; How will we do the intervention?; Will we be able to see the progress, and how? Feasibility was simply determined: could we deliver the intervention in the specified classroom setting?
The presentation, aided by a slide-show, covered aspects of the grey-headed flying-fox such as categorisation, appearance, habitat, activity, diet and travel patterns. Facts within the presentation were obtained from a variety of sources (Supplementary Material: Appendix 1 & 2), and further reviewed by a local conservationist with an interest in grey-headed flying-foxes, for accuracy. Pictures within the presentation were sourced through a combination of online images (duly acknowledged within the presentation) and photos taken at a nearby camp, with a short video of the peer (presenter) at a local bat count embedded within. The duration of the interactive presentation, which would be delivered in person during the school day, and including questions from the audience, was estimated to take <10 minutes in total.
The questionnaires and educational intervention were piloted with two people, and also shared with the class teachers, and minor amendments made following feedback, at which point the questionnaire and intervention were finalised. Supplementary Material: Appendix 3 shows the post-intervention questionnaire, identical to the pre-test, bar the inclusion of a final binary “Did the presentation help you learn about Grey-Headed Flying-foxes?” in the former.
Analysis
Data from the anonymous hard-copy questionnaires were manually entered into Excel® and double-checked for accuracy. Simple descriptive statistics were conducted using Excel® and Stata® v13.0 (StataCorp, TX, USA). Because of the limited numbers, we provide numerator/denominator, and not percentages for proportions.
Ethics/Approvals
The school (principal, teachers) approved the study. Ethics approval, provided by the school committee, was obtained, along with a waiver for the need for written informed consent from parents/guardians (no number, date 25/6/24). Students participated in the questionnaires and intervention voluntarily, during regular class time.
Results
In total, 29 students participated in the pilot study, and completed both pre- and post-intervention questionnaires. All student completed the questionnaires and participated in the intervention, confirming feasibility in this setting.
Pre-intervention results
Baseline knowledge regarding grey-headed flying-foxes was minimal. Overall, only 4/29 students identified the creatures correctly as flying-foxes or bats (free text response). Eighteen students thought that grey-headed flying-foxes might be threatened, while 7/29 were unsure and 4/29 thought not. Only 8/29 correctly identified them as living in Australia; 9/29 thought Europe, and 7/29 Africa. Overall, 20/27 students thought that they sleep by day (correct); there were 2 blank responses. Most students (20/28) estimated (from 300g, 800g, 1300g options) that the adults weigh on average 800g.
Proposed diet (free text) was varied (Figure 1). Most respondents thought that they either could not swim (11/28) or were unsure (9/28). Asked to choose 2 predators from a list, grizzly bears (14) and red foxes (14) were commonly selected, although python (12) and eagle (13) were also commonly chosen.
Free text responses to “what do grey-headed flying foxes eat?”, pre-intervention (n with any correct = 2) and post-intervention (n with any correct = 25).
One respondent suggested that they learn to fly at 7 days, but all other respondents (n = 28) estimated ≥1 year. The commonest choice for “What is a young grey-headed flying fox called?” was roost (from supplied list) (n = 12), with 11 selecting pup (correct).
In terms of appearance, the majority (23/29) correctly identified the creatures as having a grey head, but orange-brown neck (13) and furry legs (7) were less commonly selected features. For habitat, up to three selections were allowed (total 78 responses given); while ‘other forests’ (23) and rainforests (19) were commonly chosen, grasslands (20) was also commonly selected (Figure 2), and none had all 3 correct. Colony name (free text) was commonly reported as “I don‘t know” (10), but the next most common was “flock”; no respondent volunteered camp. In the educational presentation, students were given information indicating that grey-headed flying-foxes can travel up to 50km/night (Australian Museum, Reference Museum2020), with an increased number of students selecting this answer post-intervention (Figure 3).
Responses to “what is their habitat? (pick up to 3)”, pre-intervention (n with 3 correct = 0) and post-intervention (n with 3 correct = 13).
Pre- and post-test responses to multiple choice question “How far can they travel in one night? Up to… (pick one)” Note: we used a figure of 50km/night, in keeping with Australian Museum (Reference Museum2020) and other sources, but acknowledge that some sources (which we had not included) mention distances of up to 100 km a night (Wildlife Victoria, Reference Victoria2024).
Post-intervention results
Post-intervention knowledge regarding grey-headed flying-foxes had generally improved; p-values are given for comparison with pre-intervention proportions.
All 29 students identified the creatures correctly as flying-foxes or bats (free text response) (p < 0.001). Overall, 24/29 students thought that grey-headed flying-foxes were a threatened species (p = 0.63), with 2/29 unsure
All 29 students correctly identified grey-headed flying-foxes as living in Australia (p < 0.001). Overall, 25/27 students now thought that they sleep by day (correct); there was 1 blank response. However, only 18/28 estimated that the adults weigh on average 800g (p = 0.58).
Proposed diet (free text) remained varied (Figure 1b) but more often listed plants, flowers, fruit and gum leaves (comparison any correct pre [2] versus post [25] p < 0.001) (Figure 1). Most respondents now thought that they could swim (24/29). Asked to choose 2 predators from a list, pythons (28) and eagles (27) were commonly chosen (both correct 10/29 pre versus 27/29 post, p < 0.001).
The number of respondent proposing they learned to fly at 3 months was now 24/29 (compared to 0 pre-intervention, p < 0.001) estimated ≥1 year. The commonest choice for “What is a young grey-headed flying fox called?” was now pup (27/29) (p < 0.001).
In terms of appearance, the majority (28/29) continued to identify the bats as having a grey head, but orange-brown neck (18) and fury legs (19) were now more commonly selected; overall, 18/29 got all three options correct (compared to 0/29 prior, p < 0.001). For habitat, (total 78 responses given), responses had slightly improved (all 3 correct options post-intervention 13/29, p < 0.001) (Figure 2). Colony name (free text) was now more commonly reported as camp (18/26, p < 0.001). The commonest selection for achievable distance travelled overnight was the correct 50 km/night (17/29, Figure 3) (p = 0.02).
For the final post-intervention question, “Did the presentation help you learn about flying-foxes?”, 26/29 responded yes.
Discussion
We found that baseline knowledge regarding grey-headed flying-foxes was suboptimal, but that knowledge improved markedly following a simple peer-developed classroom educational intervention, in keeping with our hypotheses. The educational intervention proved feasible in the chosen setting. While a pilot study, we believe these results are important for several reasons, and can better inform child-targeted wildlife and conservation research moving forward.
Firstly, knowledge affects how we approach biodiversity conservation. As Børresen et al (Reference Børresen, Ulimboka, Nyahongo, Ranke, Skjærvø and Røskaft2022, page 149) note: “Education in biodiversity conservation is an important factor in shaping peoples’ knowledge of and attitudes towards biodiversity conservation, and hence should be a part of the curriculum in schools, at both primary and secondary levels”. Local communities- comprising all ages- are increasingly being recognised as key factors and foci contributing to the success of the conservation agenda (Kideghesho et al., Reference Kideghesho, Røskaft and Kaltenborn2007), and younger generations benefit from learning about sustainability, biodiversity conservation and human responsibility for caring for nature (Børresen et al., Reference Børresen, Ulimboka, Nyahongo, Ranke, Skjærvø and Røskaft2022).
Secondly, this study was child-driven and delivered. Although children’s perspectives have been taken into account in terms of assent and/or targeted data collection measures, more directly child-led initiatives have been lacking, despite the potential benefits of this approach (Barrett-Hacking et al., Reference Barratt Hacking, Cutter-Mackenzie, Barratt, Stevenson, Brody, Dillon and Wals2013; Green, Reference Green2015). Green (Reference Green2015, page 226) observes that environmental scholars “must seek ways to integrate child-led initiatives in all aspects of the research process, including developing research questions, choosing appropriate data collection methods, collecting and analysing data, and presenting findings.” In this instance, a single individual took on the role of peer researcher, but other approaches, such as peer teams, also warrant further exploration.
Thirdly, this study focussed on a threatened species, highlighting existing gaps in local knowledge regarding resident bats. Local knowledge and attitudes are likely to influence future conservation efforts and success (Børresen et al., Reference Børresen, Ulimboka, Nyahongo, Ranke, Skjærvø and Røskaft2022; Fernandez-Manzanal et al., Reference Fernández-Manzanal, Rodríguez-Barreiro and Carrasquer2007), although exploration of the link between knowledge and wider actions and efforts was beyond the scope of our study. Efforts to educate with a view to protecting endangered species may be considered within an ecojustice framework. The key idea of ecojustice is that we humans have “an ethical, material and moral responsibility to cease destroying the living fabric of the world” (Whitehouse, Reference Whitehouse2024). The concept thus both provides a structure for thinking about our ethical responsibilities as educators and community members, but also represents a socio-ecological and political movement (Martesewicz, Reference Martusewicz2018). As Celermajer et al argue (Reference Celermajer, Chatterjee, Cochrane, Fishel, Neimanis and O’Brien2020, page 3) humans are one among many creatures who inhabit this planet, and “share with nonhuman others certain risks and vulnerabilities that underpin our embodied existence”.
Our educational intervention comprised an interactive presentation with slide-show delivered at a single point in time. Other authors have explored the potential benefits of more prolonged exposure to print media. For example, Pomerantz (Reference Pomerantz1986) described increases in knowledge relating to animals, plants and ecological principles in a cohort of almost 500 fifth-grade students, following introduction of Ranger Rick magazines. Nowadays, digital technologies are widely employed in environmental education, for example “to engage students in field-based investigations and facilitate involvement in citizen-science projects and community-based conservation efforts” (Renshaw, Jackson, Mortlock & Tooth Reference Renshaw, Jackson, Mortlock and Tooth2023, page 20). In addition to the educational potential, digital technologies may also be used to investigate children’s knowledge of and attitudes to nature, for example through exploration and analysis of child-led backyard ‘video-walks’ (Renshaw et al., Reference Renshaw, Jackson, Mortlock and Tooth2023).
In addition to discrete interventions such as that we have described, expanding children’s knowledge of wildlife and nature is also likely to be influenced by what and how teachers think (Chapman, Reference Chapman2017), and teachers’ conceptions regarding sustainability education are also likely to influence shape teaching and learning decisions and practices (Evans et al, Reference Evans, Inwood, Christie and Newman2023). Furthermore, learning is likely to be enhanced by active, experimental and participatory approaches (Evans et al., Reference Evans, Inwood, Christie and Newman2023). While interaction was encouraged during our described intervention, it did not include any hands-on activities or participation outside of the classroom setting, nor longitudinal learning, which may also be of benefit. The National Wildlife Federation in the United States (n.d., no page number), promotes Schoolyard Habitats®- the development and support of natural habitats within the schoolyard setting- as one method to “restore native habitats, provide access to nature, and create outdoor classrooms, helping learning to come alive across the curriculum” as part of a certified programme, while school environmental clubs may cultivate ecological identity (Scientific American, 2008; Smith, Reference Smith2019). Learning may also be supported by more organic or informal networks or initiatives, such as those driven by volunteers with an interest in conserving and rehabilitating, along with educating, such as those of the BatSoc in Queensland (Whitehouse, Reference Whitehouse2024) and local preservation societies, e.g. the Wolli Creek Preservation Society (n.d.), which support community education and enterprises to promote the well-being of bats and other native fauna.
We acknowledge the limitations of this study. As a pilot, numbers were limited, and in including children from a single year in a single school, we note that results may not be generalisable to other settings. The questionnaire had not been previously validated, but we were unable to identify a validated tool for this specific purpose in the available literature. We did not adjust for other confounders which may influence how willing or able students are to take on knowledge, and in assessing improvements in knowledge in the immediate post-intervention phase, we cannot speak to the longevity of this learning, although this is planned in future. We focussed on a single species, but believe that these results are hypothesis-generating, and allow for the potential expansion to other aspects of environmental education.
The current study focused on children’s knowledge, which only forms part of the picture, as attitudes also play a role in shaping how people approach and respond to nature. However, improving knowledge and understanding intersect with and may influence attitudes. Fernandez-Manzanal et al (Reference Fernández-Manzanal, Rodríguez-Barreiro and Carrasquer2007, page 990) note that “environmental attitudes provide a good understanding of the set of beliefs, interests, or rules that influence environmentalism or pro-environmental action”. In a Kenyan setting, Mutisya et al (Reference Mutisya, Kipgetich and Rono2013) have highlighted that schools whose curricula promote positive values and attitudes towards wildlife contribute to later conservation. In a qualitative analysis, Smith (Reference Smith2019, page 65) notes that “a love of wildlife often underpinned ecocentrism”. Enchantment with nature may also be cultivated, as shown by Renshaw et al. (Reference Renshaw, Jackson, Mortlock and Tooth2023) who utilised digital artefacts and interviews to awaken enchantment in upper primary school children. Of note, and referencing the findings of Pyyry and Aiava (Reference Pyyry and Aiava2020), the authors point out that enchantment need not always be positive, but clarity can just as validly be associated with negative affects as much as positive. Such efforts may contribute to fostering an appreciation of, and commitment to, the partnership between and relatedness between all entities, the human and more-than-human (Gough, Reference Gough2018). Furthermore, a -more-than-human curriculum would accepts that environments constitute complex entanglements, and embraces such inter-weavings (Gough, Reference Gough2018).
In conclusion, this pilot study of a peer-developed educational intervention yielded encouraging results in terms of the use of a peer-developed classroom educational intervention and post-intervention improvement in knowledge. Despite the limitations, our findings are hypothesis-generating, providing pilot data supporting research questions which explore the use of peer-developed education to support education regarding native species, and highlighting the potential for peer-researcher involvement in environmental education research, as well as opportunities to address knowledge gaps regarding threatened local species such as the grey-headed flying fox.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2025.10082.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Ms. Deb Little of Wolli Creek Preservation Society for her invaluable input and support. We also thank the teachers, school principal and students who supported this study. We also thank the reviewers and editors for their helpful comments and feedback.
Financial support
No funding to declare.
Ethical standard
In line with the school research ethics pathway, this was submitted to the local school leadership team. Waiver for consent was requested, given minimal risk, use of deidentified data, alignment with educational goals, and similarity to usual teaching & assessment measures. The School Principal and team reviewed the risks involved in this activity and deemed them as minimal, allowed the activity, and waived the need for written informed parent/guardian consent. Journal submission/publication (using only deidentified data) was also supported.
Author Biographies
Annabelle Woo is an 8-year old budding conservationist and primary school student who loves to see the local grey-headed flying-foxes in her area.
Danielle Ní Chróinín is a Geriatrician (medical doctor), researcher and educator with a passion for supporting early career scientists, of any age! In addition to her substantive medical specialist role at Liverpool Hospital, NSW, she holds a Conjoint Associate Professor appointment with UNSW Sydney, and has loved learning about grey-headed flying foxes and watching them with her daughters.
Open access
