Osu1186780088.Pdf (864.75
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ABSTRACT Conservation education at zoos, parks and other free-choice conservation settings is geared towards teaching and/or reinforcing certain key conservation messages that relate to the mission of the institution. These messages are communicated through a variety of channels ranging from interpretive signage, to resource elements (e.g., animals, scenic vistas, etc.) and personnel (e.g., docents and interpreters). A number of studies have focused on the outcome of visits to such settings, but little is known about the accuracy of message communication through these channels, or the factors that influence the fidelity of message communication using these channels. This study seeks to identify characteristics of educational personnel that that may cause message distortion while using them as a channel for institutional messages at free-choice conservation education settings. The study employed an emergent design with mixed methods and was conducted at a large zoo in the Midwest. Berlo’s communication process model was used to examine factors that influence docents as a message channel. Phase I consisted of interviews with docents and visitors to determine awareness of messages and perceptions of docents as a channel for messages. In phase II, docent-visitor interactions were observed to determine extent of actual message communication. This was followed by interviews with docents and visitors involved in the interaction to measure their ii perceptions of what messages had been communicated. Finally, an exit survey was used in phase III to assess visitor perceptions of docents as a source for the institution’s messages. Findings indicate docents and similar educational personnel differ from other channels within free-choice conservation education settings because they exhibit source characteristics such as communication skills, attitudes (towards self, subject matter, and receivers), knowledge and socio-cultural systems. These factors introduce noise into the message communication system when docents are used as a channel for key messages. From a learning perspective, visitors were found to compress their visit and thereby attribute more messages to docents than were observed. Docents were found to be less successful at teaching affective and higher order cognitive messages than other predominantly cognitive messages, while signage is very effective at building cognitive awareness of messages among visitors. iii Dedicated to my parents Frederick and Angela Mony iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the assistance of many individuals who have invested themselves in my success. My advisor, Dr. Joe Heimlich, guided me and encouraged me through this entire process. The advice and support of the members of my advisory and exam committees – Dr. Amanda Rodewald, Dr. Rosanne Fortner, Dr. David Stein, and Dr. Gary Mullins, was invaluable in developing this dissertation. Nancy Hampson at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium made this research study possible and always made herself available to help with any problems that arose during data collection. I would like to also thank Dr. Ayres D’Costa who took the time to help me work through statistical procedures. A number of other professors at the School of Environment and Natural Resources were instrumental in my successful completion of this program, especially Dr Bob Gates who challenged me to think like a doctoral candidate, and Dr. Tom Koontz who helped me to navigate through the maze of requirements for the program. I owe a debt of gratitude to my loving husband, Chriswin, who walked with me every step of the way, to celebrate my successes (however minor), to cheer me up when things were rough, and to take care of everything in general. My family, though geographically thousands of miles away, have been by my side to support me with phone v calls and prayers. In particular, my sister Swapna’s care packages, my dad’s help with formatting this document, and my mom’s TLC have encouraged me stay motivated and focused on the finish. I am also very grateful to friends who have been a great source of moral support through my entire program, specially Smruti, Abhishek, Sumanth and Shabri, as well as those at the Church of the Messiah who have been very accommodating of my erratic schedule. I cannot end without thanking Kevin Shanner for rescuing my work when my computer crashed, not once but twice! Finally, to the members of the cohort, Nichole, Elaine, Emily, Victor and Nadya, it would have been a lonely journey without you. vi VITA October 5, 1977…………………………...Born - Chennai, India. 1998……………………………………….B.Sc. Life Sciences, Sophia College, University of Mumbai, India 2000……………………………………….B.S. Environmental Science, University of Florida. 2002……………………………………….M.S. Interdisciplinary Ecology, University of Florida. 2003…………………………………….…Sr. Research Associate, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), New Delhi, India. 2005 – 2007……………………………….Graduate Teaching and Research Associate, The Ohio Ste University PUBLICATIONS Research Publications 1. Culen, G.R. & Mony, P.R.S. (2003). Assessing Environmental Literacy in a Nonformal Youth Program. Journal of Environmental Education, 34(4), 26-28 FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Natural Resources Specialization: Human Dimensions (Environmental Education, Interpretation, and Communication) Sub-Specialization: Wildlife Management vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract............................................................................................................................... ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………………...iv Acknnowledgements........................................................................................................... v Vita.................................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. x LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii Chapters 1. Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Setting .............................................................................................................3 1.2 Environmental Communication Model...........................................................4 1.3 Research Questions.........................................................................................6 1.4 Significance of the Study................................................................................7 1.5 Limitations ......................................................................................................9 1.6 Assumptions..................................................................................................10 1.7 Definition of Terms.......................................................................................10 2. Review of Literature ..............................................................................................13 2.1 The Communication Process ........................................................................14 2.2 The Source ....................................................................................................18 2.3 The Receiver .................................................................................................20 2.4 The Message .................................................................................................24 2.5 The Channel..................................................................................................27 2.6 The Context...................................................................................................35 2.7 Communication Outcomes............................................................................42 2.8 Noise .............................................................................................................45 3. Methodology......................................................................................................... 47 3.1 Study Site......................................................................................................47 3.2 Population and Sampling Procedures ...........................................................49 3.3 Conservation Messages.................................................................................50 3.4 Research Design............................................................................................51 3.5 Instrumentation and Data Collection ............................................................52 3.6 Data Analysis................................................................................................62 viii 4. Research Article 1................................................................................................. 64 5. Research Article 2............................................................................................... 102 List of References ........................................................................................................... 124 Appendices...................................................................................................................... 140 Appendix A: List of AZA’S Conservation Messages......................................... 140 Appendix B: Instruments for Phase I.................................................................