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...... 143 Appendix C: Instruments for Phase II ...... 147 Appendix D: Instrument for Phase III ...... 152
ix LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 Principal Component Analysis...... 63
4.1 Visitor reported message communication during visit ...... 76
4.2 Visitors’ prior awareness of key messages ...... 77
4.3 Visitor awareness of key conservation messages ...... 78
4.4 Extent of message communication from various sources...... 80
4.5 Frequency distribution for docents as a message source ...... 81
4.6 Docent awareness of key conservation messages...... 83
4.7 Number of messages described by docents (phase I) ...... 83
4.8 Docent reports of intended messages...... 85
4.9 Number of intended messages described by docents (phase II) ...... 85
4.10 Observed message communications during docent-visitor interactions...... 86
4.12 Difference based on group composition ...... 87
4.13 Differences based on exhibit region ...... 88
4.14 Differences based on how interaction was initiated ...... 89
4.15 Visitor report of message communication ...... 90
4.16 Number of messages reported per interaction ...... 91
4.17 Comparison of observed and visitor reported data ...... 91
5.1 Docent reports of key conservation messages...... 111
5.2 Observed message communications during docent-visitor interactions...... 112 x 5.3 Visitor report of communicated messages...... 113
5.4 Source of key conservation messages...... 114
5.5 Contingency tables of observed data vs. visitor reported data...... 115
5.6 Test for interactions ...... 116
5.7 Loglinear test for independence...... 116
xi LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 Shannon & Weaver’s linear model of communication (Source: Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1962)...... 5
1.2 Berlo’s Communication Process Model (Source: Berlo, 1960)...... 6
2.1 Lasswell Formula (source: Lasswell, 1948/1971) ...... 15
2.2 Shannon & Weaver’s Linear Model of Communication (Source: Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1962)...... 15
2.3 Osgood-Schramm Circular Model of Communication (Source: Schramm, 1971)16
2.4 Berlo’s Communication Process Model (Source: Berlo, 1960)...... 17
2.5 Components of a message (source: Brochu, 2003)...... 26
3.1 Research design ...... 53
xii CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The general public plays an important role in conservation. While it may seem that conservation happens only “in the field” this is not necessarily so. For example, public attitudes influence policy decisions and allocation of funds for conservation organizations and efforts. The public outcry resulting from the fires burning on the
Cuyahoga River in 1969 was the impetus for the creation of the Clean Water Act (EPA,
2007). Public reaction is also an important factor in determining controversial issues such as drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, reintroduction of wolves in
Yellowstone, etc. (Jacobson & McDuff, 1998). However, people’s perceptions of wildlife and conservation are not always accurate. Common knowledge in the conservation community holds that the portrayal of wildlife in popular film and media has colored people’s perceptions of wildlife and wildlife issues. As an illustration, the overpopulation of white tailed deer is a much larger problem than it should be because people are averse to killing “Bambi”.
The need for better communication between conservation agencies and institutions and the general public is becoming increasingly evident in this age of information technology. The general public is exposed to images of vanishing habitats, melting icecaps and other environmental and conservation issues through various media
1 including print, television, and the internet; despite this their knowledge and understanding of conservation is limited (Jacobson, 1999). Effective communications are thus essential for the success of conservation efforts by “influencing conservation policy, changing people’s behaviors, garnering funds, or recruiting volunteers” (Jacobson 1999, p.2).
Communication of conservation messages occurs through mass media as well as at formal, informal and non-formal education settings. National parks and zoos are some of the conservation education settings at which conservation efforts in the field are brought home to the visiting public by means of conservation messages. At these settings, the institution determines the messages that they want the visitor to leave with, and use channels such as signage, exhibits, brochures, personnel, and electronic means to communicate these messages.
Visitor receptivity to these messages is influenced by personal factors such as their prior knowledge and attitudes, social factors, as well as physical or contextual factors (Falk & Dierking, 2000). In addition, visitor learning of these messages is also determined by the extent of their exposure to the messages through the level of interaction with the various message channels or learning opportunities available at the site (Goss, 1983). Zoos, museums and parks differ from other educational settings as their design allows visitors to choose the extent and level of their engagement in the different learning opportunities, and are hence termed “free choice” (Falk & Dierking, 1998). As a result, message communication at these sites can best be understood in terms of communication that occurs in free-choice environments.
2 The fidelity of the message communication process is dependent on the suitability
and quality of the medium or channel used to communicate the message (Berlo, 1960).
The channels generally used at conservation education settings include the site resources
(e.g., park scenery, zoo animals), printed materials (e.g., brochures), visuals (e.g.,
signage, exhibits), audiovisual devices, and personnel (e.g., interpreters, educational staff,
volunteers/docents). This study seeks to determine the factors that influence the efficacy
of using personnel, specifically docents as a channel for communicating conservation
messages to visitors at free-choice conservation education settings.
1.1 Setting
Conservation education settings range from parks (national parks, state parks, metro parks) to zoos and aquariums. Zoos provide an ideal setting for the study as they use a large number of personnel, mainly in the form of docents, to educate and communicate conservation messages to visitors. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums
(AZA) reports that there were over 70,000 docents or volunteers serving at AZA accredited zoos and aquariums alone (2005).
In addition, over 100 million visitors annually visit accredited zoos and aquariums
in the United States alone (AZA, 2005). Among conservation education settings, zoos
draw an audience that most closely reflects the general population due to their proximity
to urban centers. Most national parks are located further away from population centers
and hence attract only a specific subset of the general population due to the time, effort, and expense involved in visiting these places.
3 In recent years, zoos have begun to focus promoting conservation learning among
visitors by communicating conservation messages that visitors can take back with them.
Previously, the emphasis was on communicating facts, but due to the lack of success in
facilitating conservation behavior change, the focus is shifting to conservation messages
(Ballantyne, Packer, Hughes, & Dierking, 2007). Recognizing the importance of presenting the right messages, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) has
developed a list of conservation messages that tie in with the conservation education
mission of zoos (see appendix A). This set of messages has been used to guide individual
zoos in the selection of their conservation messages. Current research reveals that visitors
know what messages the zoo wants them to get from the visit, but there is little research
on where the visitors get these messages (Heimlich, Bronnenkant, Barlage & Falk, 2005).
Zoos are thus well suited for the study on docents as a channel for message
communication at free-choice conservation education settings.
1.2 Environmental Communication Model
In order to most effectively communicate conservation messages, it is important
to understand learning within the unique settings of zoos, aquariums, and other free-
choice conservation education settings. These recreational sites are predominately viewed
by visitors as places for social engagement with family and friends (Morgan &
Hodgkinson, 1999). Though recreation is part of the mission of zoos and other similar
institutions, education is also a primary goal (Churchman, 1987). As a result a number of
studies have examined visitor learning that results from visits to such sites. Limited
research has been conducted on the use of personnel such as docents to communicate
4 conservation messages. Most of this research has focused on outcomes, such as knowledge (e.g., Broad, 1996), attitudes (e.g., Powey & Rios, 2002) and behavior change
(e.g., Swanagan, 2000), but there is not enough information on the accuracy of message
communication through interactions between docents and visitors.
This study uses Shannon-Weaver’s (1949) linear model of communication (figure
1.1) to understand message communication through docent-visitor interactions. Berlo’s
(1960) communication process model was used to examine noise factors that distort
message as it provides factors that influence the efficacy of each of the primary parts of
the model. In addition, Berlo uses a human frame to view the communication process,
unlike the Shannon-Weaver model that was designed in the context of electronic machine
based systems. As a result, Berlo’s model combines source and encoder into source-
encoder, since both these functions are carried out by the same entity in interpersonal
communication and other levels of communication that involve individuals or
organizations that act as both source and encoder. Similarly, decoder and receiver are
described as decoder-receiver. Berlo’s SMCR is thus a useful tool in the study of factors
that influence the efficacy of using docents to communicate institutional messages to
visitors (figure 1.2).
Received Message Signal Signal Information Transmitter Receiver Destination Source
Noise Source
Figure 1.1 Shannon & Weaver’s linear model of communication (Source: Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1962)
5
Figure 1.2 Berlo’s Communication Process Model (Source: Berlo, 1960)
According to the two models, the source-encoder sends a message through a channel to the decoder-receiver. At this research setting, the source-encoder is the institution or the zoo, the messages are the institution’s key conservation messages, the decoder-receiver is the visitor, and the communication channel or message originator is the docent. In other words, zoos communicate their conservation messages to the visitor through docents. The aim of this study is to explore what might be creating message distortion or noise in the communication process.
1.3 Research Questions
The primary aim of this study is to begin to explore the efficacy of using docents as a channel for institutional messages. For this purpose, zoo docents will be studied to determine what factors affect message communication during their informal interactions
6 with visitors at exhibits. The following research questions were used to provide insights
into these noise factors.
1. To what degree are zoo visitors leaving with the key conservation messages of the
zoo?
2. From which components of the zoo visit do visitors believe they are getting these
conservation messages?
3. What are the docent perceptions of their role in communicating key conservation
messages to visitors?
4. What are visitor perceptions of the role of docents in communicating key
conservation messages?
5. Do docents convey key conservation messages while talking to visitors?
Questions 1 and 2 are designed to determine whether the institution is successful
in communicating its key messages to visitors, and also to identify the channels that
visitors attribute the messages to. Question 3 helps to identify characteristics of the channel that may affect the fidelity of the message. Question 4 looks at the channel from the perspective of the receiver. Finally, question 5 provides insights into actual occurrence of message communication during interactions between the channel and the
receiver.
1.4 Significance of the Study
Conservation education settings such as national parks, state parks, conservation
education centers and zoos attract millions of visitors every year. With increasing
7 emphasis on building awareness and encouraging conservation actions among visitors, these institutions play an important role in getting the public involved in conservation
(Jacobson, 1999).
Most research at free-choice conservation education settings has been outcome based. Environmental communication studies have focused on how and why visits to these settings affect knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of visitors (e.g., Powey & Rios,
2002; Reade & Waran, 1996; Swanagan, 2000). While some of these studies uncover noise factors while studying learning at these sites (e.g., Falk, et al. 2007), the emphasis has primarily been on learning outcomes and not the fidelity of the communication process. The use of messages at these settings has been relatively recent; as a result message communication has not been widely studied at these settings. By focusing on one particular channel that is widely used at such settings, this study seeks to address the gap in our knowledge of message communication at free-choice learning settings.
Over 100 million people annually visit AZA accredited zoos and aquariums in the
United States alone (AZA, 2005). Zoos use a number of channels/means to communicate conservation messages to visitors. Personnel such as animal keepers, interpreters and docents or trained volunteers are one of their most versatile and valuable education and communication resources. Among these personnel, docents often outnumber full time employees. As a result, visitors are more likely to interact with docents than paid staff.
With over 70,000 individuals volunteering over 5,000,000 hours annually at AZA accredited institutions alone (AZA, 2005), volunteers and docents represent a significant investment of manpower and expertise. Despite this docents are often underutilized due
8 to limited understanding of their efficacy in communicating institutional messages and their facilitating visitor learning (Association of Zoos and Aquariums [AZA], 2005).
This study seeks to further our understanding of factors that influence the efficacy of using docents as a channel for institutional messages. Though the study is conducted at a zoo, the findings of this study will help to build theory relating to the use of non-passive channels such as docents, volunteers and other personnel. As a result this study is also of great relevance to other free-choice learning settings that use docents, volunteers or other personnel to communicate institutional messages.
1.5 Limitations
This study is designed to provide insights into factors that influence the fidelity of the message communication process between the zoo and the visitor, by means of the channel of docents. The exploratory nature of the study provides information that cannot be generalized to the population but can be generalized to the theory. As a result, this study has the following limitations:
1. This study is limited to adult visitors and findings cannot be generalized to all
visitors to the zoo, however, the findings will inform theory.
2. Given the diversity of zoos, the results of this study are valid for the study site
alone and cannot be extrapolated to other zoos, though the findings have
implications for all conservation education settings that use volunteers and other
personnel to communicate messages to visitors.
3. Random sampling was not employed, resulting in limited generalizability.
9 4. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary and could potentially have
resulted in selection bias.
1.6 Assumptions
1. Responses to surveys and interviews were thoughtful, accurate, and honest.
2. Docents did not modify message communication behavior due to the presence of
researcher/observer.
3. Visitor willingness to interact with docent was not influenced by presence of
researcher/observer.
4. Quality of docent-visitor interactions was not influenced by the presence of the
researcher/ observer.
1.7 Definition of Terms
Channel – The term describes the medium used to transmit the message (Shannon &
Weaver, 1949/1962). In other words, it is “both the route traveled by the message and the
means of transportation” (Verderber & Verderber, 2002, p. 9). In this study, docents will be the channel examined in the message communication process between the zoo and the
visitor.
Docent – The Association of Zoos and Aquariums describes docents as volunteers whose
“duties may include diet preparation, small animal care, teaching educational programs,
leading group tours, and staffing special events” (AZA, 2007). . For this study, the term
10 is used to describe those adults who had completed the Columbus Zoo Docent
Association’s intensive docent training program and were volunteering at the Zoo.
Exhibit - Ham (1992) defines an exhibit as “an indoor or outdoor structure that
communicates a theme through visual illustrations and written or recorded text. All exhibits are non-sequential (non-linear communication devices” (p. 410).
Exhibit Regions – The Columbus Zoo and Aquarium organizes its exhibits in clusters
based on geographic regions: Africa, Asia, Australia and the Islands, North America, the
Shores. Reported values of “number of exhibit regions visited” were used to estimate
extent of the visit or how much of the zoo had been experienced by the respondent.
Message – This is defined as “a simple clear, direct declarative sentence” (Ramberg,
Rand & Tomulonis, 2002, p. 305) that communicates certain ideas or themes to the visitor (Brochu, 2003; Ham, 1992). This study uses the key conservation messages of the
Columbus Zoo and Aquarium as described by the Zoo’s Director of Education.
Perception of Message – According to Jacobson (1999), different individuals may
interpret a message differently based on the words that are used to frame the message. In
this study, message communication involves docent perceptions, which influences the
encoding of the message, and visitor perceptions that result from decoding and
interpretation of these messages. As a result, both visitor and docent perceptions of
messages communication are measured.
11
Receiver/Destination – According to Shannon and Weaver (1949/1962), this term
describes the person for whom the message is intended. The visitor is the receiver or destination for the institutional messages in this study.
Source – This refers to the entity that develops the messages that are to be transmitted to
the receiver (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1962). In this study, the zoo (institution) is the
information source.
12 CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This study seeks to further our understanding of outcomes of visits to free-choice conservation education settings by examining the fidelity of channels used in message communication. This chapter presents an overview of literature relevant to understanding the problem in terms of the message communication process and is thus grouped under the following sub-headings:
2.1 Communication process
2.2 Source
o Zoos as a message source
2.3 Destination
o The adult zoo visitor
2.4 Message
o Use of messages at zoos
2.5 Channel
o Sources of message communication and learning at zoos
o Docents as a channel
2.6 Context
o Free choice learning settings
13 o The zoo learning environment
2.7 Outcomes
o Learning outcomes of a zoo visit.
2.8 Noise
2.1 The Communication Process
Communication has been defined as the process of sending and receiving
messages to share meaning (McQuail, 1984; Verderber & Verderber, 2002). A number of models have been proposed to understand this process. The earliest recognized theory
of communication comes from Aristotle, who described the primary goal of
communication to be persuading the audience to the speaker’s point of view (Berlo,
1960; Griffin, 2003). Models of communication began to emerge much later, and began
in 1948 with Lasswell’s model (Wood, 2007). The Lasswell Formula (figure 2.1) uses a
set of questions to describe the act of communication (Lasswell, 1948/1971). Answering
each of these questions would provide us with: the communicator or source, message,
channel, receiver or target audience, and outcomes. While this basic model served to
describe the communication process, it did not provide much information about the
relationship between the different parts of the process.
Using an engineering context, Shannon and Weaver (1949/1962)
developed a communication system that separated these components of the
communication process into discrete units to describe information transfer between
humans or machines. This linear model (figure 2.2) is comprised of the following: an
information source that produces the message, a transmitter that encodes the message, a
14
Who?
Says what? In which channel?
To whom? With what effect?
Figure 2.1 Lasswell Formula (source: Lasswell, 1948/1971)
Received Message Signal Signal Information Transmitter Receiver Destination Source
Noise Source
Figure 2.2 Shannon & Weaver’s Linear Model of Communication (Source: Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1962)
channel or medium through which the message is communicated, a receiver that decodes the message and finally the destination which is the intended recipient of the message
(Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1962). Being concerned about the problem of accurately transmitting the message, they introduced noise as a factor that may distort the message
(Wood, 2004).
The Shannon-Weaver model (fig. 2.2) has been used extensively to explain the process of communication, but its primary drawback was the linear nature of the model
15 that separates the roles of sender and receiver (McQuail & Windahl, 1993). In particular, interpersonal communication is a continuous process of exchanging messages between the participants in the process (Griffin, 2003). To account for this, Shannon included a feedback loop to their linear model. Osgood later modified this model to create the circular model of communication (Schramm, 1971). The Osgood-Schramm model (figure
2.3) depicts the communication process as occurring between two participants who alternately send and receive messages. Here, a participant encodes a message and sends it to the other participant, who decodes the message and then encodes and sends a feedback message. As a result, there is no “sender” or “receiver” as each participant plays both roles (Schramm, 1971).
Encoder Message Decoder
Interpreter Interpreter
Decoder Message Encoder
Figure 2.3 Osgood-Schramm Circular Model of Communication (Source: Schramm, 1971)
These models of communication are foundational to the field. They have been modified and used extensively to explain the process of communication in different contextual situations such as Dance’s helical model that was based on the Osgood-
Schramm model and Maletzke’s model of mass communication that’s based on the
16 Shannon-Weaver model (McQuail & Windahl, 1993). These models are either too
complex or do not easily lend themselves to measurement of variables, thus their use in
research has been limited. As a result, the Shannon-Weaver model is still extensively
used along with Berlo’s communication process model (figure 2.4), which describes the
different factors that affect the components of the communication process and influence
fidelity.
Figure 2.4 Berlo’s Communication Process Model (Source: Berlo, 1960)
Berlo’s communication process model identifies four primary components of the communication process: the source-encoder, message, channel, and decoder-receiver
(Berlo, 1960). The following sections describe these “ingredients” of the communication process, along with literature relevant to the context of this research study.
17 2.2 The Source
Often described as the sender, the source simply refers to the originator of the
message communication process (McQuail, 1984). According to Berlo (1960), it is the
source that selects the channel, determines the message, and in many cases encodes the
message for transmission. In many systems, the source and encoder lie within the same
entity, which is thereby referred to as the source-encoder. The factors that influence the
fidelity of the source are: communication skills, attitudes, knowledge level, and position
within the socio-cultural system (Berlo, 1960).
The ability of the source to successfully transmit a message such that message
fidelity is maintained throughout the process requires command of communication skills,
primarily writing and speaking (Jacobson, 1999). Development of the message itself
requires thinking skills, as this message needs to reflect the purpose of the
communication (Berlo, 1960).
The attitudes of the source towards self, message, and receiver influence the
quality of the message communication (Berlo, 1960). Perceptions of self affect the
efficacy of the source, while attitudes towards message influence the importance the
source places on the message (Verderber & Verderber, 2002). Attitudes towards the receiver influence the relation between the source and the receiver (Wood, 2007).
Effective communication also requires a good understanding of the message and
knowledge of the relevant subject matter. As a result, the source’s knowledge level plays
an important role in determining the accuracy of the messages communicated (Verderber
& Verderber, 2002). Finally, the social system within which the source operates,
including roles played, functions performed, and assigned status within the system help
18 determine the success of the communication process. Similarly, the cultural context,
including cultural beliefs and values, can influence the communication behavior of the source (Berlo, 1960).
Zoos as a Message Source
Zoos use carefully crafted learning opportunities to communicate mission-related
conservation messages through the use of channels such as animals, exhibits, and signage
(Martin, 2001). These mission-related conservation messages are embedded into exhibits
and interpretive programs, and they encourage conservation awareness and action in zoo
visitors (Ramberg, Rand & Tomulonis, 2002; Wagner, 2002).
At zoos, information is layered within signage and exhibits so that adult visitors
can assimilate the main messages without having to read all of the text (Ham, 1992).
Good signage uses a message pyramid. Here, the main theme or message is presented in
large font in the first part of the text, while subsequent layers provide increasingly detailed information and generally use smaller font (Heimlich, Diem & Farrell, 1996;
Trapp, Gross & Zimmerman, 1994). Other media can also be used to layer information
(Serrell, 1996). This layering of information provides adult visitors with the freedom to select the order in which they interact with the exhibit and also the extent of engagement
(Ham, 1992). As a result, messages are communicated to visitors at such settings using channels best suited to their interests as well as other factors including available time and desires of the rest of the group they are with.
19 2.3 The Receiver
The basic linear communication models often depict the receiver at the passive
recipient of the source’s messages, but this is not so. The receiver chooses to accept
messages from the source though a particular channel, and also interprets the message
with a certain degree of autonomy (McQuail, 1984). The factors that determines how the
receiver reacts to the message communication, are the same as those that influence the
initiation of the communication process by the source, i.e., communication skills,
attitudes, knowledge level, and social system and cultural context (Berlo, 1960). These
have been discussed in section 2.2.
The Adult Zoo Visitor
Visitors enter the zoo with pre-existing motives, affective dispositions and other
personal characteristics that influence their response to conservation messages and their
satisfaction with the visit (Meredith, Fortner & Mullins, 1997). In order to understand the
fidelity of the message communication process, it is essential to understand the factors
that influence visitors’ receptivity to institutional messages.
Visitor Motivations
A number of studies have been conducted to identify and understand visitor motivations. The results of these studies indicate that visitors perceive zoos as a place of relaxation rather than a place of learning (Ham & Shew, 1979; Tofield, Coll, Vyle &
Bolstad, 2003). Family togetherness, novelty seeking, and enjoyment were some of the motives mentioned by visitors (Ryan & Saward, 2004). Thus the primary motives were
20 recreational and social rather than educational (Coll, Tofield, Vyle & Bolstad 2003;
Morgan, 2000; Ryan & Saward, 2004). Visitors often came to the zoo to view animals
even if they did not intend to learn about them (Ryan & Saward, 2004; Schnackenberg,
Savenye & Jones, 1997). Even walking for exercise at the zoo was rated higher than any
form of personal education (Morgan & Hodgkinson, 1999). However, visitors do
recognize the educational potential of zoos (Broad, 1996; Falk, et al., 2007), but their
motivation is more often focused on their children’s education rather than their own
(Morgan & Hodgkinson, 2000). Thus, in terms of social orientation, visitors were more
likely to visit a zoo for altruistic reasons (eg. to spend time with others, to educate a
child), rather than for intrinsic reasons (e.g. educating themselves) (Morgan &
Hodgkinson, 1999). In addition to these factors visitors were found to come for reasons
of tradition, relaxation and to see animals that might soon go extinct (Wolf & Tymitz,
1979).
In terms of specific exhibits, the novelty or uniqueness of the exhibit attracted
visitors to exhibits they had not seen before. Visitors were also drawn to exhibits that
reinforced prior knowledge while providing new information. For some visitors, the
primary appeal was that the exhibit helped them connect with their heritage or ancestry
(Lindauer, 2005; Nightingale, 2006). In general, most visitors to free-choice conservation education settings are motivated by curiosity and an expectation of being able to satisfy that curiosity as a result of participating in the activity (Falk & Dierking, 2000).
21 Visitor Motivational Identities
Researchers found that the outcomes of a visit often do not reflect the stated
purpose of a visit (Heimlich, Bronnenkant, Witgert & Falk, 2005). Motivations alone are
not sufficient to explain visitor experiences (Falk & Storksdieck, 2005). Instead visitor
characteristics, such as prior knowledge, prior experience, interest, and group
composition, in addition to motivation for the visit, can be clustered to create a
motivational identity that can be used to understand visitor experience at free-choice settings (Falk, Heimlich & Bronnenkant, 2007). Falk (2006) described five motivational identities:
• Explorers – are primarily motivated by curiosity or a general interest in learning
more about a subject.
• Facilitators – visit to satisfy the needs of others they cared about, specially their
children, e.g., parents
• Professional/hobbyist – are similar to explorers, but already possess a strong
knowledge of the subject. They were more interested in how the information was
conveyed rather than the actual information, e.g., science teachers.
• Experience seekers – are often (but not always) tourists who seek the experience
for the sake of being able to say they had done it.
• Spiritual pilgrims – visited to be able to reflect, rejuvenate, and generally
surround themselves by that environment.
Visitors may have multiple motivations (Heimlich, Bronnenkant, Witgert, Falk,
2005), but there is often a single dominant identity related motivation that influences the 22 visit (Falk, et al., 2007). This identity is specific to each visit and may not hold true for
subsequent visits to the same site. Visitor use a visit to build their existing identity while
laying the foundation for the next change in identity (Rounds, 2006). For each visit, these
identity groupings can be used to understand visitor behavior at the site and how they process the experience once they leave the site (Falk, Heimlich & Bronnenkant, 2007).
These identities could thus influence visitors’ receptivity to conservation messages during their visit.
Meaning Making
Adults are constantly trying to interpret and index messages they receive to make
sense of their everyday experiences (Tannenbaum, 1971). Learning occurs when they
cannot explain these experiences using their usual way of thinking and are forced to make
new meaning of the experience using prior knowledge and understanding (Merriam &
Caffarella, 1999). Lindeman (1961) therefore refers to experience as the “adult learner’s
living textbook” (p. 7). Mezirow (1996) states that, “learning is understood as the process
of using a prior interpretation to construe a new or revised interpretation of the meaning
of one’s experiences in order to guide future action” (p. 162). There are two components
to the process: interaction and continuity. To make meaning, an experience must be
considered within the context of other experiences, i.e., the experience is influenced by
prior experiences and will in turn affect perceptions and reaction to future experiences
(Dewey 1938). Experiences are also influenced by the way the individual interacts with
his/her environment. All of these factors are incorporated into the Contextual Model of
23 Learning (explained in section 2.6), which describes the meaning making process at free-
choice learning environments (Falk & Dierking, 2000).
Zoos and other museums are designed to support learning experiences where
visitors construct personal meaning about the world around them (Falk & Dierking,
2000). This meaning making occurs through a constant process of remembering and connecting the present context to past experiences (Silverman, 1995). To be effective,
exhibits and signage need to help visitors connect with what they are seeing or
experiencing (Beck & Cable, 2002; Ham, 1992; Tilden, 1977; Trapp, Gross &
Zimmerman, 1994). Visitors’ understanding of central messages is enhanced when
information presented reveals new meanings and viewpoints about something they are already familiar with (Jacobson, 1999). Tilden (1977) reminds us that facts by themselves are sterile. Instead, provoking visitors to build intellectual and emotional ties to the subject results in a rich and powerful learning experience.
2.4 The Message
Message is broadly defined as the set of verbal and/or non-verbal symbols that are
communicated from the source to the receiver (Infante, Rancer, & Womack, 1990).
However, the literature shows hesitancy among researchers to provide an empirical definition of the term as these “symbols” vary based on the context of the communication process. The factors that determine message are; code, content, and treatment (Berlo,
1960). The symbols, language, or signs used to encode a message are described as the
code (McQuail, 1984; Perloff, 2003). Both source and receiver need to be familiar with
the code to ensure successful message communication (Schramm, 1971). Message
24 content refers to the actual ideas, arguments or appeals that the source seeks to
communicate to the receiver, while treatment refers to how the source uses coding to
organize and prepare the message content (Berlo, 1960; Perloff, 2003). All of these
factors serve to form the message and its encoding.
Use of Messages at Zoos
(According to McQuail (1984), what is a message for one person may be noise for
another. As a result, this discussion is limited to the key messages that the zoo wants to
communicate to its visitors.)
Zoo visitors are constantly bombarded with facts from signs, exhibits and other
media, but most of them quickly forget these facts. What they are more likely to
remember are the general themes that capture the purpose of the entire exhibit and the
facts presented therein (Brochu, 2003; Ham, 1992). While the facts do inform people,
Tilden (1977) states that the whole picture is more important than discrete facts.
Institutions seek to ensure that visitors understand and take home this type of holistic
messages (Beck & Cable, 2002).
As in free-choice learning, the focus is on the individual’s needs. Effective
messages answer visitors’ questions about the site/resource (Beck & Cable, 2002; Tilden,
1977). However, basing messages solely on the visitor’s needs could result in incomplete or inappropriate messaging. Ideally, messages (figure 2.5) should take into account the resource at hand, the visitors’ interests, and the goals or desires of the management
(Brochu, 2003). These messages should always be relevant to the time, place, and audience (Mullins, 1984) and must be based on what can be seen and experienced at the
25
Visitor Interest Resource
MESSAGE
Management
Figure 2.5 Components of a message (source: Brochu, 2003)
site (Trapp, Gross & Zimmerman, 1992). Disjointed ideas and topics confuse the visitor.
As a result, information should be organized around the central message or theme to enhance understanding, and increase the likelihood of long-term recall (Brochu &
Merriman, 2002; Jacobson, 1999; Knudson, Cable & Beck, 1995).
The success of a message depends on its clarity and content. Messages are not only communicated verbally (Goss, 1983), but can also be presented by other means. The way a message is presented, including tone of voice or wording on brochure, can send contradictory or competing messages (Winter & Cialdini, 1998). Even clothing of the person communicating the message can affect the perception of a message’s credibility
(Dottavio, & McLellan, 1985). Visitors lose interest and ignore disconnected messages
(Ramberg, Rand & Tomulonis, 2002). To be successful at engaging visitors and changing behaviors, messages should target visitor attributes including their beliefs relating to the desired behaviors (Jacobson & Marynowski, 1998). Relying solely on communicating
26 factual information related to the desired behaviors result in sterile messaging that is
irrelevant to the visitors’ needs (Ham & Krumpe, 1996).
2.5 The Channel
The channel is the means by which a message is communicated from the source to
the receiver (Infante, Rancer, & Womack, 1990). These range from mass media channels
such as newspaper and radio, to channels such as senses of hearing, sight, etc. in face-to- face interactions. The source selects a channel based on the appropriateness of a particular channel for a particular message communication task (Berlo, 1960). The number and type of channels used can affect the accuracy and efficacy of the message communication (Infante, Rancer, & Womack, 1990). Distortion of message is often a result of the quality of the channel used (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1962). Berlo (1960) lists a set of questions guide the selection of a channel:
a) What is available?
b) How much money can be spent?
c) What are the source’s preferences?
d) Which channels are received by the most people?
e) Which channels have the most impact?
f) Which channels are most adaptable to the kind of purpose, which the source
has?
g) Which channels are most adaptable to the content of the message?
27 While the first two questions can be easily answered, less is known about the last three questions (Berlo, 1960; Infante, Rancer, & Womack, 1990). These questions/factors influence the efficacy of a channel in the message communication process.
Channels of Message Communication and Learning at Zoos
Visitors generally do not come to the zoo intending to learn. Their primary motives are social and recreational (Ham & Shew, 1979; Ryan & Saward, 2004; Tofield,
Coll, Vyle & Bolstad, 2003). As a result they themselves often do not know exactly what and how much they have learnt during their visit (Heimlich, Diem & Farrell, 1996). It is thus important to understand not just what visitors learned, but how and why they learned from, enjoyed and appreciated particular exhibits or programs (Churchman, 1985a). The primary channels of communication at zoos are signage, animals, exhibits, and personnel.
The following sections describe visitor preference, interaction and use of these channels.
Interpretive Signage
Visitor behavior at the zoo reflects their inclination towards recreation rather than education. They are often observed to walk past exhibits, or spend very little time reading information and graphics on signs at exhibits (Schnaekenberg Savenye & Jones 1997).
Research shows that visitors believe that it is important to read interpretive signs
(Morgan, 2000), but most do not read small signs (Mony, Croft, & Holton, 2005;
Schnackenberg, Savenye & Jones 1997). However, most visitors read some parts of at least one label at each area visited (Wolf & Tymitz 1979). Visitors were more likely to read signs if they had infants along, or if they saw an unfamiliar animal or witnessed
28 unusual animal activity (Churchman, 1985b). The complexity of the information and the
reading level of the sign also influenced the number of the visitors that read it.
Animals
Animals are one of the primary educational components of zoos (Churchman,
1985a). Many studies have shown that visitors spend more time at exhibits when animals
are active (Jackson, 1994; Margulis, Hoyos & Anderson, 2003). Visibility of animals was
also found to be an important factor in determining visitor interest (Davey, 2006).
Visitors were found to show more interest in larger animals than smaller ones (Ward,
Mosberger, Kistler & Fischer, 1998). Visitors were also found to spend twice as much
time viewing active animals as they would inactive ones. The presence of an animal
infant also influenced visitor interest in the exhibit (Bitgood, Patterson & Benefield,
1988).
Exhibits
Animal enclosures and the grouping of exhibits are used to subtly communicate
conservation messages. In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on naturalistic
exhibits, and environmental enrichment. Both of these focus on presenting the animal as
it would in the wild; the former by recreating its natural habitat and the latter by encouraging natural behaviors that would be exhibited in the wild (McPhee, Foster,
Sevenich & Saunders, 1998). In some cases these exhibits even allow visitors to interact
with these animals (Holden, 2004).
29 Naturalistic exhibits have also been found to increase animal activity (Mallapur,
Qureshi & Chellam, 2002), and visibility (Lukas, Hoff & Maple, 2003). In addition, at
such exhibits there is not too much loss of interest even when the animal is not visible, as
the visitor is then motivated to look for the animal (Davey, 2006). Exhibits that enabled greater proximity to the animal and did not visually compete with neighboring exhibits were more successful at garnering visitor interest (Bitgood, Patterson & Benefield. 1988).
Socio-Cultural Interactions
A large amount of learning at zoos and museums occurs through socio-cultural
interactions, though solitary reflection has also been shown to result in equally beneficial
learning (Packer & Ballantyne, 2005). The impact of interactions with docents, keepers and other personnel is described in a later section of the review. Research on within-
group interactions at museums shows that family groups spend most of their time
interacting and learning together by verbally sharing what they know, and attempting to
work together to find answers to what they don’t know (Falk & Dierking, 2000;
Leinhardt, Crowley & Knutson, 2002). Conversations within all adult groups also focus
on making sense of the exhibits. The presence of companions was thus found to greatly
influence learning and message reception at such settings (Falk & Dierking, 2000).
Indirect conversations can occur via signage and other inanimate interpretive materials,
as these are another media through which zoo educators “talk” to the visitor (Falk &
Dierking, 1992). Thus, zoos foster learning conversations that are an integral to visitor
learning.
30 Zoo Personnel
Visitors generally seek an interactive experience at the zoo (Lindemann-Matthies
& Kamer, 2006). Studies indicate a strong visitor preference for interactions with a
keeper, docent or a roving guide (Wolf & Tymitz, 1979). Keeper talks and staff handling
of animals were found to be important learning opportunities (Morgan, 2000). Visitors
were found to spend more time at an exhibit when there was a live animal demonstration
accompanied by oral interpretation, than when they were left to passively observe the
animal and read interpretive signage (Anderson, Kelling, Pressley-Keough, Bloomsmith
& Maple, 2003). These created more positive attitudes towards animals and also encouraged visitors’ information seeking behavior (Broad, 1996; Powey & Rios, 2002).
Visitors’ perceived knowledge gain from volunteer guides was greater than that from
signs alone (Broad, 1996). Dialogue with zoo personnel at touch tables has been
hypothesized to increase visitor learning (Lindeman-Matthies & Kamer, 2006). Similarly,
docents were also found to influence stay time at exhibits and learning when the visitors
were viewing inactive or unfamiliar animals (Birney & Shaha, 1982; Harris, 1995;
Jackson, 1994). Overall, visitors participating in keeper talks and other interpretive
programs reported more positive zoo experiences than those who did not (Anderson,
Kelling, Pressley-Keough, Bloomsmith & Maple, 2003).
Docents as a Channel
Trained volunteers at zoos, museums and parks are often called docents or
volunteers (Knudson, Cable & Beck 1995). These volunteers range from school going
31 young adults to older retirees. Individuals participate in such volunteer programs for a
number of reasons. Clary et al. (1998) identified six motivational factors that are key to
volunteerism: values, career, understanding, social, protective, and enhancement. Values
represent altruistic and humanitarian motivations for volunteering, while career factors
relate to volunteering to get career related experience. The understanding factor includes
motivations related to learning more about the world or using little used skills.
Volunteering to build social relationships falls under the social category. Protection
involves using volunteerism to escape negative feelings of guilt or negative perceptions
of self. Finally, enhancement refers to using volunteer opportunities to grow and develop
psychologically.
Volunteers may be motivated by more than one of these factors. In fact studies
show that most volunteers report having at least two important motivations (Clary, &
Snyder, 1999). The combinations of motivational factors that influence an individual often differ based on demographics. Younger volunteers are more influenced by career factors, while older volunteers mostly motivated by values, understanding and
enhancement factors (Okun, Barr, & Herzog, 1998).
Zoos, museums, and parks cater to the needs of millions of visitors every year.
With increasing pressure on their limited financial resources, they have sought the
assistance of volunteers or docents in managing and educating visitors (Knudson, Cable
& Beck 1995). Volunteers at these institutions play an important role in facilitating learning and creating satisfying experiences (Broad, 1996; Reeve, 2006).
32 Role of Docents
Conservation education at zoos emphasizes the role of the individual visitor in
conserving wildlife. Face-to-face communication has been found to be most effective in
dealing with such social problems, where individual cooperation and willingness to act is
key to success, Visitors are more likely to consider themselves to be part of the group of
individuals responsible for and working towards conservation when they received
conservation messages from a docent or keeper, rather than from an impersonal sign or
through mass media (Garling, Biel, & Gustafsson, 2002). Docents use a mix of environmental education and interpretation techniques to communicate these conservation messages.
Environmental Education – Environmental education (EE) is the process of developing
“a world population that is aware of, and concerned about the environment and its
associated problems, and which has the knowledge, skills, attitudes, motivations, and to
work individually and collectively towards solutions of current problems and the
prevention of new ones” (UNESCO-UNEP, 1975). There is an emphasis on empowering individuals to tackle the complex relationships between people and the environment that lie at the heart of environmental issues (Culen, 2001; Roth, 1996)
The role of the environmental educator is to help individuals use information and analytic skills to analyze the different aspects of an environmental issue. The educator cannot advocate action, and instead must nurture learners’ environmental decision making (Hug, 1998).
33 Environmental Interpretation – Environmental interpretation has been defined as “an informational and inspirational process designed to enhance understanding, appreciation, and protection of our cultural and natural legacy” (Beck & Cable, 2002). The goal of interpretation is to help visitors understand and relate to what is being displayed (Tilden,
1977). While interpretation may use facts, its primary purpose is not to inform. Instead, interpretation uses facts to provoke visitors to explore the greater meaning or build a greater appreciation of what they are viewing (Beck & Cable, 2002; Ham, 1992; Tilden,
1977; Womble, Bultena & Field, 1981). Unlike environmental education that seeks to present all the facts to help visitors critically analyze an issue, interpretation is an art that uses science to build a story. The “moral of the story” is the message that the interpreter seeks to communicate to the visitor (Ham, 1992).
Traditionally, interpretation has been used only for recreational and educational purposes. More recently, it has been increasingly used as a management tool (Olson,
Bowman & Roth, 1984). By orienting visitors to a site, interpretation enables them to appropriately utilize available facilities (Brochu & Merriman, 2002; Hammitt, 1984;
Roggenbuck, Hammitt, & Berrier, 1982). In addition, interpretation helps reduce visitor impact on the resource, by inculcating a sense of responsibility and support for the resource and building recognition of the need for protecting the resource (Knudson,
Cable, Beck, 1995; Veverka & Poneleit, 1981). Interpretive messages that help visitors visualize the consequences of their careless behavior are much more powerful than informational signs that communicate the same rules (Tilden, 1977). Such interpretation can reduce resource management cost and promote positive agency image while ensuring a safe, enjoyable visitor experience (Griest & Mullins, 1984; Hunt, 1979).
34 The role of the interpreter is to “plan and deliver pleasurable, relevant, thematic
presentations that meet the objectives of both visitor and sponsoring agency” (Atkinson
& Mullins, 1998, p. 49). The interpreter seeks to present the inherent meaning or value of a resource in a manner that relates to the visitor’s interests and worldview (Brochu &
Merriman, 2002). By communicating their passion for the resource, interpreters help visitors build emotional and intellectual connections with the resource (Beck & Cable,
2002; Gross & Zimmerman, 2002: Tilden, 1977), which may then influence visitor behavior (Jacobson & Marynowski, 1998; Veverka & Poneleit, 1981).
2.6 The Context
The context is often described as “the physical, social, historical, psychological
and cultural settings in which communication occurs” (Verderber & Verderber, 2002, p.
6). The context of a message plays an important role in the interpretation of the message.
Messages that take on one meaning in a particular context may be understood differently
in a different context (Infante, Rancer, & Womack, 1990). As a result, context plays an important role in message communication, even though it is not an explicit part of the original communication models. The context of this research study is free-choice conservation education settings, and within these settings, the focus is on zoo learning environments.
Free Choice Learning Settings
Free-choice learning can occur in number of different settings (Falk, 2005). It is characterized by dialogue between an individual and his/her socio-cultural and physical
35 environment. The intrinsic needs and interests of the learner shape this socially constructed learning experience (Falk & Dierking, 1998). As a result, each free-choice learning experience is unique and cannot be replicated. Most learning that occurs outside of formal education is free-choice in nature (Falk, 2005).
Free-choice learning looks at learning from the perspective of the learner. This type of learning occurs when the learner has significant choice and control over when, where and what to learn (Falk & Dierking, 2000). It is most commonly seen at zoos, museums, nature parks and such settings. Here, the institution provides a variety of learning opportunities, but it is the individual who determines whether or not to engage in these learning experiences. Participants also determine to what extent they want to engage in the activities. In addition, the learning is non-sequential, self-paced and voluntary. Free-choice settings thus provide individuals with control over his/her learning experience (Falk & Dierking, 2002).
Within free-choice settings, an individual’s receptivity to messages and their learning is influenced by three overlapping contexts of personal factors, physical setting and, social characteristics of the individual or group. These have been defined in Falk and
Dierking’s Contextual Model of Learning (2000).
Contextual Model of Learning
The contextual model of learning (figure 2.6) was developed to explain learning in free choice learning environments (Falk & Dierking, 2000). According to this model,
“learning is constructed over time as the individual moves through his socio-cultural and physical world; over time, meaning is built up, layer upon layer” (p.11). In other words
36 learning is a result of overlapping personal, physical and socio-cultural contexts and occurs over time. The individual’s motivations, interests, prior experience and knowledge determine the personal context. The socio-cultural context describes interactions with other individuals and with educational materials designed by other individuals. The physical context is the physical environment within which the learning takes place (figure
2.7). Finally, time is an integral part of the model as each learning event is dynamic as it occurs at its own pace and shares a continuity with other learning events (Werner, Brown,
& Altman, 2002).
Learning at zoos, museums and other free choice learning environments is context driven and is a highly personal process (Rennie & Johnston, 2004). It is influenced not just by content, presentation and current environmental factors but also by the individual’s prior knowledge, interests and motivations (Anderson, Lucas & Ginns, 2003;
Brody, Tomkiewicz & Graves, 2002; Falk, 2005). In addition, free choice learning environments support learning by providing opportunities to be engaged in meaningful activities, and providing control over learning due to presence of choices. Finally and most importantly zoos and other such environments promote learning by providing an environment free of anxiety, fear and other negative mental states (Falk & Dierking,
2002).
The Zoo Learning Environment
The modern zoo has often been compared to a Noah’s Ark in popular culture. Far from being a menagerie, the modern zoo has become a purposeful collection that furthers the cause of conservation through systematic research and education, but this was not
37 always so (Rabb, 2004). The earliest recorded zoos were private collections designed to showcase the owner’s wealth. Egyptian, Babylonian, and Roman kings maintained collections of exotic animals assembled from the farthest corners of their kingdoms
(Hancocks, 2001; Rothfels, 2002). Such zoos were primarily a status symbol, and had little educational value. They were little more than a collection of exotic and curious creatures assembled for the owner’s pleasure (Hancocks, 2001; Hanson, 2002).
History also provides examples of ancient zoos that served educational purposes.
The collections maintained by the Greeks were used to educate young scholars. In
Central America, Montezuma II had an extensive and elaborate zoo and botanical garden with large enclosures for animals. Records indicate that there was even a team of medical staff and keepers to care for these animals. During the 16th century, the Moghul emperor,
Akbar the Great established public zoos across India to instill love and respect for wildlife among the general populace. He also encouraged captive breeding and study of these animals (Hancocks, 2001), but this perception of zoos did not gain popularity for a couple of centuries.
In Europe, the first public zoo, the Jardin des Plantes, was opened in 1793.
Inspired by this zoo, Sir Stamford Raffles conceived the idea of establishing a large zoological collection along with a society that would allow for research in zoological science and provide a forum to present papers on such topics. This society was established in 1826 as the Zoological Society of London (Rothfels, 2002). The London
Zoo was built soon after. This zoo was the first to develop a “philosophy of acquisition” to determine the types of animals that should be included in the collection (Hancocks,
2001). The initial push was to build taxonomy based collections around the Linnean
38 classification system. Thus, the aim was to ensure that the collection included
representatives of all species within a genus. It was Carl Hagenback’s zoo in Hamburg,
Germany that first challenged this approach to collecting and displaying animals. At his
zoological park, Hagenback grouped animals based on the region of origin, such as
Africa and the Arctic. This zoo was considered to be radical because in addition to ignoring the trend to display animals based on taxonomic classification, the animals were displayed in naturalistic enclosures instead of sterile metal cages. These enclosures were separated by moats and did not utilize any form of metal bars or barriers, thus giving the illusion of wild animals roaming free. (Hancocks, 2001; Rothfels, 2002).
In the United States, the earliest recognized zoos were the Central Park
Menagerie, New York (1862) and the Philadelphia Zoo (1874). In 1891 Congress
approved funding for a National Zoo that would provide refuge for native animals that
were facing extinction. As a number of smaller zoos began to spring up across the
country, these institutions began to be viewed as a dumping ground for unwanted pets
and animals from bankrupt traveling shows (Hancocks, 2001). Soon zoo directors began
to realize that in the quest to provide recreational and entertaining experiences for their
visitors, the zoos were falling behind in their educational and scientific goals (Rothfels,
2002). As a result the focus swung back to conservation of wildlife and their habitats
through study of wildlife, soil, and water resources (Hancocks, 2001). Zoos have thus
transitioned from simply being exhibitions of unique collections to places of learning
(Alexander, 1979; Ballantyne, Packer, Hughes, & Dierking, 2007; Masci, 2000).
Even today zoos are often primarily associated with recreation rather than their
role in conservation, even though they have a fourfold goal of conservation, research,
39 recreation and education (Churchman, 1987). Zoos are thus faced with the challenge of
presenting conservation education in a manner that captures the attention and imagination
of the recreational visitor, and inspires them to act in an environmentally responsible manner (Brewer, 2001).
In the past conservation education at zoos has heavily focused on increasing
cognitive knowledge of visitors. However, research showed that this was not sufficient to
effect behavior change. In order to be effective, conservation education needed to engage
the public by building an emotional connection to conservation issues. Thus modern zoos
are designed to be rich in stimuli. Using a number of different channels ranging from
interactive exhibits and interpretive tours to interactions with personnel on-site, zoos
communicate conservation messages with a view to influencing conservation knowledge,
attitudes and behaviors of visitors (Falk, et al. 2007). Given the varying opportunities
available, every visitor’s experience is unique as it is shaped by his/her motivations and
needs. Thus, learning that takes place at zoos is non-sequential, voluntary, and self paced
and hence is free-choice in nature (Falk & Dierking, 1998).
Learning is influenced by the quality of the visitor experience (Dewey, 1938).
While visitors are on-site, their satisfaction with the experience is influenced by a number
of factors that are best explained by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1954).
According to this model, individuals will not be able to attend to higher level needs of
personal growth until their basic needs for safety and comfort are satisfied. Institutions
that demonstrate comfort and caring are more likely to create satisfying experiences than
those that appear intimidating and unfriendly (Hood, 1993). In a zoo or other free-choice
setting, tired visitors who cannot locate rest areas are less likely to engage in learning
40 opportunities than those who are comfortable within the same setting (Brochu, 2003).
Disoriented visitors experience discomfort, anxiety and a loss of control, all of which
hinder free-choice learning (Falk & Dierking, 2000). Uncomfortable noise levels, a sense
of crowding and other factors that may make the visitor feel intimidated, also hinder
learning (Knudson, Cable & Beck, 1995; Rennie & Johnston, 2004).
Once visitors’ basic needs are satisfied they are ready to connect with the site.
Visitors that are comfortable and content are more likely to engage in activities that
expose them to the central message in various forms (Falk & Dierking, 2000). As a result,
they are also more likely to internalize the affective and cognitive aspects of the message.
Good visitor experiences encourage visitors to return and also influence.
The Visitor Experience
The visitor experience is not limited to the duration of the visit. Instead it begins
from the moment when on encountering information relating to a site, an individual
makes a decision to visit, and continues until the individual has completed the physically
visit and it exists only as a memory (Falk & Dierking, 1992; Brochu, 2003). Each visitor experience is unique as it is shaped by a number of different factors ranging from physical factors such as layout and orientation, to personal factors such as an individual’s intellectual interests (Henry, 2000).
Brochu’s (2003) Visitor Experience Model divides the entire experience into five
phases: decision phase, entry phase, connection phase, exit phase, and commitment
phase. In the decision phase, visitors are influenced by the site’s promotional messages,
past experiences as well as what others may have told them about the site. Once visitors
41 approach the site with the intention of visiting, they begin the entry phase. At this phase their satisfaction is based on their initial perceptions of the site including ease of locating the site, as well as quality of interactions with ticketing and front desk staff, etc. The most commonly recognized phase of the visitor experience is the connection phase. This is where visitors move through the site, visit exhibits, attend presentations and engage in a variety of different learning activities. The exit phase begins once visitors decide to leave the site. During this phase, visitors decompress their experiences as they head to the parking lot. Finally, in the commitment phase, visitors use the messages they got from their visit to shape their beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. This phase extends from soon after the return from the trip, to the point where the memory of the visit begins to fade
(Brochu, 2003).
2.7 Communication Outcomes
Berlo (1960) reflects the Aristotelian view that the basic purpose of
communication is to become an affecting agent. Individuals use information to structure
or organize reality so that they can understand and function in that environment. Using
communication processes to introduce a receiver to pre-structured information, the source
generally seeks to influence the receiver’s understanding and image of his/her
environment. The message thus serves to redefine, maintain, or clarify some dimension
of this image. This in turn results in changes in the receiver’s knowledge, attitudes or behavior (Roberts, 1971). These outcomes can best be understood in the context of the
communication.
42 Learning Outcomes of a Zoo Visit
Adults use multiple approaches to learning ranging from acquisition of facts to interpretation processes that help them make sense of reality (Jarvis, 1987). As a result, the outcomes of a zoo visit are not restricted to cognition, but also include affect and behavior. Conservation education at such settings is aimed at fostering all three types of learning outcomes (Ogden 2004). However, research at zoos has focused mainly on cognitive and affective gains, while a few have looked at behavioral changes.
Cognitive outcomes
In order to understand what people learn at the zoo, it is important to understand what they know prior to the visit. Many visitors already know most of the biological information that the exhibits are designed to impart (Falk et al. 2007; Shettel, 1976 in
Churchman, 1985b), as a result, cognitive gains were generally found to be low. Visitors who had minimal conservation knowledge prior to their visit showed the largest cognitive gains (Falk & Adelman, 2003; Lukas & Ross, 2005). In many cases cognitive gains were found to be short-term in nature (Lukas & Ross, 2005). However, well-designed animal presentations were found to increase visitors’ prior knowledge (Swanagan, 2000). The use of touch tables was also found to increase visitor learning and long-term retention of gained knowledge (Lindemann-Matthies & Kamer, 2005).
Affective Outcomes
Learning at zoos and similar free-choice settings are more affective than cognitive in nature (Churchman, 1985b; Swanagan, 2000). In fact some studies have shown that
43 visitors value “feeling” more than “learning” (Pekarik, 2002), as a result attitudes are the
best predictors of zoo visitors’ knowledge (Birney & Shaha, 1982). In general, zoos are
successful at positively influencing visitors’ attitudes towards animals (Powey & Rios,
2002; Reade & Waran, 1996; Toffield, Coll, Vyle & Bolstad, 2003) and conservation
(Broad, 1996). They also help visitors feel more connected to nature (Falk et al., 2007).
Most visitors choose to visit the zoo and hence are more inclined towards positive emotions and sentiments towards nature and wildlife as a result of their visit. They frequently report a sense of beauty, respect, wonder, peacefulness, other similar emotions
(Myers, Saunders, & Birjulin, 2004).
Studies on impact of visiting a single exhibit, reported no change in visitor
attitudes (Lukas & Ross, 2005). Within the zoo, naturalistic settings and enclosures were found to garner more interest and create more positive attitudes toward wildlife than traditional cage-like exhibits (Finlay, James & Maple, 1988; Rhoads & Goldsworthy,
1979). Similarly, keeper talks, and interpretive programs engender more positive attitudes towards animals and animal care in zoos, while making for a more positive zoo experience overall (Anderson, Kelling, Pressley-Keough, Bloomsmith & Maple, 2003;
Powey & Rios, 2002; Swanagan, 2000). In general, visitors found that their visit to the zoo reinforced their conservation values and attitudes (Falk et al., 2007).
Behavioral Outcomes
Very few studies have studied the impact of a zoo visit on conservation behavior
of visitors. One example is Swanagan’s (2000) study where petitions and solicitation
cards were used to measure conservation behavior of visitors. The study found that
44 visitors were more likely to participate in such conservation behavior if they had an
interactive experience with an animal demonstration and bio fact program, than if they
had passively observed the animal in its exhibit. Face-to-face interaction with a docent or
other personnel was found to be more effective at encouraging visitor participation in
conservation efforts than impersonal media such as signage (Garling, Biel, & Gustafsson,
2002).
Given the complexity of behavior change and the time required to effect such
change, it is difficult to measure the behavioral outcomes of a visit to a zoo (Dierking et al. 2004). Self reported action and intention to act have often been used as indicators of behavior change. Studies show that visitors’ per-existing involvement in conservation action influenced the level of behavior change and intention to act. However, most of these changes were short-term in nature, possibly due to a lack of reinforcement
(Adelman, Falk, & James, 2000; Dierking et al. 2004; Dotzour et al. 2002).
The review of literature shows that studies on visitor learning at the zoo have
often been limited to a studying the impact of a single exhibit and not the entire zoo visit
(Dierking, Burtnyk, Buchner, & Falk, 2002). Even so, the results provide important
insights into visitor learning that occurs at zoos.
2.8 Noise
Noise is described as “any distortion in a communication channel” (Infante,
Rancer, & Womack, 1990, p. 441). Shannon and Weaver were the first to introduce the concept of “noise” into communication models to account for distortion of messages
(1949/1962) that occurs in the communication channel. Though this model only describes
45 noise in the channel, there are factors that can introduce noise at each stage of the communication process (Berlo, 1960). Problems with coding of messages and quality of the channel can affect the fidelity of the message communication process (Shannon &
Weaver, 1949/1962). Some of these factors are identified in section 2.2, section 2.4 and section 2.5.
It should be noted that the communication outcomes are not derived from the message, but from the interpretation of the message (Roberts, 1971). As a result, it is not just the distortion of messages due to noise factors earlier in the communication process, but also psychological factors relating to the receiver’s motivations, needs, and prior knowledge and attitudes that create noise at the receiver’s end resulting in messages being interpreted and accepted differently (Hyman & Sheatsley, 1971). Some of these factors are described in section 2.3.
These differing types of noise have been broadly categorized as: physiological noise (physiological factors that influence the receptivity of the receiver, e.g. fatigue), physical noise (factors in the physical environment that distort message and message reception, e.g., dim lighting), psychological noise (perceptions and attitudes that influence interpretation of the message, e.g., prejudice), and semantic noise (problems with coding, e.g., jargon) (Wood, 2007).
At zoo environments, factors relating to the personal, physical and social contexts can introduce noise into the message communication process. These are described under the contextual model of learning in section 2.6. This study seeks to identify characteristic of docents that introduce noise into the message communication process, when they are used as a channel for institutional messages.
46 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The aim of this study is to identify factors that influence the efficacy of using
docents as a channel for institutional messages. By examining message communication
that occurs during docent-visitor interactions, the study hopes to uncover noise factors
that affect the fidelity of the process while using the channel of docents. This chapter
describes the methods used to meet these research objectives.
3.1 Study Site
The study was conducted at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium (CZA), Ohio. This
AZA accredited institution has over 300 docents that volunteer over 36,000 hours
annually (Columbus Zoo and Aquarium [CZA], 2003). All docents belong to the
Columbus Zoo Docent Association. Unlike docent programs at other zoos that operate under the education department, this association is an independent, voluntary non-profit association. Though an autonomous entity, the docent association reports to the director of the zoo, and the president of the association serves on CZA’s board of directors.
The Docent Association conducts training programs for new docents on a regular
basis. Each trainee is required to attend 50 hours of intensive training before becoming a
docent. In order to maintain their docent status, individuals must volunteer at least 50
47 hours of service annually and are expected to attend continuing education sessions
every year. The docent association designs its own training programs, but receives input
from zoo staff. Keepers and education staff are often invited to help with specific training
sessions to ensure that docents are stay updated and are knowledgeable about zoo related
information. The docent curriculum is heavily animal fact oriented, and the training
manual provides detailed information on the lifecycle, diet, and behavior of the animals on exhibit. Docents claim that the information contained is so comprehensive that
keepers sometimes refer to this manual for information about animals at the zoo.
Responsibilities of docents at CZA include visitor education through interactions at
exhibits, conducting guided tours, assisting keepers with food preparation and care of
animals, and also animal watch duties when certain animals need to be observed around
the clock for health related reasons. Apart from these activities, those docents who have
received certification in handling animals help with off-site education activities at schools
and other institutions.
Due to the large number of docents volunteering at the zoo, CZA provides an
ideal setting to study docent interactions with visitors. However, given the nature of the
relation between the education department and the docent association, the CZA may
exhibit some differences from other zoos relating to the use of docents as a message
channel. Despite these differences, this site is suitable for the study, as the research
design is geared towards identifying factors that affect the fidelity message
communication through the channel of docents. Generalization in this case is not statistical generalization, but analytic generalization whereby existing theory is used as a
template against which to compare the findings of the study. The findings can thus be
48 generalized to the theory even though the data cannot be generalized to the population
(Yin, 2002).
3.2 Population and Sampling Procedures
There were two main populations of interest for this study: docents and visitors.
The docent population was comprised of all members of Columbus Zoo and Aquarium’s
Docent Association that spent at least part of their volunteer time interacting with zoo
visitors on site during the study period. The visitor population included all adults that
visited the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium between August 2006 and March 2007, during
the times of study. For some of the phases, the population of interest was a sub
population within the aforementioned populations.
This study uses an emergent mixed-methods approach rather than an
experimental-design approach, to provide a holistic understanding of factors that
influence fidelity of message communication through docent interactions with visitors
(Hein, 1998). As a result random sampling was not essential. A few different types of sampling methods were used.
Continual ask method – This method of sampling was used for the visitor
interviews and surveys in phase I and phase III. Here the researcher approaches a
potential participant and solicits his/her participation in the study. Those willing to
participate are immediately interviewed or provided with a survey instrument. As soon as
this interaction with the participant is completed, the researcher approaches the next
potential participant he/she encounters. Individuals with crying children, and those
accompanying large groups of children ( > 3) were not approached.
49 Focal sampling method – This method is similar to the continual ask sampling
method and was used while collecting observational data in phase II of the study. The
focal sampling method described by Harris (1995) is based on the focal-animal sampling
method used by Altmann (1974) to observe animal behavior. According to this sampling
method, the observer begins to record observational data on the first potential participant
to enter the observation area or engage in the required behavior. Once the participant
leaves the area or completes a pre-determined activity (for example, interaction with a
docent), the observer begins observation on the next potential participant that enters the
observation area or engages in the activity. This method is more specific than the
continual ask sampling method.
3.3 Conservation Messages
Like many zoos, the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium has an explicitly stated
mission statement and an implicitly understood list of conservation messages. While the
newer exhibit areas have well defined messages, the messages portrayed in the older areas of the zoo are infused within detailed descriptions of the purpose or theme of these
exhibits. For the purposes of data analysis, a list of messages was developed.
Messages and theme descriptions for each of the exhibit areas at the zoo were
obtained from the Director of Education of the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium. These were
examined for common themes, and a list of overarching messages was compiled. After
consulting with the Director for Education, a final list of the Zoo’s key conservation
messages was created as follows:
50 1. There is beauty and value in nature.
2. Extinction is happening faster than ever before.
3. Human actions are causing loss of wildlife and habitats.
4. The Columbus Zoo and Aquarium is actively involved in conservation.
5. Choices we make can help protect wildlife.
3.4 Research Design
This exploratory study uses an emergent design that employs mixed methods for
data collection (Gay & Airasian, 2003). These methods include both qualitative and
quantitative measures using observations, interviews, and surveys. The study was
conducted in three phases, each of which builds on the findings of the previous phase.
In phase I a visitor survey was used to determine whether the zoo was successful at communicating its messages to visitors. In this phase docents were also interviewed to
identify perceptions of their role in communicating conservation messages. A drawback
of simply using surveys and interviews to measure message communication is that these
instruments can potentially influence/bias the respondent (Churchman, 1984). As a result,
an unobtrusive observational measure of message communication was included in phase
II of the study to determine extent of message communication during docent interactions
with visitors. Some of the observations were coupled with interviews of both docents
and visitors to triangulate observational data (occurrence of message communication)
with data from interviews with docents (intended message communication) and visitors
(perceived message communication) involved in the interactions. Finally, in phase III,
51 visitor exit surveys were used to obtain more detailed information on visitor perceptions of docents as a channel for the zoo’s key conservation messages.
Figure 3.1 shows how the different phases of the study build on each other to answer questions 1-5 that address the broader research question:
What are the factors that influence the fidelity of educational personnel as a channel of institutional messages?
1. To what degree are visitors leaving with the institution’s key messages?
2. From which components of the visit do visitors believe they are getting these
key messages?
3. What are docent perceptions of their role in key message communication?
4. What are visitor perceptions of the role of docents in key message
communication?
5. Do docents communicate key messages while talking to visitors?
3.5 Instrumentation and Data Collection
As described earlier, the study uses an emergent design and was implemented in three phases. The instrumentation, data collection, and sampling methods vary in each phase and are thus described under the section explaining each phase.
Phase I
In this phase both docents and visitors were interviewed to provide basic information on their awareness and knowledge of the zoo’s conservation messages.
52
Visitor Interview Docent Interview Phase I (partially answers Q.1) (partially answers Q.3)
Data used to develop Data used to develop instrument instrument
Visitor Interview Docent Interview (partially answers question (provides more specific Q.4) information on Q.3)
Phase II Observation (provides detailed answers for Q.5)
Data used to develop instrument
Visitor Exit Survey Phase III (provides detailed answers to Qs.1, 2, & 3)
Fig. 3.1 Research design
53 Visitor interview – Short semi-structured interviews (Gay & Airasian, 2003) were
conducted to determine whether visitors were getting the zoo’s key conservation
messages and to determine the channel through which they were receiving these
messages. These interviews were conducted at a point midway through the zoo. The
location was carefully chosen to ensure that visitors would have had sufficient time to
visit exhibits, but would not be in a rush to return home. Coloring sheets and crayons
were available for children to use while the adults are interviewed. A token incentive was provided to encourage participation.
The population for these interviews included all adult visitors to the Columbus
Zoo and Aquarium during the study period. The continual ask sampling method was used
and a log was maintained to record number of refusals. In all, 76 adult visitors were
approached, 50 of these individuals participated in the study while there were 26 refusals.
Limited or lack of time was the primary factor cited for refusal (11 individuals). Other
reasons include those relating to children (5), being part of a group (2), or lack of interest
(1). No reasons were given for the remaining 7 refusals.
The interview schedule (appendix B) used open-ended and semi-structured
questions to address research question 1. The open-ended questions were designed to
encourage visitors to think about their entire visit and to use this frame of reference while
answering questions instead of basing responses on their experience at the last exhibit
visited. Visitor response to the question about what they got from the visit generally deals
with their experience rather than the messages they receive. As a result, the question on
what the zoo wants them to get was used to obtain responses relevant to the messages
received during the visit. For question 6 and 7, visitors were shown index cards with the
54 messages printed on them and were asked to identify messages they got during their visit.
They were also asked where and how they got these messages. Finally visitors were
asked if any of the messages were new to them. This interview helps determine whether
the zoos is successful at communicating its key conservation messages through various
channels available onsite. The information gathered here was further explored later in
phases II and III of the study.
Docent interview – A semi-structured interview (Gay & Airasian, 2003) method
was used to determine docent attitudes towards their role in communicating the zoo’s
conservation messages. This interview schedule (appendix B) was designed to answer
research question 3.
The population for these interviews included all docents at the Columbus Zoo and
Aquarium that spend at least some of their volunteer time interacting with visitors within
the zoo. A sample of sample of convenience was used and data were collected till data
saturation was reached. A total of 25 docents were interviewed, there were no refusals.
The interview schedule was designed to provide an overview of docent
perceptions and docent training relating to message communication. Starting with a broad
question about the role of a docent, the questions then begin to narrow down to different aspects of docents as a message source. Question 2 asks docents about their interactions
with visitors, and question 3 further focuses the interview on message communication
during these interactions. In question 4, docents are asked about the zoo’s key
conservation messages, and how they know/learn about these messages. Finally question
5 looks at motivations for message communication. Taken together these questions
provide meaningful insights into message communication from the docents’ viewpoint.
55
Phase II
In this phase of the study, findings from phase I were used to design instruments
that would help measure message communication through actual docent-visitor
interactions at CZA. Three different instruments were developed for this purpose: a
predetermined data sheet to measure observations, a docent interview schedule, and a
visitor interview schedule. Interactions were observed for message communication and
some of these observations were coupled with separate interviews with the docent and the visitor involved in the interaction. This triangulation helps determine whether there was any relation between intended, perceived and actual message communication. It also helps provide insights into factors that influence participants’ perceptions of the message communication that occurred through the interaction..
Observation of docent-visitor interactions – This involved a quantitative approach
to non-participant or naturalistic observation (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002; Gay &
Airasian, 2003) of docents to determine extent of message communication during docent-
visitor interactions. Observers used a predetermined data sheet (appendix C) to record
incidence of key message communication. In addition, factors involved in interactions
with visitors such as, how the interaction was initiated, length of interaction, type of
visitor group that interacted with the docent were also recorded. The data sheet was
designed using the key conservation messages obtained from CZA’s Director of
Education. As the messages were created solely for the purposes of the study due to
CZA’s lack of explicit messages, any information that directly related to one of the key
conservation messages was recorded as an incidence of message communication. For
56 example, if the docent described the beauty of a Pallas cat to a visitor, this was considered to be an example of message 1 – there is beauty and value in nature. Data were also recorded on the number of educational facts mentioned that did not relate to the zoo’s conservation messages. The information gathered from these observations helped answer research question 5.
Based on docent descriptions and visitor responses to the messages from phase I, it was evident that conservation messages 1 and 5 each included more than one idea. As a result both broken into two shorter messages for greater accuracy of data. Message 1 states, “there is beauty and value in nature”; this was broken into “there is beauty in nature” and “there is value in nature”. According to message 5, “choices we make can help protect wildlife”; this was separated into “we can help wildlife” and descriptions of actions or choices visitors could make to protect wildlife.
The population for the observations included all docent-visitor interactions during the study period. A docent was selected at random, and data were collected on all interactions that occurred within a one hour time period using a focal sampling method.
After this the observers moved to another randomly selected docent to collect data for the next hour. Observers positioned themselves such that they could unobtrusively overhear conversations between docents and visitors. Research protocol does not require observers to inform docents or visitors of the study as these interactions are considered public behavior. However, observers did notify docents before collecting data, to minimize docent curiosity and suspicion. Docents were not informed of the details of the study but were only told that the observations related to visitor learning behavior including that involving interactions with docents. A total of 405 interactions were observed.
57 Structured visitor interviews – Visitors observed while interacting with docents
were interviewed shortly after the interaction. This was limited to visitors who were
observed to have had an educational conversation with the docent. Visitors were asked
whether they learned about or discussed the key conservation messages with the docent
(appendix C). Responses from these interviews were used to answer research question 4.
The population for this phase of the study included all visitors that were
observed to have an educational conversation with docents. A sample of convenience was used to obtain a total of 53 visitor interviews. Initially the intent was to interview only
those visitors who participated in interactions where key message communication was observed. However, preliminary observations hinted at the very limited number of such
interactions, as a result this was modified to include all visitors who had educational
conversations with docents. An advantage of including visitors who had a non-message
based factual conversation with docents was that it helped to determine whether these
visitors were cognizant of the lack of message communication during their interaction with the docent.
Structured docent interviews – Docents observed while having an educational
conversation with visitors were interviewed shortly after the interaction. These interviews
were conducted concurrently with the structured visitor interviews. Docents were asked
about what the visitor had learnt from the conversation. These questions helped to
provide more insights into research question 3 and also helped to triangulate data on
which messages were conveyed through the interaction.
While pilot testing this interview schedule (appendix C), it was found that docents
do not distinguish between individual interactions with visitors. They had a standard
58 answer about what they generally talk to visitors about, even when the content of the observed conversation was very different. Time did not seem to play a role in docents’ recollection of conversations, as they could not even remember the gist of long conversations even if they were interviewed immediately after the conclusion of the interaction. In addition, this method of data collection served as a constant reminder to the docent that the interactions were being watched and data recorded. To address these problems, docents were only interviewed at the end of the hour-long observation period, instead of being interviewed after every interaction.
The population for this phase included all docents that were observed to have an
educational conversation with visitors. The data from these interviews was triangulated
with that from the observations and the visitor interviews. A total of 15 interviews were
conducted with docents to correspond with the 53 visitor interviews.
Phase III
The first two phases of the study provide an in-depth view of the different aspects
of docent-visitor interactions. In the final phase of the study, a visitor exit survey was
used to provide a broader view of visitor perceptions regarding the impact of message
communication through docent-visitor interactions.
Visitor exit survey – The data from the phase II were used to develop this short
survey instrument (appendix D). The survey measured perceived change in visitor
knowledge of conservation messages as a result of their visit, and also compared the
efficacy of message communication through different channels or media, including
docents, interpretive signage, and exhibit layout. This survey was administered to visitors
59 at a location about 5 minutes before the zoo exit. This ensured that visitors had an opportunity to visit all the zoo exhibits but were not yet in a hurry to get home. Using
self-administered surveys at the zoo instead of giving out mail-in surveys to visitors as they leave the zoo helped reduce non-response error (Fowler, 1993). In addition, Dillman
(2000) indicates that conducting the survey within the zoo premises would indicate endorsement by the zoo thereby establishing trust and encouraging participation.
From the previous phases it was evident that despite the large number of docents
enrolled in the program, at any given time there were usually fewer than 15 docents
available to interact with visitors at exhibits. As a result, all visitors do not get an equal
opportunity to interact with visits. To ensure that survey respondents would be able to
provide an assessment of docents as a channel for messages, the population for this
survey was limited to all adult visitors to the CZA during the study period, who had
spoken to a docent/s in the course of their visit. The continual ask method of sampling
was used to select participants. Coloring sheets and crayons were available for children to
use while their parents were completing the surveys. A total of 765 visitors were
approached but 143 declined to participate. Of the remainder, 412 individuals had not
spoken to a docent and 210 completed a survey. This indicates an 81% overall response
rate but only 34% of these respondents belonged to our target population of visitors that
had interacted with a docent during the visit. The reasons stated for refusing to participate
in the study include time (42), children (27), being part of a group (23) and lack of
interest (5). No reasons were given for the remaining 46 refusals.
The survey instrument was designed to provide information on change in
awareness of key messages as a result of the visit (research question 1). It also measured
60 visitor perceptions of how important docents are as a message source when compared
against other channels of message communication, such as interpretive signage, exhibit lay out, etc. (research questions 2 & 4). To improve response rates, attempts were made to ensure that the instrument was respondent friendly (Dillman, Sinclair & Clark, 1993).
This included use of color paper and the Comic Sans MS font to create positive feelings and reduce stress. Questions were grouped by content and style to promote ease of navigations; easier questions were presented at the beginning of the instrument (Dillman,
2000). For open-ended questions, spaces provided for responses were delineated using different shapes to make them appear manageable while avoiding being reminiscent of school tests.
The first few items of the instrument were used to gather relevant demographic
and visit data, while getting visitors to reflect on their visit as a whole. This ensures that
visitors answer questions based on experiences throughout their visit rather than basing
responses on their experiences at the last few exhibits they visited. The next set of items
uses a Likert-type scale to measure visitors’ perceived change in awareness of the key
conservation messages, where 1 is “not at all aware” and 10 represents “message was
very clear”. The last set of items used the same Likert-type scale to measure visitor
perceptions of the extent to which they were receiving the messages from various
communication channels employed by the zoo. Finally an open-ended question was used
to obtain more information on messages communicated by docents. On the whole, this
survey instrument was designed to understand message communication through docent-
visitor interactions within the context of all the message communication that occurs
within a zoo environment.
61 Reliability
The scale items (message awareness, message sources) on the instrument were found to be reliable (Cronbach’s α = 0.871). Reliability was also measured after grouping items based on what they were designed to measure; message awareness (Cronbach’s α =
0.876) and message sources (0.793). A principal component factor analysis was used to confirm whether the items held together. Two main components were identified. The primary component included all the message awareness items and one source item
(signage); the secondary component included all the other source items (table 3.1). As a message source signage was recognized far more frequently than other sources that may be why it showed up among the primary components. This is discussed in greater detail in chapter 4.
3.6 Data Analysis
Qualitative data from open-ended questions were analyzed for trends. All other data were analyzed using SPSS version 15.0 statistical software. In phases I, II, & III, frequencies were computed for data from items such as reported incidence of message communication, observational data, as well as demographic and visit data. Loglinear analysis was used in phase II to determine whether there was independence between observed data and reported data; i.e., observed, intended (docent reported) and perceived
(visitor reported) message communication. In phase III, measures of central tendency were used while analyzing data from items on the exit survey that used a Likert-type
62 scale, such as those measuring self reported awareness of messages. Results are summarized in subsequent chapters.
Component 1 2 BEVAL before .656 -.133 BEVAL after .671 -.057 EXTINC before .675 -.313 EXTINC after .635 -.165 HUMACT before .661 -.452 HUMACT after .688 -.275 ZOO before .659 -.042 ZOO after .630 .110 CHOICE before .738 -.335 CHOICE after .807 -.169 Source: animals .425 .537 Source: signage .516 .290 Source: exhibit layout .475 .558 Source: zoo person .401 .551 Source: presentation .297 .743 Source: AV presentation .253 .734
Table 3.1 Principal Component Analysis.
63 CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH ARTICLE 1
(This article will be submitted to Visitor Studies, a bi-annual, peer-reviewed journal of the Visitor Studies Association.)
Using Education Personnel as a Channel for Institutional Messages:
Characteristics that Introduce Noise in the Communication Process
ABSTRACT
This paper reports on a study to explore docent characteristics that affect the fidelity of message communication when using them as a channel for an institution’s key messages. The study employed an emergent design with mixed methods and was conducted in three phases. Berlo’s communication process model (1960) was used to examine factors that influence docents as a message channel. The study shows that docents and similar educational personnel differ from other channels within free-choice conservation education setting 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
64 communication system when docents are used as a channel for key messages. The study
also found that signage is very effective at building cognitive awareness of messages
among visitors.
KEY WORDS
Message communication, docents, conservation message, conservation education,
visitor learning, noise factors, docent-visitor interaction.
INTRODUCTION
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, specifically visitor learning and visitor satisfaction (Birney & Shaha, 1982; Broad, 1996; Harris, 1995; Powey & Rios,
2002; Swanagan, 2000). Research has also been conducted on how visitors interact with and learn from these varied channels (Bitgood, Patterson & Benefield. 1988; Margulis,
Hoyos & Anderson, 2003; Schnackenberg, Savenye & Jones 1997; Ward, Mosberger,
Kistler & Fischer, 1998). However, 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 uses Berlo’s communication process model (1960) to identify characteristics of personnel that may cause message
65 distortion while acting as a channel for institutional messages at free-choice conservation
education settings.
Conservation education settings range from parks (national parks, state parks, metro parks) to zoos and aquariums. Zoos provide an ideal setting for the study as they use a large number of personnel, mainly in the form of docents, to educate and communicate conservation messages to visitors. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums
(AZA) reports that there were over 70,000 docents or volunteers serving at AZA accredited zoos and aquariums alone (2005).
In addition, over 100 million visitors annually visit accredited zoos and aquariums
in the United States alone (AZA, 2005). Among conservation education settings, zoos are
thought to draw an audience that most closely reflects the general population due to their
proximity to urban centers.
In recent years, zoos have begun to focus promoting conservation learning among
visitors by communicating conservation messages that visitors can take back with them.
Previously, the emphasis was on communicating facts, but due to the lack of success in
facilitating conservation behavior change, the focus is shifting to conservation messages
(Ballantyne, Packer, Hughes, & Dierking, 2007). Recognizing the importance of presenting appropriate conservation messages, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums
(AZA) has developed a list of messages that tie in with the conservation education
mission of zoos. This set of messages has been used to guide individual zoos in the
selection of their conservation messages. Current research reveals that visitors know what
messages the zoo wants them to get from the visit, but there is little research on where the
visitors get these messages (Heimlich, Bronnenkant, Barlage & Falk, 2005). Zoos are
66 thus well suited for the study on docents as a channel for message communication at free-
choice conservation education settings.
Research has been conducted on the outcomes of visitor interactions with docents
(Lindeman-Matthies & Kamer, 2006; Morgan, 2000; Wolf & Tymitz, 1979), however, little is known about how accurately docents communicate the messages of the institution. However, the quality of the message received by visitors may influence the occurence of intended outcomes. As a result, this paper reports on a study conducted to identify characteristics of docents that may introduce noise into the process of communicating an institution’s key messages. Berlo’s communication process model
(1960) was used to examine message communication through docent visitor interactions at zoos, using research questions 1-5 to answer the following broader question:
What are the characteristics of educational personnel that influence their fidelity as a
channel for institutional messages at free-choice conservation education settings?
1. To what degree are visitors leaving with the institution’s key messages?
2. From which components of the visit do visitors believe they are getting these
key messages?
3. What are docent perceptions of their role in key message communication?
4. To what extent do docents communicate key messages while talking to
visitors?
5. What are visitor perceptions of the role of docents in key message
communication?
67
Questions 1 and 2 are designed to determine whether the institution is successful
in communicating its key messages to visitors, and also to identify the channels to which
visitors attribute these messages. Question 3 helps to identify characteristics of the
channel that may affect the fidelity of the message. Question 4 assesses the channel from
the perspective of the receiver. Finally, question 5 provides insights into actual occurrence of message communication during interactions between the channel and the
receiver.
Berlo’s Communication Process Model (1960)
Building on Shannon and Weaver’s linear model of communication, Berlo’s
model describes the different factors that affect the components of the communication
process and influence fidelity. According to this model, there are primarily four
components of the communication process: the source-encoder, message, channel, and
decoder-receiver (Berlo, 1960).
The source selects the channel, determines the message, and in many cases
encodes the message for transmission. In many systems, the source and encoder lie
within the same entity, which is thereby referred to as the source-encoder. The factors
that influence the fidelity of the source are: communication skills, attitudes, knowledge
level, and position within the socio-cultural system. At the other end of the model, the
receiver also displays these characteristics, and they determine how the receiver reacts to
the message communication (Berlo, 1960).
68 The message is broadly defined as the set of verbal and/or non-verbal symbols
that are communicated from the source to the receiver (Infante, Rancer, & Womack,
1990). The code, content and treatment of the message also influence the successful
communication and interpretation of the message. The symbols, language, or signs used
to encode a message are described as the code (McQuail, 1984; Perloff, 2003). Message
content refers to the actual ideas, arguments or appeals that the source seeks to
communicate to the receiver, while treatment refers to how the source uses coding to
organize and prepare the message content (Berlo, 1960; Perloff, 2003). All of these
factors serve to form the message and its encoding.
The number and type of channels used can affect the accuracy and efficacy of the
message communication (Infante, Rancer, & Womack, 1990). Distortion of message is
often a result of the quality of the channel used (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1962). Berlo describes the following factors that can be used to select the channel: availability, cost, preference, number of people accessed, impact, and adaptability.
METHODS
Study Site
The study was conducted at a large zoo in the Midwestern United States. This
AZA accredited institution has over 300 docents that volunteer over 30,000 hours
annually, Docents at this zoo report that they spend over half of these volunteer hours
interacting with visitors.
The docent program is organized under a docent organization that is an
independent, voluntary non-profit association, unlike similar programs that operate under
69 the institution’s education department. Though an autonomous entity, the docent association reports to the director of the zoo, and the president of the association serves on zoo’s board of directors.
This organization designs and conducts its own training programs, with some
input from zoo staff. Keepers and education staff are often invited to help with specific
training sessions to ensure that docents are stay updated and are knowledgeable about zoo
related information. The curriculum is heavily animal fact oriented, providing detailed
information on the lifecycle, diet, and behavior of the animals on exhibit.
Due to the large number of docents volunteering at the zoo, this institution
provides an ideal setting to study docent interactions with visitors. However, this zoo is a special case in terms of the relation between the docent association and the education
department; i.e., most docent programs are part of the zoo’s education departments.
Despite these differences, this site is suitable for the study, as the research design is
geared towards identifying docent characteristics that affect the fidelity message
communication through the communication channel of docents. Generalization in this
case is not statistical generalization, but analytic generalization whereby existing theory
is used as a template against which to compare the findings of the study. The findings can
thus be generalized to the theory even though the data cannot be generalized to the
population (Yin, 2002).
Key Conservation Messages
Like many zoos, this institution had an explicitly stated mission statement and an
implicitly understood list of conservation messages. For the purposes of this study, a list
70 of the zoo’s conservation messages was developed in consultation with the zoo’s director
of education. These were as follows: (1) There is beauty and value in nature (Beauty), (2)
Extinction is happening faster than ever before (Extinct), (3) Human actions are causing loss of wildlife and habitats (Humans), (4) The zoo is actively involved in conservation
(Zoo actions), (5) Choices we make can help protect wildlife (Choice).
Research Design
The study used an emergent design with mixed methods and was conducted in
three phases. In phase I a visitor survey was used to determine whether the zoo was
successful at communicating its messages to visitors. In this phase docents were also
interviewed to identify perceptions of their role in communicating conservation
messages. An unobtrusive, observational measure of message communication was
included in phase II of the study to determine extent of message communication during
docent interactions with visitors. Some of these observations were coupled with
interviews of both docents and visitors to triangulate observational data (occurrence of
message communication) with data from interviews with docents (intended message
communication) and visitors (perceived message communication) involved in the
interactions. Finally, in phase III, visitor exit surveys were used to obtain more detailed
information on visitor perceptions of docents as a channel for the zoo’s key conservation
messages.
71 Phase I
Visitor interview – As the conservation messages being used for the study have been developed from the zoo’s broad intended messages, the first step was to ensure that
these messages were in fact being communicated to visitors. Short semi-structured interviews (Gay & Airasian, 2003) were conducted at a point midway through the zoo to
determine whether visitors were getting the zoo’s key conservation messages and the
channel for these messages.
The population for these interviews included all adult visitors to the zoo during
the study period. The continual ask sampling method was used and there was a 65%
response rate.
The interview schedule used open-ended and semi-structured questions to address
research question 1. Visitors were shown index cards with the messages printed on them
and asked to identify messages they got during their visit. They were also asked where
and how they got these messages. Information gathered here was further explored later in
phases II and III of the study.
Docent interview – A semi-structured interview (Gay & Airasian, 2003) method
was used to determine docent attitudes towards their role in communicating the zoo’s
conservation messages. This interview schedule was designed to answer research
question 3.
The population for these interviews included all docents at the zoo that spend at
least some of their volunteer time interacting with visitors within the zoo. A sample of
sample of convenience was used and data were collected till data saturation was reached.
A total of 25 docents were interviewed, there were no refusals. The interview schedule
72 was designed to provide an overview of docent perceptions and docent training relating
to message communication.
Phase II
Observation of docent-visitor interactions – This involved a quantitative approach
to non-participant or naturalistic observation (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002; Gay &
Airasian, 2003) of docents to determine extent of message communication during docent-
visitor interactions. Observers used a predetermined data sheet to record incidence of key
message communication. In addition, factors involved in interactions with visitors such
as, how the interaction was initiated, length of interaction, and type of visitor group that interacted with the docent were also recorded. As the messages were created solely for
the purposes of the study due to the zoo’s lack of explicit messages, any information that
directly related to one of the key conservation messages was recorded as an incidence of
message communication. For example, if the docent described the beauty of a Pallas cat
to a visitor, this was considered to be an example of message 1 – there is beauty and
value in nature. The information gathered from these observations helped answer
research question 5.
The population for the observations included all docent-visitor interactions
during the study period. A docent was selected at random, and data were collected on all
interactions that occurred within a one hour time period using a focal sampling method.
After this the observers moved to another randomly selected docent to collect data for the
next hour. A total of 405 interactions were observed.
73 Structured visitor interviews – Visitors observed during an interaction with
docents were interviewed shortly after the interaction. This was limited to visitors who
were observed to have had an educational conversation with the docent. Visitors were asked whether they learned about or discussed the key conservation messages with the docent. Responses from these interviews were used to answer research question 4. The population for this phase of the study included all visitors that were observed to have an
educational conversation with docents. A sample of convenience was used to obtain a
total of 53 visitor interviews.
Structured docent interviews – Docents observed while having an educational
conversation with visitors were interviewed shortly after the interaction. While pilot
testing the interview schedule, it was found that docents do not distinguish between
individual interactions with visitors. They had a standard answer about what they
generally talk to visitors about, even when the content of the observed conversation was
very different. Time did not seem to play a role in docents’ recollection of conversations,
as they could not even remember the gist of long conversations even if they were
interviewed immediately after the conclusion of the interaction. In addition, this method
of data collection served as a constant reminder to the docent that the interactions were
being watched and data recorded. To address these problems, docents were only
interviewed at the end of the hour-long observation period, instead of being interviewed
after every interaction.
The population for this phase included all docents that were observed to have an
educational conversation with visitors. A total of 15 interviews were conducted with
docents to correspond with the 53 visitor interviews.
74
Phase III
Visitor exit survey – The data from the phase II were used to develop this short survey
instrument. The survey measured perceived change in visitor knowledge of conservation
messages as a result of their visit, and also compared the efficacy of message
communication through different channels or media, including docents, interpretive
signage, and exhibit layout.
The population for this survey was limited to all adult visitors to the zoo during
the study period, who had spoken to a docent/s in the course of their visit. The continual
ask method of sampling was used to select participants. A total of 765 visitors were
approached but 143 declined to participate. Of the remainder, 412 individuals had not
spoken to a docent and thus could not be surveyed. A total of 210 surveys were
administered.
The survey instrument was designed to provide information on change in
awareness of key messages as a result of the visit (research question 1). It also measured
visitor perceptions of how important docents are as a message source when compared
against other channels of message communication, such as interpretive signage, exhibit
lay out, etc. (research questions 2 & 4).
The items using a Likert-type scale were found to be reliable (Cronbach’s α =
0.871). More specifically, the message awareness items had a Cronbach’s α = 0.876, and
the message sources items had a Cronbach’s α = 0.793)
75 RESULTS
Message Communication During Zoo Visit
The visitor interviews from phase I indicate that most visitors report receiving the zoo’s key conservation message during their visit (table 4.1). In fact, the first four messages were reported by over 80% of all visitors interviewed. The last message was reported by only 68% of the respondents. Despite this, the data indicates that zoos are successful at communicating their conservation messages through at least some of the channels available onsite.
A very high percentage of visitors reported that the key conservation messages were not new to them (table 4.2). This supports prior research that indicates that most zoo visitors are aware of the conservation messages prior to their visit (Heimlich,
Bronnenkant, Witgert & Falk, 2005). Of the five key messages, visitors were least familiar with message 4, which states that the zoo is actively involved in conservation
Visitors Reporting Message Message (n = 50) Frequency Percent Beauty 45 90.0 Extinct 43 86.0 Humans 41 82.0 Zoo actions 43 86.0 Choice 34 68.0
Table 4.1 Visitor reported message communication during visit
.
76 Messages Message Messages were new were not new Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Beauty 0 0.0 50 100.0 Extinct 3 6.0 47 94.0 Humans 1 2.0 49 98.0 Zoo 5 10.0 45 90.0 Choice 1 2.0 49 98.0
Table 4.2 Visitors’ prior awareness of key messages
The data from the exit survey in phase III or the study indicate that though visitors
rather their prior awareness of the key messages very high, there is a mean difference
between the scores of message awareness before and after the visit (table 4.3). The
median scores indicate that more than half the visitors do not indicate a change in
awareness. Given the findings from phase I that indicate most visitors are receiving the
messages, these data support prior research that shows zoo visits serve to reinforce
existing conservation messages when visitors are aware of these messages prior to their visit (Falk et al., 2007).
Channels of message communication
The data from the visitor interviews in phase I indicate that visitors were
primarily getting messages from entire exhibits, though many of them they could not
identify the specific channel within those exhibits from which they were receiving the
messages.
“…got the message across the exhibit” 77
Awareness of message Zoo Beauty Extinct Humans Choice (scale 1-10) actions Mean 9.02 7.69 8.45 7.78 8.66 Median 10.00 8.00 10.00 8.00 10.00 Before visit Mode 10 10 10 10 10 Std. Dev 1.648 2.302 2.079 2.520 1.826 Mean 9.52 9.13 9.22 9.32 9.37 Median 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 After visit Mode 10 10 10 10 10 Std. Dev 0.945 1.308 1.463 1.148 1.125 Mean 0.4787 1.4385 0.7219 1.5479 0.7037 Change in Median 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 awareness Mode 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Std. Dev. 1.111 1.943 1.487 2.252 1.275
Table 4.3 Visitor awareness of key conservation messages
Many visitors reported getting the message from the exhibit layout and the
animals were on exhibit.
“…looking at birds”
“…from viewing animals and zoo exhibits”
Signage was another commonly reported channel for the key conservation
messages.
“…the poaching signs at the rhino exhibit.”
“…sign at gorillas with pictures and numbers”
A couple of visitors also reported receiving messages from presentations or video kiosks.
78 “…video presentation about chimps”
“…bird show”
Of the 50 visitors interviewed, only 15 reported interactions with zoo personnel.
Two of these visitors reported receiving key messages from these personnel, while most of these visitors reported receiving animal information that was not message related.
“…answered a specific question. No comments relating to messages.”
“…just facts.”
“…didn’t mention messages”
Most visitors did not refer to these individuals as docents, but just said they spoke to “a person at the exhibit”. From their descriptions of the role being played by those individuals, it was evident that most of them had spoken to docents. As some of these visitors were not familiar with the term “docent”, later phases of the study used the term
“zoo person” to refer to docents.
In phase II of the study visitors were interviewed immediately after they finished
interacting with a docent at an exhibit. When asked about key messages they
received at the exhibit, visitors primarily described messages obtained from
information presented on the signage at these exhibits.
“6.5 billion people, 20,000 gorillas”
“palm oil plantations in the habitat of sunbears”
Few messages were attributed to docents, though over half the visitors described receiving at least one of the key messages from their interactions with docents. These findings are further discussed in the visitor perception section.
79 These findings were further explored in the visitor exit survey used in phase III of
the study. When asked about the extent to which they received the key messages from
each of the channels identified in phase I, visitors who had interacted with docents rated
signage as the primary message channel (table 4.4). Docents received a mean score of
7.27 and a median score of 9, on a scale of 1-10 (1 = not at all; 10 = very clear). A
comparison of the median scores places docents behind signage in terms of importance as
message source. A closer examination of the data indicates that the distribution of scores
on docents as a message source has a modal score of 10 and is negatively skewed with a
minor peak in frequency at 1 (table 4.5). The shape of this distribution has resulted in
drawing down the mean score for docents as a source of the zoo’s messages.
Exhibit Zoo A.V. Animals Signage Presentation lay out person presentation Mean 8.05 8.84 8.39 7.27 4.34 5.68 score Median 8.00 10.00 9.00 9.00 2.00 6.00 Mode 10 10 10 10 1 1 Std. Dev. 2.058 1.691 1.937 3.080 3.764 3.619
Table 4.4 Extent of message communication from various sources.
Docent perceptions of role in message communication
Data from the docent interviews in phase I of the study indicate that these docents reportedly spent between 45% and 100% of their volunteer hours educating visitors
80 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Valid 1 21 10.0 11.1 2 5 2.4 2.6 3 4 1.9 2.1 4 5 2.4 2.6 5 13 6.2 6.9 6 15 7.1 7.9 7 16 7.6 8.5 8 15 7.1 7.9 9 26 12.3 13.8 10 69 32.7 36.5 Total 189 89.6 100.0 Missing 22 10.4 Total 211 100.0
Table 4.5 Frequency distribution for docents as a message source
through interacting with them at exhibits onsite; 84.72% on average. The responses to the open-ended question reveal insights into their perceptions about message communication.
Role: Docents considered themselves to be “ambassadors for the zoo” and facilitators for learning. All docents described their role in terms of educating visitors about animals and conservation. The focus of their educational responsibilities was answering visitors’ questions about animals. A few docents also mentioned some of the other responsibilities including helping keepers in the animal kitchens, and helping with animal watches.
“…educating people so they respect animals and birds”
“…answer questions, talk about animals and give information”
81 Motivations: The primary motivations described by docents were a love for animals and an intention to protect these animals in the wild through educating visitors. These most closely reflect the motivational factor termed “values” by Clary et al. (1998).
“I love animals and don’t want to see them disappear”
“…to get satisfaction from using skills for a good cause”
“…because a lot of animals are endangered and there are things we can do about
it if we try”
“I feel people don’t know enough about conservation…don’t realize dangers of
animals going extinct”
“Would it get done if I didn’t volunteer to do good education?”
Message Communication: Some docents indicated that the messages they wanted to communicate were primarily dependent on the exhibit and the visitor’s questions.
“…work with visitor interests”
“…depending on area, might talk about that”
When asked about the zoo’s conservation messages, docents claimed that there were “lots of messages” around the zoo, but were not sure of specific messages. Those docents who were aware of specific messages, described exhibit area specific messages and not zoo specific messages. This reflects the current state of messaging at the zoo being studied; newer exhibit areas had specific lists of messages, while older areas and the zoo as a whole had certain broadly described purposes or themes. Though some
82 docents could not remember specific messages, they were able to indicate sources where
the messages could be obtained.
“…education will know”
“…signs at each region”
The messages described by docents generally related to the need for conservation,
zoo activities, and in a few cases what visitors could do to protect wildlife. Those that
related to the key conservation messages used in this study are shown in table 4.6. While
most docent motivations related to message 1 (beauty), the messages they described
rarely reflected this message. Though the number of docents who mentioned each of the messages seems small, most docents described at least two of the five key messages
(table 4.7). As described earlier, many of the docents were aware that there were more messages, but could not remember them immediately. The main reason for this may be the current state of messaging at the zoo.
Beauty Extinct Humans Zoo actions Choice Frequency 3 11 8 9 12 Percent 12.0 44.0 32.0 36.0 48.0
Table 4.6 Docent awareness of key conservation messages.
Number of messages described 0 1 2 3 Total Frequency 3 6 11 5 25
Table 4.7 Number of messages described by docents (phase I) 83
Message Source: Docents reported that they received information about messages from
training session, docent meetings and newsletters, as well as from zoo staff that were
invited to talk to docent training or meeting session.
“…keepers come and talk”
“…meetings and newsletters”
In phase II of the study, docents were interviewed immediately after visitor
interactions that were observed to be educational. Of the 405 interactions observed, only
72 (17.7%) of these interactions included mention of the key messages. Data from the 15 docents that were interviewed indicate that docents’ main focus was on explaining about the animals on display and describing the unique characteristics of these animals.
“the water monitor has a third eye at the top of its head”
…“explain about the baby [gorilla] and its history”
“…thumbs are very small,…can pick up tiny things”
Here again docent responses to questions about what they talked to people
indicates their perceptions of being facilitators and in a few cases message
communicators.
“…try to show them the sign”
“I ask if they have any questions, or ask them a question”
“…answer questions,…[help with ] school worksheets
84 Docent descriptions of messages they generally try to communicate to visitors
indicate that some of these relate to key conservation messages of the zoo (table 4.8).
Most docents reported an intention to communicate at least 1 or 2 messages that
corresponded with the key conservation messages (table 4.9). However some of the
messages described by these docents were very different from the key messages and may
even be considered contradictory to them.
“…emphasize how wild and dangerous they are”
Zoo Docent report Beauty Extinct Humans Choice actions Frequency 5 6 4 4 3
Table 4.8 Docent reports of intended messages
Number of messages described 0 1 2 3 Total Frequency 3 6 5 1 15
Table 4.9 Number of intended messages described by docents (phase II)
All of this indicates that docents view their educational role as helping visitors understand zoo exhibits and communicating certain messages that promote conservation,
though their understanding of these messages is not very specific or clearly defined.
85 Message communication through docent-visitor interactions
The data from phase II of the study show that very limited communication of key
conservation messages was observed during docent-visitor interactions (See table 4.10).
Over 80% (333 out of 405) of the interactions did not include any mention of the key
messages. Instead docents were observed to mainly communicate a number of animal
facts relating to age, weight, diet and behavior of animals in the exhibit. Observational
data indicate that on an average at least two such facts were mentioned per interaction; these facts were not used to communicate any of the key messages, but were instead used to simply answer visitor questions.
Zoo Other Message Observed Beauty Extinct Humans Choice actions Facts No. of Interactions 24 30 16 18 2 398 Percent 5.93 7.41 3.95 4.44 0.49 98.27
Table 4.10 Observed message communications during docent-visitor interactions.
On an average, visitor interactions with docents lasted little over a minute (mean
= 70.78 sec). Data were examined for differences between groups based on group
composition, weekday/weekend, how the interaction was initiated, and the exhibit region
at which the interaction was observed. There were random differences in number of
messages observed between groups on the basis of weekday/weekend (table 4.11).
However, docent interactions with visitors were more than twice as long on weekdays.
86 This may be due to a feeling of crowding due to the large number of visitors during the weekends
Percentage of interactions with observed key messages Time Group type n Zoo (sec) Beauty Extinct Humans Choice actions Weekend 266 3.0 9.0 3.4 5.6 0.4 45.47 Weekday 139 11.5 4.3 5.0 2.2 0.7 119.20
Table 4.11 Difference based on weekend/weekday
A comparison of groups on the basis of group type indicates that docent interactions last longer with adult groups, than when there are children in the group (table
4.12). Also, solitary adult visitors were more likely to have conversations that included key conservation messages, than other types of visitor groups. It should be noted that classification of group type was done on the basis of the researcher’s observations. These solitary adults may have broken away from a larger group, but were not observed to be a part of any group while interacting with the docent.
Percentage of interactions with observed key messages Time Group type n Zoo (sec) Beauty Extinct Humans Choice actions Individual 30 13.3 13.3 10.0 10.0 0.0 89.57 Adult group 45 11.1 4.4 8.9 4.4 2.2 99.20 Adult/s with 330 4.5 7.3 2.7 3.9 0.3 65.19 children
Table 4.12 Difference based on group composition
87 The observations for this phase were conducted at exhibits throughout the zoo. An examination of the data indicates that docents at the Asia region were often observed to be communicating more key messages than those at other regions (table 4.13). This may be because the Asia region is the newest at the zoo, and hence it has an explicit list of messages that are similar to the key conservation messages intended for the entire zoo.
Other exhibit factors include wolf awareness activities at the North America region that focused on extinction messages during one of the days of the data collection. At the reptile region, interactions were mostly limited to conversations with the docent in charge of the reptile (snake) that visitors were allowed to touch. As a result interactions were shorter and more focused on animal facts. In addition, during the study the zoo acquired a baby gorilla through its surrogacy program. As reported in previous studies (Bitgood,
Patterson & Benefield, 1988), the presence of an animal infant generated a lot of interest among visitors, and the circumstances surrounding its acquisition generated a lot of questions that allowed docents to talk about the zoos conservation activities (message 4, i.e., zoo actions).
Percentage of interactions with observed key messages Time Exhibit Region n Zoo (sec) Beauty Extinct Humans Choice actions Africa 64 3.1 0.0 0.0 17.2 1.6 117.58 Aquarium & 51 3.9 2.0 3.9 2.0 0.0 61.29 Shores Asia 82 15.9 13.4 12.2 2.4 1.2 104.79 North America 119 3.4 15.1 3.4 3.4 0.0 55.33 Reptiles 89 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.88
Table 4.13 Differences based on exhibit region 88
The data indicate that there was a greater level of key message communication
when docents initiated the interaction either by approaching a visitor, or addressing the crowd and thereby drawing visitors into conversations (table 4.14). This indicates that docents communicate key messages when they set the tone for the interaction. On the
other hand, when visitors approached with questions, docents were more likely to limit
themselves to the fact based answers rather than using these facts to communicate key messages.
Percentage of interactions with observed key messages Time Group type n Zoo (sec) Beauty Extinct Humans Choice actions Docent approached 134 9.0 3.7 2.2 3.0 0.0 101.89 Visitor Visitor approached 258 4.3 8.9 4.3 5.0 0.8 51.60 docent Docent addressed 13 7.7 15.4 15.4 7.7 0.0 130.77 crowd
Table 4.14 Differences based on how interaction was initiated
Taken as a whole the data indicate that though communication of key messages is limited, there appear to be certain factors that influence the incidence of these messages.
Greater levels of message communication were observed with adults, than those groups that included docents. Docents were more likely to describe key messages they initiated
89 the interactions. In addition certain exhibits were found to garner more message-related conversations than others.
Visitor perception of docents as a channel for key messages
As discussed earlier, most visitors that interacted with docents during their visit consider them to be a good channel for the institution’s key messages. The data from phase II provide more insights into these perceptions of docents as a channel for key messages.
Interviews with visitors immediately after their observed interactions with docents revealed that almost all visitors believed they were receiving some of the key conservation messages from the entire exhibit (table 4.15, table 4.16). However, they attributed only a few of these messages to docents as at the exhibits. Despite this over half the visitors believed they were receiving at least one of the key messages from docents at the exhibit (table 4.16). Message 4 (zoo actions) was found to be an anomaly where most of the messages obtained from the exhibit were attributed to docents. This may reflect docent perceptions of their role as an ambassador for the zoo.
Visitor Report Zoo Beauty Extinct Humans Choice (n = 53) actions No. of 38 27 25 17 16 From Interactions Exhibit Percent 71.7 50.9 47.2 32.1 30.2 No. of 16 8 8 15 3 From Interactions Docent Percent 30.2 15.1 15.1 28.3 5.7
Table 4.15 Visitor report of message communication
90 Number of messages reported Frequency 0 1 2 3 4 5 From Exhibit 3 12 6 14 15 3 From Docent 19 20 9 5 0 0
Table 4.16 Number of messages reported per interaction
A comparison of observed and visitor reported data from phase II indicates that visitor reported incidence of key message communication was higher than that indicated by the observed data (table 4.17).
Number of Interactions Zoo Beauty Extinct Humans Choice (n = 53) actions Observed 3 6 6 6 1 Visitor Report 16 8 8 15 3
Table 4.17 Comparison of observed and visitor reported data
Thus, the findings from phase II and III indicate that though data show actual message communication through docent-visitor interactions to be very limited, most visitors that interact with docents consider them to be channels for the zoo’s key conservation messages, second only to signage.
DISCUSSION
Using Berlo’s communication process model (1960), the findings indicate that docents display characteristics of a source, and these characteristics introduce noise into the message communication process. In addition, the findings also reveal that signage is
91 the primary channel for cognitive messages at free-choice conservation education
settings.
Source characteristics of the channel
The findings from the study indicate that docents are very different from other
message channels within the zoo environment. Unlike channels such as signage, exhibits,
and animals, docents display certain source characteristics that allow them to make
decisions about the message code and content. As a result the fidelity of message
communication as intended by the source (institution) is affected.
Using Berlo’s communication process model (1960), the following source
characteristics of docents were examined:
Communication skills – this was assumed to be constant, as it was a component of the docent training.
Attitudes – Docents believed they could make a difference for conservation through
volunteering at the zoo. This indicated strongly positive and empowered perceptions of
self. Their attitudes toward the subject matter was mixed; docents placed an emphasis on
facts and did not always consider it appropriate to communicate messages. Visitors
(receivers) were perceived to be teachable, as docents indicated that they could effect
conservation by teaching visitors about animals.
Knowledge level – Docent training ensured that all docents were very knowledgeable
about the animal collection at the zoo. Most docents had a broad understanding of at least
some of the zoo’s key messages, but due to the absence of a well-defined list, most had
difficulties articulating what these messages were.
92 Social factors – Docents described their role as ambassadors for the institution and facilitators of visitor learning. Their functions at the zoo relating to their duties at exhibits, included visitor education and crowd control.
Cultural factors – Within the zoo, the docents were a tight knit community. The cultural values and beliefs were also assumed to be a constant resulting from their involvement in the docent association.
As docents exhibit all of these source characteristics, they do not passively communicate messages that the source determines, but they also have the ability to determine what messages should be communicated and how these messages can be encoded. As a result these source characteristics of docents introduce noise in the message communication process.
These findings are not only relevant to docents at zoo settings, but also to personnel used as channels for institutional messages, at other free-choice education settings. Even if the exact nature of each of these characteristics differs based on the site and the organization, personnel will exhibit source characteristics that influence fidelity of the communication process. It should be noted that use of personnel in leading guided tours and similar programs that are a lot more structured, will help minimize the expression of these source characteristics. As a result, appropriate training can also be used to ensure that these source characteristics are controlled.
Signage as a primary channel for institutional messages
Though previous studies have shown that visitors prefer learning such messages from docents than from signage (Garling, Biel, & Gustafsson, 2002; Wolf & Tymitz,
93 1979), the findings from the study indicate that visitors consider signage to be the most
effective channel for institutional messages.
Using factors described by Berlo (1960) that determine the “best” channel for a
message, the findings indicate that signage may be the primary channel for key
conservation messages.
Number of visitors reached – The data from the different phases show that respondents
mentioned information from multiple signs, but could only describe a few interactions (in
most cases, only one interaction) with docents. In phase III of the study, only a third of
respondents had interacted with docents.
Impact - Visitors rated signage as being the most influential channel in communicating
key messages. In addition, visitors who were interviewed mainly recollected information
from signage while describing how they got messages.
Factors the determine source preference for channel, including availability and
cost factors were not measured. However, from the visitor learning perspective, signage
had the greatest efficacy when compared against other channels for institutional factors.
In addition, comparing the findings of this study with the Shannon-Weaver model
(1949/1962) indicates that visitors are better at interpreting messages encoded for use of
communication through signage than those encoded for use through other channels such
as animals and exhibits. The encoding of messages for communication through docents cannot be discussed from the findings due to the limited relation between the institution and the docent association. However, data indicate that visitors were able to articulate messages obtained from information on signage more clearly than messages obtained
94 from other channels. Thus it would appear that signage is the most effective channel for
communicating cognitive messages to visitors at zoos and other free-choice education
settings.
IMPLICATIONS
For Theory
The primary implication of this study was that docents and similar personnel are
different from other message channels used at free-choice conservation education setting.
This difference is due to the source characteristics (which are often displayed as noise) of
such personnel, which sets them apart from Berlo’s (1960) description of channels. Thus docents and similar personnel are different from other message channels used at such
settings, and should be treated as a special case. This finding provides the framework for
studying educational personnel as a message channel. This also helps to understand the
fidelity of message communication through docent-visitor interactions and has
implications for visitor learning outcomes.
The findings from this study support Berlo’s (1960) assumptions that the
communications process model is an effective tool for examining a communications
transfer. In this case, the model was valuable in identifying the breakdown in the
message communication process that occurs through personnel such as docents, at
conservation education settings. This message channel differs from other relatively
passive channels as it demonstrates many source characteristics identified by Berlo
(1960). Berlo’s model thus is broad enough to be applicable to free-choice learning
95 settings, and yet provides a sufficient level of detail to identify noise inducing
characteristics of various components of the communication process at these settings.
On of the more interesting findings in this study was the “compression” of the elements of an exhibit on the message of the visit. There is generally understood to be
compression across experiences as a result of horizontal learning, whereby different
experiences (i.e., reading a book, watching television, visiting a park, etc.) expose an
individual to the same information (Heimlich and Storksdieck, 2007). The literature thus
indicates that compression could occur across visits, however, the findings from this
study suggest that this phenomenon also occurs within a visit, and may even occur within
an exhibit. This therefore supports the ideas in free-choice learning that compression and
horizontal learning influence the visitor in subconscious ways.
Another finding that has important implications is that visitors ascribe message delivery to the docent, even when the evidence is clear that the docent did not convey that
specific message. The findings thus indicate that satisfaction and value for the personal
interaction may also influence perceptions of learning. Such a finding supports the many
studies that have identified the docent or a staff member as important, i.e., human interaction supersedes all other information sources (Garling, Biel, & Gustafsson, 2002;
Wolf & Tymitz, 1979). This finding also challenges the use of visitor self reports to identify information sources, and assess efficacy of these sources in effecting learning.
For Research
Research on visitor learning at free-choice conservation education settings has
primarily focused on outcomes. Most studies simply compare knowledge, attitudes and
96 behavior changes that result from the visit. However, this study shows that noise factors in the channel used to communicate messages may cause considerable distortion of messages. As a result, fidelity of the message communication process may affect outcomes even before the message reaches the visitor. Thus, studies should examine noise factors that may partially explain outcomes, rather than simply examining receiver
(visitor) characteristics to understand these outcomes.
The findings of this study suggest that message distortion may occur during the process of communicating institutional messages to visitors. As a result, simply measuring outcomes does not further our understanding of the efficacy of such channels/experiences in fostering desired knowledge, attitudes and behavior. Studies should thus compare visitor-learning outcomes with the institution’s goals and messages to determine whether these visitor outcomes were intended or incidental. Such research will help advance our understanding of using learning experiences at free-choice conservation education settings to change visitors’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviors.
This study reveals that characteristics of docents and similar personnel set them apart from other channels used at free-choice conservation education settings. They thus present a special case in the study of channels for institutional messages. Researchers need to account for the source characteristics of this human channel when studying visitor-learning outcomes as a result of interactions with docents, keepers, interpreters and other personnel. Limited visitor learning may be due to message distortion rather than receiver characteristics.
Signage is the most effective channel for institutional messages at free choice conservation education settings in terms of cognitive learning. This study only provided
97 insights into cognitive understanding of messages. However, other channels may be more suited to communicate affective and behavioral messages. Research on knowledge, attitude and behavioral outcomes should be extended to determine how the nature of messages influences the efficacy of channels, i.e., which channels are best suited to facilitate cognitive, affective and behavioral changes.
Berlo’s communication process model can be applied to the study of message communication at free-choice conservation education settings. The factors described by this model are relevant to the various components of the communication process at such settings. Thus the model provides a good framework for examining factors that influence the fidelity of the message communication process at such environments. It can also be used to identify factors that should be controlled in studying visitor outcomes resulting from message communication through certain channels.
For Practice
Source characteristics of docents and other personnel influence their efficacy in
communicating key messages. These include knowledge, communication skills, attitudes
and socio-cultural factors (Berlo, 1960). Recognizing these noise factors and taking
action to minimize these effects, through training and regular evaluations, will help to
improve the fidelity of the message communication process and thereby improve visitor
learning of key messages.
Previous research shows that interactions with docents create more satisfying
experiences for visitors (Anderson, Kelling, Pressley-Keough, Bloomsmith & Maple,
2003; Broad, 1996; Powey & Rios, 2002). The findings from this study show that signage
98 is effective in communicating cognitive messages. Education program directors need to recognize the suitability of channels for specific types of messages, and emphasize the use of these channels for such messages to ensure that visitor-learning outcomes are aligned with institutional mission and goals.
RECOMMENDATIONS
For research
Source characteristics of docents and similar personnel can be minimized through training and regular assessments. As a result, a comparison study of docents who have been trained on message and those who haven’t will help to assess the efficacy of personnel as a channel for institutional messages. In addition, a comparison of message communication through informal docent-visitor interactions, and message communication during more structured guided tours, or scripted programs that minimize the expression of source characteristics would also provide insights into the potential efficacy of educational personnel as a channel for institutional messages.
Previous studies have examined characteristics of signs that influence their appeal for visitors, such as size and style of signs, as well as size and font style of lettering (e.g.,
Schnackenberg, Savenye & Jones 1997). However, not much is known about why signage is so effective at influencing cognitive outcomes. This study shows that encoding of messages may be one of the factors, but other factors may include visitor familiarity with signage as a channel, and socialization factors that lead visitors to associate learning with text on signage. Further research is required to identify and explore such receiver- channel factors that may influence cognitive learning from signage.
99
For practice
Institutions need to ensure that personnel are trained in communicating key messages to improve efficacy of such channels. Training should emphasize institutional messages and intentions, in order to minimize expression of source characteristics in docents.
Newer docents are more likely to stay on institutional messages, as they are fresh
out of training and are constantly assessed to ensure they are on task. Similar assessments
of docents who have been volunteering for a long time is important to ensure that they
stay on message and do not allow personal agendas or messages to distort institutional
messages.
Docents were observed to communicate more messages when they initiated and
thus set the tone of the conversation. Docent training should teach docents to use visitor
questions to guide the conversation to key messages.
Signage is still the primary channel for institutional messages. At present, other
channels cannot replace signage, though these channels may be better equipped to
facilitate attitude and behavior changes.
CONCLUSION
This study sought to understand visitor learning by exploring the message
communication process. Berlo’s communication process model was used to identify
characteristics of docents (as an example of personnel at free-choice conservation
education settings) that influence their efficacy as channels for communicating
100 institutional messages. Docents are motivated by a desire to effect conservation through
educating visitors about animals. These motivations along with other characteristics
relating to attitudes, knowledge, communication skills and socio-cultural factor are all
characteristics that Berlo (1960) ascribes to a source and not a channel. As a result the
study suggests that these source characteristics of docents (and other personnel) result in
message distortion that will in turn affect intended visitor learning outcomes.
The findings from the study also support prior research on visitors that indicates they
are aware of messages prior to their visit, but these messages are reinforced during the
visit (Falk, et al. 2007; Heimlich, Bronnenkant, Witgert & Falk, 2005). Though prior
research indicates that visitors prefer learning from a live person (Wolf & Tymitz, 1979),
this study shows that most visitors described information obtained from signage while
explaining messages they received during their visit. This indicates that signage is the primary channel for cognitive understanding of messages. These findings thus describe channel characteristics that influence fidelity of the message communication process and challenge any assessment of such channels that does not take into consideration channel characteristics and nature of message/intended outcomes.
101 CHAPTER 5
RESEARCH ARTICLE 2
(This article will be submitted to the Journal of Interpretation Research, a peer-reviewed journal published by the National Association on Interpreters)
Messages Related Learning fromDocent-Visitor Interactions:
Intentions, Perceptions, and Observations
ABSTRACT
This paper reports on a study to examine perceptual factors that influence message related learning from docent-visitor interactions at zoos. An emergent design with mixed methods was used in this three-phase study. Docents and visitors were interviewed in phase I. In phase II, docent-visitor interactions were observed, and some of these observations were followed by interviews. A visitor exit survey was used for in phase III to assess perceived efficacy of docents as a message source. The study found that though docents believed their role was to teach visitors about conservation, actual message communication was limited. The nature of messages influenced docents’ ability to teach these messages, docents were not very successful at teaching affective and higher order cognitive messages. Despite this, visitor perceptions of docents as a good source for
102 messages led them to attribute messages to docents that were in actuality learned from other elements of the exhibit.
KEY WORDS
Zoo docent, visitor learning, docent perceptions, visitor perceptions, role of docents, message communication, conservation messages.
INTRODUCTION
Zoos, museums, and parks cater to the needs of millions of visitors every year.
Despite the absence of traditional teachers or structured curricula, these institutions are designed to facilitate learning. Learning encounters are deliberately engineered through use of media such as animals, exhibits, and signage (Martin, 2001). Learning that takes place is non-sequential, voluntary, and self paced and hence is free-choice in nature (Falk
& Dierking, 1998).
Zoos and aquariums are free-choice learning environments where learning opportunities are designed to educate visitors about conservation. With increasing pressure on their limited financial resources, such institutions have sought the assistance of volunteers or docents in managing and educating visitors (Knudson, Cable & Beck
1995; Reibel, 1974). Currently there are over 70,000 volunteers at AZA accredited zoos alone (AZA, 2004). At free-choice learning institutions volunteers and docents play an important role in facilitating visitor learning and creating satisfying experiences (Broad,
1996; Horn, 1980; Reeve, 2006).
103 In recent years, zoos have begun to promote conservation learning among visitors
through the use of conservation messages. Previously, the emphasis was on
communicating facts, but due to the lack of success in facilitating conservation behavior
change, the focus is shifting to conservation messages (Ballantyne, Packer, Hughes, &
Dierking, 2007). Zoos use signage, animals, exhibits, docents, and audio-visual
equipment as channels to communicate these messages to visitors. Current research
reveals that visitors know what messages the zoo wants them to get from the visit, but
there is little research on where the visitors get these messages (Heimlich, Bronnenkant,
Barlage & Falk, 2005).
Research on the outcomes of docent-visitor interactions indicates the occurrence
of cognitive and affective impacts on visitor learning. However, little is known about the actual learning exchange. Learning theory indicates that docents (the teacher) guide such
learning exchanges based on their understanding of the visitor’s (learner) needs and
interests (Knowles, 1950). On the other hand, visitors have their own agendas and desired
outcomes that influence their attitudes towards such learning opportunities (Heimlich &
Storksdieck, 2007). This study is an attempt to understand perceptual factors that influence message related learning that occurs through docent-visitor interactions at free- choice conservation education settings such as zoos and aquariums.
The following research questions were used to examine docent and visitor
perceptions about message related learning from informal interactions at zoo exhibits.
1. What are docent perceptions of their role in communicating key message
communication?
104 2. To what extent do docents communicate key messages while talking to
visitors?
3. What are visitor perceptions of message communication through docents?
Question 1 provides insights into docents’ intentions, perceptions and attitudes towards their role in teaching conservation messages, while question 3 examines visitor attitudes toward receiving such messages from docents. Question 2 provides insights into the impact of these perceptual factors on the learning exchange by measuring the extent of actual message communication that occurs during informal docent-visitor interactions at zoo exhibits.
METHODS
Study Site
A large zoo in the Midwestern United States was selected for this study. This
AZA accredited institution has over 300 docents, and regularly conducts an intensive training program for new docents. Docents at this zoo volunteer over 30,000 hours annually and report that they spend over half of these volunteer hours interacting with visitors on site.
Key Conservation Messages
Like many zoos, this institution had an explicitly stated mission statement and an implicitly understood list of conservation messages. For the purposes of this study, a list of the zoo’s conservation messages was developed in consultation with the zoo’s director
105 of education. These were as follows: (1) There is beauty and value in nature (Beauty),
(2) Extinction is happening faster than ever before (Extinct), (3) Human actions are causing loss of wildlife and habitats (Humans), (4) The zoo is actively involved in conservation (Zoo actions), (5) Choices we make can help protect wildlife (Choice).
Research Design
The study used an emergent design with mixed methods and was conducted in three phases. In phase I, docents were interviewed to provide insights into how they understood their role in communicating the zoo’s key conservation messages to visitors
(research question 1). Visitors were also interviewed the sources within the zoo from which they were learning the key conservation messages. Phase II incorporated observational methods to measure the extent of message communication by docents
(research question 2). Some of the observations were coupled with separate docent and visitor interviews immediately following the interactions. This helped to determine whether participants’ perceptions of message communication matched observed data
(research question 2). Finally in phase III an exit survey was used to assess visitor perception of docents as a source for key messages. Together, the findings from the three phases provide an understanding of the perceptual factors that influence message related learning through docent-visitor interactions.
Phase I
Short semi-structured visitor interviews (Gay & Airasian, 2003) were conducted at a point midway through the zoo. Visitors were shown index cards with the messages
106 printed on them and asked to identify messages they got during their visit. The interview
schedule used open-ended and semi-structured questions. The population for these
interviews included all adult visitors to the zoo during the study period. The continual ask
sampling method was used and there was a 65% response rate.
A semi-structured interview (Gay & Airasian, 2003) method was also used to
provide an overview of docent perceptions and docent training relating to message
communication. The population for these interviews included all docents at the zoo that
spend at least some of their volunteer time interacting with visitors within the zoo. A
sample of sample of convenience was used and data were collected till data saturation
was reached. A total of 25 docents were interviewed, there were no refusals.
Phase II
A quantitative non-participant observation method was used for this phase of the
study. Observers were stationed at exhibits to unobtrusively gather data on incidence of
message communication during docent-visitor interactions. A predetermined data sheet
was used to record incidence of key message communication. In addition, factors
involved in interactions with visitors such as, how the interaction wais initiated, length of
interaction, type of visitor group that interacted with the docent were also recorded. A
total of 405 docent-visitor interactions were observed.
As the messages were created solely for the purposes of the study due to the zoo’s
lack of explicit messages, any information that directly related to one of the key
conservation messages was recorded as an incidence of message communication. For example, if the docent described the beauty of a Pallas cat to a visitor, this was
107 considered to be an example of message 1 – there is beauty and value in nature. Data were also recorded on the number of educational facts mentioned that did not relate to the zoo’s conservation messages.
A focal sampling method was used to select interactions for study. This method described by Harris (1995) is based on the focal-animal sampling method used by
Altmann (1974) to observe animal behavior. According to this sampling method, the observer begins to record observational data on the first potential participant to enter the observation area or engage in the required behavior (ex. talk to a docent). Once the participant leaves the area or completes the pre-determined activity, the observer begins observation on the next potential participant that enters the observation area or engages in the activity. In this case, data were collected on all educational visitor interactions with a docent during the set period.
Some of these observations were followed by separate interviews with the observed docent and visitor. The visitor interviews were limited to those who were observed to have had an educational conversation with the docent. Visitors were asked whether they learned about or discussed the key conservation messages with the docent.
The population for this phase of the study included all visitors that were observed to have an educational conversation with docents. A sample of convenience was used to obtain a total of 53 visitor interviews.
A semi-structured interview was used to determine docent perceptions of what the visitor had learnt through the conversation. From pilot testing it soon became evident that docents were often unable to recollect the details of an interaction, even if they were interviewed immediately after the interaction ended. As a result, docents were
108 interviewed at the end of the one-hour observation period and their responses were
compared against all their interactions with visitors during that time. A total of 15
interviews were conducted, and these corresponded with 53 visitor interviews. The population for this phase included all docents that were observed to have an educational conversation with visitors. A total of 15 interviews were conducted with docents to correspond with the 53 visitor interviews.
Phase III
The visitor exit survey was used to determine visitor assessments of the efficacy
of message communication through different channels or media, including docents,
interpretive signage, and exhibit layout. These items used a Likert-type scale and were
found to be reliable (Cronbach’s α = 0.793).
The population for this survey was limited to all adult visitors to the zoo during
the study period, who had spoken to a docent/s in the course of their visit. The continual
ask method of sampling was used to select participants. A total of 765 visitors were
approached but 143 declined to participate. Of the remainder, 412 individuals had not
spoken to a docent and thus could not be surveyed. A total of 210 surveys were
administered.
109 RESULTS
Docent Perceptions
All 25 docents interviewed in phase I reported that they spent at least part of their
time interacting with visitors at the zoo, ranging from 45% to 100% of their volunteer
hours (averaging 84.7%).
Responses to the open-ended items in phase I and phase II of the study indicate
that docents believe that their role was to teach visitors about animals and thus effect
conservation. However, most responses indicated that docent interactions were primarily
guided by visitors’ questions, resulting in an information-based approach to facilitating
learning rather than a message communication.
“…answer questions, talk about animals, give information”
…educating people so they respect and appreciate birds and animals”
“…try to show them the sign”
“I ask if they have any questions, or ask them a question”
In the phase I interview, when asked specifically about conservation messages,
docents described information and messages related to conservation, zoo activities, and in
a few cases what visitors could do to protect wildlife (table 5.1). In phase II docents were
interviewed while they were on education duty at one of the exhibits. As indicated by their perceptions about their role, docents reported mainly trying to describe animal characteristics and behaviors, rather than communicating messages.
“the water monitor has a third eye at the top of its head”
…“explain about the baby [gorilla] and its history”
110 “…thumbs are very small,…can pick up tiny things”
The most commonly described key conservation message was the extinction message as most exhibits provide information on the conservation status of the animal, thus providing docents with an opportunity to discuss extinction. Contrary to their stated intentions to primarily communicate messages relating to conservation choices when interviewed in phase I, docent responses in phase II indicated that this was not one of the main messages docents were trying to communicate when on duty at the exhibits (table
5.1).
Beauty Extinct Humans Zoo actions Choice Phase I Frequency 3 11 8 9 12 (n = 25) Percent 12.0 44.0 32.0 36.0 48.0 Phase II Frequency 5 6 4 4 3 (n = 15) Percent 33.3 40.0 26.7 26.7 20.0
Table 5.1 Docent reports of key conservation messages.
Message Communication During Interactions
The data from phase II of the study show that very limited key message communication was observed during docent-visitor interactions (table 5.2). Over 80%
(333 out of 405) of the interactions did not include any mention of the key conservation messages. Instead docents were observed to mainly communicate a number of animal facts relating to age, weight, diet and behavior of animals in the exhibit. Observational
111 data indicate that on an average at least two such facts were mentioned per interaction; these facts were not used to communicate any of the key messages, but were simply used to answer visitor questions.
Zoo Other Message Observed Beauty Extinct Humans Choice actions Facts No. of Interactions 24 30 16 18 2 398 Percent 5.93 7.41 3.95 4.44 0.49 98.27
Table 5.2 Observed message communications during docent-visitor interactions.
Visitor Perceptions
The data from the visitor interviews in phase I indicate that most visitors reported
receiving the key conservation messages during their zoo visit, but none of these messages were new to them. Visitors reported that they were primarily getting messages from entire exhibits, though many of them they could not identify the specific channel within those exhibits from which they were receiving the messages.
Of the 50 visitors interviewed, only 15 reported interactions with zoo personnel.
Two of these visitors reported receiving key messages from these personnel, while most
of these visitors reported only receiving animal information that was not message related.
“…answered a specific question. No comments relating to messages.”
“…just facts.”
“…didn’t mention messages”
112 In phase II of the study, visitors were interviewed immediately after their
interaction with a docent at an exhibit to determine whether they recognized receiving
key messages from docents. The data indicate that over half the respondents indicated
that docents had communicated at least one of the key messages. Though the number of
communicated messages appears to be small, they are much higher than the number
recorded through observations (table 5.3).
Zoo Number of Interactions Beauty Extinct Humans Choice actions Observed 3 6 6 6 1
Visitor Report 16 8 8 15 3
Table 5.3 Visitor report of communicated messages
In the phase III exit survey, visitors who had interacted with docents were asked
to reflect on their entire visit and rate the different sources used by the zoo for teaching
visitors about their key conservation message. Docents received a mean score of 7.27 and
a median score of 9, on a scale of 1-10 (1 = not at all; 10 = very clear). A comparison of
the median scores places docents behind signage in terms of importance as message
source (table 5.4). A closer examination of the data indicates that the distribution of
scores on docents as a message source has a modal score of 10 and is negatively skewed
with a minor peak in frequency at 1. The shape of this distribution has resulted in
drawing down the mean score for docents. On the whole most visitors perceive docents to be a good source for learning about the zoo’s key conservation messages. 113 Exhibit Zoo A.V. Animals Signage Presentation lay out person presentation Mean score 8.05 8.84 8.39 7.27 4.34 5.68 Median 8.00 10.00 9.00 9.00 2.00 6.00 Mode 10 10 10 10 1 1 Std. Dev. 2.058 1.691 1.937 3.080 3.764 3.619
Table 5.4 Source of key conservation messages
Reported vs. Observed data
The data from observations and interviews with docents and visitors were organized into contingency tables to determine whether there was any relation between intended (docent reported), observed, and perceived (visitor reported) message communication (table 5.5). Using hierarchical loglinear analysis it was evident that while on messages 2, 3, and 4 (Extinct, Humans, Zoo actions) there were significant two-way interactions between variables, there were no significant interactions at the two way or higher level on the other two messages (table 5.6). The complete independence model was used to determine whether the three variables were independent of each other (table
5.7). As predicted by the interaction tables the variables were independent only on message 1 and 5 (Beauty, Choice) while they were not independent on messages 3, 4 and
5 (Extinct, Humans, Zoo actions).
114 Observed message Beauty Total yes no Yes 1 15 16 Visitor report No 2 35 37 Total 3 50 53
Observed message Extinct Total yes no Yes 4 4 8 Visitor report No 2 43 45 Total 6 47 53
Observed message Humans Total yes no Yes 3 5 8 Visitor report No 3 42 45 Total 6 47 53
Observed message Zoo actions Total yes no Yes 5 10 15 Visitor report No 1 37 38 Total 6 47 53
Observed message Choice Total yes no Yes 0 3 3 Visitor report No 1 49 50 Total 1 52 53
Table 5.5 Contingency tables of observed data vs. visitor reported data
115 Zoo K Beauty Extinct Humans Choice actions Chi- 61.508 93.965 126.773 91.193 153.388 1 square Sig 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* Chi- 4.648 17.909 36.514 28.167 0.642 2 square Sig 0.325 0.001* 0.000* 0.000* 0.958 Chi- 2.987 2.203 0.173 0.306 0.000 3 square Sig 0.084 0.138 0.677 0.580 0.999
Table 5.6 Test for interactions
Likelihood BEVAL EXTINC HUMACT ZOO CHOICE df Ratio Chi-square 4.648 17.909 36.514 28.167 0.642 4 Sig 0.325 0.001* 0.000* 0.000* 0.958
Table 5.7 Loglinear test for independence
DISCUSSION
The findings of the study indicate that docent intentions to teach messages do not
correspond to the observed message communication due to lack of training in message
communication and the nature of the key messages. On the other, visitors were often
unable to distinguish between the sources from which they learned the key messages. As
a result many visitors wrongly attributed messages received from other sources such as
signage, to their interactions with docents. This blurring of sources reinforced their
perceptions of docents as a good source for the institution’s key conservation messages.
116
Blurring of Sources
The findings of the study indicate that visitor reports of the channels from which
they receive messages are not reliable. A comparison of observed and visitor reported
data from phase II shows that visitors overestimate message related learning from docents
due to visit compression, ambiguity of messages and social desirability factors.
Compression of the visit – Visitors were found to confuse message sources due to
a compression of their experiences at each exhibit. For example, at the tiger exhibit, a
visitor reported having received message 2 (Extinct) from information that the docent had
provided about there being only 400 individuals in the wild. Observational data indicated
that the docent had not mentioned message 2, and had not mentioned that fact, instead the
signage at the exhibit included all of that information. Such mental merging of message
sources was observed in a few other cases as well.
Ambiguous message communication – Given that docents were not explicitly mentioning the key messages, there was often ambiguity about the message described.
Thus, visitors were often left to interpret the messages implied in the information
mentioned. As a result, data indicate that visitors were using their prior knowledge to interpret the message from the information. For example, a docent at the visitor exhibit informed visitors that the gorilla on exhibit was the first born in captivity. No explanation was given about the use of captive breeding for conservation, neither was there any mention of the zoo’s conservation efforts. This was observed during four of the interactions recorded at that exhibit. Two of these visitors were able to make the connection between the gorilla bred in captivity and message 4 (Zoo actions). Of the
117 other two, one was not able to relate the information to any of the key messages, while
the other individual interpreted the information to refer to message 5 (Choice).
Social desirability – Most visitors were already familiar with the key messages
and could easily recognize the messages shown to them during the interview. Some
visitors had a hard time recollecting how they got the message, but did not want to state
that they had not received the message. As a result a few of these visitors were observed
to force the dialogue to fit the messages in an attempt to explain to the interviewer how
they got the message from the docent, despite the absence of any mention of those
messages during the interaction. For example a couple of visitors reported that the docent
description of gorillas living in family groups communicated message 1 (Beauty), while
another reported the same message due to the docent’s use of the terms “habitat” and
“nature”.
The findings from the study thus indicate that visitor reports of message
communication are often inflated and their perceptions of message sources may be inaccurate due to the factors discussed above.
Nature of messages
The findings of this study indicate that the nature of the message may influence
the efficacy of the message channel. An examination of loglinear analysis conducted on
the data from phase II also reveals independence between observed, visitor reported, and
docent reported data on message 1 and 5 (Beauty, Choice). This indicates that the
differences may be due to the nature of the message rather than docent or visitor
characteristics that were constant across all messages. An examination of the messages
118 indicates that message 2, 3, 4 (Extinct, Humans, Zoo actions) can be easily
communicated using animal and issue fact-based information, and the desired outcomes
are cognitive in nature. However, message 1 and 5 (Beauty, Choice) are different in that
the intended outcomes are primarily affective and behavioral in nature, and not simply
cognitive.
Message 1 (Beauty) is primarily an affective message. Given the nature of this
message, most docents do not recognize it as a separate message to be communicated.
General interviews with docents indicate that this is a message they would like to
communicate to visitors, but interviews while they are on duty at an exhibit indicate that they do not list this message as one of the main messages they intend to communicate at
those exhibits. The cognitive factoids used by docents are not an appropriate for affective messages and thus visitors often do not recognize this message. The primary channels for such affective message (Beauty) may be the exhibits and animals themselves, because the sensory appeal of viewing real animals cannot be rivaled by other message channels
(Rabb, 2004).
Message 5 (Choice) is a higher-level cognitive message that cannot be taught by a
single fact or set of facts. Compared to messages 2, 3, 4 (Extinct, Humans, Zoo actions), all of which can be easily described, message 5 involves a greater level of complexity and focuses on changes in behavior related attitudes rather than simple cognitive awareness of issues. As these docents were not specifically trained in communicating such messages, they were not successful at doing so, though they expressed a desire to do so.
The findings thus show that the independence between intent (docent report),
communication (observation), and perception (visitor report) of this message may be a
119 result of the nature of the message and not due to other source, channel, or receiver characteristics.
IMPLICATIONS
For theory
The findings from this study indicate that the use of docents and similar personnel
to teach conservation messages can best be understood as an intersection of learning
theory and communication theory.
Visitor perceptions of docents as an important source for key messages led them
to ascribe more messages to docents than were actually communicated. These visitor
reports of message communication by docents may be explained by the process of
assimilation as explained by Piaget, wherein individuals modify the environment so it can
be placed within existing cognitive structures (Piaget, 1964/1967). Thus the findings
support learning theory that suggests visitor perceptions of docents as a message source
may be shaped by their pre-existing beliefs and values.
Free-choice learning literature suggests that due to the seamless integration of
learning across experiences and venues, compression occurs across visits (Falk &
Dierking, 2002; Heimlich & Storksdieck, 2007). The findings from the study indicate that
compression of experiences can occur at a single visit, and in some cases even at individual exhibits. As a result visitor perceptions reflect this compression of elements and experiences, and not actual learning form a particular element of an exhibit.
Communication theory helps understand docents’ difficulty in teaching certain
messages is explained by communication theory. According to Berlo’s communication
120 process model (1960), the suitability of a channel (the docent) is dependent on its adaptability to the messages. In this case, docents intended to communicate messages but were unable to adapt the exhibit related facts to the key conservation messages, which thus resulted in very limited message communication. The nature of the message is thus an important determinant of learning that occurs through a particular channel.
For research
Docent intentions are not a good predictor of message communication through
docent-visitor interactions due to certain confounding factors. These include factors such
as nature of the message and skills in adapting exhibit related facts to the key messages that influence the ability of the docent to translate their message communication intentions into action.
Studies on visitor learning at free-choice learning settings often rely on data from
self-reported visitor surveys (e.g., Broad, 1996). The blurring of message channels and
inflation of message reports seen in this study indicates that such self-reported data on
visitor perceptions of message communication may not be a reliable indicator of actual
message communication and thus may not accurately measure visitor learning from
sources. While this method of data collection may be the most convenient in most cases,
the limitations due to visit compression should be recognized.
121 For practice
The nature of a message and the key outcomes determine the efficacy of message
sources. Prior research indicates that docents and similar personnel are successful at
facilitating learning and at creating satisfying experiences (Anderson, Kelling, Pressley-
Keough, Bloomsmith & Maple, 2003; Broad, 1996; Powey & Rios, 2002). In addition,
Garling, Biel, & Gustafsson (2002) suggest that educational personnel at conservation
education settings also more likely to inculcate a sense of conservation responsibility in visitors, than inanimate channels of message communication. While this may be true, the findings from this study indicate that docents were not successful at teaching behavior related messages, even when they expressed a desire to do so. Docents were also not very effective at communicating affective messages.
Signage is still the primary source for cognitive messages. Visitors’ rating of
signage and their recollection of message related facts from signage indicate that this
channel is very effective at building cognitive understanding of messages.
RECOMMENDATIONS
For Research
Studies on learning outcomes from message channels should account for the
suitability of the source for each message. The nature of the message should also be used
to determine expected learning outcomes.
122 Self reported measures of visitor learning from particular message sources should
be coupled with observational data to provide insights into the extent of compression of
the visit to determine how closely visitor perceptions match observed outcomes.
For Practice
Feedback from visitors about how much they learned from certain message
channels may be a better indicator of visitor satisfaction than actual visitor learning.
Other measures of visitor learning should be used besides feedback forms.
Docent training needs to emphasize message communication and the required
skills. Docents should be taught to use educational facts to communicate broader
conservation messages, so that they continue to meet visitor needs while satisfying
institutional mission.
CONCLUSION:
This study examined perceptual factors that influence message related learning
that occurs during docent-visitor interactions at zoos. The findings indicate that visitors
blur message channels and their perceptions of docents as a good message source lead
them to wrongly attribute messages to docents that were received from other sources. In
addition, the findings suggest that docent perceptions of their role lead to an intention to
teach visitors about conservation, but the nature of messages may limit their ability to do
so. Thus understanding the perceptual factors that shape these learning exchanges help to understand reported learning outcomes.
123 LIST OF REFERENCES
Adelman, L. M., Falk, J. H., & James, S. (2000). Impact of National Aquarium in Baltimore on visitors’ conservation attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Curator, 43(1), 33-62.
Alexander, E. P. (1979). Museums in motion: An introduction to the history and functions of museums. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History.
Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behaviour, 49, 227-267.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to Research in Education (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Association of Zoos and Aquariums. (2000). Conservation Messages. Retrieved, July 2, 2007, from http://www.aza.org/ConEd/ConMessages/
Association of Zoos and Aquariums. (2005). The 2006 AZA membership directory. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
Association of Zoos and Aquariums. (2007). Types of Jobs in Zoos and Aquariums. Retrieved, July 2, 2007, from http://www.aza.org/ForEveryone/Careers/
Anderson, D., Lucas, K. B., & Ginns, I. S. (2003). Theoretical perspectives on learning in an informal setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 177-199
Anderson, U. S., Kelling, A. S., Pressley-Keough, R., Bloomsmith, M. A., & Maple, T. L. (2003). Enhancing the zoo visitor’s experience by public animal training and oral interpretation at an otter exhibit. Environment and Behavior, 35(6), 826-841.
Atkinson, P. B., & Mullins, G. W. (1998). Applying social marketing to interpretation. Journal of Interpretation Research, 3(1), 49-53.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K., & Dierking, L. (2007). Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: Lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environmental Education Research, 13(3), 367-383.
124 Beck, L., & Cable, T. (2002). Interpretation for the 21st century: Fifteen guiding principles for interpreting nature and culture (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Sagamore.
Bergevin, P. (1995). The adult, his society, and adult education: An overview. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), Selected writings on philosophy and adult education (2nd ed., pp. 37-46). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Birney, B. A., & Shaha, S. (1982). Dosage versus distribution: The support of docents on zoo visitors’ acquisition of knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, Birmingham, AL.
Bitgood, S., Patterson, D., & Benefield, A. (1988). Exhibit design and visitor behavior: Empirical relationships. Environment and Behavior, 20(4), 474-491.
Bjornavold, J. (2000). Making learning visible: Identification, assessment and recognition of non-formal learning in Europe (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training Rep. No. TI-32-00-871-EN-C). Lanham, MD: Bernan Associates. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED447347).
Boekaerts, M., & Minnaert, A. (1999). Self regulation with respect to informal learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 533-544.
Boshier, R. (1971). Motivational orientations of adult education participants: A factor analytic exploration of Houle’s typology. Adult Education Quarterly, 21(2), 3-26.
Boshier, R. (1991). Pschometric properties of the alternative form of the Educational Participation Scale. Adult Education Quarterly, 41, 150-167.
Boshier, R. & Collins, J.B. (1985). The Houle typology after twenty-two years: A large- scale empirical test. Adult Education Quarterly, 35(3), 113-130.
Boshier, R., Huang, Y., Song, Q., & Song, L. (2006). Market socialism meets the lost generation: Motivational orientations of adult learners in Shanghai. Adult Education Quarterly, 56(3), 201-222.
Brewer, C. (2001). Cultivating conservation literacy: “Trickle-down” education is not enough. Conservation Biology, 15(5), 1203-1205.
Bright, A. D., Manfredo, M. J., Fishebein, M., & Bath, A. (1993). Application of the theory of reasoned action to the National Park Service’s controlled burn policy. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(3), 263-280.
Broad, G. (1996). Visitor profile and evaluation of informal education at Jersey Zoo. The Dodo Journal of Wildlife Preservation Trusts, 32, 166-192. 125 Brochu, L. (2003). Interpretive planning: The 5-M model for successful planning projects. Fort Collins, CO: Interp Press.
Brochu, L., & Merriman, T. (2002). Personal Interpretation: Connecting your audience to heritage resources. Fort Collins, CO: Interp Press.
Brody, J. (1987). The seasoning of a docent. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Zoos and Aquarium Docents, Pasadena, CA. In D. Churchman, (1987), The Educational Role of Zoos: A Synthesis of the Literature (1928-1987) with Annotated Bibliography. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED289742).
Brody, M., Tomkiewicz, W., & Graves, J. (2002). Park visitors’ understandings, values and beliefs related to their experience at Midway Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park, USA. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1119- 1141.
Cheek, N. H., Field, D. R., & Burdge, R. J. (1976). Leisure and recreation places. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science.
Churchman, D. (1984). Issues regarding nonformal evaluation of nonformal education in zoos. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the International Association of Zoo Educators, Edinburgh: Scotland. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 250172).
Churchman, D. (1985a). The educational impact of zoos and museums: A review of the literature. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED259912).
Churchman, D. (1985b). How and what recreational visitors learn at zoos. Paper presented at the annual western meeting of the American Association of Zoological Park and Aquarium Administrators, Anchorage, AK. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED259911).
Churchman, D. (1987). The Educational Role of Zoos: A Synthesis of the Literature (1928-1987) with Annotated Bibliography. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED289742).
Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1999). The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 156- 159.
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., et al. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516-1530.
126 Coll, R. K., Tofield, S., Vyle, B., & Bolstad, R. (2003). Free-choice learning at a metropolitan zoo. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelhia, PA.
Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcom, J. (2002). Non-formal learning: Mapping the conceptual terrain. A Consultation Report, Leeds: University of Leeds Lifelong Learning Institute. Also available in the informal education archives: http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/colley_informal_learning.htm.
Columbus Zoo and Aquarium. (2003). Annual report. Columbus, OH:Author.
Culen, G. R. (2001). The status of environmental education with respect to the goal of responsible citizenship behavior. In H. R. Hungerford, W. J. Bluhm, T. L. Volk, & J. M. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential Readings in Environmental Education (2nd ed., pp. 37-45). Champaign, IL: Stipes.
Danton, T. (1979). The father of modern interpretation: Enos A. Mills? Journal of Interpretation, 4(2), 37-38.
Davey, G. (2006). Relationship between exhibit naturalism, animal visibility and visitor interest in a Chinese zoo. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 96, 93-102. de White, T. G., & Jacobson, S. K. (1994). Evaluating conservation education programs at a South American Zoo. Journal of Environmental Education, 25(4), 18-22.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. London: Collier-Macmillan.
Diem, J. J. (1995). The Measurement of Zoo and Aquarium Education Directors' Philosophies of Adult Education. Unpublished master’s thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Dierking, L. D., Adelman, L. M., Ogden, J., Lehnhardt, K., Miller, L., & Mellen, J. D. (2004). Using a behavior change model to document the impact of visits to Disney’s Animal Kingdom: A study investigating intended conservation action. Curator, 47(3), 322-343.
Dierking, L. D., Burtnyk, K., Buchner, K. S., & Falk, J. H. (2002). Visitor learning in zoos and aquariums: A literature review. Annapolis, MD: Institution for Learning Innovation.
Dierking, L. D., Falk, J. H., Rennie, L. Anderson, D., & Ellenbogen, K. (2003). Policy statement of the “Informal Science Education” ad hoc committee. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 108-111.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd edition). New York: Wiley
127 Dillman, D. A., Sinclair, M. D., & Clark, J. R. (1993). Effects of questionnaire length, respondent-friendly design, and a difficult question on response rates for occupant addressed census mail surveys. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(3), 289-304.
Disinger, J. F. (1998). Environmental education’s definitional problem. In H. R. Hungerford, W. J. Bluhm, T. L. Volk, & J. M. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential Readings in Environmental Education (pp. 17-31). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.
Dottavio, F. D. & McLellan, R. W. (1985). The effect of clothing on interpreters’ credibility. Journal of Interpretation, 10(2), 7-14.
Dotzour, A., Schulz, K., Manubay, G., Smith, J. C., Houston, C., De Young, R., et al. (2002, August). Crossing the Bog of Habits: Measuring an exhibit’s effectiveness at promoting environmentally responsible behavior. Proceedings of the 31st Annual North American Association for Environmental Education Conference, Boston, MA.
Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Great Lakes pollution prevention and toxic reduction: Cuyahoga River area of concern. Retrieved July 18, 2007, from http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/cuyahoga.html
Falk, J. H. (2001). Free-choice science learning: Framing the discussion. In J. H. Falk (Ed.), Free-choice science education: How we learn science outside of school (pp. 3-20). New York: Teachers College Press.
Falk, J. (2004). The director’s cut: Towards an improved understanding of learning from museums. Science Education, 8(Suppl. 1), S83-S96.
Falk, J. H. (2005). Free-choice environmental learning: Framing the discussion. Environmental Education Research, 11(3), 265-280.
Falk, J. H. (2006). An identity-centered approach to understanding museum learning. Curator, 49(2), 151-166
Falk, J. H., & Adelman, L. M. (2003). Investigating the impact of prior knowledge and interest on aquarium visitor learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 163-176.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback Books.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. (1998). Free-choice learning: An alternative term to informal learning? Informal Learning Environments Research Newsletter, July 1998. Retrieved December, 5, 2005, from http://www.umsl.edu/~sigiler/ILER- Newsletter-0798.pdf
128 Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2002). Lessons without limits: How free choice learning is transforming education. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Falk, J. H., Heimlich, J. E., & Bronnenkant, K. (2007). The identity-related motivations of adult zoo and aquarium visitors. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Falk, J. H., Reinhard, E. M., Vernon, C. L., Bronnenkant, K., Heimlich, J. E., & Deans, N. L. (2007). Why zoos and aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit to a zoo or aquarium. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
Falk, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the Contextual Model of Learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89(5), 744-778.
Finlay, T., James, L. R., & Maple, T. L. (1988). People’s perceptions of animals: The influence of zoo environments. Environment and Behavior, 20(4), 508-528.
Flanders, M. P., & Flanders, N. A. (1976). Evaluating docent performance. Curator, 19(3), 198-225.
Fortner, R. W., Smith-Sebasto, N. J., & Mullins, G. W. (1994). Handbook for environmental communication in development. Prepared for the Mediterranean Environment Technical Assistance Program.
Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1993). Survey Research Methods (2nd ed.). Applied Statistical Research Method Series (Vol. 1). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fujita-Starck, P. J. (1996). Motivations and characteristics of adult students: Factor stability and construct validity of the Educational Participation Scale. Adult Education Quarterly, 47(1), 29-40.
Galbraith, M. W. (1991). The adult learning transactional process. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Facilitating adult learning: A transactional process (pp. 1-32), Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Galbraith, M. W., & Zelenak, B. S. (1991). Adult learning methods and techniques. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Facilitating adult learning: A transactional process (pp. 103- 133), Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Garling, T., Biel, A., & Gustafsson, M. (2002). The new environmental psychology: The Human Interdependence Paradigm. In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 85-94). New York: Wiley.
129 Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies and applications (7th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Merrill - Prentice Hall.
Goss, B. (1983). Communication in everyday life. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2004). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Griest, D. L., & Mullins, G. W. (1984). Managing conflict: A process for increasing use of interpretation as a management tool. Journal of Interpretation, 9(1), 19-32.
Griffin, E. (2003). A first look at communication theory (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Groff, A., Lockhart, D., Ogden, J., & Dierking, L. D. (2005). An exploratory investigation of the effect of working in an environmentally themed facility on the conservation related knowledge, attitudes and behavior of staff. Environmental Education Research, 11(3), 371-387.
Ham, S. H. (1992). Environmental interpretation: A practical guide for people with big ideas and small budgets. Golden, CO: Fulcrum.
Ham, S. H., & Krumpe, E. E. (1996). Identifying audiences and messages for nonformal environmental education – A theoretical framework for interpreters. Journal of Interpretation Research, 1(1), 11-23.
Ham, S. H., & Shew, R. L. (1979). A comparison on visitors’ and interpreters’ assessments of conducted interpretive activities. Journal of Interpretation, 4(2), 39-43.
Hammitt, W. E. (1981). A theoretical foundation for Tilden’s interpretive principles. Journal of Environmental Education, 12(3), 13-16.
Hammitt, W. E. (1982). Attention, familiarity and effective interpretation. Journal of Interpretation, 7(2), 1-10.
Hammitt, W. E. (1984). Cognitive processes involved in environmental interpretation. Journal of Environmental Education, 15(4), 11-15.
Hancocks, D. (2001). A different nature: The paradoxical world of zoos and their uncertain future. Berkley: University of California Press.
Hanson, E. (2002). Animal attractions: Nature on display in American zoos. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Harris, L. (1995). Recreation in a zoo environment: Applying animal behavior research techniques to understand how visitors allocate time. Legacy, 6(2), 14-18.
130 Heimlich, J. E. (2007). Conservation messages and adult visitors: What do visitors “get” from zoos and aquariums? Paper presented at the 4th World Environmental Education Congress, Durban, South Africa.
Heimlich, J. E. (1993). Nonformal environmental education: Toward a working definition. (ERIC/CSMEE Informational Bulletin No. ED360154).
Heimlich, J. E. (2005). Editorial. Environmental Education Research, 11(3), 261-263.
Heimlich, J. E., Bronnenkant, K., Witgert, N., & Falk, J. H. (2005). Measuring the learning outcomes of adult visitors to zoos and aquariums: Confirmatory study. Annapolis, MD: Institute of Learning Innovation.
Heimlich, J. E., Diem, J., & Farrell, E. (1996). Adult learning in non-formal institutions (ERIC Digest No. 173). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED399412)
Heimlich, J. E., Falk, J. H., Bronnenkant, K., & Barlage, J. (2005). Measuring the learning outcomes of adult visitors to zoos and aquariums: Phase I technical report. Annapolis, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation.
Heimlich, J. E., & Storksdieck, M. (2007) Changing thinking about learning for a changing world. Southern African Journal of Environmental Education, 24, 63- 75.
Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the museum. London: Rutledge.
Henry, C. (2000). How visitors relate to museum experiences: An analysis of positive and negative reactions. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(2), 99-106.
Hergenhahn, B. R. (1988). An introduction to theories of learning (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8.
Holden, C. (2004). Blown away by chimps. Science, 305(5682), 337.
Hood, M. G. (1993). Comfort and caring: Two essential environmental factors. Environment and Behavior, 25(6), 710-724.
Horn, A. L. (1980). A comparative study of two methods of conducting docent tours in art museums. Curator, 23(2), 105-117.
Houle, C. O. (1961). The Inquiring Mind. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
131 Hungerford, H., Peyton, R., & Wilke, R. (1980). Goals for curriculum development in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 11(3), 42-47.
Hungerford, H. R. (2001). The myths of environmental education – Revisited. In H. R. Hungerford, W. J. Bluhm, T. L. Volk, & J. M. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential Readings in Environmental Education (2nd ed., pp. 49-56). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.
Hungerford, H., & Volk, T. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3): 8-21.
Hunt, J. D. (1979). Interpretation: A crucial factor in agency image. Journal of Interpretation, 4(1), 21-23.
Hug, J. (1998). Two hats. In H.R. Hungerford, W.J. Blaum, T.L. Volk, J.M. Ramsey (Eds). Essential readings in environmental education. (pp.47). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing L.L.C
Hyman, H. H., & Sheatsley, P. B. (1971). Some reasons why information campaigns fail. In W. Schramm & D.F. Roberts (Eds.), The process and effects of mass communication (Rev. ed., pp. 448-466). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. F. (1990). Building communication theory. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Jackson, D. M. (1994). Animal activity and presence of docent interaction: Visitor behavior at Zoo Atlanta. Visitor Behavior, 9(1), 16.
Jacobson, S. K. (1999). Communication skills for conservation professionals. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Jacobson, S. K., & Marynowski, S. B. (1998). New model for ecosystem management interpretation: Target audiences on military lands. Journal of Interpretation Research, 3(1), 1-20.
Jacobson, S. K., & McDuff, M. D. (1998). Training idiot savants: The lack of human dimensions in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 12(2), 263-267.
Jacobson, S. K., McDuff, M. D., & Monroe, M.C. (2007). Promoting conservation through the arts: Outreach for hearts and minds. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 7- 10.
Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult learning in the social context. London: Croom Helm.
Knapp, D., & Yang, L. (2002). A phenomenological analysis of long-term recollections of an interpretive program. Journal of Interpretation Research, 7(2):7-18.
132 Knowles, M. S. (1950). Informal adult education: A guide for administrators, leaders and teachers. New York: Associated Press.
Knowles, M. S. and Associates (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Knudson, D. M., Cable, T. T., & Beck, L. (1995). Interpretation of cultural and natural resources. State College, PA: Venture.
Lasswell, H. D. (1971). The structure and function of communication in society. In W. Schramm & D.F. Roberts (Eds.), The process and effects of mass communication (Rev. ed., pp. 84-99). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. (Reprinted from The communication of ideas, by L. Bryson, Ed., 1948, New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies)
Leeming, F. C., Dwyer, W. O., Porter, B. E., & Cobern, M. K. (1993). Outcome research in environmental education: A critical review. Journal of Environmental Education, 24(4), 8-21.
Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., & Knutson, K. (2002). Learning conversations in museums. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lindauer, M. A. (2005). From salad bar to vivid stories: Four game plans for developing ‘educationally successful’ exhibitions. Museum Management and Curatorship, 20, 41-55.
Lindeman, E. C. (1961). The meaning of adult education. Montreal: Harvest House.
Lindemann-Mattheis, P., & Kamer, T. (2006). The influence of an interactive educational approach on visitors’ learning in a Swiss zoo. Science Education, 90(2), 296-315.
Livingstone, D. (2001). Adults’ informal learning: Definitions, findings, gaps and future research (NALL Working Paper No. 21-2001). Retrieved April 14, 2006 from http://www.nall.ca
Lukas, K. E., Hoff, M. P., & Maple, T. L. (2003). Gorilla behavior in response to systematic alteration between zoo enclosures. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 81, 367-386.
Lukas, K. E., & Ross, S. R. (2005). Zoo visitor knowledge and attitudes towards gorillas and chimps. Journal of Environmental Education, 36(4), 33-48.
Mallapur, A., Qureshi, Q., & Chellam, R. (2002). Enclosure design and space utilization by Indian leopards (Panthera pardus) in four zoos in southern India. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 5(2), 111-124.
133 Margulis, S. W., Hoyos, C., & Anderson, M. (2003). Effect of felid activity on zoo visitor interest. Zoo Biology, 22, 587-599.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1991). Paradigms for critically reflective teaching and learning. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Facilitating adult learning: A transactional process (pp. 75-102), Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 25-34.
Martin, L. (2001). Free-choice science learning: Future directions for researchers. In J. H. Falk (Ed.), Free-choice science education: How we learn science outside of school (pp. 186-198). New York: Teachers College Press.
Masci, D. (2000). Zoos in the 21st century. CQ Researcher, 10(16), 355-373.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
McCreedy, D. (2005). Youth and science: Engaging adults as advocates. Curator, 48(2), 158-176.
McPhee, M. E., Forster, J. S., Sevenich, M., & Saunders, C. D. (1998). Public perceptions of behavioral enrichment: Assumptions gone awry. Zoo Biology, 17, 525-534.
McQuail, D. (1984). Communication (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
McQuail, D., & Windahl, S. (1993). Communication models: For the study of mass communications (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Meredith, J. E., Fortner, R. W. & Mullins, G. W. (1997). Modes of affective learning for nonformal science education facilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(8), 805-818.
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 46(3), 158-173.
Mocker, D. W., & Spear, G. E. (1982). Lifelong learning: Formal, nonformal, informal and self-directed. Columbus, OH: ERIC (CE). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED220723).
Mony, P., Croft, M., & Holton, S. (2005). Visitors to the Australia region at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium: What messages do they get? Unpublished report to the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
134 Morgan, J. M. (2000). Perceptions of a zoological park: A comparative study of educators and visitors. Journal of Interpretation Research, 5(1), 19-33.
Morgan, J. M., & Hodgkinson, M. (1999). The motivation and social orientation of visitors attending a contemporary zoological park. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 227-239.
Morstain, B. R., & Smart, J. C. (1977). A motivational typology of adult learners. Journal of Higher Education, 48 (6), 665-679.
Moseley, C. (2000). Teaching for environmental literacy. ERIC Clearing House. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ614430).
Mullins, G. W. (1984). The changing role of the interpreter. Journal of Environmental Education, 15(4), 1-5.
Myers, O. E., Jr., Saunders, C. D., & Birjulin, A. A. (2004). Emotional dimensions of watching zoo animals: An experience sampling study building on insights from psychology. Curator, 47(3), 299-321.
Nightingale, E. (2006). Dancing around the collections: Developing individuals and audiences. In C. Lang, J. Reeve, & V. Woollard (Eds.), The responsive museum; Working with audiences in the twenty-first century (pp. 79-91). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Noessel, C. (2003). Free range learning support. Masters Project, Interaction Design Institute Ivrea, Italy.
Ogden, J., & Revard, B. (2004). Trends in conservation education. Communique, August issue, pgs 18-20.
Okun, M. A., Barr, A., & Herzog, A. R. (1998). Motivation to volunteer by older adults: A test of competing measurement models. Psychology and Aging, 13(4), 608-621.
Olson, E. C., Bowman, M. L., & Roth, R. E. (1984). Interpretation and nonformal environmental education in natural resources management. Journal of Environmental Education, 15(4), 6-10.
Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2005). Solitary vs. shared: Exploring the social dimension of museum learning. Curator, 48(2), 177-192.
Pekarik, A. J. (2002). Feeling or learning. Curator, 45(4), 262-264.
Pekarik, A. J., Doering, Z. D., & Karns, D. A. (1999). Exploring satisfying experiences in museums. Curator, 42(2), 152-173.
135 Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Piaget, J. (1967). Six psychological studies (A. Tenzer, Trans.). New York: Random House. (Original work published 1964).
Pol, E. (2002). Environmental management: A perspective from environmental psychology. In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 55-84). New York: Wiley.
Powey, K. D., & Rios, J. (2002). Using interpretive animals to deliver affective messages in zoos. Journal of Interpretation Research, 7(2), 19-28.
Rabb, G. B. (2004). The evolution of zoos from menageries to centers of conservation and caring. Curator, 47(3), 237-246.
Rahm, J. (2004). Multiple modes of meaning-making in a science center. Science Education. 88,223-247.
Ramberg, J. S., Rand, J, & Tomulonis, J. (2002). Mission, message and visitors: How exhibit philosophy has evolved at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Curator, 45(4), 302-320.
Reade, L. S., & Waran, N. K. (1996). The modern zoo: How do people perceive zoo animals? Applied Animal Behavior Science, 47, 109-118.
Reeve, J. (2006). Prioritizing audience groups. In C. Lang, J. Reeve, & V. Woollard (Eds.), The responsive museum; Working with audiences in the twenty-first century (pp. 43-60). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Reibel, (1974). The use of volunteers in museums and historical societies. Curator, 17(1), 16-26).
Rennie, L. J., & Johnston, D. J. (2004). The nature of learning and its implications for research on learning from science museums. Science Education, 88 (Suppl.1): S4- S16.
Roberts, D. F. (1971). The nature of communication effects. In W. Schramm & D.F. Roberts (Eds.), The process and effects of mass communication (Rev. ed., pp. 349-387). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Rhoads, D. L., & Goldsworthy, R. J. (1979). The effects of zoo environments on public attitudes toward endangered wildlife. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 13, 383-287.
Roggenbuck, J. W., Hammitt, W. E., & Berrier, D. L. (1982). The role of interpretation in managing for recreational carrying capacity. Journal of Interpretation, 7(1), 7-20. 136 Roth, C. E. (1996). Benchmarks on the way to environmental literacy K-12. ERIC Clearing House. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED392635).
Rothfels, N. (2002). Savages and beasts: The birth of the modern zoo. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rounds, J. (2006). Doing identity work in museums. Curator, 49(2), 133-150.
Ryan, C., & Saward, J. (2004). The zoo as ecotourism attraction: Visitor reactions, perceptions and management implications. The case of Hamilton Zoo, New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(3), 245-266.
Schnackenberg, H. L., Savenye, W. C., & Jones, H. (1997). View the Zoo: Evaluation of visual communication in an outdoor educational setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Albuquerque, NM.
Schramm, W. (1971). The nature of communication between humans. In W. Schramm & D.F. Roberts (Eds.), The process and effects of mass communication (Rev. ed., pp. 3-53). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Schugurensky, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning: Towards a conceptualization of the field (NALL Working Paper No. 19-2000). Retrieved 14 April, 2006, from http://www.nall.ca
Serrell, B. (1996). Exhibit labels: An interpretive approach. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949/1962). The mathematical theory of communication, (9th reprint). Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.
Silverman, L. H. (1995). Visitor meaning-making in museums for a new age. Curator, 38(3), 161-170.
Simmons, D. A. (1991). Are we meeting the goal of responsible environmental behavior? An examination of nature and environmental education center goals. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(3), 16-21.
Stapp, W. B. (1998). The concept of environmental education. In H. R. Hungerford, W. J. Bluhm, T. L. Volk, & J. M. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential readings in environmental education (pp.33-35). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing. (Reprinted from Journal of Environmental Education, vol.1, no.1, pp.30-31, 1969)
Stokes, L. C., & Pankowski, M. L. (1988). Incidental learning of aging adults via television. Adult Education Quarterly, 38(2), 88-99.
137 Swanagan, J. (2000). Factors influencing zoo visitors’ conservation attitudes and behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 26-31.
Tannenbaum, P. H. (1971). The indexing process in communication. In W. Schramm, & D. F. Roberts (Eds.), The process and effects of mass communication (Rev. ed., pp. 313-325). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage (3rd ed.). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Tofield, S., Coll, R. K., Vyle, B., & Bolstad, R. (2003). Zoo as a source of free choice learning. Research in Science and Technology Education, 21(1):67-99.
Trapp, S., Gross, M., & Zimmerman, R. (1994). Signs, trails and wayside exhibits: Connecting people and places (2nd ed.). Interpreter’s Handbook Series. Stevens Point, WI: UW-SP Foundation Press.
UNESCO-UNEP. (1975). The Belgrade Charter: A global framework for environmental education, Belgrade, Yugoslavia, 13-22 October 1975. UNESCO Document No. ED.76/WS/95
Verderber, R. F., & Verderber, K. S. (2002). Communicate! (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Veverka, J. A. & Poneleit, S. A. (1981). Interpretation as a management tool for underwater parks. Journal of Interpretation, 6(2), 10-14.
Wagner, K. F. (2002). Taking a look at trends: Conservation education in AZA zoos and aquariums. Communique, September issue, pp. 5-6.
Ward, I. P., Mosberger, N., Kistler, C., & Fischer, O. (1998). The relationship between popularity and body size in zoo animals. Conservation Biology, 12(6), 1408-1411.
Werner, C. M., Brown, B. B., & Altman, I. (2002). Transactionally oriented research: Examples and strategies. In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 203-221). New York: Wiley.
Winter, P. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (1998). An analysis of normative messages in signs at recreation settings. Journal of Interpretation Research, 3(1), 39-47.
Wolf, R. L., & Tymitz, B. L. (1979). “Do giraffes ever sit?” A study of visitor perceptions at the National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED196769).
Womble, P., Bultena, G., & Field, D. (1981). Interpretation and backcountry management. Journal of Interpretation, 6(2), 21-23. 138 Wood, J. T. (2004). Communication mosaics: An introduction to the field of communications (3rd ed.). Australia: Thomson-Wadsworth.
Wood, J. T. (2007). Interpersonal communication: Everyday encounters (5th ed.). Australia: Thomson-Wadsworth.
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums. (2005). Building a future for wildlife: The world zoo and aquarium conservation strategy. Bern, Switzerland: Author.
Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
139 APPENDIX A
List of AZA’S Conservation Messages
This list of conservation messages was developed by the Conservation Education Committee of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, and can be accessed on the AZA website (AZA, 2000).
1. All life on Earth exists within an ecosystem. a. Ecosystems are made of interdependent relationships between groups of living things (biodiversity) and their physical environment. b. An impact on any element of an ecosystem has ramifications throughout the ecosystem. 2. Human beings are an integral part of all ecosystems. a. Human activities within ecosystems affect these systems 3. Healthy ecosystems provide many essential services and benefits that sustain and improve human lives. a. Natural systems maintain a habitable planet by regulating climate and by cycling water, oxygen and carbon dioxide and soil nutrients. b. Natural systems provide human beings with essential services (ecosystem services) that sustain life on Earth: fresh air, clean water, soil and oceans that can produce food. c. People depend on thousands of plants and animals to live their daily lives. d. Biological diversity provides a multitude of natural resources used commercially for food, shelter, fiber, and other products.
140 e. Nature is the primary sources for many common medicines upon which so many of us depend, and is also the likely source for promising new pharmaceuticals that may hold the secret for combating cancers, AIDS, and other threatening diseases. f. Healthy ecosystems underpin healthy human economics and sustainable nature systems support sustainable human communities. Many jobs depend directly on protecting natural ecosystems (fishing, farming, etc.). 4. The human experience requires a connection to nature. These experiences in wild places in our community enrich our lives and inspire our choices for future generations. a. For all human beings, nature is a place to renew the human spirit and refresh our emotional and mental health. For people of faith, nature is the work of and a connection to a higher power. b. Nature provides wondrous places to play and recreate, to explore, to be creative, to learn and enjoy both as individuals and with our friends and families. c. The beauty and resources of the natural world are national treasures. They help define America's national heritage and character, and provide the nation with valuable and irreplaceable natural resources. d. The variety of life on Earth, its biodiversity, is both essential and inspirational for human existence. 5. Human beings are responsible for dramatic changes to ecosystems at a rate unprecedented in Earth's history. a. The growth of the human population coupled with the increased consumption of resources by individuals will increasingly impact the planet's finite resources. b. The primary human threats to the environment are global warming, habitat destruction, invasive species, and overuse of individual species. 6. We have the responsibility to care for the Earth, to leave healthy ecosystems for our families and future generations.
141 a. Due to the unprecedented changes the human species is causing on the planet, we must often intervene to save wildlife. b. Many decisions involved with caring for the Earth are extremely complex, and must take into account both human and animal needs. 7. Through informed actions, we can positively impact ecosystems. These actions include: a. Making appropriate lifestyle decisions. b. Actively participating in public decisions. c. Sharing our knowledge and feelings about wildlife and wild places. d. Supporting conservation organizations, including AZA zoos and aquariums. e. Being "informed" means considering multiple points of view. 8. Responsible zoos and aquariums strive to conserve ecosystems and promote care and positive action for the natural world. a. Responsible zoos and aquariums share knowledge, ideas and projects that empower people to take conservation action. b. Responsible zoos and aquariums are active partners in the conservation community and help further conservation efforts worldwide by seeking workable and realistic solutions to conservation problems. c. Responsible zoos and aquariums provide animal and nature experiences that engender a sense of wonder. d. Responsible zoos and aquariums disseminate valuable information about animals and the ecosystems they inhabit. e. Responsible zoos and aquariums model caring by being leaders in animal care. f. Responsible zoos and aquariums commit to serving diverse segments of human society and provide a forum for exploring and communicating different perspectives concerning the natural world.
142
APPENDIX B
Instruments for Phase I
143 Visitor Interview
Hi, I’m ______and I’m from OSU. We’re working with the zoo to talk to visitors about their zoo experience. Do you have a couple of minutes to talk.
1. Do you come to the zoo often?
2. Who did you come with today?
3. Are you members? Y N
4. Thinking about your entire visit today, what did you get out of your visit?
5. What do you think the zoo wanted you to get from your visit?
6. I’m going to show you a few statements that the zoo wanted you to get. Read each and tell me if you received that message and how. (each of the messages will be printed on cards that will be shown to the participant, one at a time)
i. There is beauty and value in nature.
ii. Extinction is happening faster than ever before.
144
iii. Human actions are causing loss of wildlife and habitats.
iv. The Columbus Zoo and Aquarium is actively involved in conservation.
v. Choices we make can help protect wildlife and their habitats.
7. Looking at these, are there any that were new to you? Did your visit reinforce any of these messages? (Here the participant will be shown all the cards again)
Thank you for your time.
145 Docent Interview
Hi, I’m ______and I’m from OSU. I’m working with the zoo to look at docent- visitor interactions. This study will be conducted in two phases. This first phase is to find out what you do.
1. In your mind, what is the role of a docent at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium (CZA)?
2. About what percentage of your time as a docent do you spend interacting with visitors at the zoo? What does this involve?
3. Are there any specific conservation messages that you seek to convey to visitors through your interactions with them. If yes, what are they, and where did you learn about these messages?
4. Do you know whether the CZA has any conservation messages that it is trying to convey to the visitor? If yes, what are they? How do you know? Are these the same as the messages you mentioned earlier?
5. Why is it important for you to communicate these conservation messages to the visitor?
(If for question 3, the messages mentioned by the participant are different from CZA’s messages, then the following question will be asked) How important is it for you to communicate CZA’s conservation messages?
Thank you for your time.
146
APPENDIX C
Instruments for Phase II
147
148
149 Visitor Interview (after observation)
Hi, I’m ______(name) and I’m from OSU. We’re working with the zoo to talk to visitors about their zoo experience. Do you have a couple of minutes to talk.
1. Tell me a little about the last place you visited.
2. What did you get from the exhibit?
3. Here are a few messages that the zoo wanted you to get from your whole visit. Did you get any of these messages at this exhibit? How?
4. I noticed you spoke to the zoo person over there. Did he/she mention any of these messages? If yes, which ones and how?
Thank you for your time.
150 Docent interview (after observation)
Hi, I’m ______(name) and I’m from OSU. I’m working with the zoo to look at docent- visitor interactions.
1. I noticed you just spoke to a few visitors. What do you think they got from this exhibit?
2. What did you talk about?
3. Did you teach them anything in particular? If yes, what?
Thank you for you time.
151
APPENDIX D
Instrument for Phase III
152 My Visit Today
Thank you for your willingness to share a little about your visit today.
I came to the zoo today … ___ by myself ___ with other adults only. ___ with children only. ___ with other adult/s and children
I am a member of the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium: Yes No
Check the statement that best represents you. ___ This is my first visit to the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium. ___ I visit this zoo at least once a year ___ I visit this zoo at least once a month ___ I visit this zoo at least once a week.
Why did you come to the zoo today ?
Below is a list of the main regions at the zoo. Check each of the areas you visited today. ___ Africa ___ Asia quest ___ Australia and the Islands ___ North America ___ The shores
Did you have a chance to talk to a zoo person (staff, keeper or docent)? Yes No
What exhibit What did you talk about? were you at?
153 Below are some of the messages that the zoo would like you to take back. Please circle the number that most closely represents your awareness of each message before and after your visit today. (1 is not at all; 10 would mean that the message was very clear)
Before After Not at Very Very Not at all clear all clear
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 There is beauty and value in nature 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extinction is happening faster than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ever before
Human actions are causing loss of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 wildlife and habitats
The Columbus Zoo and Aquarium is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 actively involved in conservation
Choices we make can help protect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 wildlife
To what extent did you get the above messages from each of the following sources? (1 is not at all; 10 would mean that the message was very clear) Very Not at all clear Animals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Signage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Exhibit lay out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Talking to zoo person 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Attending a presentation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Audio-visual presentation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
If you got any of those messages from interacting with a zoo person please describe how?
Thank you for your time.
154