Haenke_SMESthesis2016.pdf

Media

Part of Children and Conservation at Zoos: What Part Do Signs Play?

extracted text

CHILDREN AND CONSERVATION AT ZOOS:
WHAT PART DO SIGNS PLAY?

by
Sarah Haenke

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
December 2016

©2016 by Sarah Haenke. All rights reserved.

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Sarah Haenke

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by

________________________
Kathleen M. Saul MA, MES
Member of the Faculty

________________________
Dec. 12, 2016

ABSTRACT
Children and Conservation at Zoos: What Part do Signs Play?
Sarah Haenke
This thesis examines the impact that signs have on children at zoos. Specifically, I used
surveys and observations to determine if children read, understood, or otherwise
interacted with signs at the Oregon Zoo. My research team and I surveyed and observed
115 children between the ages of four and 13 about their knowledge about conservation
and sign usage. Six hundred and twelve children were observed separate from the survey
process to examine peer and familial interactions that occur at signs. I found that the
majority of children do not understand the concept of conservation, despite many of the
children surveyed visiting multiple zoos prior to the survey. Also, only approximately
10% of children observed examined zoo signs and the average time spent was under 15
seconds. This presents an interesting conundrum due to the potential for education about
conservation and the volume of visitors that zoos present. Encouraging parental
interactions at signs may lead to an increase in conservation awareness in young children.
Effective zoo signs encourage interaction, contain a small amount of text with a concise
message, are colorful, easily visible, and not in the path of foot traffic.

Table of Contents
List of Figures ............................................................................................................. V
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... VI
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 4
Informal Learning ........................................................................................................ 4
Why Focus on Children? .............................................................................................. 7
How Children Learn................................................................................................... 10
Zoos and Conservation............................................................................................... 12
How Zoos Educate Visitors ........................................................................................ 17
Focusing on Signs ...................................................................................................... 19
Methods ..................................................................................................................... 22
Study Site Selection .................................................................................................... 23
Sign Specifications ..................................................................................................... 27
Surveys ....................................................................................................................... 32
Results ....................................................................................................................... 37
Child Participant Demographics ............................................................................... 37
Answers to Questions about Child’s Beliefs about Protecting Animals and the
Environment ............................................................................................................... 40
Child Self-Reported and Observed Sign Data............................................................ 44
Predators of the Serengeti.......................................................................................... 45
Polar Bear .......................................................................................................................... 47
Condors of the Columbia .................................................................................................... 54

Observational Data of Interactions............................................................................ 57
Discussion .................................................................................................................. 62
Thesis Question Results .............................................................................................. 62
Study Sign Attractiveness ........................................................................................... 64
Additional Results ...................................................................................................... 67
Recommendations and Final Thoughts ...................................................................... 69
Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 71
Appendices ................................................................................................................ 76
Appendix A: Sign Specifications ................................................................................ 76
Appendix B: Surveys................................................................................................... 87
Appendix C: Child Observation Sheet ....................................................................... 92

iv 
 

List of Figures
Figure

Title

Page
Number

Figure 1

An Interpretive sign that Exemplifies the 3-30-3 Rule…………………….20

Figure 2

A Visual Representation of the Different Locations of Signs……………..30

Figure 3

Two Signs that Together Include Every Variable in this Thesis…………..34

Figure 4

Sign Posted on Tables Used to Attract Children…………………………..36

Figure 5

Photograph of Label used in this Study…………………………………....36

Figure 6

The Ages of All Study Participants………………………………………..39

Figure 7

The Ethnicity of All Study Participants……………………………………40

Figure 8

Study Question “Do you Think Animals Need our Help?”………………..43

Figure 9

Study Question “Is This Important?”……………………………………....44

Figure 10

Survey Question “How Can you Help?” Before and After………………..45

Figure 11

Predators of the Serengeti Study Signs and Location……………………...47

Figure 12

Polar Bear Study Signs and Location……………………………………...49

Figure 13

Condors of the Columbia Study Signs and Location……………………...56

Figure 14

Eagle Canyon Study Signs and Location………………………………….60

Figure 15

African Rainforest Study Signs and Location……………………………..60

Figure 16

Amazon Flooded Forest Study Sign and Location…………………….......61

Figure 17

Interactions at Signs Based on Age and Gender…………………………...62

Figure 18

All Study Signs with Their Sign Numbers………………………………....66

v 
 

Acknowledgements

I would first like to thank my thesis reader Kathleen Saul for her continuous support and
genuine enthusiasm. I have never met an educator so willing to help as Kathleen. Even
before she was my reader, her support, patience, knowledge, and caring nature has lead
me to success time and time again. Her door is always open and I could not have asked
for anyone better to mentor me during my thesis.
I would like to acknowledge Grant Spickelmier, Education Curator at the Oregon Zoo,
for allowing me the honor of working with such a wonderful organization. His timely
responses and flexibility were greatly appreciated.
I am eternally grateful for my two friends, and research assistants, Kennedy Krossen and
Quynnessa Kauffman for their tireless work during the hundred degree weather, endless
amounts of support and thoughtful discussions. Without their participation and input, my
surveys and observations would not have been successfully completed.
I would also like to thank my mother, Judy Haenke, and brother, Daniel Wood, for
providing me with encouragement at every hurdle during these last two years and
especially during the process of writing this thesis. I would not be where I am now if I
did not have these two in my life.
I owe my deepest gratitude to my wife, Victoria. I have always known that I can
accomplish whatever I set my mind to as long as she is with me. She assisted me with
every step, from data collection to proofreading and beyond. With her encouragement I
started my graduate career and with her patience, understanding, and gentle prodding
when necessary, I have proudly finished it.

Thank you.
Sarah Haenke

vi 

 

 

Introduction
Imagine spending an afternoon with your child at the zoo. You visit the elephants, listen
to a keeper talk about the tigers, and watch the caracals. Did you learn anything? According to
recent research, yes, you have increased your knowledge of the animals, or ecosystems,
represented at the zoo, you have a higher likelihood of reporting positive beliefs about
conservation and you may even change certain behaviors to help animals thrive (Olukole &
Gbadebo, 2008) (Haydon, 2014) (Taylor E. W., 2006). But what about your child?
Unfortunately, your child has rarely been studied in scientific research. Research that focuses on
children usually examines parent-child relationship and communications instead of the learning
of the children. This work is especially important for zoos where millions of children visit
annually.
Moss et. al., Jensen, and Randall have conducted on the effects that zoo animals and
personnel have on adult visitor’s beliefs about conservation (Moss, Jensen, & Gusset, 2014)
(Jensen, 2014) (Randall, 2012). However, little research has been completed on the importance
that zoo signs play in changing these beliefs. Signs play a unique role in a zoo environment.
Depending on the season or even the time of day, an animal may be off exhibit or asleep. Keeper
talks suffer from similar issues of not always being available. Most talks occur only in specific
areas at scheduled, intermittent times. Visitors can spend an entire visit without speaking or
listening to a talk by a zoo keeper. Signs, on the other hand, always available to visitors. Zoo
signs can inform visitors about a wide variety of topics, from animal husbandry to conservation
actions. An effective sign can get the message across in under a minute, while an ineffective sign
may not get the message across at all (U.S. Forest Service Department of Argiculture, 2015).
However, unlike talking with keepers, if a visitor doesn’t understand the message of a sign, they
1 
 

 

 

cannot ask questions or engage in conversation. People who cannot read a sign may just walk
away.
For my thesis, I examined how well children could read and understand zoo signs. I
chose to specifically focus on young children because children are rarely studied in zoo literature
(Jensen, 2014). Children can also help us evaluate if signs are overly complex. If a child is able
to read and comprehend a zoo sign then English as a Second Language (ESL) and adult visitors
should be able to comprehend it as well (Freeman, Feeney, & Moravcik, 2011). For the purpose
of this thesis I am defining children being between the ages of seven and twelve. Most seven
year olds are able to read and write which was necessary for my methods to be successful. The
upper limit of twelve is due most zoos categorizing adults as 13 or older so I am keeping in the
limits of what a zoo classifies as a child. The Oregon Zoo was chosen due to its proximity to The
Evergreen State College, its popularity (Oregon Zoo, 2015) and the work the zoo continues to do
for both children (Shaping Outcomes, 2014) and conservation (Oregon Zoo, 2015).
My previous work found that sign about conservation in zoos have an average of a 10th
grade reading level (Haenke, 2015), which may prove difficult for young children. Additionally,
Zoos are known as centers of conservation and education (Jensen, 2014) (Taylor E. W., 2006)
and I wanted to examine how much information about conservation was understood by the
visiting children. I wanted to see if there was some connection between signs and knowledge of
conservation. My research questions for this thesis are;
1) Are children, ages seven through twelve, reading the sign at the Oregon Zoo?
2) Do these children understand what they are reading?
3) Do these signs help create positive conservation beliefs in these children?

2 
 

 

 

The next chapter of this thesis will comprise a literature review. The literature review will
focus on the current scientific literature and provide background for the significance of this topic
as well as the work already completed. The first topic within that section is informal learning and
its importance in modern society. Informal learning occurs outside of formal learning
environments, such as schools, and can be as important in conveying ideas and information as
formal learning environments. Studies have examined how well informal learning occurs within
zoos, parks, and museums, with both adults and children. The thesis then shifts to examining the
current literature on children are learning. Several studies delve into how children learn within an
informal learning environment and how children can help other children, as well as adults, gain
understanding of new and complex ideas. These studies are a small portion of the literature
available and this thesis presents several arguments on why children are an important population
that needs research. The literature review veers slightly, to discuss how effective zoos are at
educating their visitors and the methods they use to communicate their unique messages. Finally,
the literature review will end with background information about signs in zoos, their purposes,
uses, and possible influence in altering the beliefs of visitors.
The Methods chapter begins with a complete walkthrough of Oregon Zoo to identify
study signs and study signs based on multiple criteria. Six separate sites were chosen. These sites
were diverse in their size, amount of signage, shape and size. From these study sites, 2-3 study
signs were selected based on multiple criteria. The second section outlines how the children were
recruited and how the two surveys, an entrance survey and an exit survey, were administered.
Over a hundred children participated in the survey. About 40% of these children engaged
with the study signs, spending about 14 seconds on average. The Results chapter goes into detail
about each of these interactions. This chapter then explains a second set of methods focusing on
3 
 

 

 

the interactions that occurred at the study signs. These methods yielded over 600 observations.
The Discussion chapter explains how the lack of interaction at the study signs is significant and
recommends ways to improve involvement.

4 
 

 

 

Literature Review
The purpose of this chapter is to delve into the current scientific literature on topics that
relate to this thesis. This chapter begins with a section on informal learning: its definition,
challenges, and benefits. The next section explains the lack of research on children in this field
and why focusing research on children is beneficial to multiple groups. Next, this chapter also
examines how children learn. The fourth section introduces zoos and explains the ways in which
they aid in conservation. This is followed by a brief explanation of how zoos can interact and
educate visitors. The chapter ends with an explanation of how effective signs are created, which
leads into the Methods chapter.
Informal Learning
Not all learning occurs within a classroom or other formal setting. Any experience that
creates a sensory-rich and meaningful experience can lead to learning (James & Bixler, 2008).
This unsystematic and unorganized type of learning, known as either informal or non-formal
learning, accounts for the majority of a person’s lifetime knowledge (Sevdalis & Skoumios,
2014). Experiences that are the base of informal learning are wide and variable, often non-verbal,
social, emotive, aesthetical and/or motivational (Rodari, 2009). Informal learning caters to the
individual’s personality, what they find interesting or moving, and focuses on the present time
and location (Taylor E. W., 2006). Crafting this type of highly emotive learning, however, can be
difficult.
The complexities of informal learning present many unique challenges. According to
Taylor, (2006), the act of active participation in learning can be one of the most difficult
challenges to overcome in informal learning. This results from the voluntary nature of informal

5 
 

 

 

learning. Distractions can also cause a person to disengage from learning (Taylor E. W., 2006).
An adult listens to a lecture about conserving polar bears at the zoo, for example. He listens and
analyzes the zoo keeper‘s speech. About halfway through the talk, he becomes disinterested and
disengages with the keeper and instead thinks about something else. The keeper shows a graphic
of current polar bear populations which catches his attention again, causing him to engage in
learning. However, the polar bears enter their enclosure which cause his children to excitedly
point and talk which distracts him from keeper’s lecture. This is an example of a single male who
has his own interests and prior knowledge.
The varied assortment of the learners is a key characteristic of informal learning and
presents another challenge. Learners have different levels of prior knowledge, experiences, skills
and ages. Young learners can present unique problems due to their smaller size and less
developed physical ability and motor skills (Taylor E. W., 2006). Going back to the example of
the polar bear lecture, the adult male listened with his three children. The youngest, a four year
old, needed to be held by her father to see the keeper but doesn’t have the vocabulary to
understand a majority of the lecture so she disengages herself and instead plays with a toy. The
middle child can understand most of the vocabulary but he is shorter than the surrounding adults
and can’t see any of the learning aids. He becomes discouraged and jumps, trying to see but
ultimately wiggles in closer, in an attempt to see the learning aids, losing much of the lecture in
the process. The oldest is intensely interested in polar bears and the conservation. She actively
listens to the keeper and is only briefly distracted by the entrance of the polar bears. The
differences between these four learners will dictate how engaged they are in the keeper’s lecture
and how much learning occurs. Even with its difficulties as described above, informal learning
can enhance overall knowledge as well as learning that occurs in formal settings (Rodari, 2009).
6 
 

 

 

Formal and informal learning are best described as two ends of the same spectrum.
Neither is better at dispensing knowledge, both will allow a for learning the same information at
the same rate (Kanhadilok & Watts, 2014), but they do have key differences. At the extreme end
of the formal learning spectrum, instructors inform a mostly uniform group of learners with no to
little feedback from the learners to the instructor (Taylor E. W., 2006). An example of this may
be some primary education classrooms, where students are of similar age, abilities, prior
knowledge, and skills are taught from a curricula where deviation by the students is limited. This
is in contrast to informal learning where instructors act more as facilitators guiding student
learning with heavy involvement from the learner. This type of heavy involvement by the
students has been shown to lead to an increase in student learning, curiosity, attention, and
willingness to observe, discuss, and question more than in formal environments (Randall, 2012)
(Baur, 2011) (Stanford, 2014) (Haydon, 2014) (Monk, 2013). Despite the differences between
formal and informal learning, most instructors agree that the two have a complementary, rather
than incompatible, relationship. Formal science curricula, for example, benefit greatly when
students have gained prior knowledge though informal learning avenues (Sevdalis & Skoumios,
2014), such as zoos or aquariums.
Museums such as zoos and aquariums, which are often referred to as living museums,
utilize informal learning to educate visitors. Although rarely studied in the United States, studies
in Europe have shown positive associations between informal learning in museums and increased
learning in visitors (Taylor E. W., 2006). Given the topics raised in scientific museums
(conservation, resource depletion, habitat loss and biodiversity, ect) the flexible structure of
informal learning helps visitors learn about complex concepts (Xanthoudaki, 2013). When
exposed to environmental programs, such as those found in museums, a person’s
7 
 

 

 

environmentally responsible awareness and behavior increases (Randall, 2012) (Skibins, Powell,
& Hallo, 2013) (Stanford, 2014) (Swanagan, 2000).
However, studies have also shown this to be difficult. As previously mentioned, visitors
come to museums with their own experiences and level of knowledge (Leinhardt, 2014) (James
& Bixler, 2008). If a person has a low level of knowledge or had negative experiences with
scientific endeavors in the past, then attempting to teach them about science in an informal
learning environment may be difficult. This can overcome by instilling confidence in the learner
(Rodari, 2009) or by presenting the information in an easily obtainable manner with concepts
and information dispersed throughout an exhibit or museum (Jant, Haden, Uttal, & Babcock,
2014) as opposed to a single deposit of highly technical knowledge.
However, most experiences in science exhibits are static (Monk, 2013), meaning that the
learner must seek out and interpret the information for themselves. Due to differences in learner
preferences and interest, different types of engagement are needed for a successful learning
experience. (Schreiber, 2013) (James & Bixler, 2008). But what is the best way to help visitors
become engaged? This thesis proposes that catering exhibits towards children greatly benefits the
potential learning that occurs within an exhibit.
Why Focus on Children?
This thesis focuses on how well children engage with, and comprehend, signs posted
throughout a zoo. Most published literature on zoos and learning within zoos features studies that
focus on adults as research subject and some exclude children entirely (Jensen, 2014). For
example, in her study on exhibit label effectiveness in UK zoos, for example, Martin separates
her study population into three groups: lone adults, two adults, and families (Martin 2012).
8 
 

 

 

Children are completely excluded in Skibins et.al’s study on charismatic megafauna’s influence
in conservation behaviors in Australian safaris and zoos where the average age of the study
group was 38 (Skibins, Powell, & Hallo, 2013). And Kanhadilok and Watts’ paper on adult
play-learning examine how children can assist adult learning. While children were not excluded
from this research they were not the focus but treated more as a variable (Kanhadilok & Watts,
2014).
As previously mentioned, an exhibit that excites and engages children will be more
accessible to a wider breadth of adults. Writing for children means creating signs that contain
simpler language, with shorter sentences, fewer abstract ideas and with a single main theme or
idea (Ho, 2000). Given these limitations it would be expected that signs designed for children
would be overly simplistic and unable to tackle difficult concepts, however, this is not the case.
Children’s literature has the ability to raise complex or sensitive subjects. Educators frequently
use children’s stories to teach students about culture, myths, and legends from other cultures and
it can ease students into sensitive topics, such as slavery, war, and poverty (Freeman, Feeney, &
Moravcik, 2011). One of the best examples is the collection of short stories known as Aesop’s
Fables. These stories rarely reach more than a page in length and contain simple, colorful
language and many editions contain bright full-paged pictures. The morals in these fables such as
‘greed destroys the source of good’ from the story “The Goose Who Laid the Golden Egg” and
‘be satisfied with what you have’ from “The Dog and His Reflection” are written as much for
children as they are for adults (Aesop, 1999).
Focusing on children may also create more effective exhibits for adults as well. Since
children have a smaller vocabulary than adults they are frequently used to test for sign
effectiveness for ESL visitors in museums (Freeman, Feeney, & Moravcik, 2011) (Aggett-Cox,
9 
 

 

 

2013). Children may become conduits to improved learning within family groups. A school-aged
child, for example, may learn about how palm oil can endanger the lives of gorillas. She rushes
home after school and explains sustainable palm oil to her older sibling and parents. Her parents,
avid gorilla enthusiasts, only buy sustainably processed palm oil and encourage others in their
peer group (siblings, cousins, friends, colleagues, ect) to do the same. Adults can also gain
knowledge by guiding children through exhibits, asking them questions, telling stories, helping
them form connections, and expanding upon the information in sign (Kanhadilok & Watts,
2014).
Children account for a majority of zoo visitors. One survey found that 74% of visitors to
a European zoo ranged between newborn and 15 years of age (Olukole & Gbadebo, 2008);
another survey found that 51% of groups that visit zoos include children (Faulk, Heimlich,, &
Foutz, 2009). In addition, within the last ten years, 12 million school aged children visited
Association of Zoos and Aquarium (AZA) accredited zoos on field trips (Randall, 2012). For
many children, specifically those living in urban areas, field trips or other visits to a zoo will be
the only time they interact with animals other than pets (Stanford, 2014).
These trips can be a great chance for informal learning to take place. To take full
advantage of the small amount of time children spend at the zoo, both during the single visit and
during their pre-adult lives, we must understand that children and adults do not learn or act in the
same ways in an informal setting, such as a zoo. Children rely on signs, learning aids, parents,
guardians, facilitators and peers to help learn (Whitehouse, et al., 2014) (Kristensen & Nielsen,
2011). Adults usually come to the zoo with a larger prior knowledge base than children. They
also have an improved vocabulary, which makes signs and keeper talks more comprehensible,
and more resources at their disposal. If, for example, an adult wanted to learn more about
10 
 

 

 

rainforest deforestation they would be able to download information, spend time at a library
doing research, or otherwise use their time and privileges as adults to acquire additional
knowledge. This is not true of children who, for the most part, do not have the same resources at
their disposal.
How Children Learn?
A child’s specific experiences, interests and prior knowledge play a pivotal role in
determining what a child learns in an informal learning setting (James & Bixler, 2008). Some of
the most powerful learning experiences occur when a child interact with his/her peers. For
example, child A (Jamie) starts work on a puzzle designed for him to move the elephants around
in their enclosures using gates. As Jamie starts to work on the puzzle, a second child (Sam)
approaches and observes Jamie. Sam then joins Jamie and the two of them start a dialogue about
the puzzle and move the pieces around in an attempt to complete it. While working together, they
chat about their own previous experiences with elephants, about puzzles similar to the one they
are completing, and asking about their work with the puzzle (Why did you move the blue one
there?).
Interactions between children have been shown to increase the learning of all of the
children involved. Students tend to be more engaged when they observe their peers interacting
with objects or learning (James & Bixler, 2008). By asking questions, specifically why, how, and
what questions, exchanging ideas, experience and solutions, both children can learn from each
other (Dooley & Welch, 2014) (Jant, Haden, Uttal, & Babcock, 2014) (Turner & Krechevsky,
2003). James and Bixler’s study found that child to child interactions occur more frequently than
child to adult interactions. They also reported that children were unaware of adults when actively

11 
 

 

 

engaged in an informal learning environment with other children. Children engage more
frequently with peers they already know, such as classmates or family members, than children
they do not know (James & Bixler, 2008). Since most children visit zoos and aquariums on
school trips or with their families, the increase in child to child interaction can boost engagement
and lead to memorable learning moments within these museums. Although children engage with
each other more than they engage with adults, the effect that adults, especially parents, have on
their children’s learning is significant.
In fact, parental interactions significantly influence what a child learns in an informal
learning environment (Nadelson, 2013). A 2014 study by Dooley and Welch examined
children’s interactions with their parents inside a children’s museum. They specifically compared
the knowledge gained by children who interacted frequently with their parents, or other
caregivers, and those who did not. They found that after two weeks children who frequently
interacted with their parents retained significantly more information than the children who did
not. (Dooley & Welch, 2014). Parents usually provide their children with a feeling of security
and familiarity which can encourages children to be more outgoing and seek out information
more freely (James & Bixler, 2008). Although the interactions between parents and their
children are unique and depend on the family structure, children usually begin the interactions by
asking questions, for company or for physical assistance. These child-led interactions then lead
to an increase in communication between parents and children (Dooley & Welch, 2014). Parents
also offer their own perspective, knowledge, and experiences to their children which can greatly
increases children’s learning (Jant, Haden, Uttal, & Babcock, 2014).

12 
 

 

 

Zoos and Conservation
Most museums specialize in a single topic. An art museum, for example, usually features
a few styles of art, painting, ceramics, and pottery, and visitors to the museum tend to be people
who like those types of art. Zoos, on the other hand, attract a much broader audience due to their
diverse appeal (Olukole & Gbadebo, 2008). Most zoos contain animals from different parts of
the world, including tiny insects and fish as well as traditional charismatic megafauna. Many
even exhibit unique plant life. Zoos may contain areas specifically catering to children, spanning
multiple outdoor acres where running and excitement are the norm. Zoos easily accommodate
hundreds to thousands of visitors at a time, from families with young children to a single adult
researching animal behavior.
Worldwide, over 1,700 million people visit just the World Association of Zoos and
Aquariums (WAZA) accredited zoos and aquariums yearly with United States making up 175
million of this figure (Braverman, 2011). The total number of visitors to zoos can be considered
higher than this figure because not all zoos and aquariums have been accredited by the WAZA.
Zoos contribute over $350 million to conservation project yearly (Fa, Gusset, Flesness, & Conde,
2014). This money goes to a multitude of different projects worldwide. The National Pollinator
Garden Network, for example, educates the public about the decline of pollinators and helps fund
schoolyard and community pollination gardens (National Pollinator Garden Network, 2015).
Another example is FrogWatch USA. This group uses volunteers in the community to count
frogs which helps researchers track population data (Association of Zoos & Aquariums, 2016).
These projects are costly endeavors for zoos because they are not publicly funded and the money
a zoo makes needs to be budgeted between the needs of the zoo (salaries, cleanliness, and
upkeep), the needs of the animals (food, veterinary care, enrichment activities), the needs of the
13 
 

 

 

visitors (facilities, water, space), and various other expenditures (breeding programs, advertising,
addition or expansion) (Junhold & Oberwemmer, 2011).
The emphasis of zoos has changed within the last few decades. Previously, recreation,
education and research were the focus of zoos but this has shifted to conservation. WAZA
accredited zoos, for example, rank conservation and educating visitors about conservations to be
some of their most vital roles (Smith, Broad, & Weiler, 2008). The change of focus can
…be attributed to many factors, including the rise of the animal rise
movement and some factions of the animal welfare movement,
the ensuing public debate about the moral justification of zoos and the
publication of the World Zoo Conservation Strategy (IUDZG/CBSG,1993),
which called for zoos to become centres (sic) of conservation. . .
(Smith, Broad, & Weiler, 2008, p. 544).

While all zoos are obligated to protect biodiversity it is a legal requirement in some countries 
(Fa, Gusset, Flesness, & Conde, 2014). The Zoo Licensing Act of 1981 covers the legality of
licensing a zoo in the UK. In 2003 this act required that zoos had to indicate how they would be
implementing a limited set of conservation measures in their zoo before they were given
licensure. Conservation measures include educating the public, practicing good animal
husbandry, breeding and, when appropriate, reintroducing animals into their native habitat
(Legislation.gov.uk, 1981). In the United States, licensing of zoos falls under two broad acts, the
Endangered Species Act and the Animal Welfare Act, neither of which require zoos to practice
any forms of conservation (Grech, 2004) (Department pf the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1973) (United States Department of Agriculture, 2013). However, the AZA, which is a
voluntary organization, does require its members to keep an up to date record of their
conservational measures, goals and outcomes (Association of Zoos & Aquariums, 2017).

14 
 

 

 

In addition to conservation measures, zoos can provide many benefits both to the general
public and to the scientific community. They offer a multitude of resources for researchers who
can use zoos to conduct research. This research may be translated into peer-reviewed journal
articles, books, technical reports, presentations (Pereboom, Leus, & Van Elsacker, 2011). One
example of a peer-reviewed journal article derived in this way examined the genetics of six
iguanas that are critically endangered. The authors had been given access to the San Diego Zoo
for breeding purposes, but the lizards may have been related. The researchers examined the
genetic variation of the six lizards to prevent inbreeding of the iguanas (Mitchell, et al., 2011).
Research departments in zoos may also offer PhD grants, or internships for graduates or
undergraduates (Pereboom, Leus, & Van Elsacker, 2011).
Animals provide entertainment for, and emotional connections with, visitors. This
connection can lead to an increase in interest about conservation and even behavior change to
help the animals (Olukole & Gbadebo, 2008) and ecosystems (Taylor E. W., 2006). Zoos offer
context for scientific learning to occur (Haydon, 2014). For example, a visitor watches a polar
bear play with an enrichment tool, such as a ball, and enjoys watching them. A nearby sign
explains the effect that the shrinking ice caps has on the survival of polar bears and the visitor,
who has formed a connection with the bear, decides to carpool to work to help decrease the
carbon dioxide emissions.
Through zoos the public can become engaged in, and excited about, wildlife
conservation and science (Jensen, 2014). Of note, an interesting study conducted by Kuhn et al.
in Germany examined how well a television program succeeded in recruiting volunteers to assist
scientists in monitoring butterflies. The television program, Adventure Butterfly, ran for three
years from 2005-2007. The researchers found that that Adventure Butterfly attracted a high
15 
 

 

 

number of volunteers. All of the volunteers had pervious knowledge about butterflies and their
taxonomy. Younger viewers and people with minimal knowledge were not interested in this
program and did not volunteer. Engagement, love and knowledge of butterflies were key to the
success of Adventure Butterfly (Kuhn, et al., 2008).
Decreases in biodiversity and habitat loss remain a cause for concern. With the present
impacts of climate change, both on ecosystems and their inhabitants, and very serious
implications of future implications, zoos play a leading role in helping conserve exotic, rare, or
endangered animals. This urgency to preserve species and ecosystems has dramatically increased
over the years (Cohn, 1992) (MacDonald & Hofer, 2011). Conservation may be the solution to
species loss and habitat degradation with education being essential for long term survival of
many species (Jensen, 2014).
Educating the public about conservation has been a major goal for zoos for over 30 years.
Most zoos also strive to educate their visitors about how their behaviors can help increase
conservation efforts. Zoos frequently encourage their visitors to donate to the zoo, or a non-profit
organization, examine and limit their consumption (of fuel, non-sustainable foodstuffs and other
products), be active politically, by voting, writing to legislators and/or signing petitions,
activities that further goals set by leaders in conservation (Swanagan, 2000). Due to their large
audiences zoos can quickly educate hundreds of people although many of these visitors will not
make changes that the zoo suggests (Jensen, 2014) (Whitehouse, et al., 2014). Many zoos
attempt to make the behavioral change easier to understand and follow through on by having
donation centers in the zoo, handing out seafood watch cards, or encouraging recycling within
the zoo grounds.

16 
 

 

 

While not all of these efforts show success after the zoo visit is over, studies have found
that zoo education has had positive results. Visitors tend to increase their knowledge about
conservation after a zoo visit regardless of the amount of prior knowledge they had (Street,
Jenkins, & Frasier, 2012). One study examined visitor attitudes from 30 different zoos and
aquariums in over 19 countries. Moss, Jensen and Gusset compared conservation knowledge in
“before” and “after” surveys distributed to 6,000 visitors across the different zoos and
aquariums. They found a 5.3% increase in visitor’s knowledge of biodiversity and an 8.3%
increase in the visitor’s understanding of how to protect an ecosystem. This change was similar
for all zoos and aquariums surveyed (Moss, Jensen, & Gusset, 2014). A similar study found that
18% of visitors became more concerned with species extinction after a single visit to a zoo
(Jensen, 2014).
Researchers see zoo personnel as experts at educating their visitors about conservation.
People can become educated about conservation in many places, but studies have found that
messages about conservation at the zoo have the largest impact (Swanagan, 2000). Also, most
zoos ally themselves with other organization to help provide resources for conservation efforts
(MacDonald & Hofer, 2011). Focusing on these achievements works well to educate adult
visitors about conservation effectively (Smith, Broad, & Weiler, 2008). The majority of signs
concerning conservation target adults; children don’t have the proper knowledge to comprehend
the conservation-related signage. Zoo personnel simply assume that children know more about
conservation than they actually do (Kristensen & Nielsen, 2011).
In my own research, I sampled signs from eleven zoos and aquarium in Washington,
Idaho, Oregon and California. Ultimately, I found that the average reading level, using the
Flesch-Kincaid reading level, for all of the sites was 10th grade, the level of a 16 year old
17 
 

 

 

teenager. Although reading levels ranged from 2nd grade to post PhD studies, the majority of
reading levels fell between 6th and 11th grade (Haenke, 2015). This not only means that young
children would not be able to understand most of the conservation related signs (which was the
basis of my study), about 13.6% of adults would not be able to comprehend these signs (United
States Census Bureau, 2014). As just discussed, researchers believe there should be an effort to
educate kids about conservation in zoos (Korpen, Bisanz, Bisanz, & Lynch, 1998) (Stanford,
2014).
How Zoos Educate Visitors
Zoo interact with visitors in three ways: through engagement with animals,
communication with keepers, and by written documents, specifically signs. In some museums,
exhibits offers a video that plays educational material. While these can be effective ways to offer
information to a lot of visitors at one time, a study completed by Nadelson found that location of
the video was very important. If the video gets played in an out of the way area visitors may not
notice and may walk by. If it is placed near the entrance, many visitors with children will be
dragged pass by the children’s excitement to see the animals (Nadelson, 2013). The most popular
places for videos tend to be those with a high animal density, such as a reptile house, though
these places may be too cramped for visitors to feel comfortable enough to watch the entire video
(Balmford, 2000). Nadelson did not specify the length of his video, but in Leinhardt (2014)
found that a 59 second video attracted visitor attention for a few seconds, on average (Leinhardt,
2014).
Regardless of how the message gets across, increasing visitor’s learning and engagement
needs to be a museum’s top priority (Nadelson, 2013). Studies, such as ones by Nadelson and

18 
 

 

 

Street, Jenkins and Frasier, have found that visitors also crave more information than what zoos
provided. These visitors left zoos feeling as if they had an incomplete understanding of
conservation. A wide variety of visitors wanted a more information about conservation due to its
importance to them personally (Street, Jenkins, & Frasier, 2012).
Gap in the Literature
Current research focuses on the effect that animals and keepers have on visitor
engagement and learning (Fa, Gusset, Flesness, & Conde, 2014) (Taylor, Sickler, Bicknell, &
Fraser, 2009) and, because of this, this thesis focuses on learning achieved through signs. Given
the prevalence of signs there needs to be more focused study into their effects on visitors. Signs
and other public displays educate zoo visitors (Whitehouse, et al., 2014) about animals, survival
issues that the animals may be facing, and how best to assist them (Tunnicliffe & Scheersoi,
2012).
However, messages about conservation are often static and adults spend the least amount
of time at these signs when compared to other sign topics (Kristensen & Nielsen, 2011). Street,
Jenkins, and Frasier have found that signs that remain positive and encouraging show the most
promise. By remaining upbeat -explaining the how much carbon is saved by walking verses
driving- rather than negative -many species become extinct each year- visitors engage with the
sign for a longer duration. Encouraging behavior change enforces the messages already in the
sign. It may also give new visitors ideas on which behaviors to change and how powerful small
changes are in the long term (Street, Jenkins, & Frasier, 2012).
Creation of effective signs may be difficult. When visitors examine a sign, they first give
their own evaluation of the sign and then, depending on their knowledge and interests and the
19 
 

 

 

specifics of the sign, they will examine the sign in more detail, question it, tell a story relating to
the information in the sign, or connect it to their current knowledge (Leinhardt, 2014). This
process equates to engagement with the material and learning.
Focusing on Signs
Most signs in zoos, aquariums or other museums follow the 3-30-3 rule. Figure 1 shows an
example of a sign
abiding by the 3-30-3
rule. This guideline
states that successful
signs have three types
of messages: The first
is a short title that can
be read within three

Figure 1: An interpretive sign that exemplifies the 3‐30‐3 rule (U.S. Forest Service Department of 
Agriculture, 2015 pg. 7)

seconds to capture the attention of a passerby.
1. If the visitor finds the title interesting, a successful sign will have several smaller, and
more detailed subheadings, which describe the specifics of the sign to entice the visitor to
continue reading the sign. These should be able to be read within 30 seconds.
2. The rest of the sign should be separated organized underneath the subheadings. This
content is the most complexed and detailed and makes up the majority of the sign. This
should take a maximum of three minutes to read.

20 
 

 

 

This guideline has been shown by the Center for Design and Interpretation Rock Mountain
Region of the U.S. Forest Service to produce the most viewership (U.S. Forest Service
Department of Argiculture, 2015).
Too much information in signs or other guides overwhelms parents, while too little not
used due to perceived lack of information (Nadelson, 2013). Good signs should be large enough
to be read from four feet away (Martin, 2012). They should be large, colorful, have graphics and
have a good location. In contrast, ineffective signs have little to no meaningful information,
contain small or hard to read text, and placed haphazardly within the exhibit (Aggett-Cox, 2013).
Signs do not equal dialogue. The message should be brief, informative, with simple language and
a low reading level (Aggett-Cox, 2013). This will ensure that visitors of all ages and education
levels can read and understand the signs.
Nadelson (2013) examined parent’s use of printed material as resources in a science
museum to promote learning and understanding throughout the museum. Museum staff created
guides and handed them out at the entrance. The study found that parents used the guides much
less than was expected and parents explained that they have little to no value. These guides
contained approximately a page of basic information covering all of the museum’s exhibits.
Visitors cited this lack of information for their disinterest (Nadelson, 2013). Capturing a visitor’s
interest is key, because visitors come museum (or zoo) because they want to be there. Because of
the informal atmosphere, visitors will only read signs that interest them based on their own
individual preferences. They will stay as long as the reading material is interesting (unless they
are distracted) (Arcand & Watzke, 2010).

21 
 

 

 

A study conducted in Liverpool examined how people learn in an outdoor informal
setting. This study set signs concerning astronomy around a library, and interviewed the visitors
as they walked through the exhibit. The authors found that visitors examined signs from 2-3
seconds to 2-3 minutes with an average of 30 seconds. Other studies have found similar results
for the average amount of time observing a sign: 60 seconds (Whitehouse, et al., 2014) and 90
seconds (Kristensen & Nielsen, 2011). The amount of time spent reading signs was longer for
larger groups and visitors stopped at the most colorful and attractive signs most frequently. This
study also examined family participation in informal learning. Family groups, as compared to
lone adults or groups containing only teenagers or adults, spent the most time examining the
exhibit, with the children asking the majority of the questions and leading conversations (Arcand
& Watzke, 2010). This finding reinforces that children and adults work off each other to
improved learning together.
Taylor et. al surveyed visitors at three zoos and two aquariums to determine what visitors
felt was important, or of interest, to include on an animal exhibit label. The most common items
on these labels, scientific name, gestation period, and location were found to be the least
engaging facts to visitors. Odd facts about the animal rated number one among visitors while
conservation status of the animal ranked a very close third (Taylor, Sickler, Bicknell, & Fraser,
2009), suggesting that a majority of visitors are interesting in learning about conservation and
more information would be welcomed. A final case study conducted by Martin examined zoo
visitor interactions with signs at three different exhibits within a single zoo. The author spent 90
minutes examining visitors as they observed the animal label within an exhibit. She found that
about 20% of visitors read the sign and did so for an average of 2-5 seconds. Martin

22 
 

 

 

recommended that further valuable information might be obtained by visitors who observed
more signs for a longer period of time, as described in the Methods section.

23 
 

 

 

Methods
The methods chapter begins with an examination of the Oregon Zoo and its approach to
educating children of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. The methods used for this research
fall into three distinct categories. The first occurred before the actual study took place. The goal
of this first section was to determine areas that were diverse in the amount of signage, the
amount of animals presented, and the size of the overall exhibit. After a thorough walkthrough of
the Oregon Zoo, seven different study sites were chosen for best matching the criteria. One of
these sites featured only one animal, one featured only a single sign, while the others varied in
signage, animal density, and the size of the overall exhibit. After the sites were chosen, every
sign was measured in multiple ways (specifics will be detailed in the methods section of this
paper) and several signs were chosen to be used as study signs.
The second part of the methods included recruiting and interviewing children before and
after they experienced the study site. Data was collected for an entire day at each site and, due to
the age of the children. There were two people, myself and a research assistant, who were
interviewed the children to, enable quick turnaround and only a brief pause from the visitor’s
enjoyment of the zoo.
The third section was done by a third research assistant. She observed the children who
participated in the study as they interacted with the study signs. The research assistant recorded
behaviors, such as the length of time the child interacted with the sign, the type of interaction,
and any discussion that occurred. These results were combined with the responses to questions
concerning the signs in the exit interview to determine how effective these signs are. The
specifics of these methods are fully outlined in the methods section of this paper.

24 
 

 

 

Study Site Selection
The Oregon Zoo, located at 4001 Southwest Canyon road in Portland Oregon, was
chosen for this thesis due to its closeness to myself and the university, its abundance of animals,
the passion for conservation and the specialized zoo programs for youth. Nearly 1.6 million
people visit the Oregon Zoo yearly making it one of the Pacific Northwest’s most popular zoos.
The zoo cares for over 2,000 animals and 1,000 unique species of plants with 59 of them
endangered or threatened species (Oregon Zoo, 2015). The Oregon Zoo has multiple
certifications notably including the AZA, ISIS (International Species Information Systems), and
WAZA. These non-profit organizations compile and share information and animal husbandry
and engage in conservation programs. The Oregon Zoo’s conservation efforts are focused on
caterpillars, turtles, butterflies, elephants and the California condor (Oregon Zoo, 2015). The zoo
also has a strong focus in education, especially the education of children. In addition to summer
camps and internships, the zoo has two unique programs that focus on youth. The first is the
Urban Nature Overnight program. This program provides children ages 8-11 with an overnight
zoo experience. This trip includes educational programs and there is no charge so children in
families of lower socioeconomic classes can participate. The second is aimed at teenagers. The
Zoo Animal Presenter program is a two year long internship. Classes run from January to June
on communication and animal husbandry and student then present this information to their
neighbors. Not only does this give teenagers work experience and knowledge, it also promotes
educational outreach to those who might not visit a zoo (Shaping Outcomes, 2014). There are
other ways that zoos can educate visitors.
An investigative walkthrough of the Oregon Zoo was completed in January 2016. The
walkthrough aimed to find be good study sites for this experiment. The site needed to meet
25 
 

 

 

several parameters to be considered a good study site. First, a site needed to have an obvious
beginning and end with only one or two exits. With only myself and two research assistants
available to monitor sites, areas that contained more than two exits could not have been used due
to the possibility of a study subject leaving without completing the exit survey. Second, study
sites needed to have sufficient room at the exit(s) for a researcher to conduct surveys. There had
to be space for the researcher, the child, the child’s family, and the equipment necessary for the
study. A third important criteria was the size of the study site. The area needed to be spacious
enough to allow researchers to move through the exhibit without feeling observed. Overly large
areas also suffered from having multiple exits or contained long stretches of paths without
signage which wasn’t conducive to this experiment. Finally, that the study sites needed to be
located in areas in different sections of the zoo. This allowed me to examine the change in
conservation knowledge not just within one study site but between various sites throughout the
zoo.
The study sites chosen for this research are described below.  
 Eagle Canyon:
This site consists of a small linear area with a single pathway that doubles back on itself towards
the exit. It contains a covered bridge, a full size replica of an eagles nest for children to play in
and a covered viewing area to observe the bald eagles. This site contains nine signs located along
the pathway, around the eagle nest replica and inside the covered observatory. Eagle Canyon is
located in the Great Northwest area of the zoo and was chosen for this research due to its small
size, the abundance of signs, and because it had enough space for researchers without restricting
flow for the zoo visitors.

26 
 

 

 

 Condors:
Condors of the Columbia is located in the Great Northwest area. This study site consists of a
single raised pathway adjacent to the family farm. There are eight signs and two covered
observational areas with ample room for research set-up on either end of the study site. This site
held special significance for species conservation due to the great recovery of the California
Condors; the signs on display explain that recovery. I felt it was important to examine the effect
the signs in this specific area have on the study participants.
 Polar Bear:
The polar bear exhibit is a long enclosed exhibit that curves around a large polar bear enclosure.
There are two exits, one connecting to the Central Plaza in the Pacific Shores section and another
that loops around and connects to the Sun Bear exhibit. This second exit contains multiple side
paths that might confuse study participants, so for the purpose of this study the exhibit ended
after the final polar bear viewing area. There are seven signs in this study site.
 Amazon Flooded Forest:
The Amazon Flooded Forest is a short straight outdoor site with multiple enclosures on one side
containing large snakes, lizards and fish, sakis and turtles. This study site contains nine signs and
a small play area located away from main walkway.
 Predators of the Serengeti:
The Predators of the Serengeti, located in the Africa area, is the largest of the selected study
sites. It is an enclosed circular area with animal enclosures on both sides of the walkway,
housing cheetahs, African wild dogs, lions, and caracals. A small room inside the enclosure that
holds several small animals and some African artifacts. There are two exits located close

27 
 

 

 

together so that both survey researchers can be within speaking distance of each other. There are
39 signs located throughout the study site.
 Indoor African Rainforest:
This area is in the Rainforest Plaza of the Africa area of the Oregon zoo. This study site includes
an indoor exhibit and an outdoor enclosure. The animals in the outdoor enclosure, birds
including ducks and flamingos, are separated from the visiting public by a wooden fence. The
indoor enclosure featured animals, from a small toad and gecko to the larger crocodile and Nile
monitor, remains hot and humid, with animals on either side. This exhibit includes 14 signs.
There were two specific areas that were considered but, in the end, were not chosen as
study sites. The first was the new Elephant Lands which opened winter of 2015 however, it was
too large to study. The second area, the Aviary located in the Africa area of the zoo, consisted of
a small enclosed area with a single sign. During the investigative walkthrough, the sign was
formatted to resemble a book, with birds in the aviary appearing on a separate page. The unique
structure and placement of this sign resulted in the site being chosen as a study site. However,
after a sample survey that occurred in March 2016, the zoo replaced the sign with a simple sign
with bird names, both common and scientific, and a picture of the bird. Since this was drastically
different from the original sign the study site was eliminated.

28 
 

 

 

Sign Specifications
After a study site was selected, I took multiple pictures of every sign in the study site.
Several sign specifications, including sign location, size and height, reading level, text
percentage and visual impression, were also noted.
Sign Location
Whether or not a sign is observed and engages visitors depends, even to the smallest degree,
on location (Aggett-Cox, 2013). In this study, sign location was determined based on the sign’s
relation to the animal’s enclosure, if the person viewing was standing directly in front of the
enclosure. Please see figure 2 for a visual representation of sign location.
 On:
Signs located on the glass of the animals’ viewing area. Several enclosures did not have a glass
separation between the visitor and the animal. In these cases, a sign was considered to be ‘on’ if
it fell between the viewer and the exhibit.
 Near:
Signs that could be viewed easily by a visitor in front of an enclosure without rotating their head
90° or more. Most of these signs were placed next to the viewing area within a few inches to a
foot of the front of the enclosure.
 Adjacent:
Signs that were on adjoining walls (or other physical barrier such as a post) to the viewing area.
 Across:
Signs that lie on the wall opposite of the viewing area for the animal.
29 
 

 

 

 Away:
Signs that could not be seen while standing at a viewing area. Most of these signs did not discuss
information about the animals, but about the ecosystem or environment that the animals
inhabited.
 Inside:
There was only a single sign in the Oregon zoo that qualified as inside of the exhibit and that was
the Aviary sign. The Aviary exhibit allowed visitors to roam the same area as the birds without
barriers. Due to this special exhibit layout inside signs were accessible to both visitors and
animals.

Figure 2: A visual representation of the different location of signs 

30 
 

 

 

Sign Size and Height
The length and width of every sign was measured to the nearest 0.5 centimeter. For signs
with an unusual shape, containing a curved side or with protrusions (such as a ruler) for example,
the longest horizontal or vertical straight line was measured. The sign height, from the bottom of
the sign to the ground, was also measured. Potential error in these measurements. Many of these
signs were situated on dirt, making it difficult to ascertain the ground level. Because of this, the
sign height was only measured to the nearest centimeter.
Reading Level
I transcribed the content of every sign included in this study. These transcriptions were
sent through a word and syllable counter (Text Statistics Projects, 2016) which counted the
number of sentences per sign, words per sentence, average syllable per word, and calculated the
Flesch-Kincaid grade reading level. The U.S. Department of Defense uses this scale due to its
effectiveness and popularity as a readability scale. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Readability
Formula remains the basis for determing readability for government issued technical manuals as
well as books used in schools for education (DuBay, 2004). This scale allowed me to convert
the text of the signs into distinct categories of difficulty, and compare those against the age of
study participants. I manually calculated two signs, the first and last of the study signs using the
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability Formula [Reading Age = (0.39 x average sentence
length) + (11.8 x average number of syllable per word) – 15.59] (Paz, Liu, Fongwa, Morales, &
Hays, 2009) to validate the online counter.

31 
 

 

 

Percentage of Text
A photographic image of every sign was loaded onto Adobe Fireworks CS6. Using this
software, researchers placed a 10 by 10 graph on top of the image so that 100 equal squares were
spread across the picture. This allowed the percentage of text per sign to be calculated by
counting the number of squares with text and dividing by 100. A square was considered to have
text in it if it contained more than three letters or if the text covered one-fourth or more of the
square. In many cases, the signs were not square and alteration of the graph was necessary to
cover the image thoroughly and accurately. The Fireworks software is able to manipulate the
graph to cover the image even if the photograph is skewed or at an angle, so that every square
would contain the correct percentage of the image. A few signs had very abnormal shapes, a
wave for example, and the graph was not able to be manipulated to this shape. For these cases,
the graph conformed to the image as close as possible, the shape was often a rectangle, and then
the percentage of text was calculated by taking the number of squares that had text and dividing
by the number of squares that contained part of the sign.
Visual Impression
This section proved to be the most challenging to define. Aggett-Cox (2013) found that
signs with more pictures, colors and designs, engage visitors more than bland signs (Aggett-Cox,
2013). Still, which characteristics of an attractive sign make it engaging? The following rubric
was developed after the walkthrough. A sign was deemed more engaging if it contained:
 Photographic Images;
 Charts/Infographics/Maps;
 Artistic Depictions;
32 
 

 

 

 Varied Text Size/Font/Colors;
 Interesting Shape of Sign;
 Color:
Most of the coloration on a sign was made from photographic images, charts, or artistic
depictions. Color, in this section, refers to a single color that was separate from the other
variables. In most cases, one color would be the background of the sign with words and images
pasted on top of it.
 Layers:
Each separate structure that made the sign further from the wall it was attached to. For example,
one sign featured a picture of an eagle (1st layer) with a ruler attached in front of the wingspan
(2nd layer) to show the size and encourage visitors to measure their own wingspan.
 Texture/Material:
Each separate textural element that was used in the creation of the sign. For example, a plastic
picture of a caracal (1st material) with a wooden from around it (2nd material) and a piece of
caracal fur attached to it (3rd material).

33 
 

 

 

Figure 3 shows two signs reflecting a number of these variables.

Figure 3:  Two signs that together include every variable that was included in this study.

Surveys
The research surveys were accepted by the Evergreen State College Human Subjects
Review Board and the Oregon Zoo board. The main questions on the entrance survey included:









How old are you?
What is your gender?
Have you been to a zoo or aquarium before?
Who are you visiting the zoo with today?
What are you excited about seeing at the zoo today?
Do you think that animals need our help?
Is this important? Why?
Can you do anything to help?

The exit survey included the following:
34 
 

 

 

 What does the word “Conservation” mean to you?
 How can you help animals or the places they live?
 Referencing a study sign:
o Do you remember looking at this sign?
o About how long did you look at this sign?
o Why were you interested in this sign?
o Did you read this sign?
o Do you remember what this sign was about?
These surveys, as well as the Informed Consent Form, are included in appendix B.

One survey was completed before the child entered the exhibit and one after. The two
surveys were created by referencing similar surveys in the published research (Arcandt and
Watzke 2010) (Haden, Babcock, and Uttal 2014) (Olukole and Gbadobo 2008) (James and
Bixler 2008) (Jenson 2014) (Whitehouse et.al 2014) (Marino et al. 2010).
During the research children had to initiate the interaction, however if a child appeared
interested in the study we would reach out to them with a simple greeting (See Figure 4). If a
child expressed interest, the research was explained to both guardian and child. If both agreed to
participate, the child was given an entrance survey to fill out and the guardian filled out a consent
form. After signing the consent form the guardian was offered a copy, although most declined.
Each child filled out an entrance survey. Researchers encouraged honest answers,
reassuring the child that “there are no right or wrong answers”. Sometimes a child would ask for
assistance, or a guardian would ask to write for the child for various reasons. In these cases we
considered it appropriate for the guardian to assist the child as long as the input came from the
child. Researchers recorded if the guardian wrote without consulting the child, or wrote
something different than the child responded. Many parents wrote for their child if the child was
slow at writing or embarrassed because he/she did not know how to spell a word correctly.
35 
 

 

 

After the child
finished the entrance
survey they were given a
label for identification
for the observer and the
exit survey researcher. This

Figure 4: Sign posted on tables used to attract children.

label consisted of a letter written on a small rectangular wooden tag in either blue or red as
shown in Figure 5. This tag was worn around the neck with a piece of bright green yarn. This
letter-color combination was also written in four places, the consent form, the entrance survey,
the observation sheet, and the exit survey. This better
facilitated matching the documents later. The time
was also written on the entrance survey at the
approximate time the child finished the entrance
survey was also noted. The entrance survey usually
took between 2 to 5 minutes, although one child took
10 minutes to complete it.
An observer watched the children as they
Figure 5: Photograph of Label used in this Study

interacted with the signs, paying close attention to
how long they interacted with it and with whom. If a child did not look at a sign, they were
considered to have passed it. Between 1 and 5 seconds was considered a glance. Anything longer
was written down specifically. The observer also wrote down anecdotal observations that might
be pertinent to the research. She also recorded the label code (red or blue) and approximate time
the child arrived at the signs to help match the observations to the child’s surveys response.
36 
 

 

 

When a child reached the exit table a researcher took their tag. Their label code and the
approximate time were written on the survey before it was handed to the child to fill out. Again,
if a child or guardian requested, the guardian could fill out the exit survey for the child. During
the second section of the exit survey, the child was briefly shown a picture of the signs in the
exhibit. The writing on these pictures had been blurred so a child filling out the survey couldn’t
read them to obtain answers and instead needed to use their own memory of the sign in the
exhibit. Exit surveys took a wider range of time to finish than entrance surveys, depending on
how much the child wanted to write or draw and how much they remembered about a sign. In
order to help establish the child’s credibility in filling out surveys, we combined all three sets of
data, comparing the observational and exit survey data.
The research occurred on August 17-19. The first day was spent at the Predators of the
Serengeti exhibit, with single table stationed in the middle of loop. Three researchers
administered both entrance and exit surveys. A fourth researcher completed observations as
previously explained. The second day spent was at the Polar Bear exhibit, with two tables
stationed one at either end of the exhibit. One researcher sat at each table and a third alternated
between the tables, assisting whichever table had the most need at the time. Again, the fourth
researcher spent the day observing. The third day was spent at the Condors of the Columbia
exhibit. The table setup was the same as the Polar Bear exhibit. Approximately 4-5 hours was
spent at each exhibit.
At the end of each day the four sets of data (the consent form, the entrance survey, the
exit survey and the observations) combined into groups by child. The researchers read and
discussed answers in order to:

37 
 

 

 

 Gain a better understanding of any problems that were occurring in the process
 To see if there were any cursory relationships between what was written and what was
observed.
 To ensure that the questions were getting desirable results.

After the third day, we concluded that we were not obtaining new answers to our
questions. The surveys were originally planned to continue for three additional days at three
alternate sites, but, considering the lack of variety in the answers, it didn’t seem like the best use
of the time. Also, there seemed to be an interesting development occurring that couldn’t be
captured on the survey: parent and child interaction and child to child interaction. Observational
data had captured this information both at the signs and during the different surveys but the
surveys themselves did not.
New methods were discussed between the researchers and it was decided that focusing on
child’s interactions with their guardians and other children would give more compelling
information than what was already collected.
Because the surveys were on a volunteer basis, we were missing out on children who
either were not interested in completing a survey or, mostly the case, had guardians who didn’t
allow their child to participate. It was decided that the researchers would observe a child as they
wandered throughout the exhibit and mark if they: looked at the sign and for how long, had any
interactions around the sign with an emphasis on who was initiating the interaction. The gender
of child and guardian was also recorded (as shown in appendix C). Once a child had exited the
exhibit area, the next child (or children if they were in a family group) was observed. I used an N
of 100. This occurred on August 21st with about 5-6 hours of observation.

38 
 

 

 

Results
 

The Results chapter is comprised of four sections. I begin with a detailed look into the
demographics of my study participants, including age, gender, ethnicity, group composition, and
previous zoo visits. The next section focuses on the children’s answer to the questions about their
beliefs and general level of knowledge. I coded the answers for each question using identical
codes when possible. Some questions required a unique set of codes and this information is
provided in more detail in the respective section. The third section is the longest and most indepth. I examined each child’s answers to the sign related questions and compared this
information with the observational data. The final section is focused on the collected
observational data on interactions between children and the adults and peers in their group.
Child Participant Demographics
One hundred fifteen child
13

participants included their age on the

14

4

5

12

6

entrance survey forms. The age range of
11

7

these children was four and 14 years

AGES

with 85% of children falling into the 712 year age range. Figure 6 displays the

10

age range of participants in the study.
9

8

The numbers in the pie wedges represent
the ages of the children. Children

Figure 6: The Ages of All Study Participants 

39 
 

 

 

younger than 7 were allowed to participate in the survey as long as they were able to read and
write down their answers.
The majority of children were female -61% female verses 49% male- with two children
not disclosing their gender. The question of ethnicity was the only question that I asked parents
to answer for their children and it was located on the consent agreement (See Figure 7). Twenty
children, making up 18% of the study group, had undisclosed ethnicities. Parents reported most
of the children, 75 individuals or 67%, as Caucasian. Only 17 children were reported as being
another ethnicity with seven children listed as Hispanic/Caucasian, two Asian, two Hispanic, and
two Islander. Only one child fell into the other ethnicities categories: Black, Native American,
Hispanic/Native American/Caucasian, and Native American/Asian/Caucasian.

Children's Ethnicity
Asian
Black
Undisclosed 

Hispanic
Islander
Native 
American/Asian/
Caucasian

Other

Caucasian

Hispanic/Caucasian

Hispanic/Native 
American/Caucasian
Native 
American

Figure 7: The Ethnicity of All Study Participants

All but nine of the children had previous experiences with an aquarium or zoo with 41
children visiting the Oregon Zoo on a previous occasion. Other popular zoos and aquariums were

40 
 

 

 

the Newport Aquarium, (nine children), San Diego Zoo, (10 children), Woodland Park Zoo, (9),
Seaside Aquarium, (6), and the Seattle Aquarium, (7). Most children had visited zoos in nearby
states, including Washington, Idaho and California, but a few had been to zoos on the east coast,
Alaska, and Canada. Thirty three children had visited one previous zoo or aquarium.
Specifically, 20 children reported to have visited two, 16 reported to have visited three, five
children visited 4 zoos previously and one child had visited six zoo previous to my study.
I analyzed the composition of the group with which the children came to the zoo, as
reported by the children on their entrance survey. I separated all possible relations into two
groups, guardians (mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, grandparents) and peers (older and younger
siblings, cousins, and friends). When comparing parents specifically, 39 children had both their
mother and father present with them at the zoo. Five children were alone with their mothers at
the zoo while 33 had their mothers in groups with others (but those other did not include their
father). Only two children were at the zoo alone with their fathers and 16 children reported a
father (but not mother) as part of a group. Aunts and/or uncles were present in 23 groups and
served as the primary guardian for ten children. Nineteen groups included grandparents and for
eight children those grandparents acted as them. When looking at the children’s peers, I
examined how many children were in groups that contained older and younger siblings, cousins
and friends. Nine groups that contained both an older and younger sibling while 37 contained a
younger sibling and 17 had an older one. Twenty-six groups contained cousins and the same
number contained friends of the survey participants.

41 
 

 

 

Answers to Questions about Child’s Beliefs about Protecting Animals and the Environment
This section analyses the answers to four sets of questions that appeared on both the
entrance and the exit survey forms. These questions were not sign-related; a large box on the
form permitted the child to either write or draw a picture in response to each question. I coded
the first two questions in the same manner. Both sets started with a question that child could
answer either “Yes”, “No”, or “I don’t know”. A follow-up question allowed the child to express
their specific thoughts and I coded responses to those questions. The following list explains the
codes that I used for these questions, the first line is the name of the code followed by a dash
which separates it from its abbreviation (which is used in graphs later in this section). Following
the second dash is a quote given by a study participant that exemplifies the code. The codes used
for the first two question sets included:
“Do you think that animals need our help?” and “Do you think this is important?”










I Don’t Know - IDK
Conservation Status – CS – “Some of them are endangered and need our help”
Habitat loss/Destruction – HL – “Polar bear’s ice is melting”
Poor Health – PH – “They can die of sickness”
Restricted Access to Food – RAF - “They need help with food”
Need Help General – NHG – “Some can’t help themselves”
Connectedness to the Environment – CE – “Because I love them”
Nonsense in Context – NC – “You good”
Other – Other – Viewpoints in the minority so it is difficult into a category – “Zoos are
not good for animals because they don't run around as much as they are used to”

42 
 

 

 

The first question set asked the children to answer the question “Do you think that animals
need our help?” Ninety children stated that they agreed with this statement while four disagreed
and 19 answered “I don’t know”. The children were asked to explain their answers, which are
plotted on Figure 8. The most common answer to this question, with 35 children, was the “I
don’t know”.

40

Twenty-three

35
30

answered
with the
“conservation

RESPONSES

children

25
20
15
10
5

status”.

0

Seventeen
responded

IDK

CS

HL

PH

NHG

CE

NC

RAF

Other

"DO YOU THINK ANIMALS NEED OUR HELP?"
Figure 8: Study Question "Do you Think Animals Need our Help?" 

with “habitat loss or destructions” and 11 with “poor health”. The other response categories
came up less frequently by under ten children each.
The next question set asked children if they believed in the importance of help animals.
The answers are shown in figure 9. Most children answered “Yes”, with only one child
disagreeing with the statement. The rest of the children, a total of 33, answered “I Don’t Know”.
This amount of “I Don’t Know” statement is almost twice as high as the first question which I
feel  indicates some child didn’t understand the question. The next part of this question set,

43 
 

 

 

asking for an explanation, supports this hypothesis “I Don’t Know” appeared in 41 of the
45

children’s responses.

RESPONSES

40
35

This is twice as much

30

as the next highest

25

answer, “Need Help

20
15

General”.

10

“Conservation

5

Status”, “Habitat

0
IDK

NHG

CS

HL
CE
NC
"IS THIS IMPORTANT?"

Other

RAF

PH

Loss/Destruction”,

Figure 9: Study Question "Is This Important?"

and “Connectedness to the
Environment” received 15, 14, and 11 responses respectively. Figure 7 shows a visual
representation of these answers.
One question appeared on both surveys to determine if a change in belief occurred between
the two surveys. In the entrance survey this question was posed as “Can you do anything to
help?” and on the exit survey it was “How can you help animals or the places they live?” At first
these were coded using the following codes:












I Don’t Know – IDK
Stop Littering – SL – “Don’t trash the places they live”
Donate Money – DM – “[Put] change in machines for animals”
Non Descriptive Answer – NDA “Yes”
No Hunting – NH – Don’t hunt endangered creatures”
Nonsense in Context – NC – “25 years or 100 years”
Give Food – GF – “Feed them”
Restore Habitats- RH – “Clean up dirty places”
Raise Awareness/Political Actions – RA – “Tell other people how great animals are”
Being Environmentally Conscious – EC – “Reduce greenhouse gases”

44 
 

 

 

 Other – Other – Viewpoints in the minority so it is difficult into a category – “Hunt
coyotes”
 Improving Zoo Animals’ Standard of Living – ZSL – “Buy supplies for all the animals to
play with”

As you can see

"How Can You Help?" Before and After

from the Figure 10
the amount of “I
Don’t Know” and
“Non Descriptive
Answers”, declined
IDK

SL

DM

NDA

NH

NC
Before

GF

RH

After

Figure 10: Survey Question "How can you Help?" Before and After 

RA

EC

ZSL

Other

between the
entrance and exit
survey. “Being

Environmentally Conscious” ideas also increased in the exit survey. Twenty-five children who
answered “I Don’t Know” in the entrance survey question gave a definite answer in the exit
survey. Twenty-eight children gave a definite answer in the entrance survey but gave a different
definite answer in the exit survey, such as changing from “Give Food” to “Donate Money” Code.
Some of these changes did seem to be influenced by the signs. The Condors of the Columbia
exhibit featured a sign that explained that adults fed litter to their offspring which could be lethal.
This sign was viewed frequently and children did change their answer to “Stop Littering”.
Another example occurred during the Polar Bear exhibit where one child changed his answer
from “Maybe” to “Save the polar bears from the melting ice blocks” which is the specific content
a study sign in that exhibit. The majority of children, 39, did not change the type of answer in
some cases writing “I’ve already answered that question” in the exit survey. There were also ten
45 
 

 

 

children who changed their answer from a definite answer in the beginning to an “I Don’t Know”
in the exit survey.
The following codes were used for the question “What does conservation mean to you?”









IDK – I don’t know
C- Conversation – “To talk to someone about something”
D – Definition – “It means to conserve”
NDA – Non Descriptive Answers – “Doing something”
CR – Conserving Resources – “To save energy”
RH – Restoring Habitat – “To preserve parts of our world for animals”
HA – Helping Animals – “Saving Animals”
Other - Other – Viewpoints in the minority so it is difficult into a category “Conservative”


An overwhelming majority of the children’s responses, 65% or 66 children was “I don’t
know”. “Definitions” was the next highest with twelve responses, “Non Descriptive Answers”
with eight, “Conversation” with five, “Other” with four, “Conserving Resources” with three and
“Restoring Habitats only received a single response. Many children were observed to have a
problem recognizing the word Conservation and even many of the parents appeared to struggle.
In one case, a child asked their parent what that word, conservation, was. The parent replied that
the word was conversation. A researcher did correct the parent to ensure the child knew the
correct word. This misunderstanding did not seem to be an isolate incident as parents seemed
unable to assist their children with this question.
Child Self-Reported and Observed Sign Data
A comparison of self-reported data and observational data revealed that child selfreported data may not be as accurate as first hoped. Many children reported observing and
spending “Two minutes” at a sign. However, observations included a good number of the
children passed by all of the study signs. I decided to look at the answers of the children who
46 
 

 

 

were observed to interact with the signs. I also wanted to look at the reliability of the selfreporting by comparing the number of children that said they looked at sign and the number of
children actually observed to interact with signs.
Predators of the Serengeti

Sign 1 

Sign 2 

 
 
 
Figure 11: Predators of the Serengeti Study Signs and Location

47 
 

 

 

Out of the 32 completed surveys only 6 children, all Caucasian, were observed interacting with
signs. Figure 11 contains the locations of the signs, the research tables, and the observer area.
Child 1: This seven year old male reported that he did not observe either sign, although
he did report that he spent “very little time” at the first sign. He also reported that he read all of
it, although he didn’t remember what it was about. The observer indicated he spent eight seconds
at Sign 1. At this sign, he had a conversation with his mother:
Child: *Pointing at the sign* “This is a hyena”
Parent: *Reading sign* “No, that’s an African Painted Dog.”
Child: “It’s the same thing”
Parent: “No, they’re different.”

Child 2: This seven year old female reported that she saw the second sign only and
reports that she spent an “average amount of time” at this sign. She was interested in this sign
because “It teaches you not to kill animals and help them”. She could correctly remember what
the sign was about. The observer reported that she merely gazed at the sign while walking
through the exhibit. Child 2 indicated on her entrance survey that she had been to a zoo or
aquarium previously but did not indicate which one. There is a possibility that she examined this
Sign on a prior occasion.
Child 3: This five year old male reported only seeing the first sign. He spent “very little
time” at this sign because the sign had images that “looked like dogs”. The observer reported that
he passed this sign and instead spent three seconds at the second sign before being distracted by
an interactive phone. His mother was observed shooing him through the exhibit.
Child 4: This seven year old male reported seeing neither sign. The observer saw him
touching the second sign for about four seconds.
48 
 

 

 

Child 5 and 6: Child 5 was a four year old male and Child 6 was his six year old sister.
Child 5 reported to seeing neither sign. Child 6 reported to only seeing the second sign. She
spent a “little amount of time” at this sign. She did not read it because “the words were too
small” yet she correctly remembered the content of the sign. The observer saw Child 5 spending
1:02 with his father reading the sign to him. Child 6 joined Child 5 for about half of this time.
Polar Bear

Sign 3 

Sign 5 

Sign 4 

Figure 12: Polar Bear Study Signs and Locations 

49 
 

 

 

This exhibit proved more difficult to observe. The three study signs in this exhibit were
spread apart: Signs 3 and 5 were in the same enclosure whereas Sign 4 was around a slight
corner as shown in Figure 12. The fourth sign attracted a lot of attention, making it even more
difficult to observe the children. Out of 36 completed surveys for this exhibit 20 children
interacted with at least one sign.
Child 7: This twelve year old Caucasian female reported that she spent “an average
amount” of time at the third sign, “a very long time” at the fourth and “little time” at the fifth
sign. She was interested in these signs because she was “curious”. She reported reading all of the
fourth sign and some of the other two. Still, child 7 couldn’t remember what the third sign was
about, but correctly recalled the content of the other two signs were about. The observer reported
that she passed the third sign, and glanced at the fifth sign. She spent 43 seconds at the fourth
sign measuring both herself and her father.
Child 8: This eight year old Caucasian male reported spending “little time” on sign 3, “an
average amount” at Sign 4 and passing the fifth sign. He was not interested in the third sign and
although he reported reading some of the sign he couldn’t recall its content. He was interested in
the fourth sign “because I like to see how tall I am” but he didn’t read it. He also couldn’t
correctly recall what it was about. He spent 15 seconds at the fourth sign and passed the other
two. The observer noted that he seemed nervous of her.
Child 9: Child 9, a twelve year old Caucasian male, reported seeing only the fourth sign.
He spent “an average amount” with this sign and was interested in it due to “the different sizes.”
He read some of it and correctly recalled the sign’s contents. He actually spent nine seconds at
the fourth sign and passed the other two. The observer also noted an interaction between Child 9

50 
 

 

 

and a younger female child (either a sister or a cousin). The younger child was interested in the
third but he told her “You can’t read”.
Child 10: This child was a six year old Caucasian male. He reported spending “an
average amount” of time at the third sign (reading all of it), “a long time” at the second sign
(reading some of it), and “an average amount” at the final sign (reading none of it). He was
interested in the third sign because he wanted to “learn about the environment” although he
couldn’t specifically recall the sign’s contents. He was interested in measuring himself at the
fourth sign and he correctly recalled the content of the sign. Sign 5 was interesting to him
because of the globe, but he “didn’t have time” to read it. In contrast to the child’s self-reported
behavior, the observer reported that he passed the third sign and touched the globe at the fourth
sign as he passed. He spent six seconds at the fifth sign.
Child 11: Child 11 was a nine year old Caucasian male. He reported spending “very little
time” at the fourth sign, “little time” at the fifth sign and passing the third sign. He was not
interested in any sign although he could not articulate why, and he did not read either of the signs
he saw. He actually passed both signs 3 and 4 and spent 10 seconds at the fifth sign.
Child 12: This eleven year old Caucasian female reported spending “little time” at signs 3
and 4, and “an average amount” at sign 5. She was interested in the third sign because it moved
and did not read it because she was “turning them the same way”. Child 12 was observed to
spend 53 seconds at this sign turning all of the numbers to the front and straightening out the
signs. She recalled that the sign was about “helping the environment” but didn’t list anything
specific. She was interested in the fourth sign “because it showed how tall the type of bear was”
and correctly recalled the contents of this sign. Child 12 reported that she didn’t know why she

51 
 

 

 

was interested in the fifth sign and only read some. She incorrectly recalled what the sign was
about (“it showed where the polar bears live”). She actually passed the second sign and spent 6
seconds at the third.
Child 13 and 14: Child 13 was an eleven year old Caucasian male and child 14 was his
eight year old Caucasian sister who both reported seeing all three of the signs. Child 13 reported
spending “an average amount” at the third sign because his “mom was reading it” and read all of
it. He recalled the basics of the sign, but couldn’t recall anything specific. He reported spending
“an average amount” at the fourth sign, reading some of it, and but incorrectly recalled the
content “conservation”. (I found it interesting that he wrote conservation specifically. In his exit
survey, he reported that to him conservation meant “save”) He reported spending “very little
time” at the fifth sign because his “family was leaving”. Child 14 spent “little time” at the third
sign because she “wanted to see the answer”, she read some of it and reported the sign was
“about cars”. The content of one of the signs focused on driving less by using other modes of
transportation. Interestingly, only she and one other child, Child 23, could recall anything
specific about that sign. She reported spending “an average amount” at the fourth sign, reading
all of it and could correctly recall its contents. Child 14 reported spending “very little time” at the
last sign because she “wasn’t interested”. The observer recorded that Child 13 and 14 read the
third sign together. Child 13 spent 10 seconds at sign 4 and walked by sign 5 while briefly
touching the globe. Child 14 spent 19 seconds at the fourth sign and passed sign 5.
Child 15: This seven year old Caucasian female reported seeing all three signs. She spent
“very little time” at the third sign, did not read it and couldn’t articulate why. She spent “a very
long time” at sign 4 “because it has my favorite animal. I was interested in how tall I am”. She
read all of it and could correctly identify the sign’s content. Child 15 spent “very little time” at
52 
 

 

 

the fifth sign but she did not read it. She was interested in it because “it has part of a globe”. She
was observed interacting with sign 4 for 19 seconds and passed the other two signs.
Child 16: Child 16 was a ten year old Caucasian female. She reported that she saw and
interacted with signs 3 and 4. She spent “very little time” at sign 3 and did not read it. She spent
more time at the fourth sign, “an average amount,” and read some of it. Child 16 reported not
remembering what she had read. She reported not seeing the fifth sign at all. The observer
reported that she passed signs 3 and 4 and spent 41 seconds at the fifth sign.
Child 17: This child was an eleven year old Caucasian female. She reported spending
time at each sign, “little time” at the third sign, “an average amount” at the fourth sign, and “little
time” at the fifth sign. The third sign interested Child 17 because “it said 10 things you can do”,
but she didn’t read it because she was distracted by the polar bears. She reported to have read all
of sign 4 and correctly recalled the sign’s content. “The graphic of the visual of the globe” drew
her to the fifth sign and, although she reported to have only read some of the sign, she correctly
recalled the content was about “the decrease of ice in the pole”. Her answers on her exit survey
showed that she did seem to pick up some knowledge (Can you help question – “I don’t know”
verses “reduce greenhouse gases”). She actually passed by the third sign, spent fourteen seconds
at the fourth sign, and nine seconds at the fifth.
Child 18: Child 18 was a nine year old Caucasian male who reported observing each
sign. At the third sign, he reported spending “an average amount” and reading the whole sign
although he incorrectly recalled the sign’s content. He reported spending “an average amount” at
the fourth sign but did not read or recall the sign’s content. He reported spending “very little
time” at the fifth sign but couldn’t recall the sign’s content. The observer reported that child 18

53 
 

 

 

spent 58 second at the third sign and seven seconds at the fifth sign. His mother went through the
signs with him.
Child 19: This child was a seven year old Asian/Caucasian male distinctive in that he had
not visited a zoo before. He reported observing the third and fourth signs, spending “very little
time” at the third and “an average amount” at the fourth. He was drawn to the signs “because I
like to learn”. Although he reported that he read some of both signs, he couldn’t recall the
content of either sign. He actually spent 27 seconds at the third sign with his father. Due to the
crowds the observer was not able to see his interactions with the fourth sign, but he did pass the
fifth sign.
Child 20: This eight year old Caucasian male reported that he observed all three signs. He
reported spending “very little time” at each sign but cited his love of animals as to why he was
interested in them. He did not read the third sign. The child reported reading all of sign 4 and
correctly recalled the content. He read some of the fifth sign and recalled the sign was about “the
ice … shrinking”. The observer reported that Child 20 passed the third sign and spent 33 seconds
at the fifth sign, touching the globe multiple times. He also spent time at the fourth sign, but due
to the crowded area, no specific time was recorded.
Child 21: Child 21 was an eight year old Caucasian female who reported observing all
three signs. She spent “little time” at the third sign and reported reading some of the sign
although she could not remember the content of the sign. She spent “an average amount” at the
fourth sign, read all of it, and correctly recalled the content of the sign. Child 21 reported that she
spent “very little time” at the fifth sign and did not read it. The observer reported that she spent
eight seconds at the fourth sign and passed the third and fifth sign.

54 
 

 

 

Child 22: This ten year old female of undisclosed ethnicity reported observing only the
fifth sign. She wrote that she spent “very little time” there but did not read it. The observer
reported that she passed the third sign and spent 8 seconds at sign 4 and 5.
Child 23: Child 23 was nine year old male of undisclosed ethnicity who reported
observing only the third and fifth sign. He spent “very little time” at the third sign and reported
reading some of the content. He specifically recalled that the sign’s content included information
about how to “recycle”. He reported spending “an average amount” at the fifth sign but
incorrectly wrote that the sign’s content was about “where they (polar bears) live”. The observer
reported that Child 23 passed signs 3 and 4 and spent 21 seconds at sign 5.
Child 24: This eleven year old black male reported interacting with signs 4 and 5. He
reported that he was interested in the fourth sign because he wanted “to see how big the bears
were and try to estimate how much they eat”. He reported reading all of the sign although he
incorrectly recalled the sign’s content. Child 24 reported spending “very little time” at the fifth
sign but did not read it because he wasn’t interested in it. The observer reported that he passed
signs 3 and 4 and spent 33 seconds at the fifth sign.
Child 25: Child 25, an eight year old Caucasian female, reported spending “very little
time” at signs 4 and 5. She correctly recalled the content of sign 4 although she reported that she
did not read it. She did not read sign 5 because she wasn’t interested in it although she could not
articulate the specific reason. She actually passed the third and fourth sign and spent 4 seconds at
the fifth sign.
Child 26: This child was a twelve year old Caucasian male. He reported seeing signs 4
and 5 although he did not specify a time for either sign. He reported reading some of the fourth
sign and was able to correctly recall the content. He was interested in the fifth sign because “it
55 
 

 

 

shows where polar bears live” and correctly recalled that the content was “…what’s happening to
their home”. The observer reported that he passed signs 3 and 4 and he stood next to sign 5 for
eleven seconds.
Condors of the Columbia

Sign 6 
Sign 7 

Figure 13: Condors of the Columbia Study Signs and Location 

56 
 

 

 

Out of the 31 children that completed the survey 14 were observed to have interacted
with the study signs. Due to the smaller area of the exhibit the observer easily observed both
signs simultaneously as shown in Figure 13.
Child 27: This child, a seven year old Caucasian female, reported seeing both study signs
but spent “very little time” and read neither of them. Despite recording not reading sign 6, she
correctly described the content of the sign as “they feed their babies garbage if they found it”.
The observer noted that the child asked “What are these mom?” and touched and discussed sign
6 for 31 seconds. She also looked at a sign neighboring the seventh sign, but did not interact with
the seventh sign.
Child 28: This child is a seven year old Caucasian female who reported that she didn’t
see either sign. The observer reported that the child’s guardian talked with the child about both
signs.
Child 29: Child 29 is a seven year old Caucasian child with an undisclosed gender. They
reported seeing both signs but spending minimal time at each, “very little time”, while reading
some of the sixth sign and none of the seventh one. They were unable to recall the content of the
seventh sign. The observer reported that they spent 15 seconds at the sixth sign and 30 seconds at
the seventh.
Child 30 and 31: Both Child 30, a nine year old Islander female and Child 31, her seven
year old Islander sister, reported seeing neither sign although the observer reported that these
children both passed sign 6 but glanced at the seventh sign.
Child 32, 33, and 34: These siblings, a twelve year old Caucasian female (Child 32), a ten
year old Caucasian female (Child 33), and a nine year old Caucasian male (Child 34) reported
57 
 

 

 

seeing the sixth sign but not the seventh sign. Child 32 reported that she spent “an average
amount” at sign 6 and did not read the sign. Child 33 also reported not reading this sign although
she reported spending only “very little time”. Child 32 reported reading all of the sixth sign and
recalled the contents were about “trash”. These children spent 30 seconds at sign 6 with their
mother, although Child 32 was on her phone during this time. This group stopped at sign 7 for 23
seconds but it seemed to the observer that they were reading the adjacent sign.
Child 35: Child 35 was an eight year old Caucasian male who reported seeing the sixth
sign and spending “an average amount” of time with it. He reported reading all of the sign and
correctly recalled the sign “showed that condors pick up trash but trash can kill chicks”. The
observer reported that he passed both signs, but returned and walked through the exhibit twice.
He eventually spent 15 seconds at the sixth sign.
Child 36: This ten year old male of undisclosed ethnicity reported spending “little time”
at the sixth sign and not seeing the seventh sign. He did not read this sign, however, because “I
didn’t want to read”. He actually spent 27 seconds at the sixth sign and passed the seventh sign.
Child 37: Child 37, an eight year old Hispanic and Caucasian male, reported that he did
not see either sign. The observed reported that he glanced at the sixth sign and passed the
seventh.
Child 38: This eleven year old Caucasian female reported seeing only the sixth sign. She
spent “very little time” at this sign “because it had garbage in it” but did not read it “because I
wanted to look at the animals”. The observer reported that the guardian spent time with the child
talking about the signs.

58 
 

 

 

Child 39: Child 39 was a seven year old Caucasian female who reported that she did not
see either sign. The observer reported that she passed the sixth sign and glanced at the seventh
sign.
Child 40: The final child was an eight year old Caucasian female who reported only
seeing the sixth sign. She spent “very little time” at the sign because “my dad told me to look at
it”. She reported to have read some of the sign, but could not recall the sign’s content. The
observer reported that the child talked with the parents about the sign for 39 seconds. She
recorded that the parents, mother and father, were instructive. The child did pass the seventh
sign.
To summarize, only 40 out of the 99 children observed the study signs and spent on
average 14 seconds at these signs. Children interacted with, and spent more time at, the study
signs when their guardians spent time at the signs with them. However, these children had
similar amount of recall as children who did not have parental interactions at the study signs. It’s
also worth noting that there was not a lot of racial diversity in this group of children; only 5 of
these study participants are not Caucasian.
Observational Data of Interactions
For this section, the signs were analyzed separately to determine how many children
passed, glanced, or interacted at a specific sign. The interactions were combined and analyzed.

59 
 

 

 

Sign 9 

Sign 8 

Figure 14: Eagle Canyon Study Signs and Location

Sign 10

Figure 15: African Rainforest Study Signs and Location 

Sign 11

60 
 

 

 

Sign 12 

Sign 13 

Figure 16: Amazon Flooded Forest Study Signs and Location 

A majority of children passed signs without looking at them. The composting sign in the
Rainforest area, Sign 10 in Figure 15, received glances from only six children. The gecko sign,
Sign 11 of the same figure, in the Rainforest area received more attention, with glances from
eleven children and a single child spending 5.6 seconds interacting with the sign. The two signs
in the Amazon Flooded Forest, the orangutan and saki signs, received similar attention. The saki
sign, Sign 12 in Figure 16, attracted glances from 36 children and five children spent more time
interacting with the sign, an average of 11 seconds. The orangutan, Sign 13, sign was unusual,
due to its placement within the exhibit, and no one interacted with it. It only received glances
from two children; 68 children skipped the area entirely. The final area, Eagle Canyon, contained
two study signs as shown in Figure 14. Sign 8, the eagle nest sign, received nine glances. Two
61 
 

 

 

children spent more time with these signs, one spending 15 seconds and the other spending 7.
The last sign was the most attractive to children. The ruler sign, Sign 9, received 29 glances with
30 children spending more time interacting with this sign, an average time of 18 seconds.
Out of the 612 children observed during this segment of the study, 68 interacted at the
study signs. These interactions were coded into four categories and counted. The first code,
‘interacted with sign’ was applied to any interaction where one person encouraged interaction
with the sign. Another, ‘moved away from sign’ applied when one person either physical
removed the other, or called their attention away from the sign. ‘Attempted interaction but was
ignored’ was used when one person interacted with a sign and encouraged another to join in the
interaction but was denied. Results were coded ‘no engagement’ when the people neared the sign
but did not engage with it. This occurred mainly with the Eagle Canyon eagle nest sign where
children would climb on the sign to reach the rocks above it.
Female guardians instigated the majority of interactions that occurred at these signs, as
represented in the graph by ‘FG’ (Please see Figure 17). The graph shows the four codes of
interactions:

Interactions at Signs

interaction is
‘interacted with
sign’, attempted is
‘attempted
interaction but was
ignored’, and
movement is

FC/FC

FC/FG

FC/MC
Interaction

FG/FC

FG/MC

Attempted

MC/FC MC/MC MC/MG MG/FC MG/MC
Movement

No Engagement

Figure 17: Interactions at Sign based on Age and Gender 

‘moved away from
62 
 

 

 

sign’. This graph also shows who interacted with whom based on code order with the first being
the initiator. Child to child interactions (FC, female child, and MC, male child) were usually
positive in nature and encouraged interaction with the signs. Some children were observed to
read the sign and pass on the knowledge they obtained, such as the physical differences between
the genders of the sakis, to their peers. All groups ‘interacted with sign’ but only two groups, the
FC/FG and FG/MC, attempted interaction but was ignored’ sign.

63 
 

 

 

Discussion
Now that that you have finished reading my results I can move on to discussing my
findings. But first, let me remind you what my original thesis questions were: 1. Are children,
ages seven through twelve, reading the signs at the Oregon Zoo? 2. Are they understanding what
they are reading? 3. Do these signs help create positive conservation beliefs in children? For each
of these questions the answer is a resounding no.
Thesis Question Results
 

To begin with children within my chosen age group are not reading zoo signs. Out of the

99 children that completely filled out both surveys, less than half of them saw a study sign within
the study sites. In the second experiment, only 38 children spent more than 5 seconds looking at
the study signs. Even then, the average reading time was only 14 seconds. Though I focused on a
few signs, my researchers and I observed children, both included and excluded in my thesis,
walk pass sign in a similar fashion to my findings. While there are some exhibits that contained
items, such as a mock jeep and a telephone, which captured many children’s interest these are the
minority and most signs are ignored. Because of the general apathy most children have for the
signs I feel that I can generalize my findings throughout all of the zoo’s signs.
My second question focuses on children that have read the signs to see if they have
gained or retained any content related knowledge. I only included children that were observed
interacting with the signs. There were children that had visited the Oregon Zoo on previous
occasions, about 45% of children surveyed, and I questioned whether these children could have
remembered the signs from a previous visit even though they were observed to have passed the
signs during the study. Further analysis showed that this was not the case. The answers that

64 
 

 

 

children gave to my exit survey showed two main things: children did not remember the content
or they remembered it incorrectly. In the instances where a child could correctly recall a sign’s
content I saw two main trends. Either the content of the sign was simple, for example listing off
five different types of bears and their heights, or the child had incomplete recall. This was
usually the case for the more complex but interactive signs. The best example of this was the
second study sign at the polar bear exhibit. The sign’s content focused on the melting ice caps
due to climate change with anthropogenic causes as an aside. Of the few children that could
recall this sign’s content, they could remember that it was about “melting ice caps” but nothing
more.
The findings for my final question, concerning children’s knowledge of conservation, is
somewhat surprising. My previous research had led me to the assumption that the answers to my
first two questions would be negative so my findings seem to coincide with what I had
previously hypothesized. Even so, I expected that children would have some understanding of
conservation. However, my results show that not only do children not know what conservation
means, but it seems that parents don’t either. Considering that approximately half of the children
surveyed had visited the Oregon Zoo on a previous occasion, and the majority had visited two or
more other zoos, it is upsetting to see that children do not have even a simple understanding of
conservation. I see these results as a sign that a greater effort needs to be placed on encouraging
children to learn about conservation and related topics. This is important and the need obviously
is not being met.

65 
 

 

 

Study Sign Attractiveness
Not every study sign received the same amount of attention. In this section I explain
which signs were the most popular and give my explanation of what made a sign attractive or
not. These explanations are based on survey answers and observational data. Figure 18 shows all
study signs with their sign number for reference.

Sign 3 
Sign 1 
Sign 2 

Sign 7 
Sign 6 
Sign 4 

Sign 5 

Sign 10 
Sign 9 

Sign 8 

Sign 11 

Sign 13 
Sign 12 

Figure 18: All Study Signs with Their Sign Numbers 

66 
 

 

 

Sign 1 received very little interaction which did cause some confusion as other signs that
were similar in color and text, such as Sign 12, attracted more children. Many children did not go
to look at the African wild dogs because the animals were not active in their exhibit. The sign’s
location, next to the African wild dog viewing area, may have been the reason why Sign 1 was
not as attractive. Sign 2 also attracted little attention. This sign was large in size however the
multiple paragraphs were written in small, dense text.
Sign 3 proved moderately attractive. It was short, concise and interactive and many
children and adults were observed flipping the signs around. However, many visitors walked by
this sign due to its location. The polar bear observation area across from it drew many visitors
away from Sign 3. The Zoo Teen cart, a mobile interactive cart that often contains furs or other
items related to the exhibit’s animals, was often located across from this sign which further
attracted visitors away from it.
Sign 4 attracted the most attention. This sign’s bright colors and short and concise text
proved to be interactive and engaging. Visitors of multiple age groups were observed measuring
themselves or taking pictures of friends or family.
Sign 5 was unpopular due to its large sections of dense and complicated text. Many
children wrote that they were disappointed that the globe would not spin, indicating that the sign
would have been more popular had it been interactive. Observational data showed similar results:
children would approach Sign 5 and touch the globe before leaving without spending more time
with the sign.
Sign 6 proved to be very attractive to children. The location, inside of a viewing area,
was usually uncrowded. Sign 6 contained identifiable trash which was effective at engaging
67 
 

 

 

children and the text contained simple and concise wording. The sign proved difficult to read
from a distance due to its small size.
Sign 7 was unattractive to children due to several factors. The complex text is written in a
small font and it may have been intimidating to visitors due to the complexity of the graph. Sign
7’s location on a walkway may have pressured visitors to continue walking so they did not
impede foot traffic.
Sign 8 did not attract a lot of attention from children. It is located next to a replica eagle
nest for children to play in, which guardians often took picture of, which may have caused the
sign to be overlooked. Often children would play in the nest and then run off to see the eagles
without looking at the sign. Some guardians were seen reading this sign to children but this sign
was mostly used as a ledge to climb up the rocks it was posted on.
Sign 9 received a lot of attention from children and adults. The interactive nature of this
sign provided the opportunity for children and adults to measure their ‘wingspan’ and take
photographs. Sign 9 is also concise and very visual and was located in the viewing area for the
eagles. Some children didn’t enter the observation deck because they thought that the deck was
for official use only, however this was a minority.
Signs 10 and 11 did not receive much attention due in part to the exhibit. The Indoor
African Rainforest exhibit is one of the smaller exhibits and becomes cramped with a group of
visitors. It is also hot and humid which can become uncomfortable which caused several groups
to bypass it. The signs themselves are very small. Sign 10 is also dark and contains one dense
block of text. Its specific location, on the corner of a decorative outcropping, makes reading the

68 
 

 

 

sign awkward and puts the visitor in the flow of foot traffic. Sign 11’s position is much more
open than Sign 10 and the sign itself is more simplistic and concise.
Sign 12 was attractive to children due to its location in the exhibit and its design. Sign 12
is located below the glass viewing area on the saki exhibit which allowed it to be viewed by
anyone observing the animals. This sign also has multiple small groups of text and graphics.
Many children examined this sign and talked about the differences between the male and female
saki.
Sign 13 received the least amount of attention mainly due to its location: on a forked path
away from the main exhibit and tucked away behind some bamboo. The area itself only
contained jungle bars for children to play on and many people bypassed the area completely.
Sign 13 blended into the background with muted colors and small dense text.
To summarize, popular signs were located in areas next to viewing areas and not in the
paths of foot traffic. They were colorful, concise and contained a small amount of text. These
signs also encouraged interaction and engaged the visitors. These criteria all proved to be critical
determinants in a sign’s attractiveness.
Additional Results
This thesis led to some noteworthy findings aside from the ones that I was specifically
testing for. First, I found that there are specific types of sign that attract more attention both from
children and adults. As previously stated, these were signs that encouraged interaction. When I
first began this thesis I chose my study signs based on their differences in what I believed would
make a sign more accessible to children, reading level, amount of colors, location and size, to
name a few (this is outlined in my methods chapter). However, whether or not the sign was
69 
 

 

 

interactive was not a variable that I had taken into account. So, while I can say that interactive
signs are more attractive, I will have to complete further research to determine which types of
interactive signs are the most effective.
Child self-reported data is not reliable. The difference between what a child said they did
and what they were observed doing was so severe that most of the answers were in question. I
don’t feel that this was done intentionally. I feel that our child participants felt pressured to
answer the questions positively possibly due to the presence of friends and family, although I
can’t be sure because that is beyond this thesis’ scope. Due to the inaccuracy with child selfreported data I highly recommend observing children when during surveys.
Another interesting finding is that female adults initiate the majority of interactions with
the children in their group. Our surveys did find that there were more adult females than adult
males within groups of participants, however, there was only an approximate 2:1 female to male
ratio. I found that the amount of interactions initiated by adult females was much higher than this
ratio at nearly 4x as many interactions. This is obviously significant but outside the scope of this
paper. I have gathered cursory information about the amount of female initiated interactions, but
more research is needed to make a real world recommendation.
While children have interests all their own, I found that it is the parents who dictate what
a child will interact with and for how long. This control took many guises, from physically
pulling children who were interested in our survey tables away and around a corner, to pushing a
clearly uninterested child to complete the survey (I want to note that a survey was not done with
a child who had not given his or her consent). This parental control could be both positive and
helpful, adults holding children to better see the animal, reading signs to very young children,

70 
 

 

 

explaining ideas and words and connecting it to the child’s life. During one entrance survey a
mother reminded a child that she had donated her birthday money to an animal rescue to help her
answer one of the questions. The child had previously not thought of donation as a way to assist
animals but, with her mother’s help, she was able to connect the two ideas. However, our group
also observed many negative examples of parental control. In one scenario, four children started
the entrance survey with their mother/aunt giving permission. She became upset at the time the
survey was taking and, although the children were excited about completing the survey, the
guardian hurried them through the exhibit and told them “no, just give back the tags and let’s
go.” Another example of this occurred when a young female wanted to start the survey and a
researcher overheard the following:
Child: “I want to do the survey”
Adult: “No, let’s go.”
Child: “But I like science.”
Adult: “No, you don’t like science.”
It is clear that a parent’s influence on a child is immediate and more powerful than any other
single factor found during the entire survey.
Recommendations and Final Thoughts
I recommend further study. Specifically, the participants in the study were mostly
Caucasian, so studies that included zoos with a more diverse population would be valuable. Also,
observing the children during the first study was difficult because if more than one child was at a
sign the single observing researcher could not fully concentrate on either child. Additional
researchers would also have been beneficial in order to more closely observe the children, which
matches recommendations made in Nadelson’s study on parental engagement with children at a
science center (Nadelson 2013).
71 
 

 

 

Overall, zoos have an amazing opportunity to reach out to children and educated them
about conservation, habitat restoration, and sustainability but this message isn’t being transmitted
to them as well as it should. I have found that the children’s guardians play a crucial role in
encouraging learning. Signs have potential but, as they are now, are not optimized to encourage
interactions between the adults and children and the signs. With an emphasis on interaction and
short, simple messages, signs could prove to be an invaluable asset in education.
 
 

72 
 

 

 

Bibliography
Aesop. (1999). The Classic Treasury of Aesop's Fables. Philadelphia: Running Press.
Aggett-Cox, G. (2013). Where do I Begin? Starting an Education Department from Scratch. IZE
Journal, 5-8.
Arcand, K., & Watzke, M. (2010). Bringing the universe to the street. A preliminary look at
informal learning implications for a large-scale non-traditional science outreach project.
International School for Advanced Studies, 1-13.
Association of Zoos & Aquariums. (2016, November 2). FrogWatch USA. Retrieved from
Animals & Conservation: https://www.aza.org/frogwatch
Association of Zoos & Aquariums. (2017). The Accreditation Questionnaire (application) .
Retrieved from Association of Zoos & Aquariums:
https://www.aza.org/assets/2332/accreditation_questionnaire_application.doc
Balmford, A. (2000). Separating Fact from Artifact in Analyses of Zoo Visitor Preferences.
Conservation Biology, 1193-1195.
Baur, B. (2011). Basel Zoo and its Native Biodiveristy Between the Enclousures: A New
Stragety of Cooperation with Academic Institutions. Interational Zoo Yearbook, 48-54.
Braverman, I. (2011). Looking at Zoos. Cultural Studies, 809-842.
Cohn, J. (1992). Decisions at the Zoo. BioScience , 654-659.
Department pf the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1973). Endangered Species Act of
1973. Washinton D.C.
Dooley, C. M., & Welch, M. M. (2014). Nature of Interactions Among Young Children and
Adult Caregivers in a Children's Museum. Early Childhood Educ J, 125-132.
DuBay, W. H. (2004). The Principles of Readability. Costa Mesa: Impact Information.
Fa, J., Gusset, M., Flesness, N., & Conde, D. (2014). Zoos Have Yet to Unveil Their Full
Conservation Potential. Animal Conservation, 97-100.
Faulk, J., H. J., & Foutz, S. (2009). Free-Choice Learning and the Environment. Lanham:
AltaMira Press.
Freeman, N., Feeney, S., & Moravcik, E. (2011). Enjoy a Good Story; Why We Use Children's
Literature When Teaching Adults. Early Childhood Educ J, 1-5.
Grech, K. (2004). Overview of the Laws Affecting Zoos. Retrieved from Animal Legal &
Historical Center: https://www.animallaw.info/article/overview-laws-affecting-zoos
73 
 

 

 

Haenke, S. (2015, August 26). Exposing Sustainability and Conservation to Children. Olympia,
Washington.
Haydon, R. (2014). Defining and Articulating the Quality of Learning Zoos. IZE Journal, 53-55.
Ho, L. (2000). Children's Literature in Adult Education. Children's Literature in Education, 259271.
James, J. J., & Bixler, R. D. (2008). Children's Role in Meaning Making Through Their
Participation in an Enviornmental Education Program. The Journal of Enviornmental
Education, 44-59.
Jant, E., Haden, C., Uttal, D., & Babcock, E. (2014). Conversation and Object Manipulation
Influence Children's Learning in a Museum. Child Development, 2029-2045.
Jensen, E. (2014). Evaluating Children's Conservation Biology Learning at the Zoo.
Conservation Biology, 1004-1011.
Junhold, J., & Oberwemmer, F. (2011). How are Animal Keeping and Conservation Philosophy
of Zoos Affected by Climate Change. International Zoo Yearbook, 99-107.
Kanhadilok, P., & Watts, M. (2014). Adult play-learning: Observing informal family education
at a science museum. Studies in the Education of Adults, 23-41.
Korpen, C., Bisanz, G., Bisanz, J., & Lynch, M. (1998). Chart: A Tool for Surveying Young
Children's Opportunties to Learn About Science Outside of School. Ottawa: Canadian
Social Science and Humanities Research Council.
Kristensen, J. L., & Nielsen, K. (2011). Exploring Soci-linguistic Context of Children's Learning
About Great Ape Conseration in a Zoo. IZE Journal, 10-15.
Kuhn, E., Feldmann, R., Harpke, A., Hirneisen, N., Musche, M., Leopold, P., & Settele, J.
(2008). Getting the Public Involved in Butterfly Conservation: Lessons Learned From a
New Monitoring Scheme in Germany. Isreal Journal of Ecology & Evolution, 89-103.
Legislation.gov.uk. (1981, July 27). Zoo Licensing Act of 1981. Retrieved from The National
Archives: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/37#commentary-c1021662
Leinhardt, G. (2014). Museums, Conservations, and Learning. Revista Colombiana de
Psicología, 13-33.
MacDonald, A., & Hofer, H. (2011). Editorial: Research in Zoos. International Zoo Yearbook, 16.
Martin, R. (2012). A Study of Public Education in Zoos with Emphasis on Exhibit Labels. IZE
Journal, 55-60.
74 
 

 

 

Mitchell, A. A., Lau, J., Chemnick, L. G., Thompson, E. A., Alberts, A. C., Ryder, O. A., &
Gerber, G. P. (2011). Using microsatellite diversity in wild Anegada iguanas (Cyclura
pinguis) to establish relatedness in a captive breeding group of critically endangered
species. Conservation Genetics, 771-781.
Monk, D. F. (2013). John Dewey and Adult Learning in Museums. Adult Learning, 63-71.
Moss, A., Jensen, E., & Gusset, M. (2014). Zoo Visits Boost Biodiversity Literacy. Nature, 186.
Nadelson, L. S. (2013). Who Is Watching and Who Is Playing: Parental Engagement with
Children at a Hands-On Science Center. The Journal of Educational Research, 478-484.
National Pollinator Garden Network. (2015, June 3). National Pollinator Garden Network
Luanches Million Pollinator Garden Challenge. Retrieved from National Pollinator
Garden Network: http://millionpollinatorgardens.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/06/NPGN_PressRelease_06032015.pdf
Olukole, T. O., & Gbadebo, O. S. (2008). Patterns of Visits and Impacts of Zoo Animals on
Visitors. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 237249.
Oregon Zoo. (2015, October 2). About. Retrieved from Oregon Zoo:
http://www.oregonzoo.org/about
Oregon Zoo. (2015, November 10). Conserve. Retrieved from Oregon Zoo:
http://www.oregonzoo.org/conserve
Paz, S., Liu, H., Fongwa, M., Morales, L., & Hays, R. (2009). Readability Estimates for
Commonly Used Health-Related Quality of Life Surveys. Quality of Life Research , 889900.
Pereboom, J., Leus, K., & Van Elsacker, L. (2011). Pro Natura et Scientia: zoo research at the
Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp. International Zoo Yearbook, 38-47.
Randall, T. (2012). Assessment of Change in Conservation Attitudes Through Zoo and
Aquarium Education. IZE Journal, 13-17.
Rodari, P. (2009). Learning science in informal enviornments: people, places and pursuits. A
review by the US National Science Council. Journal of Science Communication, 1-5.
Schreiber, J. (2013). Informal Enviornments. The Journal of Educational Research, 421-422.
Sevdalis, C., & Skoumios, M. (2014). Non-formal and Informal Science Learning: Teacher's
Conceptions. The International Journal of Science and Society, 13-25.

75 
 

 

 

Shaping Outcomes. (2014). Oregon Zoo's ZAP & UNO Expansion. Shaping Outcomes Cases, 19.
Skibins, J., Powell, R., & Hallo, J. (2013). Charisma and Conservation: Charismatic Megafauna's
Influence on Safari and Zoo Tourist's Pro-Conservation Behaviors. Biodivers Conserv ,
959-982.
Smith, L., Broad, S., & Weiler, B. (2008). A Closer Examination of the Impact of Zoo Visits on
Visitor Behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 544-562.
Stanford, A. (2014). Can I Touch It?: Zoo Program Impacts. IZE Journal, 64-67.
Street, B., Jenkins, J., & Frasier, J. (2012). Research on Visitor Receptiveness to Conservation
Messaging and its Impact on Exhibit Design. IZE Journal, 60-63.
Swanagan, J. (2000). Factors Influencing Zoo Visitor Conservation Attitudes and Behaviors. The
Journal of Enviornmental Education, 26-31.
Taylor, A., Sickler, J., Bicknell, J., & Fraser, J. (2009). What Information Do Zoo & Aquarium
Visitors Want on Animal Identification Labels? Journal of Interpretation Research, 7-19.
Taylor, E. W. (2006). Making Meaning of Local Nonformal Education: Pracitioner's Perspective.
Adult Education Quarterly, 291-307.
Text Statistics Projects. (2016, January 29). Readability-Score. Retrieved from ReadabilityScore: https://readability-score.com/
Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Scheersoi, A. (2012). Voices in Zoos and Aquariums . IZE Journal, 23-26.
Turner, T., & Krechevsky, M. (2003). Who are the Teachers? Who are the Learners?
Educational Leadership, 40-43.
U.S. Forest Service Department of Argiculture. (2015, December 6). Outdoor Interpretive Signs.
Retrieved from Lews and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation:
http://lewisandclark.org/grants/docs/NFS_Interpretive_Sign_Design_Steps.pdf
United States Census Bureau. (2014). Selection Social Characteristics in the United States 20102014 American Community Survey . Retrieved from American FactFinder:
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_1
4_5YR_DP02&prodType=table
United States Department of Agriculture. (2013). Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare
Regulations.

76 
 

 

 

Whitehouse, J., Waller, B. C., Wallace, E., Schel, A., Peirce, K., Mtichell, H., . . . Slocombe, K.
(2014). Evaluation of Public Engagement Activities to Promote Science in a Zoo
Enviornment. Plos One, 1-14.
Xanthoudaki, M. (2013). Reflecting on the role of informal learning and visitor experience in
science museums. Journal of Science Communication, 1-2.
 

77 
 

 

 

Appendices
Appendix A: Sign specifications for signs at study sites at the Oregon Zoo. Highlighted sign numbers 
indicate a selected sign.  

Location
Sign #
Location
Size cm
Height cm
Reading Level
Percentage of Text
Percentage of Text
Photographic Images
Charts/infographics
Artistic Depictions
Varied Text Size/Font

4

5

Near

Near

Across

58,34.5

23,12.5

58.5,34

122,150.5

129

88

111

120

0

6.6

6.8

2

5.3

10.8

52

31

24

26

17

52

28

22

24

15

1

0

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

3

2

2

3

4

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Colors
Layers
Texture/Material
Location

1

0

0

0

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Sign #

6

7

8

9

10

On

On

On

On

On

61,12.5

61,13

185,10

61,13

61, 13

Height cm

106

106

106

106

106

Reading Level

3.8

7.5

7.3

6.4

4.8

Percentage of Text

20

23

28

28

47

Percentage of Text

18

21

25

25

43

Photographic Images

2

1

1

1

1

Charts/infographics

0

0

0

0

0

Artistic Depictions

0

0

0

0

0

Varied Text Size/Font

2

2

2

3

2

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Colors

1

1

1

0

1

Layers

1

1

1

1

1

Texture/Material

1

1

1

1

1

Shape of Sign

Location
Size cm

Shape of Sign

1

2

Near

Near

22*12.5

Indoor African/ bird
3

Indoor African/ bird

78 
 

 

 

 

Location

Indoor African/ bird
11

12

13

14

Near

Near

Near

Near

23,12.5

58,34

23.5,12.5

58.5,34

Height cm

126

85

113

105

Reading Level

16.3

6.9

6.6

6.5

Percentage of Text

12

35

32

23

Percentage of Text

11

32

29

21

Photographic Images

1

0

0

1

Charts/infographics

0

0

0

1

Artistic Depictions

0

1

1

0

Varied Text Size/Font

3

3

3

2

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Colors

1

1

0

0

Layers

1

1

1

1

Texture/Material

1

1

1

1

Sign #
Location
Size cm

Shape of Sign

Location

Aviary
1

2

3

4

5

Inside

Inside

Inside

Inside

Inside

26,21.5

26,21.5

26,21.5

26,21.5

26,21.5

Height cm

81

81

81

81

81

Reading Level

7.3

6.5

7

6.1

7.8

Percentage of Text

44

50

34

44

33

Percentage of Text

40

45

31

40

30

Photographic Images

1

1

2

1

1

Charts/infographics

1

1

1

1

1

Artistic Depictions

1

1

0

1

1

Varied Text Size/Font

5

5

5

5

5

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Colors

0

0

0

0

0

Layers

1

1

1

1

1

Texture/Material

1

1

1

1

1

Sign #
Location
Size cm

Shape of Sign

 

79 
 

 

 

 

Location

Aviary
6

7

8

9

Inside

Inside

Inside

Inside

26,21.5

26,21.5

26,21.5

26,21.5

Height cm

81

81

81

81

Reading Level

7

10.2

7.4

6

Percentage of Text

34

32

33

29

Percentage of Text

31

29

30

26

Photographic Images

1

1

2

2

Charts/infographics

1

1

1

1

Artistic Depictions

1

1

0

0

Varied Text Size/Font

5

5

5

5

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Colors

0

0

0

0

Layers

1

1

1

1

Texture/Material

1

1

1

1

Sign #
Location
Size cm

Shape of Sign

Location

Predators of the Serengti
1

2

3

4

5

Location

Away

Near

Near

Near

Across

Size cm

34,44

32.5,52

62,16

87,63

66.5,64

Height cm

110

132

110

109

97

Reading Level

2.3

11.8

7.1

7.2

6.5

Percentage of Text

30

36

50

32

22

Percentage of Text

27

33

45

29

20

Photographic Images

0

1

1

2

2

Charts/infographics

0

0

0

0

0

Artistic Depictions

1

0

0

0

0

Varied Text Size/Font

2

6

6

5

4

Rectangular

Rectangular

Unusual

Unusual

Colors

Slanted
Rectangluar
0

1

1

1

0

Layers

1

1

2

4

4

Texture/Material

1

1

1

2

2

Sign #

Shape of Sign

 
80 
 

 

 

 

Location

Predators of the Serengti
6

7

8

9

10

Location

Across

Adjacent

Adjacent

Near

Near

Size cm

108,102

124,77

75, 37

104,60

86,59

Height cm

78

90

80

91

104

Reading Level

4.1

8.5

7.1

8.8

6.4

Percentage of Text

40

17

22

35

30

Percentage of Text

36

15

20

32

27

Photographic Images

5

1

2

2

1

Charts/infographics

0

1

0

0

0

Artistic Depictions

0

0

0

6

0

Varied Text Size/Font

7

4

4

9

5

Unusual

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Colors

1

1

0

2

1

Layers

4

3

4

3

3

Texture/Material

2

3

3

3

2

Sign #

Shape of Sign

Location

Predators of the Serengeti
11

12

13

14

15

Location

Adjacent

Adjacent

Across

Adjacent

Near

Size cm

68.5,67

40,60

48,86

58.5,51.5

51,20

Height cm

89

109

148

111

88

Reading Level

5.9

5.9

2.5

5

8.2

Percentage of Text

21

36

29

29

29

Percentage of Text

19

33

26

26

26

Photographic Images

4

1

1

1

1

Charts/infographics

0

0

0

0

0

Artistic Depictions

0

0

0

0

0

Varied Text Size/Font

4

3

3

2

3

Unusual

Rectangular

Unusual

Rectangular

Rectangular

Colors

1

3

1

1

2

Layers

5

3

4

3

1

Texture/Material

2

2

3

2

1

Sign #

Shape of Sign

 

81 
 

 

 

 

Location

Predators of the Serengeti
16

17

18

19

20

Near

Near

Near

Adjacent

Away

51,20.5

51,21

51,20

37.5,60

80,50.5

Height cm

88

88

88

98

110

Reading Level

17

8.8

10.1

4.8

4.4

Percentage of Text

13

29

24

17

40

Percentage of Text

12

26

22

15

36

Photographic Images

1

1

1

1

1

Charts/infographics

0

0

0

0

2

Artistic Depictions

0

0

0

0

0

Varied Text Size/Font

2

5

3

2

4

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Unusual

Unusual

Colors

1

2

2

2

1

Layers

1

1

1

4

4

Texture/Material

1

1

1

2

2

Sign #
Location
Size cm

Shape of Sign

Location

Predators of the Serengeti
21

22

23

24

25

Away

Away

On

On

Away

247,147

55,58

59,31

35,53

69,70.5

65

97

64

116

90

11.5

5.2

9.2

9.5

9

Percentage of Text

41

40

26

31

29

Percentage of Text

37

36

24

28

26

Photographic Images

14

1

1

1

1

Charts/infographics

0

0

0

0

0

Artistic Depictions

0

0

0

0

1

Varied Text Size/Font

5

3

3

2

5

Unusual

Rectangular

Rectangular

Unusual

2

0

1

Sign #
Location
Size cm
Height cm
Reading Level

Colors

1

Slanted
Rectangular
2

Layers

5

2

3

1

4

Texture/Material

3

2

2

1

2

Shape of Sign

 
82 
 

 

 

 

Location

Predators of the Serengeti
26

27

28

29

30

Away

Away

On

On

Away

276,164

51,70

27.5,43.5

33.5,71

36.5,114.5

Height cm

86

90

168

107

46

Reading Level

9

6.9

3.7

3.4

7.9

Percentage of Text

44

25

48

33

23

Percentage of Text

40

Photographic Images

12

1

0

0

1

Charts/infographics

0

0

0

0

2

Artistic Depictions

1

0

0

1

0

Varied Text Size/Font

6

3

3

2

2

Unusual

Rectangular
1

Slanted
Rectangular
1

Slanted
Rectangular
1

Sign #
Location
Size cm

Colors

1

Slanted
Rectangular
1

Layers

4

2

1

1

2

Texture/Material

4

2

1

1

1

Shape of Sign

Location

Predators of the Serengeti
31

32

33

34

35

Away

Away

Adjacent

Away

Near

211,120.5

74,72

69,47

114,66.5

65, 20.5

Height cm

83

91

112

103

73

Reading Level

9.6

1.6

7.6

5.1

5.5

Percentage of Text

36

16

18

14

33

Photographic Images

10

1

0

0

1

Charts/infographics

0

0

0

0

0

Artistic Depictions

0

0

1

1

0

Varied Text Size/Font

2

2

3

2

2

Unusual

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Colors

1

0

Slanted
Rectangular
2

2

1

Layers

4

2

3

3

2

Texture/Material

4

2

2

2

1

Sign #
Location
Size cm

Percentage of Text

Shape of Sign

 
83 
 

 

 

Location

Predators of the Serengeti
36

37

38

39

Location

Near

Near

Across

Away

Size cm

70,20

33.5, 97

51,57.5

26,24.5

Height cm

63

100

109

124

Reading Level

8.4

7.3

7.6

3.2

Percentage of Text

29

24

22

52

Photographic Images

1

1

1

0

Charts/infographics

0

0

0

0

Artistic Depictions

0

0

0

0

Varied Text Size/Font

2

2

2

2

Rectangular

Slanted
Rectangular
1

Rectangular

Sign #

Percentage of Text

Colors

1

Slanted
Rectangular
1

Layers

3

2

4

1

Texture/Material

2

1

3

1

Shape of Sign

Location

1

Amazon Flooded Forest
1

2

3

4

5

Adjacent

Nearly

Near

Near

Near

66,33

66,33

66, 67.5

66,33

20,30

Height cm

140

135

99

136

56

Reading Level

5.2

6.7

6.1

7.9

8.5

Percentage of Text

36

35

44

25

21

Photographic Images

2

2

3

2

3

Charts/infographics

4

4

6

0

2

Artistic Depictions

0

0

0

0

0

Varied Text Size/Font

3

3

3

3

3

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Colors

2

2

2

1

2

Layers

2

2

2

2

2

Texture/Material

1

1

1

1

1

Sign #
Location
Size cm

Percentage of Text

Shape of Sign

 
 
84 
 

 

 

Location

Amazon Flooded Forest
6

7

8

9

Location

Near

Away

Away

Away

Size cm

20,30

90.5,51

62.5,91

70,126

Height cm

61

73

80

44

Reading Level

4.8

4.8

6.7

7.8

Percentage of Text

27

26

22

17

Photographic Images

1

0

5

3

Charts/infographics

2

0

0

2

Artistic Depictions

0

1

1

1

Varied Text Size/Font

3

2

3

3

Rectangular

Rectangular

Unusual

Unusual

Colors

2

0

0

0

Layers

1

1

2

3

Texture/Material

1

1

1

1

Sign #

Percentage of Text

Shape of Sign

Location

Polar Bear Exhibit
1

2

3

4

5

Away

Away

Adjacent

Across

Away

45.5,92

950,107

327,104

152,45.5

86.5,115

Height cm

96

94

81

82

92

Reading Level

11

6.7

7.3

4.4

8

Percentage of Text

18

12

23

32

31

Photographic Images

0

0

6

0

7

Charts/infographics

0

0

4

0

0

Artistic Depictions

2

5

0

7

0

Varied Text Size/Font

2

6

6

4

5

Rectangular

Unusual

Unusual

Rectangular

Rectangular

Colors

1

1

1

2

2

Layers

2

2

4

1

1

Texture/Material

2

3

3

2

1

Sign #
Location
Size cm

Percentage of Text

Shape of Sign

 
 

85 
 

 

 

Polar Bear Exhibit1

Location
6

7

8

9

10

Away

Away

Away

Away

Away

274, 302

38, 62

38,62

38, 62

38,62

Height cm

0

~90

~90

~90

~90

Reading Level

3

5.1

3.9

3.4

6.7

Percentage of Text

9

21

26

17

32

Photographic Images

0

0

0

0

0

Charts/infographics

1

0

0

0

0

Artistic Depictions

4

1

1

1

1

Varied Text Size/Font

2

3

3

3

3

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Colors

1

2

2

2

2

Layers

1

2

2

2

2

Texture/Material

1

2

2

2

2

Sign #
Location
Size cm

Percentage of Text

Shape of Sign

Location

Polar Bear Exhibit
11

12

13

14

15

16

Location

Away

Away

Away

Away

Away

Away

Size cm

38, 62

38,62

38, 62

38,62

38, 62

38,62

~90

~90

~90

~90

~90

~90

Reading Level

4

4.3

5.1

3.2

3.1

3

Percentage of Text

20

30

19

20

29

27

Photographic Images

0

0

0

0

0

0

Charts/infographics

0

0

0

0

0

0

Artistic Depictions

1

1

1

1

1

1

Varied Text Size/Font

3

3

3

3

3

3

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Colors

2

2

2

2

2

2

Layers

2

2

2

2

2

2

Texture/Material

2

2

2

2

2

2

Sign #

Height cm

Percentage of Text

Shape of Sign

                                                            
1
 Polar bear sign 7‐16 together make up one large sign. Statistics included here to show their similarities.  
 

86 
 

 

 

 
 

Location

Condors
1

2

3

4

5

Away

Adjacent

Adjacent

Adjacent

On

106.5,55.5

96.5,92

25,60

86,91.5

107,55

Height cm

93

86

118

87

93

Reading Level

5.8

5

3.1

6.6

7.3

Percentage of Text

22

22

26

37

24

Photographic Images

1

2

1

9

3

Charts/infographics

0

0

0

0

1

Artistic Depictions

1

0

0

0

0

Varied Text Size/Font

5

5

3

5

7

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Colors

0

1

0

1

1

Layers

1

2

2

2

1

Texture/Material

1

5

many

2

1

Sign #
Location
Size cm

Percentage of Text

Shape of Sign

Location

Condors
6

7

8

On

Adjacent

Adjacent

60.5,55.5

87,61

87,61

Height cm

93

117

119

Reading Level

9.2

4.3

7.2

Percentage of Text

27

22

29

Photographic Images

1

0

2

Charts/infographics

1

0

0

Artistic Depictions

0

1

0

Varied Text Size/Font

4

5

6

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Colors

1

0

1

Layers

1

1

1

Texture/Material

1

1

1

Sign #
Location
Size cm

Percentage of Text

Shape of Sign

87 
 

 

 

 
 

Location

Eagle Canyon
1

2

3

4

5

Location

Away

Away

Away

Away

Away

Size cm

76,30

76,30

76,45.5

61,60.5

61,60.5

Height cm

108

108

51

65

78

Reading Level

5.7

7.7

8

4.8

6.4

Percentage of Text

38

24

32

23

17

Photographic Images

1

1

3

0

0

Charts/infographics

0

0

0

0

0

Artistic Depictions

2

2

1

1

1

Varied Text Size/Font

3

4

4

4

3

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Rectangular

Colors

0

0

0

0

0

Layers

1

1

2

1

1

Texture/Material

1

1

1

1

1

Sign #

Percentage of Text

Shape of Sign

Location

Eagle Canyon
6

7

8

9

Away

Away

Adjacent

Across

61,60.5

61,60.5

56, 35.5

213, 122

Height cm

67

78

136

49

Reading Level

6.1

10.6

12.2

5.1

Percentage of Text

23

16

16

26

Photographic Images

0

2

0

3

Charts/infographics

0

1

0

1

Artistic Depictions

1

2

1

1

Varied Text Size/Font

3

4

2

3

Rectangular

Unusual

Rectangular

Unusual

Colors

0

0

1

0

Layers

1

2

1

3

Texture/Material

1

3

1

1

Sign #
Location
Size cm

Percentage of Text

Shape of Sign

88 
 

 

 

Appendix B: Informed consent agreement, entrance survey and exit survey form used for the surveys at 
the Oregon Zoo. 
 
 Informed Consent Agreement 
 “Zoo Conservation and Children”  
 
I,  _________________________,  hereby  agree  to  have  my  child  serve  as  a  subject  in  the  thesis  project  titled  “Zoo 
Conservation  and  Children.”  It  has  been  explained  to  me  that  its  purpose  is  to  gather  information  about  children’s 
knowledge of conservation and their experience in a zoo exhibit. The research activities my child will participate in are 
two short questionnaires. My child will also be observed as they engage with the exhibit.   
 
I have been informed that the information my child provides will only be used for a thesis and presentation by Sarah 
Haenke  for  a  Masters  of  Environmental  Studies  at  The  Evergreen  State  College.  I  also  understand  that  my  child’s 
responses  may  be  reported  in  the  thesis  and  presentation,  and  my  child’s  identity  will  be  kept  confidential  and  no 
identifying information about my child will be included.  
 
I understand that the risks to my child are minimal, and would likely be nothing more than a short time commitment.  I 
agree  for  my  child  to  be  interviewed.  I  understand  that  the  questionnaires  will  be  destroyed  when  the  project  is 
finished. 
 
There will be no compensation of any kind available for my child’s participation. I have been told that my child can skip 
any question or stop the interview and withdraw his or her full participation from the study at any time without penalty. 
If  my  child  or  I  have  any  questions  about  this  project  or  my  participation  in  it,  I  can  email  Sarah  Haenke  at 
Sarah.Haenke@gmail.com. Likewise, the person to contact if I experience problems as a result of my participation in 
this project is John McLain, IRB administrator at The Evergreen State College, Library 2211, Olympia, WA 98505; Phone 
360.867.6045. 
 
I understand that my participation in this project is completely voluntary, and that my choice of whether to participate 
in this project will not jeopardize my relationship with The Evergreen State College. I am free to withdraw at any point 
before or during the interview. I have read and agree to the foregoing. 
 
Signature_______________________________________ Date__________________  
 
What is your child’s ethnicity? 
     Prefer not to say   
     Hispanic/Latino             
     Black/African American              
     Asian             
     White/Caucasian              
     Other ____________________________________ 

 
 
 
 
89 
 

 

 

 
1) How old are you?                      3) Have you been to a zoo or aquarium before? 
                                                                       Yes   
 
                                                          
   No  
2) What is your gender?                 If yes, which ones? 
 
 
 
4) Who are you visiting the zoo with today?  
Mother _______ 
Father ______ 
Grandparent _____ 

Older Sibling_____ 
Younger Sibling _____ 
Aunt or Uncle _____ 

Cousin _____ 
Friend _______ 
Other _________ 

5) What are you excited about seeing at the zoo today? 
 
 
 
6) Do you think that animals need our help? 
 
Yes   
  No   
I don’t know 
7) Can you please explain? 
 
 
 
 
8) Is this important? Why? 
 
 
 
 
9) Can you do anything to help? 
 
 

 
 

 
 
90 
 

Exit Survey Area: Rainforest 
 

Child #:  

Time:  

1) What does the word “Conservation” mean to you? 
 
 
 
 
 
2) How can you help animals or the places they live? 
 
 
 
 

 

 
Please look at the picture of a sign labeled number 1. 
3) Do you remember looking at this sign? 
 Yes, please fill out the questions below 
 
      No   
 
3a) About how long did you look at this sign? 
 
 
1 
Very little time 

2 
 

 

3
An average amount

4

5
A really long time

 
3b) Why were you interested in this sign? 
 
 

 
 
 
3c) Did you read this sign?
Yes, I read all of it   

 

Yes, I read some of it.   

 

No, I didn’t read it. Can you please list why you didn’t read it?  

 
 
 
 
3d) Do you remember what this sign was about?  
 
  

 

 
91 
 

Exit Survey Area: Rainforest 2 
 

Child #:  

Time:  

Please look at the picture of a sign labeled number 2. 
3) Do you remember looking at this sign? 
 Yes, please fill out the questions below 
 
      No   
 
3a) About how long did you look at this sign? 
 
 
1 
Very little time 

2 
 

 

3
An average amount

4

5
A really long time

 
3b) Why were you interested in this sign? 
 
 

 
 
 
3c) Did you read this sign?
Yes, I read all of it   

 

Yes, I read some of it.   

 

No, I didn’t read it. Can you please list why you didn’t read it?  

 
 
 
 
3d) Do you remember what this sign was about?  
 
  

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
92 
 

Exit Survey Area: Rainforest 3 
 

Child #:  

Time:  

Please look at the picture of a sign labeled number 3. 
3) Do you remember looking at this sign? 
 Yes, please fill out the questions below 
 
      No   
 
3a) About how long did you look at this sign? 
 
 
1 
Very little time 

2 
 

 

3
An average amount

4

5
A really long time

 
3b) Why were you interested in this sign? 
 
 

 
 
 
3c) Did you read this sign?
Yes, I read all of it   

 

Yes, I read some of it.   

 

No, I didn’t read it. Can you please list why you didn’t read it?  

 
 
 
 
3d) Do you remember what this sign was about?  
 
  

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
93 
 

 
Appendix C: Child Observation Sheet. 
 

# 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Child 
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  
M    F  

P 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

G 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Time (s) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 
N/a 

MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 
MG  FG 

Interaction
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC
  MC   FC

Remarks
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
94 
 

 
 
 

95