-
Title (dcterms:title)
-
Eng
The Nature Exchange Program at the Woodland Park Zoo: Exploration, Evaluation
-
Date (dcterms:date)
-
2009
-
Creator (dcterms:creator)
-
Eng
King, Kristina M
-
Subject (dcterms:subject)
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
The Nature Exchange Program at the Woodland Park Zoo:
Exploration, Evaluation, and Impact
by
Kristina M King
A Thesis-Essay
Submitted in partial fulfillment
Of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Study
The Evergreen State College
i
© 2009 by Kristina M King. All rights reserved.
ii
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Study Degree
By
Kristina M King
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
_______________________________________________
Jean MacGregor
Member of the Faculty
_________________________________
Date
iii
Abstract
The Nature Exchange Program at the Woodland Park Zoo:
Exploration, Evaluation, and Impact
Kristy King
Nature Exchange is a program at the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, Washington
which represents one type of education in an informal learning setting. Nature
Exchange encourages children to learn about their natural surroundings through
exploration, observation, research, and interactive discussions with zoo staff and
volunteers. The goal of this thesis was to evaluate the Nature Exchange Program
by ascertaining whether the program is meeting its intended goals and identifying
areas for improvement. I researched both the history of the Woodland Park Zoo
and the creation of its new "Zoomazium" for children. The Nature Exchange
Program is both an engaging place and program within the Zoomazium. To
provide a framework for my evaluation approach, I researched the development of
the field of evaluation methodology in informal learning settings. I used Robert
E. State's mixed-method case study approach. My data collection strategies
included parent and staff interviews, participant observations, and a questionnaire
primarily distributed via e-mail. The questionnaire contained both open- and
close-ended questions which provided quantitative and qualitative data for
analysis; I received 121 responses from parents of participants. From the data, I
learned that Nature Exchange is a successful program which encourages children
to spend more time outdoors, provides a space for thinking, reflecting, observing,
and learning, and helps children to be come more aware of and interested in
nature. Nature Exchange also provides an opportunity for children to practice and
improve their observation and communication skills.
Table of Contents
Chapter One: An Introduction…………………………………………………………..1
Chapter Two: Understanding the Woodland Park Zoo, the Zoomazium,
and the Nature Exchange Program)……………………...……….….5
Chapter Three: The Art of Evaluation……………………………………………..…16
Chapter Four: Evaluation Methodology for Analysis of the Nature Exchange
Program……………………………………………………………...…37
Chapter Five: Findings: An Incorporation of Observations, Interviews &
Questionnaire Data……………………………………………………48
Chapter Six: Analysis, Recommendations, and Evaluation Limitations…………83
Chapter Seven: A Conclusion…………………………………………………………99
Works Cited……………………………………………………………………..………103
Appendices
A. Notes from Brainstorming at Woodland Park Zoo, 1/23/07………..107
B. Notes from the Nature Exchange Training Session, 1/27/07.………110
C. Questions used for interviewing the Nature Exchange Staff………..112
D. Questions used for interviewing the Nature Exchange Program
Participants……………………..…………………………………………113
E. The Woodland Park Zoo: Nature Exchange Program
Questionnaire……………………………………………………………...114
F. Thematic Codes for Open-Ended Response Survey Questions……...116
G. Notes from Informal Observations of Participants in the Nature
Exchange Program………………………………………………………..119
H. Summary of Staff Interviews……………………………………………..121
I. Summary of Parent Interviews…………………………………………..124
iv
List of Figures
Photograph Number One, Former Monkey Island……………………………………7
Photograph Number Two, Updated Monkey Island……………………………..….10
Diagram Number One, Illustration of Relationships in Evaluation…………..…..25
Figure Number One: Frequency of Visits to Nature Exchange……………….…..67
Figure Number Two: Ages of Nature Exchange Participants……………………..68
Figure Number Three: Types of School that Nature Exchange Participants
Attend………………………………………………………………………………………69
Figure Number Four: The Impact of Nature Exchange—Frequency of Response
to Thematic Codes……………………………………………………………………….71
Figure Number Five: Influence of Nature Exchange on Family Members of
Participating Children…………………………………………………………………..72
Figure Number Six: Respondent Ratings of Five Key Aspects of Nature
Exchange……………………………………………………………………………….…74
Figure Number Seven: Nature Exchange Activities in which Children
Participate………………………………………………………………………………...75
Figure Number Eight: Average Time Spent Participating in Nature Exchange
Per Visit………………………………………………………………………………...…77
Figure Number Nine: Main Purpose of Nature Exchange According to Parents
Of Participants…..……………………………………………………………………….78
Figure Number Ten: Addition Feedback on Nature Exchange from Parents of
Participants………………………………………………………………………….……81
v
List of Tables
Table One: Parent Ratings of Five Aspects of Nature Exchange…………………63
Table Two: A Summary of Responses for Questions One thru Seven on the Nature
Exchange Questionnaire………………………………………………………………..73
Table Three: Nature Exchange Trading—Locations where Participants Collected
Objects from………………………………………………………………………………76
vi
Acknowledgements
Completing this thesis took more work and time than I ever expected. There were
many people who made this process easier, provided me with a wealth of
knowledge and advice, and who supported me each step of the way. I would like
to thank them now.
First I would like to thank The Woodland Park Zoo, its staff, and its
volunteers. Specifically, I would like to thank Kathryn Owen, Mary
Jackson, Kristi Dodds, and Sara Engeszer. Kathryn Owen, the Education
Research Supervisor at the Woodland Park Zoo worked side-by-side with
me to figure out a project, provide feedback and resources, and to help me
create the questionnaire. Mary Jackson, Education Research Specialist at
the Woodland Park Zoo spent hours working on coding and data analysis
with me. Kristi Dodds (Zoomazium Coordinator) and Sara Engeszer
(former Nature Exchange Coordinator) provided valuable insight and
knowledge into Nature Exchange and its participants.
Second I would like to thank Jean MacGregor my thesis reader at The
Evergreen State College. Jean provided me with valuable advice,
encouragement, and insights. She opened up the world of evaluation for
me, and spent a lot of time answering my questions. Jean helped to turn
this thesis into what it is today.
Third, thanks to Ken Hamilton a friend, mentor, and the teacher who
started me on my path towards environmental education over a decade
ago. He has helped keep me on that path ever since.
Fourth, I need to thank my entire family, but especially Michael, Joan,
Katie, Rachael, Robbie, Mildred, Starla, and Sandy for their emotional and
financial support. Michael also served as an outside reader and editor for
me throughout the process, and that deserves special thanks.
Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Adam Hamilton, who kept me
company through the late nights, who listened to me brainstorm and
complain, who believed I would get this thesis done, and who gave me
anything I needed throughout the entire process.
vii
Chapter One
An Introduction
“In the end we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we
understand. We will understand only what we are taught.”
(Baba Dioum Quotes, 2006)
In a decade where humanity is bombarded with headlines such as
“Climate change ‘to create 1 billion refugees,’” (CNN, 5/15/07) and “The Big
Debate: Global Warming or National Security,” (CNN, 10/5/07) it is more
essential than ever for our society to learn to appreciate and understand our
natural world so that we can learn how to live in harmony within it. At the
Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, Washington, the Nature Exchange Program
specifically encourages learning about the natural world. According to one staff
member, one of this program’s goals is “to foster an appreciation and
understanding of the natural world, and increase the depth of understanding.”
(Staff Interview, 5/9/07).
Nature Exchange (often referred to as NE in this thesis) represents one
type of education in an informal learning setting which allows children to explore
their surroundings and then learn about them through observation, research, and
discussion. Through Nature Exchange stimulated explorations, a secondary goal
of this program is to encourage children to spend more time in nature—
appreciating, observing, and learning from the outdoors.
The Nature Exchange Program is located within the Zoomazium, a large
and educational child-oriented building at the Woodland Park Zoo. It is both a
physical space and a program.
1
The physical space consists of shells, fossils, rocks, and other similar items found
in nature. These items are available for trading and observation. The space also
includes literature ranging from picture books to encyclopedias, computers with
Internet access for researching, and workspace for participants. The program
allows children to “discover nature at their own pace and trade their observations
for prizes” (Zoomazium Press Kit, WPZ). Through this program, children are
also able to see historic items—such as fossils—and compare them to similar
organisms that exist today. For instance, a child could see a see a fossil of an
extinct animal in NE and then he or she could see that animal’s relative alive in
the zoo today. NE encourages children to observe, record, research, and
communicate to learn about the natural world using a wide range of activities.
The intended audience ranges from pre-kindergarten children through junior high
students, with a focus on 6- to 8-year-olds.
Nature Exchange Program educational techniques include scavenger
hunts, the trading of found objects, worksheets, discussion, research, engagement
in observation and in the scientific method, and more. All children spend time
with a staff member, usually in a discussion about what they are learning. Staff
members encourage the children to reach for knowledge beyond what they
already know. The Nature Exchange Program reflects the zoo’s commitment to
education and nature appreciation in an informal learning setting.
I have two goals for this thesis. The first is to evaluate the Nature
Exchange Program by identifying its achievements and areas for improvement.
This information has the potential to be useful both to this and to other Nature
2
Exchange Programs, and it could lead to increased implementation of this type of
program in other informal learning settings. The secondary and more personal
goal is to gain understanding and practice with evaluation methodologies
appropriate to informal learning settings such as zoos.
In Chapter Two, I will describe the history of the Woodland Park Zoo, the
creation of Zoomazium (the building where Nature Exchange is located), and the
design of the Nature Exchange Program. Within this chapter, the goals and
methodology used within the Nature Exchange Program will also be identified.
In the third chapter, I will delve into the world of evaluation methodology,
with a review of approaches and specific techniques relevant to evaluation of
informal learning settings. Following this, the fourth chapter will detail the
methodology that I used to conduct the evaluation of the Nature Exchange
Program. In the fifth chapter, I will present the data that I collected through
observations, staff and parent interviews, and surveys. In the sixth chapter I will
analyze the data provided in chapter five and will present recommendations for
improvements for the Nature Exchange Program. Furthermore, this chapter will
include recommendations for further research about the Nature Exchange
Program. The final chapter will present my overall conclusions.
To summarize, I hope that my readers gain new ideas about the value of a
mixed method evaluation methodology, informal nature learning, and the Nature
Exchange Program. I opened this chapter with a quote by Baba Dioum because it
captures the essence of the Nature Exchange Program. If children are taught to
explore nature and appreciate it when they are young, they will have a better
3
chance of learning to love it. If they love it, they will want to understand it, and
they will understand it only if we, the educators, teach them through programs
such as Nature Exchange.
4
Chapter Two
Understanding the Woodland Park Zoo, the Zoomazium, and the Nature
Exchange Program
“Woodland Park Zoo is a conservation and education
institution demonstrating the value, beauty and
interdependence of all living things.”
(Discover the difference…, WPZ)
To fully appreciate the Woodland Park Zoo, the Zoomazium, and Nature
Exchange, it is important to know the history behind these projects. Knowing the
history of an institution and its programs allows you to see how it has grown,
changed, and developed. It provides insight into how and why certain decisions
were made and what effect those decisions have on the institution today. The
history and the story of WPZ, the Zoomazium, and NE also offer an opportunity
to identify themes that have shaped these projects. One of the overarching themes
that I see is an increasing emphasis on education and conservation. The quotation
above is the current mission statement of the Woodland Park Zoo, which is now
121 years old.
That mission statement ties directly into the themes of education
and conservation, and emphasis on those two areas will be seen throughout this
chapter.
This chapter describes the progression and history of this zoo; it tells the
story of how the Zoomazium and Nature Exchange came to be in the Woodland
Park Zoo today. In this chapter the transition of the zoo from a place of
entertainment to a center for learning and conservation is also chronicled.
5
To begin the WPZ story, in 1887, Guy C. Phinney, an estate developer,
purchased 342 acres of land for $10,000. Out of that he turned 180 acres into a
hotel, formal gardens, and a menagerie (including animals such as bears, deer, and
ostrich). This part of his estate was open to the public as long as visitors
followed specific rules such as no swearing or dogs allowed in the park. Only six
years later, Phinney died at 41 year of age. A few years after that, in 1899, the
Seattle City Council passed an ordinance which allowed Seattle to purchase the
land from Phinney’s wife for $100,000. The intent behind the purchase was to
complete Woodland Park and the Woodland Park Zoo (Payne, WPZ).
From 1900 on, more and more animals were added to the zoo. In 1902,
the Olmsted brothers, landscape architects who designed the Central Park Zoo in
New York, were hired to design the Woodland Park Zoo. In 1905, for the first
time, burro rides were offered at the zoo for five cents per ride. This also paved
the way for additional rides such as a mini-train and Ferris wheel. In essence,
when it was first created, the zoo existed for people’s entertainment without
regard to anything else. When the zoo opened, animals were kept in cages with
steel bars and cement floors; additionally, many of the animals spent most of their
life in indoor cages. Those that were outdoors had simple habitats that were easy
to maintain without extensive vegetation or variation in their surroundings. To
show just one example, below is an image of an early outdoor monkey habitat at
the Woodland Park Zoo (Payne, WPZ).
6
Photograph #1, Former Monkey Island (Payne, WPZ)
Throughout the early 1900s, the zoo continued to expand and improve its
animal exhibits. For example, the zoo added a heated primate house, an elephant
barn, and bear grottos. Even with all of the improvements and advancements,
automobile traffic was routed through the zoo, right next to the animal cages.
This continued until 1951 when fencing of the zoo was completed and traffic was
routed elsewhere (Payne, WPZ). Allowing cars to drive through the zoo until
1951 may have been due to the fact that when zoos started growing in popularity
in the early to mid 1900s, they were created to bring nature into cities to give
residents a break from the chaos of every day life (Wirtz, 1997). Driving through
the zoo allowed residents to view animals instead of cityscapes as they were
driving through Seattle. WPZ and other zoos at the time saw their roles as
providing families with a feeling of escape from the city. Cars were relatively
7
new during the early 1900s, and they were often driven for pleasure. Driving
through the zoo added to the enjoyment and luxury of these pleasure drives.
In 1948, for the first time, the zoo leadership decided to go beyond rides in
their effort to attract children. They turned their focus to educating children and,
in turn, their parents when they proposed the creation of a children’s zoo.
However, it took until 1960 for a City Bond to be passed to help fund the
Children’s Zoo. It started with a family farm. There was great debate in the
conceptualization stages over whether to make the children’s zoo “fantasy-based”
(themed like a fairy tale) or to create a more authentic family farm. In the end, as
can be seen today, the Children’s Zoo was set up to look similar to a family farm.
In addition, in 1954, the zoo’s first staff educator, Jack Alexander, was hired. He
was given the title of Guide-Naturalist. From this point on, the zoo began to train
volunteers and docents to be additional educators in the zoo. This change also
paved the way for even more education programs and the eventual construction of
the Zoomazium (Payne, WPZ).
A “foreign friends village” or zoo nursery was created as part of the
Children’s Zoo in 1967, and in 1972, the theater and farm village in the children’s
village were completed. In 1971, the zoo instituted its first parking fee, although
admission through any of the zoo’s gates remained free. In the 1970s, a new
director, David Hancocks, was hired. He began to examine everything in the zoo
with four main purposes in mind: education, recreation, conservation, and
research. This led to many changes and improvements in the zoo, which brought
it more closely in line with the zoo one sees today (Payne, WPZ). These changes
8
began to take place because of the influence of the major American zoological
professional organization, the American Association of Zoo Parks and
Aquariums, which was formed and incorporated in 1972. Zoos began striving for
accreditation by the AAZPA, which was based on the following six criteria:
professional practices in the care of animals, ethics, services, finance, education,
and science/conservation (Croke, 1997). The zoo’s quest for accreditation only
took the zoo further on its journey towards improving its education and
conservation programs.
First, the zoo began to take a closer look at the signs at the exhibits. In the
beginning (the early 1900s), signage was minimal, generally just naming the
animal that a cage housed. In the mid-1900s, storybook signs were created.
These were “oral” signs, which required buying a key that activated a recording
that told the listener more about the animal they were observing. In the late
1960s, these signs were removed and replaced with more traditional written signs.
However, the new signs were designed with quotes about nature, and they were
placed at varying heights to compel the visitors to look at their surroundings a
little more. The hope was that these new signs would also encourage visitors to
examine their attitudes about wild things and wild places.
During the mid-1960’s improving exhibits became a trend across zoos.
WPZ began improving the exhibits after its director toured other zoos across the
nation. Improvements included the creation of new enclosures and further
development of existing exhibits. Previously, most of the exhibits consisted
primarily of concrete and steel, but during this time period, grass, live plants, leaf
9
litter, and hiding spaces were added to exhibits to make them more representative
of each animal’s natural setting (Payne, WPZ). In addition to providing a more
stimulating and comfortable environment for the animals, the naturalistic exhibits
also provided a more educational experience for visitors. While not specifically a
“conservation effort,” providing more “naturalistic” exhibits encourages visitors
to think of the space, foliage, and food that these animals need to survive in the
wild. By the late 1960’s, every zoo in the United States had at least one “natural
enclosure” (Croke, 1997). Below is a photograph of the more “naturalistic”
monkey island; the photograph clearly shows the changes from the original
monkey island (pictured above) which included primarily concrete to one which
includes foliage, grottos, and more. During this time WPZ was making changes
and striving towards improved animal care, enhanced natural exhibits, and a
deeper educational experience for visitors.
Photograph #2, Updated Monkey Island (Payne, WPZ)
10
In 1970, 34 zoos out of a total of 49 American zoos were charging
admission. Woodland Park Zoo did not charge admission until 1977. In 1977,
the Zoo charged $1.50 for adults, 50 cents for kids, teens, and seniors. Zoo staff
discovered that when they charged admission, the public was better behaved and
interacted with the animals more positively. Zoo staff and researchers believe
that this change came out of growing respect for the zoo and increased respect for
the animals due to the “naturalistic” exhibits (Payne, WPZ).
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the zoo began to be recognized for its
efforts by winning the Conservation Award for their Eagle Rehabilitation
Program and the Top Rating for American Zoos from the Humane Society. These
awards and many more were the result of the improvements that the zoo made
including naturalistic exhibits, development of conservation programs, and an
increased emphasis on education (Payne, WPZ).
Expanding on the continuing themes of education and conservation, in
2001 the Woodland Park Zoo began working on plans for Zoomazium. The
inspiration for Zoomazium came from a growing belief throughout the
educational world that children spend too much time in front of electronic media.
In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that in an average week, children
spent 44 hours in front of TVs, computers, or video games (Zoomazium Press Kit,
WPZ). In addition, because the zoo’s largest visitor demographic was children
eight and under, the Woodland Park Zoo wanted to create a space specifically for
those children. The Zoomazium was created to help children connect to the
outdoors, to provide them with a full-body learning experience, and to allow
11
children to learn through fun, hands-on, minds-on, self-directed interactive
activities, and play. The Zoomazium was designed, in part, to help instill an
appreciation for nature in children at a young age. In addition, because Seattle is
both an urban and a rainy region, staff at the Woodland Park Zoo wanted to create
a place where children could experience “year-round nature learning” regardless
of the weather. As part of the construction of Zoomazium, 10 “zoo-kids” were
chosen and were consulted on many aspects of the design (Zoomazium Press Kit,
WPZ).
The Zoomazium is composed of six main “discovery zones”: Forest,
Grasslands, Toddler Zone, Stage, and Nature Exchange. Each zone contains
natural looking scenery which is created through items such as hidden caves,
changing backdrops, a climbing tree, and even a gigantic egg from which children
can hatch as if they were an animal. These zones were designed to allow children
to experience what it is like to climb a mountain; imagine drinking from a water
hole; feel the exhilaration of climbing a tree; interact with live animals; and
connect their observations indoors to the outdoors. Beyond the discovery zones,
the Zoomazium houses a workspace for the teen volunteers, a place for parents
and children to relax, an outdoor stage, and a “feature creature” exhibit where
children can view small animals up close. The Zoomazium is also a “green
building” incorporating 21,000 plants on its green roof, energy efficient heating
and lighting, sustainable materials, and special elements like patterned glass to
minimize bird deaths (Zoomazium Press Kit, WPZ). Just before it opened,
Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods observed that the, “Zoomazium
12
captures the spirit of what I have in mind…I was very impressed with the idea.
They really understand that it is very, very important within the zoo to offer a
hands-on experience beyond a petting zoo” (Mulady, 2006).
As mentioned above, one of Zoomazium’s six discovery zones is Nature
Exchange, the focus of the evaluation presented in the following chapters. Nature
Exchange is described as “Zoomazium’s most complex program…where kids
discover nature at their own pace and trade their observations for prizes. The
interactive program encourages kids to take learning into their own hands and
become researchers out in the field” (Zoomazium Press Kit, WPZ).
The following is a brief description of how Nature Exchange works.
Upon entering Zoomazium, there is an information desk which is run by staff
members and volunteers where people can ask general questions about the zoo.
This is also a Nature Exchange desk where people can ask questions about Nature
Exchange and children can share their work and the objects they have brought in
to receive points towards prizes. Upon entering the Nature Exchange area,
children can pick up an activity sheet to complete. The sheets could be a
scavenger hunt (to do throughout the zoo), a small research project, or an
observation sheet about an object the children are bringing in for trading. If a
child does not feel like completing a sheet, he or she can participate in
imaginative activities such as “build-a-bug” or the opportunity to be an imaginary
animal vet in the research tent. Children can also enter the space just to look at
abundant collection of shells, fossils, rocks, and plants that are on display. They
can glance through books, do Internet research on computers, or just sit and ask
13
staff members’ nature-related questions. There are multiple chairs and desks at
varying heights that overlook Zoomazium, the research tent, or windows that look
out into the zoo. The design of the Nature Exchange area allows children to make
observations the throughout their entire Nature Exchange visit.
The primary activity in Nature Exchange is a trading program which
allows the child to take home a new rock, shell, or fossil after completing a
worksheet or bringing in an object. When a child comes in to Nature Exchange,
he or she has a choice of doing an activity sheet, bringing in a completed project,
or bringing in an object to trade. If the child brings in an object, he/she will be
asked questions by a staff member or volunteer about its use, size, where it was
found, etc and from that verbal exchange with a Nature Exchange staff member,
the child will obtain points. These points can be used immediately or saved to
“buy” another nature object such as a piece of fool’s gold or a coyote skull.
Children receive points for any activity they do as part of Nature Exchange,
whether it is a scavenger hunt or a research paper.
Through my interviews with Nature Exchange staff I identified the
following goals of the Nature Exchange Program:
1. To foster an appreciation and understanding of the natural world.
2. To provide a space that encourages people to slow down to observe,
think, reflect, and learn.
3. To create an experience for kids that translates curiosity into learning.
4. To teach kids about environmentally ethical collecting.
Obviously, within these goals, there are many “sub-goals” such as encouraging
14
children to spend more time outdoors, to improve their communication skills, and
to develop deeper connections with nature and natural processes. The success of
these goals will be explored in more detail in later chapters (Staff Interviews,
5/9/07).
Throughout the history of zoos, there have been critiques as well as praise.
John Berger, an author and art critic, once said that, “visitors pass from cage to
cage, not unlike visitors in an art gallery who stop in front of one painting and
then move on to the next” (Willis, 1999). Over the past fifty years, WPZ has
strived to be a zoo whose visitors do not just “pass from cage to cage.” Instead,
WPZ works to have its visitors experience a connection with each animal and its
habitat, and engage in meaningful learning.
This brief history of the Woodland Park Zoo, the Zoomazium, and the
Nature Exchange presents an important story of the zoo’s early years and its
current, leading-edge efforts to instill a love of nature in children through active
learning and naturalistic exhibits. From a zoo which had bars and burro rides to a
zoo with natural exhibits, a green building and an emphasis on children’s
education, the Woodland Park Zoo has taken great strides to meet its mission of
being a “conservation and education institution” (Discover the difference…,
WPZ).
15
Chapter Three
The Art of Evaluation
“Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane
and concealed.” (Kahlil Gibran Quotes, ThinkExist)
“Works of art have subject, form and content. We often identify a work by
its subject: a landscape painting, a sculpture of a young woman, a
lithograph of a cat. Form (or design), is the visual organization of the art
work -how the artist has used line, shape, value, color, etc. Content is the
impact or meaning of this work.” (Department of Art, WIU)
Introduction
From my study of evaluation methodology, I have learned that there is an
art to successful evaluation of educational programs. To meet its purpose, the
evaluation design has to move beyond a single technique such as a questionnaire;
it needs to take into account issues such as the program’s context, power
dynamics, and budgetary constraints. Successful evaluation requires thinking
beyond the obvious to include the indirect and sometimes obscure influences on a
person, place, or program. In this way evaluation is as much as art form as any
painting or piece of pottery. When an artist paints a person, for example, they
have to look beyond the obvious facial features, to be able to paint what a person
is feeling or thinking. Researchers performing an evaluation must look beyond
the obvious, such as happy children running around Nature Exchange, to evaluate
whether the NE goals are being met, just an artist looks beyond a face. In this
chapter, using art as a metaphor, I will explore my understanding of evaluation
16
methodology as it relates to education. The history, subject, form, and content of
evaluation will provide the focus for this analysis.
Before exploring evaluation in general I would like to provide a brief
summary of my case study in terms of its subject, form, and content. In art, a
subject is what is being painted or sculpted. A subject is essentially an object or
person which is being evaluated through the eyes of an artist (Department of Art,
WIU). In this case, the subject of my case study is the Nature Exchange Program
at the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, WA. The Nature Exchange Program,
created in 2006, exists in the Zoomazium at the WPZ and it provides an area for
children to study and exchange natural history items such as rocks and leaves as
described in Chapter Two. In art, the form or design is the organization of the
piece of art, for example the colors and style of a painting or the texture used in
sculpting. The form of my evaluation of Nature Exchange is a combination of a
literature review, interviews, questionnaires, observations, participating in
training sessions, and meetings. Finally, in art, the content is the impact or
meaning of the work (Department of Art, WIU). When looking at a painting or
sculpture the meaning which people glean from it or the questions which arise
would be its content. The content of the evaluation is an analysis of Nature
Exchange, including its goals, impacts, effectiveness, and possible improvements
to the program. Because my evaluation incorporates multiple forms of study that
seek to illuminate hidden contexts and influences, I hope it will be seen as
thorough and valuable to the Woodland Park Zoo staff.
17
History
In general, in evaluations, an infinite number of subjects, forms, and
content may be investigated. However, fully understanding these components
requires some background on the history and basic characteristics of evaluation. I
think it is also important to consider how changes in evaluation also changed
teachers’ and evaluators’ methodology as well.
Evaluation is defined as, “the act of fixing or ascertaining the value or
worth of,” or “to examine or judge carefully; appraise” (Dictionary.com, 2007).
Its overall purpose is to prove that something is working or to provide suggestions
for improvement as necessary. The goal of an evaluation may be formative,
which typically takes place in the process of program development, and the
emphasis is improvement. The evaluation objective may also be summative,
where the evaluation is focused on the outcome of a project or program (Nevo,
1983). In the case of my evaluation, of Nature Exchange at the Woodland Park
Zoo, my study is partly summative since the program has already been developed,
and I was asked to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the program. However,
it is also formative in the sense that the NE staff may use my recommendations to
continue to strengthen the program, or to improve certain aspects of NE programs.
One of the first formal methods of evaluation was created in 1932 by
Ralph Tyler. Throughout his life he was a teacher, student, administrator,
evaluator, and an educator. For his master’s thesis, Tyler designed a science test
for high school students. During this process he became aware of some of the
drawbacks of the kind of testing that was based only on memorization instead of
18
interpretation or integration. He came to the conclusion that evaluation had to
start with a specific objective or purpose if it was to be effective. From this
conclusion came the Tyler Rationale (Riles Years, 1995).
The Tyler Rationale was focused on high school education, and it was a
tool that was geared towards teachers. With his work, Tyler hoped to prove that
progressive high school curriculum was just as effective as Carnegie-unit
curriculum (Guba, 1992). A Carnegie-unit is defined as a, “measure of the
amount of time a student has studied a subject” (Carnegie, 2007). Progressive
high school curriculum focused more on interest levels and meeting objectives
instead of on the time spent studying the subject.
The Tyler Rationale was designed to improve and modify educational
curricula primarily in high school settings. Matrices were used to compare
content attainment and behavioral outcomes, and then the methods used for
testing were evaluated to see whether they were reliable, valid, and objective.
From these evaluation approaches, strengths and weaknesses in the curriculum
were identified, and the curriculum was modified as necessary. Perhaps more
important than the specific methodology were the beliefs which Tyler had that
governed his creation of the Tyler Rationale (Guba, 1992).
Tyler designated six basic stipulations as part of his rationale. First,
before starting or creating an assessment, Tyler argued that any educational
program needed a specific purpose. For instance, before creating a test, a
professor should already have had a learning objective in mind. Second, multiple
assessments and alternate assessments were, in Tyler’s view, not always
19
necessary. Additional evaluations were useful only when a new purpose is
defined or an old purpose is redefined. Furthermore, the assessment must be
based on objectives and on the students; the institution and the instructor can not
be part of the assessment. Tyler believed that a test which was designed without
considering the audience, made that test less effective. Put quite simply, giving a
test to elementary students based on high school curriculum would obviously
make that test ineffective. Tyler also argued that assessments must take into
account contexts such as ethnicity, culture, and environment. This stipulation is
especially prudent today with so many languages and cultures existing in the
United States. Tyler’s next belief was that a school’s accountability had to be to
the parent and student and not to any other entity such as government. Parents
and students are the groups that will be affected by a school’s assessment and
therefore they should be able to contribute to the assessment-design process.
Finally, Tyler contended that for the most effective learning and assessment there
must be collaboration between schools, families, and communities. This final
caveat ties in directly with programs like Nature Exchange at the Woodland Park
Zoo which works to connect experiences with the outdoors with learning in
school (Horowitz, 1995).
The Tyler Rationale was revolutionary, but of course, not perfect. In fact,
in 1963, Lee Cronbach, an educational psychologist argued that in K-12
educational evaluation, decisions and who makes those decisions are more
important than objectives. Cronbach stated that evaluators needed to look at who
the decision makers are, what criteria they use, and what kind of decisions they
20
make. The main idea behind this type of evaluation was that improvements and
refinements could be made to a course while it was being developed instead of
after it was finished. Cronbach’s views became particularly important in 1965,
when the US government started mandating that the impact of all educational
programs being funded by Congress be evaluated (Guba, 1992).
A few years later, in 1967, Michael Scriven rejected both Tyler’s
emphasis on objectives and Cronbach’s belief in forming evaluations based on
decision-makers. Instead, he argued that evaluations needed to be goal- and
objective-free. Scriven felt that if evaluators were to go into evaluation work
without a focus or goals, more discoveries might be made about a program’s
impact and consequences. In addition he believed that evaluation should be based
on how well established needs were being met. Scriven also emphasized the
differences between formative and summative evaluation. Formative evaluation
takes place while the program is being developed and summative evaluation is
typically employed after the program is completed. Formative evaluation is
typically focused on improvement while summative evaluation seeks to describe
or make judgments about outcomes or results. Differentiating between formative
and summative evaluation is important in the design of evaluation, as it changes
the timing, appropriate questions for analysis, and in some cases, even the way the
results are used (Guba, 1992). Additionally, Scriven placed emphasis on
differentiating between professional and amateur evaluators. Amateur evaluators
typically have minimal training in evaluation, and evaluation is usually only one
part or a secondary component of their responsibilities. Professional evaluators
21
have gone through extensive training and schooling in educational evaluation, and
typically evaluation is their primary responsibility (Nevo, 1983). Depending on
the type and context of an evaluation, either type of evaluator can be helpful. An
amateur evaluator may be more connected to what is going on within a program
since typically this individual is involved in multiple aspects of that program.
However, a professional evaluator may be able to identify issues and ideas that an
amateur evaluator may miss. In any situation, according to Scriven, it is
important to know what type of evaluator you are working with or looking for.
In the timeline of evaluation methodology development, one of the next
experts to enter the field was Egon Guba. Guba became prominent in the
educational evaluation field in 1969 and continues to be so today. In 1969, Guba
showed the anxiety evaluation can cause in students or in any other client who is
being evaluated. Guba showed that anxiety can lead to a lack of responsiveness
and therefore, ineffective evaluation. Guba also identified some of the
weaknesses in the evaluation field such as the absence of a clear definition of
evaluation and the lack of guidelines for how to complete an evaluation. Guba’s
insights were critical in helping to develop, expand, and improve the field of
evaluation (Guba, 1992).
In more recent years, Guba and his colleague Yvonna S. Lincoln have
moved on to identify the five types of information that effective evaluations
should contain. Two of the critical types of information in an evaluation,
according to Guba and Lincoln, are descriptive and responsive information.
Descriptive information includes what the setting is for the program, who makes
22
decisions about the program, and what the program goals are. Responsive
information is based on audience and stakeholder concerns. Guba and Lincoln
also highlight the importance of collecting information regarding relevant issues,
values, and standards for worth and merit. With these five types of information,
Guba and Lincoln laid out a basic evaluation model which includes: initiation
and organization, identification of issues, gathering of information, and reporting
and making recommendations to the stakeholders (Nevo, 1983).
Following Guba’s entrance into the world of educational evaluation,
several new evaluation models were introduced. One of these models was
“Stake’s Responsive Model,” which focuses on identification of the stakeholders
associated with a given program and their audience. The stakeholder’s concerns
and issues are given priority in the evaluation which includes observation by the
evaluator as one component of the evaluation (Guba, 1992). Stake’s model
focused on case studies, and will be explored in further detail later in this chapter
and in Chapter Five since I have employed his model within my evaluation of
Nature Exchange.
In the field of evaluation, another critical person is Darlene Russ-Eft, who
has worked to propose several critical characteristics of effective evaluation, a
few of which are as follows (Russ-Eft, 2001):
Collaborative and Participatory It is important to involve key
stakeholders in the evaluation process. They can contribute valuable
insights and ideas to the evaluation, and it will be more useful to the
stakeholders if the evaluation addresses their concerns.
23
Adaptive Evaluators must be open to change in the evaluation process.
As the evaluation unfolds, new information may be discovered which may
effect the evaluation. The evaluator has to take the new information into
account and adapt to provide the most effective evaluation possible.
Learning Oriented The goal of any evaluation, whether in the
educational field or any other, is to produce results which can be learned
from. These results may be helpful to evaluation participants or to other
groups who run similar programs or tests.
Contextual When preparing to do an evaluation and all the way through
its completion, it is helpful to keep the context in mind since it may affect
the results of the evaluation. The context could be environmental,
cultural, money-based, or sociopolitical, just to name a few.
Meaningful and Useful Before starting an evaluation, it is important to
make sure that there is a clear and explicit reason for doing the evaluation.
The evaluator needs to identify the goals behind the evaluation so that
when completed, the evaluation will be as helpful as possible to the
stakeholders.
In addition to Russ-Eft’s characteristics of effective evaluation, it is also
necessary to understand the relationship between those who are being evaluated in
an educational or any other setting. Lynn Dierking, a prominent evaluator of
informal learning programs in museums, illustrates the relationships in the
24
triangle shown in Diagram 1 below (Dierking, 1998). In terms of my work with
the NE programs, this triangle helped me to visualize the relationships which exist
within my study. I consider Kathryn Owen, Education Research Supervisor at the
zoo; Mary Jackson, Education Research Specialist at the zoo; Jean MacGregor my
thesis reader at The Evergreen State College; and myself to be the primary
designers of this study. The participants or visitors are those people who
completed my survey or who allowed me to interview them. The content and
ideas include everything from my brainstorming session with zoo staff about their
goals and questions about the NE program, to the actual survey to responses and
suggestions that were received from visitors. By placing these three groups
within one triangle, I am reminded of how they are all interconnected and how
one group can affect another. For instance, the preliminary interview responses I
received from visitors and staff gave me ideas which affected the content of my
survey.
To me, this diagram represents three critical areas of evaluation coming
together so that the evaluation can be completed.
Content/Ideas
Designer/Educator
Visitor/Participant
*Diagram #1: Illustration of Relationships in Evaluation
After exploring the history of evaluation, I am once again struck by what
an art form educational evaluation is. Researchers and evaluators, the artists,
25
constantly have to interpret and reinterpret their studies, their art. There is never
one set style or technique; it is a set of practices that are always changing and
evolving. Evaluators constantly have to work to maintain a balance between the
values and perceptions of each of the stakeholders involved in a study, just as
artists are constantly struggling to balance the requests of their client with the
ideas they have themselves. It seems though, in evaluation methodology the one
constant theme is communication between the designer or educator and the
stakeholders. With strong and thorough communication comes effective and
constantly evolving educational evaluation.
I hypothesize that the development of the field of evaluation has affected
our schools and our informal learning programs today. As evaluation
methodology developed, so did teachers’ and educators’ methods of assessment.
As teachers’ and educators’ methods of assessment change, so do their strategies
for teaching. I believe that the enhancements made in the field of evaluation
methodology have encouraged teachers and educators to use multiple methods in
their classes and programs. So in some ways, the improvements in the field of
evaluation may have actually led to improvements in the classrooms and informal
learning programs. However, this also leads to improved results for programs,
teachers, and students, when evaluations are completed.
Subject
In the case of evaluation in informal learning settings, the subject is the
program or curriculum being evaluated, just as in art, the subject is the object or
person being painted or sculpted. In this case the subject is the Nature Exchange
26
Program. Now that I have provided a brief history of evaluation methodologies,
in this section, I am going to look at evaluation of learning in informal settings.
Within the field of evaluation methodology in informal learning settings, there are
basic characteristics of effectiveness for any program. I am going to focus on the
five characteristics provided by Barbara Hatcher and I will briefly relate them to
the Nature Exchange Program specifically (Hatcher, 1987).
1.) Informal learning settings can complement what children are learning in
school (Hatcher, 1987). For example, the Nature Exchange Program encourages
using observation, written, and research skills which are often part of science
lessons in school. This allows for learning to be reinforced both inside and
outside of school.
2.) Informal learning programs include adequate participatory activities and
materials for their participants (Hatcher, 1987). The NE Program provides
participants with activity sheets which invite combinations of drawing and writing
observations about animals in the zoo.
3.) Successful informal learning programs must be effectively planned (Hatcher,
1987). For example, there has to be an attention-getter to draw children in and
there has to be programming to keep children interested and curious. At Nature
Exchange, the attention-getter tends to be some of the large artifacts and the
research tent. Once they are drawn into the area, children have many ageappropriate activities and resources ranging from picture books and drawing on
activity sheets to encyclopedias and research projects.
27
4.) Each informal learning program must provide sufficient personnel, who are
properly trained, to interact with participants as necessary (Hatcher, 1987). NE
works to have enough staff and volunteers available so that each child can have a
one-on-one experience with a staff member. One of the key components of NE is
the staff-child interaction once a worksheet is completed where the staff member
will probe the child even further to increase the depth of their learning. At WPZ,
all Nature Exchange volunteers must go through a training session before they
interact with visitors.
5.) Finally, the informal learning program must be malleable and flexible
depending on its audience (Hatcher, 1987). The NE Program has worksheets that
are customized to accommodate the skill levels of elementary age children. When
children are given worksheets to complete as part of NE those who are younger
may be given sheets which require drawing. Those who are older and are more
capable of describing their observations in writing are given sheets which require
written work. In addition, when staff and volunteers are interacting with children,
they tailor their explanations to the age of the child they are currently interacting
with.
All of the above characteristics are benchmarks for effective informal
learning setting programming. Successful informal learning programs
complement what children learn in school, include hands-on activities, are well
planned, provide sufficient staff, and are flexible as is needed. These
characteristics also provide a good foundation for an evaluation of the program.
28
When selecting a subject for evaluation it is also important to look at
whether the subject or program such as NE meets criteria which make it possible
to evaluate the program. According to Wholey, if a program is going to be
evaluated, there are four basic areas which need to be examined before a
successful evaluation can occur. The first characteristic is that program goals
need to be defined and accessible to the evaluator (Wholey, 2004). I identified
four program goals for NE based on my discussions with staff and the review of
the literature. These goals provided a framework for my evaluation. If the
program does not have clearly defined goals, its success would be nearly
impossible to evaluate.
Second, the program goals must also be attainable (Wholey, 2004).
For
the NE Program, one of its underlying goals is improving children’s powers of
observation, which is a reasonable expectation. However, a goal of turning all
children who participate in NE into geologists would be extreme and unrealistic.
Third, if there are clear and achievable program goals, it is then important
to look at whether relevant data can be gathered at a manageable cost. In any
evaluation, budget is going to play a significant role; looking at whether the data
that can be gathered within the budgetary constraints is essential to being able to
conduct a program evaluation. For my evaluation, NE was selected because it
was a program that I could evaluate within my time and budgetary constraints.
Fourth, if a subject is going to be evaluated, there needs to be a basic
understanding of how information produced by the evaluation will be used and to
whom the information will be reported (Wholey, 2004). For NE, the information
29
will be used both by NE staff and Zoo staff to improve the effectiveness of NE. It
may also be used as a way to communicate with stakeholders who have
contributed to the NE program.
To conclude, before a subject is selected for evaluation it is necessary to
understand basic guidelines for what makes an education program in an informal
learning setting effective. In addition, a program must be judged on several
criteria (such as clearly outlined goals) before it is possible to identify whether or
not a program can be evaluated. Based on these guidelines, NE is an acceptable
program to evaluate and I should be able to glean useful data from the evaluation.
Form
In a work of art, the form is the “visual organization of the art work-how
the artist has used line, shape, value, color, etc” (Department of Art, WIU). In
evaluation, the form is the methodology that has been selected. In pottery, the
shapes and textures chosen are what make the sculpture come to life; just as in
evaluation the methodology is what brings the evaluation to reality. Form, then,
in both art and evaluation is critical.
In my work with the Nature Exchange Program, I chose to use the case
study approach as the form of my evaluation. In educational evaluation, the case
study approach has gained increasing support over the past three decades. Some
leaders in the field such as Robert E. Stake would argue that all evaluations are
case studies. A case is a discrete project or program or, according to Stake, it is a
“bounded system,” such as the Nature Exchange Program. The case study
30
approach emphasizes the importance of context and interpretation in an attempt to
obtain the most accurate and comprehensive view of the program being evaluated.
In this type of evaluation, temporal, spatial, historical, and personal contexts are
just a few of the contexts which might be important to understanding the program
and the results of the evaluation. The methodology for case studies includes
direct observation by the evaluator while trying not to change behaviors or disturb
activities. The researcher may also go beyond the role of a passive observer to be
an active participant or consultant or even a storyteller in order to investigate the
case more thoroughly.
The basic steps for a case study in an educational program evaluation
generally include these: an initial contact or visit, preparation for observation
(development of questions, key areas to study), data gathering and validation, data
analysis, and finally sharing the information with the appropriate audience (Stake,
1995). The case study approach is not perfect, and it has some flaws. For
example, when you, as a researcher, start looking at context, how do you decide
which contexts to look at and which to ignore? It is nearly impossible to
incorporate every context or interpretation of a case, but by selecting certain
contexts to focus on, it is easy to create a bias. To cope with this issue, it is
helpful to have a consultant or more than one person running the evaluation. For
my evaluation of NE, I worked closely with the zoo’s research staff on evaluation
development and data collection to minimize any of my biases towards NE.
In addition to the case study, another approach to evaluation is the logic
model. While I did not use the logic model for my evaluation of NE, I think it is
31
an important model which offers a different way of looking at evaluation than the
case study approach. The logic model looks at two main areas of programs—how
and why. The “how” section of a program includes the following: the resources
which are put into the program, the activities which are part of it, and the outputs
from the program. The “why” segment is composed of the short-term,
intermediate, and long-term outcomes of the program. Graphically, when the
model is drawn, it typically consists of “how” on one end and “why” on the other
end. In between the two are the customers or participants in the program
(Wholey, 2004). The logic model has several general stages which are laid out
below.
1.) Identifying the purpose and goals.
2.) Learning what tools and resources are available.
3.) Figuring out the target audience and the best method for
communication.
4.) Examining the outputs and feedback received.
5) Identifying whether the outcome of the program was successful, and
what the impact of the program was (Marcinkowski, 2004).
Behind every model or approach are specific techniques for educational
evaluation, and these techniques can be used individually or in combination.
Surveys and questionnaires are often valuable tools for collecting data. For
example, in my evaluation of the Nature Exchange Program, a questionnaire was
the most effective method of collecting data for both qualitative and quantitative
analysis. When creating a survey or questionnaire, it is imperative to consider the
32
purpose, who will use it, and any benefits or incentives which are gained from
participating in the survey. While questionnaires and surveys are worthwhile
techniques, they involve direct interaction with the participants. In addition,
indirect interactions such as discreet observation can also yield a large amount of
helpful information (Wholey, 2004). For example, as part of my evaluation of the
NE program, I watched various participants quietly and discreetly. This allowed
me to observe their behavior without the participants interpreting my questions or
my actions. My discreet observations enabled me to watch participants while
marginally affecting their behavior.
Interviews (one-on-one sessions between the researcher and a participant),
focus groups (a group of participants answering questions or discussing a
program), and role-playing (allowing an individual or group to act out their
interpretations of what goes on in a program) may also be helpful techniques in
evaluations. These techniques may improve the quality of information because
they usually incorporate direct observation of participant behaviors and multiple
meetings which help to validate the results (Dierking, 1998). These techniques
can all be used to provide new insights or background information in regards to a
specific program.
To enhance the form of an evaluation it is essential to combine multiple
approaches and techniques. In essence, it is helpful to look at a program from
many different angles, but only if you are able to keep the overall purpose of the
evaluation in mind. If the purpose is lost or the form becomes too chaotic, then
the evaluation will not blossom into a work of art but collapse into a pile of clay.
33
Content
“Content is the impact or meaning of this work” (Department of Art,
WIU). In an art piece, such as a photograph in a show, the content is the message
that people glean from the photograph. In evaluation, the content is the end result
of the evaluation. It is the information that is shared with the public and other
professionals, and just as a photograph, it too is open to interpretation.
Results can be produced in many forms such as narrative reports,
presentations, and tables. The results could relate to the productivity, efficiency,
quality, customer satisfaction, applicability or cost effectiveness of a program.
When sharing findings the audience needs to be kept in mind. For instance, the
length, depth, and type of briefing which would be suitable for the audience is
important to take into account so that the evaluation can have the greatest amount
of impact (Wholey, 2004). To provide one example of this, often evaluations will
come out in two forms. The first is an Executive Summary, which is a brief
representation of a study including the major conclusions. The Executive
Summary is typically geared toward decision-makers and the general public.
Then a full-length version of the study is released which is aimed toward
professionals in the field who have an interest in the evaluation details. Here,
there are two different audiences with different needs and expectations, so
findings may be released in different forms to be as beneficial as possible.
When the content of evaluation is defined, it is important to keep
associated risks to a minimum. Evaluations may come with the risk of
exploitation, revealing identities, or deception just to name a few. Therefore, it is
34
important to make sure that participation on the part of the subject is voluntary
and confidential, and that there is trust between both the participant and the
evaluator to minimize these risks. One technique for minimizing risk is to
provide an introductory letter or informed letter of consent to the participant. In
many cases this is a requirement in evaluation practice (Silverman, 2006). At The
Evergreen State College, in Olympia, Washington, in addition to creating
informed letters of consent, students and staff are also required to fill out a
detailed Human Subjects Review application, which outlines any risks in detail;
this application must be approved by established and experienced science and
social science research professionals (The Evergreen State College, 2007). To
summarize, it is critical that the researcher consider how to relate results of an
evaluation to the public and other professionals because this will effect how the
evaluation is used and interpreted.
Conclusion
Throughout this chapter, evaluation has been presented and described in
terms of its history, subject, form, and content as a work of art. I defined the
subject as the program or case being evaluated. I showed that the form of an
evaluation is the methodology selected to create the evaluation. The content of an
evaluation is the results and how they are presented. Actually completing
evaluation of a program requires preparation, exploration, and practice, just as a
fine painting does. A focus on the research questions along with a combination of
techniques such as surveys, observations, and interviews, leads to a successful
evaluation process and a successful work of art.
35
Finally, when the results of the study are known, it is important to
consider the art of communication in how those results are shared. The results
may be extremely influential, but if they are not communicated in an effective
manner to the appropriate audience, the influence the results hold may be lost as
is illustrated in the following quotation. “The two words information and
communication are often used interchangeably, but they signify quite different
things. Information is giving out; communication is getting through” (Harris,
2006).
In the early 1900s when evaluation of informal learning settings was really
just developing, the Woodland Park Zoo was also just developing. Both the
Woodland Park Zoo and the field of evaluation methodology have continued to
develop, expand, and improve into what they are today. Only a few years ago,
Woodland Park Zoo added the Zoomazium and Nature Exchange to the zoo.
Nature Exchange is one of the first permanent informal learning programs the zoo
set up. Today, evaluation is a field that is accessible to professionals and
students, such as me. Through their struggles and constant assessment of what
evaluation meant and how it should be done, early creators of evaluation laid its
foundation and identified its critical components which are used in evaluation
methodologies now and within my own evaluation of Nature Exchange.
36
Chapter Four
Evaluation Methodology for Analysis of the Nature Exchange Program
“As educators trying to anticipate or tune in to students’ and museum visitors’
way of understanding, I find nothing more precious to keep than a connection
with our own ways of seeing, our own confusions, our own conflicts between
trying to succeed and trying to understand, our own surprises, our own feelings
when we found new things and have to let go of old ones.” –Eleanor Duckworth
(Dierking, 1998)
The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the
Nature Exchange Program (NE) at the Woodland Park Zoo (WPZ) in terms of its
success at reaching stated goals. The secondary purpose was to provide
suggestions for improvements and recommendations for further research and
evaluation. I considered the NE program to be effective if its goals were
accomplished. The goals of Nature Exchange were determined through my
interviews with staff members, and they are as follows (Staff Interviews, 5/9/07):
1. To foster an appreciation and understanding of the natural world.
2. To provide a space that encourages people to slow down to observe,
think, reflect, and learn.
3. To create an experience for kids that translates curiosity into learning.
4. To teach kids about environmentally ethical collecting.
To determine success at reaching the Nature Exchange goals and to understand
the outcomes of NE, I conducted interviews and surveys with both the NE staff
and visitors to Nature Exchange.
37
Information Gathering & Preparation
To begin my evaluation of NE, I met with zoo staff for a brainstorming
session on January 23, 2007. The purpose of this meeting, beyond introducing
myself to potential stakeholders in my evaluation, was to select a program or
question for evaluation that would provide valuable information for zoo staff.
The staff generated a wide range of ideas about the educational programs they
would like to see evaluated or the questions they had about certain aspects of
specific projects. Some of the staffs’ suggestions for evaluation within the zoo
were:
1) What is the impact of naturalism in zoos—specifically allowing
gorillas in trees—verses traditional exhibits (cages with bars, etc)?
2) What is the impact of having a Kenyan ambassador at the zoo? Is there
an impact on the village in Africa when the Kenyan ambassador
returns home?
3) Why is the West Gate of the zoo getting used more than it used to be?
Is the Zoomazium having an effect on the increased use of the West
Gate (Meeting Notes, Appendix A, 1/23/07)?
As the conversation progressed, Nature Exchange was selected for this
evaluation because it involves children (the zoo’s largest visitor demographic,
78% of all kids visiting the zoo are 8 years old or younger); it is a relatively new
program (it opened in May of 2006); many different departments and personnel
were and are involved in it; and, in general, it is one area which the zoo staff has
not had a chance to fully evaluate (Meeting Notes, 1/23/07). As a graduate
38
student seeking a manageable evaluation project, I also had time and budget
constraints to consider.
Once the relevant zoo staff and I decided to focus my evaluation on NE, I
began my background research and information gathering. This included a
literature review of free-choice learning in informal settings, current literature
about learning in zoos in particular, and previous WPZ studies on the Zoomazium
(the building where NE is located) and Nature Exchange itself. In addition to
background reading, I visited the Zoomazium five times to make discreet
observations of the activities at NE. During these periods, I observed children
from approximately one-and-a-half years old to nine years old participating in NE
and interacting with staff. Observations included watching and listening to
interactions between staff, parents, and children. These observations provided
background information as well as potential interview and survey questions.
Additionally, I sat in on a training session for the NE program volunteers in order
to acquire a more in-depth understanding of the NE goals and how they are
portrayed by staff to volunteers and visitors. Refer to Appendix B for a full
description of the NE training session.
During and after completion of the preparatory work, I formed specific
questions to help guide the evaluation. The first and most basic question was this:
is Nature Exchange successful in meeting its stated goals? Under this question
were several sub-questions, including these: What is the ideal parent/child
interaction while participating in NE? What improvements would benefit NE?
39
What visions for the future of NE exist? These questions provided the guidelines
for both interviews of staff and visitors and questionnaires.
Evaluation Methodology
After developing my primary questions I decided on using the fieldobservation case study approach for my evaluation of Nature Exchange. While
working within the case study framework, I used four different data gathering
techniques: observations, surveys, interviews, and literature reviews. The
approach I used was laid out by Robert E. Stake, a leading theorist and
practitioner of case study evaluation. Stake wrote, “…all evaluation studies are
case studies. The program, person, or agency being evaluated is the case. The
study is, at least in part, a search for merit and shortcoming of that case.” Stake
also defined a case as, “a bounded system…a specific, complex, functioning
thing,” and to write a case is to tell the story of the functioning program. Reading
through Stake’s book and thinking about the above quotes in terms of NE led me
to select field-observation case study as my method for performing my evaluation.
More specifically, this approach was appealing to me for four reasons.
1) During this period of time, I was participating in one of my core class
requirements at The Evergreen State College (TESC). The class was entirely
about case studies. This class allowed me to take overwhelming and complex
issues and break them down into small understandable pieces. I saw the case
study methodology as a tool for solving the puzzle that many projects present. It
helped me to see how each piece of the puzzle fits together in a logical fashion.
40
After studying case studies in class it became clear to me that Nature Exchange
could easily be my case study.
2) Case studies incorporate the story or context behind the program or
project being evaluated. They look at what influences a program and how each
person affects the program. Stake believes in incorporating contexts such as those
that are temporal, spatial, social, and personal (Stake, 1995). After brainstorming
sessions, attending trainings, and talking to staff, I realized that I had many
different stories or contexts to consider, and the case study methodology allowed
me the freedom to look at each of these contexts and describe them.
3) As I was reading through Stake’s book The Art of Case Study
Research, I came across the steps that Stake recommends for performing a fieldresearch case study. The basic steps are as follows: 1) anticipation/preparation
for the first visit; 2) first visit; 3) preparation for observation; 4) conceptualization of the study; 5) data gathering; 6) data analysis; 7) occasion to provide the
audience opportunity for understanding (Stake, 1995). I could see myself
thinking in terms of these steps and constructing my evaluation process in this
order.
4) Finally, I was interested in the multiple roles that Stake sets up for an
evaluator in a field case study. This approach allowed me, the researcher, to play
several different roles, as an observer, an interviewer, and a participant (in the
actual Nature Exchange Program). These roles were all critical to my study
design and my ability to gather both quantitative and qualitative data.
41
Using the Nature Exchange Program as my case, I then went on to follow
the steps which Stake suggests for undertaking this approach. The first two steps
were anticipation and the first visit. This was essentially the background work
and preparation for evaluation. For me, this was my literature review, my initial
brainstorming with WPZ staff, and my initial observations of the Nature
Exchange Program. Next, Stake suggests further preparation and development of
conceptualization. In my case study, this included several phone conversations
with Kathryn Owen (the Education Research Supervisor at WPZ) to identify
research questions and develop a survey which fit within my constraints and
which would be useful to the zoo. It also included further observations and
discussions with Nature Exchange staff. At this point, I moved on to data
collection; my specific techniques are outlined in the section below (Stake, 1995).
After I completed data collection, I progressed to Stake’s next step which
is analysis of data. This was done through both quantitative and qualitative
techniques which are described below. Finally, following Stake’s model, I
provided an audience opportunity for understanding through an oral presentation,
the thesis itself, and continued discussion where necessary (Stake, 1995).
Data Gathering & Analysis
I used a mixed method approach for data gathering, with three methods.
However, before I began to collect any data I submitted my survey design and
plans to the Human Subjects Review board at The Evergreen State College; this
process also satisfied any concerns the Woodland Park Zoo had about my work
with Nature Exchange participants.
42
The first data gathering strategy was simple observations of interactions
and children completing worksheets and scavenger hunts while participating in
the NE program. These observations provided a realistic view of how the
program is currently running.
The second method was interviewing. I developed the interview questions
in conjunction with Kathryn Owen, the Education Research Supervisor at the
Woodland Park Zoo. When performing an evaluation, key stakeholders must be
included in the evaluation process in order to have a thorough and helpful
evaluation (Russ-Eft, 2001). Six staff interviews were performed. I interviewed
the two Nature Exchange Coordinators, one substitute for Nature Exchange, one
Zoomazium Associate, and two Zoo Corps Interns. In addition to staff, I
interviewed five parents whose children are regular participants in the NE
program. The five parents had children ranging from three to twelve years of age.
The goal of these interviews was to glean what visitors were actually learning and
experiencing as they participated in the NE program. Below is a list of sample
interview questions which were used with staff and/or visitors. My complete list
of interview questions is included in Appendices C and D.
How did you get involved with the NE program? How did you learn
about it?
What do you believe the primary goals of the NE program are?
What improvements do you think should be made to the program?
What is your vision—if money and other constraints were not an issue—
for NE in the next five years?
43
What do you feel is the most important part of NE?
Can you describe a typical staff/visitor interaction with the program?
I customized these interviews for staff members and visitors. Interview data was
kept confidential to minimize risk and increase the validity of the results.
The third method of data collection was the use of the questionnaire (see
Appendix E). The questionnaire was developed in direct consultation with Jean
MacGregor (Faculty Thesis Advisor), Kathryn Owen (Education Research
Supervisor at WPZ), and Mary Jackson (Education Research Specialist at WPZ).
The questionnaire was revised several times based on feedback from these
individuals, which helped to provide more specificity and clarity of questions.
The questionnaire included the following questions (response options are in
parentheses):
Are you a zoo member? (Yes or No)
On average, how often does your child participate in Nature Exchange?
(once a week, once or twice/month, once or twice/3 months, less than
once/6 months, other)
What is the age & gender of the child (ren) who is participating in Nature
Exchange?
What type of school does your child (ren) attend? (public, private,
homeschooled, too young for school, other)
After participating in the Nature Exchange Program do you feel your child
spends more time playing outdoors? (Yes or No)
44
Do you feel the Nature Exchange Program has had an impact on your son
or daughter in any way? (Yes or No) If yes, please describe the activities.
In addition to your son/daughter, have other family members been
involved in any activities related to the Nature Exchange Program? (Yes
or No) If yes, please describe the activities.
On a scale of 1-5 (1 being low and 5 being high) how would you rate
availability of the staff to interact with you or your child, helpful &
instructive staff, the NE area (research stations/tent/collections),
knowledge gained from participation in the NE program, activities
available as part of the NE program.
In which of the following Nature Exchange activities does your child
participate? (trading, scavenger hunts, field research projects,
drawing/writing, research tent activities)
If your child (ren) does bring in objects to trade, where do the objects
usually come from? (home, backyard, park, other)
On a typical visit, how much time does your child spend participating in
the Nature Exchange Program?
What do you see as the main purpose of the Nature Exchange Program?
What if anything would you like to see done differently or included in the
Nature Exchange Program?
Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your experiences with
the Nature Exchange Program?
45
The questionnaire was handed out to the parents of children visiting the
Zoomazium, and twelve questionnaires were returned. Zoo staff also went
through the Nature Exchange Database and sent out e-mail based survey requests
to every family which had been to Nature Exchange three times or more in the
past year. The first e-mail request was issued on August 3, 2007 with reminder
requests issued on August 20, 2007 and September 22, 2007. On September 30,
2007, the survey period was officially closed. Between the hard copies and online copies, 121 surveys were filled out and returned.
The data collected from the three methods (observation, interviews, and
the questionnaire) was primarily qualitative, although a section of the
questionnaire included scaled responses and was quantitative. Quantitative data
was analyzed primarily through simple descriptive statistics and graphs. The
analysis of the qualitative data included the identification of similarities,
differences, and patterns among results. In collaboration with Kathryn Owen and
Mary Jackson, responses to open-ended questions were coded by theme for
analysis. The initial coding was first done independently, and then we sat down
jointly to reconcile differences in the coding of the responses.
To give one example of coding, question seven from the questionnaire
asked the following: a) in addition to your participating child (ren), have other
family members been involved in any activities related to Nature Exchange? (yes
or no); b) If yes, please describe the activities. Part A, was a close-ended question
with only a yes or a no answer. Part B however required coding because it was an
open-ended question. The codes were based on the respondents answers and were
46
as follows: 1—other family/friends have now done NE activities (kids); 2—
Parents/Family help with research; 3—Family goes on field trips/explores; 4—
Fosters discussion at home and in nature; 5—I’ve told others about the program;
6—Parents/Family help finds objects; 7—Other. By coding the responses, it was
possible to see which answer appeared the most frequently. It also allowed for
graphing and calculating the percentage of a certain response. A full list of the
codes used for each open-ended question can be found in Appendix F. Specific
quantitative and qualitative results from my study follow in the next chapter.
I opened this chapter with a quote by Eleanor Duckworth about building
connections and working through challenges. Like Duckworth, I think that
creating an evaluation or being an educator in a program like Nature Exchange is
full of its own challenges and confusions, but the effort we put in to evaluation and
education is worth the end result.
47
Chapter Five
Findings: An Incorporation of Observations, Interviews & Questionnaire Data
“Nature Exchange is a fun way for you to learn about nature and teach us what
you have learned. You can earn points by sharing your knowledge with us and
trading in items you have collected from nature. Then you can trade those points
in for a cool item from our collection to add to your collection.”
(Nature Exchange FAQ’s, 1/27/07)
In my evaluation of the Nature Exchange Program at Woodland Park Zoo
I collected data in three ways: direct observation of the place and program,
interviews with staff and parents, and a questionnaire given to parents in person or
on-line. The purpose of my observations of participants in NE was to form a
better idea of how the NE place and program worked. Interviews with parents of
participants allowed me to shape the questionnaire, and interviews with staff
provided me with insight into their perspectives of NE and where the program
might go in the future. The questionnaire provided the most information due to
the number of responses and the combination of both qualitative and quantitative
data. All three methodologies provided valuable information and were critical in
enhancing the evaluation of Nature Exchange. In this chapter, I will lay out the
data from all three methodologies in the form of comments, quotes, statistics,
tables, and graphs. In Chapter Six, I will provide an analysis of the data outlining
its importance and what the data means to the Nature Exchange staff and to my
evaluation.
48
Observations
I performed my observations at NE in an informal and discreet manner. I
took notes from across the space that Nature Exchange occupies. Individuals were
kept anonymous; I made no attempt to learn their identities. The staff was aware
that I was doing observations and I explained my purpose to parents and children
if they asked. For a more formal list of observations, please see Appendix G.
Below I have broken my observations into three groups: children, parents, and
staff.
Children
When children first enter the Zoomazium they see multiple play areas and
an information desk (which also serves as the NE desk) to their left. On this desk
is a wide array of activity sheets in multiple colors ranging from scavenger hunts
to summary sheets about an item that a child might bring in to sheets with
questions which children can answer just by thinking, drawing and/or writing.
Children are invited to pick a sheet that looks interesting to them, although staff
will encourage older children to pick worksheets that are a bit more challenging.
Children can then pick a place to work. They could sit in a research tent at
a table surrounded by other children’s NE projects or they could sit at a desk
looking out a window at the outdoor surroundings. In NE, there are multiple
books which range from books with only pictures and animal names to full-text
encyclopedias. There is also a computer available for children to do research.
Children can choose to work by themselves or with someone else. They also have
49
the freedom to leave the building and do the worksheet or scavenger hunt in the
zoo, at home, or even in a local park.
I observed a child as young as 1 ½ years old using the NE area. This child
was sitting with both parents looking at pictures of animals and was making (or at
least mimicking his parents making) the sound the animal made. He sat and did
this with his parents for approximately fifteen minutes, fully engaged by the
encyclopedias provided in the Nature Exchange research area. This child seemed
to be really enjoying this interaction. He giggled, clapped his hands, and he
appeared to be very focused on what was going on. While not engaged in a
traditional NE activity, this child was obviously making connections between
animal pictures and sounds with the assistance of his parents.
Two other children, around 8 years of age, participated in a research tent
activity that involved sorting rocks into any sort of pattern the child wanted. The
children were then asked by the NE staff member who was overseeing the activity
to fill out a form based on the pattern they created. One child chose to sort the
rocks by their physical attributes such as solid vs. speckled or smooth vs. rough.
Another child chose to make a design, but kept the rocks sorted by size within the
design. Each child was very focused on the work he or she was doing, although
sometimes they would confer with each other about an idea. The children were
also encouraged to make verbal observation as they sorted such as comparing two
different rocks or realizing that one is a crystal, not a rock. When the children
were asked about the patterns they created, they seemed to take pride in their
decisions and the pattern they created. They appeared to feel very self-
50
empowered by the activity, and they were very happy with their creations and
accomplishments.
I also witnessed a more traditional Nature Exchange visit. In this case, a
child around 5 years old came in with his mother. He had a sack of items he’d
collected and saved to bring in to Nature Exchange. He chose an activity sheet
that had three parts which included describing each item, identifying why each
item is important, and coming up with three things he would like to know about
each item. He chose to use a combination of writing and drawing to complete the
sheet. He had his mom help out with the writing, but it was clear that in this
interaction, the child was in charge. While he was working on the sheet, I could
see on his face how important filling out the sheet was to him. He wanted it to be
complete and thorough for his own satisfaction and so that he could get as many
points as possible. Throughout this process, his mom was very supportive and
offered him lots of praise with simple compliments such as “good idea” or “nice
work.”
After filling out the sheet he turned it in to NE staff who asked him
questions about what he’d written down to help him think about his items in a
new way. The staff member offered the child additional praise and reinforcement
while he was working through the worksheet. The NE staff came across as warm,
friendly, interactive, and accommodating. Finally, the child chose to give his
rocks to NE and was able to pick out a new item from the NE collection.
51
Parents
The role of parents is not prescribed in Nature Exchange. Just as children
are able to guide their own learning, parents are able to decide how involved they
want to be in their child’s NE experience. During my observations, I witnessed
parents taking on one of the three basic roles while their child participated in NE.
The first was that of a guide. These parents chose to work side-by-side
with their child. They didn’t do the work for their child, but they were available
to answer questions, encourage, and guide their child when necessary. These
parents were focused on what their child was doing, and they were constantly
providing support and encouragement to their child. In one case, I saw a parent
agree to take turns writing with their child. The child was still dictating what to
write, but the parent was helping the child to delve further into the activity. In
these interactions, the children came across as very curious and absorbed in the
activity. Each child seemed to be on a mission to complete their activity
successfully.
The second role that parents took on was that of an authoritarian. They
told their child what to do at every step of the way. They selected a worksheet for
the child, instructed them on what order to do it in, and sometimes they even
instructed their child on what to write down on the worksheet. When the child
went to meet with the staff, sometimes the parents tried to step in to answer the
questions for the child. In these cases, the children seemed more interested in
completing the activity than really thinking about the activity. The parents’ focus
52
seemed to be on getting the task completed so that they could move on to the next
activity of the day.
The third position parents occupied was one of a bystander. Some parents
talked on their cell phones, some read the newspaper, and others kept an eye on
their other children from a distance. These parents were very removed from their
child’s experience. In essence, the child was participating in Nature Exchange
completely independently of the parent. The children of these parents were
focused the activity they were completing, and they seemed to enjoy the activity.
Yet, the children did not seem very animated or excited when they finished their
project or interacted with the staff. I did not quantify which role (guide,
authoritarian, and bystander) was most prevalent, but I would say that the
majority of parents acted as guides and the NE staff encourages that behavior.
Staff
Staff members who include full-time paid WPZ employees and part-time
trained volunteers all acted more in the role of informal coaches or mentors than
as formal instructors. They promoted inquiry-based learning by assisting and
encouraging children where necessary. However, at other times, they also kept
quiet and allowed children to move at their own pace and in their own ways.
To give one example, a staff member asked a child to describe a rock.
After the child described its shape and color, it was hard for the child to add
anything else to their observation. So the staff member asked the child how the
rock felt and what the rock could be used for. This opened the child up to another
53
sense (touch) and to thinking about how things are connected. Throughout the
interaction, the staff member was very focused on the child and it was clear that
the child enjoyed the one-on-one attention from the staff member. As the
exchange continued and the staff member provided the child with more
compliments, the child grew more excited about the activity and discussion.
This conversational approach is widely used by staff and volunteers at
Nature Exchange. In the NE training that I attended, this technique is emphasized
because it allows the child to get more out of each experience at Nature
Exchange. There was also an emphasis on encouraging the children who
participate in NE to “think outside the box” and draw new connections. For
example, in this training, we were asked to fill out one of the NE activity sheets
using a rock as our object. We all completed our sheets describing the rock’s
size, shape, and texture. Then we were asked why this rock was important. One
reason a rock is important is because it provides a warm place for a snake to sun
itself. Here, we were making a connection between a physical environment and a
reptile that lives within it. We were asked to go beyond the basics and to look a
little deeper. In other words we were “thinking outside the box.”
Staff also assisted children in picking out items from the Nature Exchange
collection based on their point value. Sometimes, the staff simply had to open a
drawer for a child. Other times, the staff had to ask questions about the object
such as its size, color, and purpose, to help the child think more about what he or
she really wanted. The NE staff was always quick to offer praise and
encouragement to each child as they progressed through a worksheet or selected
54
their special item from the collection. It was also clear, that working with some
of the children who came through NE required great patience and sensitivity on
the part of the staff. Some of the children were shy and others were nearly
incapable of making a decision about what item to take home. The staff worked
hard at encouraging and drawing these children out through both conversation and
praise.
Throughout the entire process, the most notable difference that I observed
between staff and volunteers was the superior level of knowledge the paid
employees possessed compared to the volunteers. Paid employees constantly
were able to relate objects to natural history facts or concepts, while volunteers
usually relayed very basic knowledge. As a whole, though, the entire group of
staff came across as a group of knowledgeable and enthusiastic educators. In
essence, the staff at Nature Exchange act as a compass—providing directions and
suggestions where necessary, but they also allow children to find their own way
through the program and discovery.
Summary of Observations
Through my observations I became more aware of the age range that NE
can accommodate and the wide range of activities provided. From a child who
can not even read to pre-teens who are doing take-home research projects, it
seems that NE caters or at least attempts to cater to children who are anywhere
from 1.5 to 12 years. It also became clear that staff take on the role of a coach or
mentor whenever possible. Parents had the most variable role ranging from an
engaged guide, to a directive authoritarian, to a passive bystander.
55
I also discovered that NE was a place where children could be creative,
self-directed, and where they were encouraged to think creatively and
expansively. Children were encouraged to make connections that went beyond
the obvious physical characteristics of an object. Children who were creative and
came up with unique ideas were also rewarded. In NE, most of the time,
questions are not asked nor are activities performed with black and white answers.
For example, going back to rock sorting, children were not required to sort the
rocks by size in neat rows; they could sort the rocks in any way that they wanted
as long as they could explain their reasoning.
During my observations, I started to form potential questions for the
survey such as whether parents saw an impact on their child after participation in
NE, whether they thought NE was meeting their child’s needs, and what staff and
parents saw as the goal for NE. These observations were helpful in formulating
interview questions, guiding brainstorming discussions, and creating the actual
survey. The observations also provided helpful background information and
insight into the NE program.
Staff Interviews
I interviewed five staff members, as recommended by Kathryn Owen,
Education Research Supervisor at WPZ. The interviews took place in person, in
the Zoomazium offices on May 9 and May 12, 2007. I had eleven questions for
each staff member, although due to time constraints and question overlap, I was
unable to ask each staff member every single question. The full list of questions
and staff interview responses are listed in Appendices C and H.
56
The first question I asked zoo staff members was, “How did you get
involved in the Nature Exchange Program?” I found that of the staff I
interviewed, most of them had previous Woodland Park Zoo jobs as zookeepers,
cashiers, or volunteers, and eventually they transferred in to the Zoomazium and
the Nature Exchange Program. Overall, it seemed that one motivating factor for
working with NE was the opportunity it provided to combine education and
environmental messages. One staff member said, “I started out as an animal
keeper, and then I got interested in early childhood education. NE was a good fit
with both education and conservation.”
The second question was, “Do you feel that any of your childhood
experiences influenced your decision to work with the NE program?” Almost
every staff member mentioned spending time outdoors or having a pet as a
childhood experience which influenced their career choice. Staff mentioned field
trips, catching frogs, going camping with parents, and growing up on a farm as
childhood experiences which influenced their career decision. One staff member
said the following when asked how childhood influenced the decision to get
involved with the NE program,
“In 6th grade I went on a field trip to an island and I can remember every
aspect. This spawned an interest in biology, conservation, and education.”
The next question I asked was, “How do you define ‘success’ of the
Nature Exchange Program?” Staff members said that success was defined by
“[creating] an experience for kids that translates from outside to learning,” and
“[fostering] an appreciation and understanding of the natural world.” Other
57
answers focused on themes of making participants more aware of nature, wanting
children to be interested in their environment, and getting kids outside to explore.
During my interviews, although I had not written the questions in this
order, I asked staff the next question as a follow-up to the one before, “What do
you think the goal of the NE program is?” Not surprisingly, the goals that staff
members described were very similar to the definitions of success that they
provided. One staff member said the following when asked what the goal of
Nature Exchange was:
“to teach the process of scientific inquiry…to inspire learning and
reflecting…enhance the mission of the zoo…increase depth and
connection to the natural world…to have a space that forces people to
slow down—think, reflect, observe, learn, take responsibility, and change
behavior.”
Another staff member said this:
“to provide opportunities for learning, to turn curiosity into learning, to
heighten kids’ interest in nature, to give kids ideas about what to do
outside, and to teach about ethical collecting.”
From the interviews, I gleaned four main goals for Nature Exchange which are as
follows:
1. To foster an appreciation and understanding of the natural world.
2. To create a space that forces people to slow down to observe, think,
reflect, and learn.
3. To create an experience for kids that translates from curiosity into
learning.
4. To teach kids about environmentally ethical collecting.
58
These goals also fall in line with Nature Exchange Press Packets and website
information.
The fifth question was, “What visions do you have for the future of the NE
program?” Staff mentioned hopes of more collaboration—with other parks, with
other parts of the zoo, and with other activities in the Zoomazium building as one
of the visions they had for the future. They were excited about creating satellite
stations, developing outreach programs with schools, expanding the website, and
helping people to increase their level of connection with their surroundings. The
staff also said they hope to expand the NE collection and have their first million
point celebration for a repeat trader. They felt that collaboration and growth
would enhance Nature Exchange and the impact it was having on participants and
their families.
The staff was then asked, “What influences do you see NE having on
visitors at this point? What about the influences on you as one of its staff?”
Unfortunately, this question was skipped with most of the staff due to time
constraints, but one staff member who did answer said, “The public loves it and
sees it as a community learning resource.” Another staff member said that it was
rewarding for both employees and the kids who participate in the program.
In the interview, the next question, which every staff member had an
answer for was, “What improvements do you think should be made to the
program?” Multiple staff members responded to these questions by saying one
improvement that was needed was more staff. Due to increased visitor volume in
the summer, on weekends, and during holiday periods, staff said that it was
59
difficult to interact with children because there were so many children around
who needed help and supervision. One of the critical components of NE is the
availability of staff to act as a guide for children and with such a high child-tostaff ratio during high volume visitor periods; it is hard for staff members to
interact with each child. The staff is concerned about the children getting a high
quality experience at all times regardless of the number of visitors.
Staff members also hope for more activities for children. They see a lack
of activities for young children (preschoolers) and older children (11-13 yrs).
Staff suggested creating stations around zoo grounds where children could do
mini-activities throughout the day and then come to NE as the final stop. Staff
found that the activity sheets currently available are too easy for older children
and too challenging for younger children. They would like to see worksheets
created for both of these age groups. The staff is also interested in having
workshops for older children that go beyond what the worksheets would cover.
In addition, staff mentioned that Nature Exchange—both the physical
space and the concept—need to be more clearly defined for visitors. They
suggested enhancing the website, improving the signs, or having a staff member
to immediately explain the program to every child who comes in to Nature
Exchange. Finally staff suggested streamlining the point system so that it was
easier for staff, parents, and children to understand. This would also increase
point consistency, which is especially important when siblings come to participate
in NE.
60
I decided to ask staff the next question as a follow-up to my observations.
I was curious to see how my observations would line up with the staff members
answers to the following question, “Can you describe a typical staff/visitor
interaction with the program?” One member said that it was important to let kids
tell their stories, let them build connections, and provide a
“...one-on-one interaction that leaves room for creativity but is
consistent...The staff should act as a guide and spend five-ten minutes with
each child.”
Another staff member described a typical interaction this way,
“Kids bring in an object and we talk to them about it. We ask questions
about where it was found and what makes it special. We try to teach them
something, and we try to get them to look outside.”
The ninth question was, “What do you feel is the most important part of
NE?” Due to time constraints and question overlap, only one staff member
answered this question. The following was the staff member’s response:
“…getting kids outside, raising their interest, and increasing their feelings
of security in the outdoors.”
The second-to-last question I asked was, “What do you think the role of
parents in a Nature Exchange visit should be?” I asked this question after seeing
how many different roles parents took on during my observations and realizing
that the parents were given no guidelines in NE that covered how they should or
shouldn’t be participating. Most staff members said they hoped that parents
would act as role models and guides for their children. They feel that parents
should assist children but allow them to do the learning and discovery. Staff felt
that when parents were in the role of an advisor for the child, the participants got
the most out of the program. Although this did not end up being a primary focus
61
of my evaluation, since it could be an evaluation within itself, I found it important
in shaping interview questions and understanding the Nature Exchange Program
as a whole.
The final question was, “Do you have any other comments/questions that
would be helpful in my analysis of the NE program?” The staff was excited about
the potential of NE, and one staff member also felt that it is important to
recognize that the program has value for younger kids in preschool. One staff
member also mentioned the importance of people understanding zoos and their
mission of conservation overall within and outside of Nature Exchange. The
questions and information gleaned from these interviews provided me with a
framework around which to shape my questionnaire.
Participant Interviews
On May 30 and June 11, 2007, I interviewed five parents whose children
were participants in the Nature Exchange Program. All of the interviews were
telephone interviews. The parents were selected by Kathryn Owen and Nature
Exchange staff. The contact information existed in the Nature Exchange
database, and parents were first contacted by Woodland Park Zoo staff to ask for
their permission to be interviewed. All of the interviewees have children who
visited Nature Exchange three times or more, and they are referred to as “repeat
traders.” Parents were asked ten or less questions during each interview
(depending on time constraints). The full list of questions and parent responses
can be found in Appendices D and I.
62
The four most basic interview questions were, “Are you a zoo member;
How often do you visit NE; How long is a typical visit; What age are the children
who participate in NE?” All five interviewees were zoo members, and most said
that they visit NE two to three times per month, with visits ranging from twenty
minutes to three hours. On average, the visits lasted thirty minutes to an hour.
The ages of their children ranged from three to 12 years. I asked these questions
as a source of background information and because the zoo has made the
assumption that most Nature Exchange repeat traders are zoo members.
After gathering this background information, I asked interviewees the
following, “On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 is low and 5 is high) how would you rate the
following?” There were five main areas of Nature Exchange that interviewees
were asked to rate: availability of staff to interact with your child, the Nature
Exchange area, the Nature Exchange activities, opportunities for your child to
learn new things, and staff expertise and instruction. Asking interviewees about
these areas was a result of staff interviews and discussion with Kathryn Owen.
Unfortunately, only three respondents answered this question in detail due to time
constraints. The results were as follows.
Table One: Parent Ratings of Five Aspects of Nature Exchange
Area Rated
Availability of staff to interact
with your child
Nature Exchange area
Nature Exchange activities
Opportunities for your child to
learn new things
Staff expertise & instruction
63
Score Given (1-5, 1 is low, 5 is
high)
4
5
3
Average
4
5
4
4
5
4
5
4
3
4
4.6
3.6
4.3
4
5
4.5
4.5
The lowest mark given was a three in the areas of staff availability and
Nature Exchange activities. Almost every parent interviewed suggested
additional activities for Nature Exchange both for younger (preschool) and older
(preteen children) as well as a more diverse range of activities. The two highest
marks were given to the Nature Exchange Area and Staff Expertise and
Instruction.
Next, interviewees were asked, “In addition to your participating child
(ren), have other family members been involved in any activities related to Nature
Exchange? If yes, please describe the activities.” All of the parents said that they
noticed a change in their child after participation in Nature Exchange including
more awareness of things outside, greater interest in different aspects of science,
and more complex thoughts about things that they are seeing. Several families of
participants have also started collecting items together since their child has started
participating in Nature Exchange.
Interviewees were then asked, “In which of the following NE activities
does your child participate (trading, scavenger hunts, field research projects,
drawing/writing, and research tent)?” All five parents responded to this question
and all five said that their children participated in trading. Four out of five
respondents’ children participated in field research projects and research tent
activities. Only one respondent said that their child participated in scavenger
hunts, and no parents said that their child participated in drawing or writing.
64
Just as staff was asked about the goal (s) of NE, so were parents. Parents
were asked, “What would you say the goal of NE is?” Below is a selection of the
goals these parents identified:
“…get kids interested in science (biology and chemistry) and nature as a
whole…how things work…how things grow…with hope that it will
manifest itself in school.”
“…to get kids interested in the outdoors and the environment, teaching
without knowing they are being taught.”
“to introduce kids and encourage them to look around and think about
what they see.”
Interestingly, many of the themes that staff outlined (building connections,
appreciating the natural world, and increasing learning) are themes that parents
identified themselves when asked this question. However, I also chose to include
this question on the formal questionnaire to see if these themes would be picked
up by parents in my larger pool of survey respondents.
Finally, parents were asked, “What, if anything, would you like to see
done differently in NE?” Parents suggested more challenging activities or classes
for older children and providing more books for younger children. They also
suggested additional staff during high-volume periods and more consistency on
points. One parent also suggested having more programs where animals were
brought in to interact with the children.
The information gathered from both the parent and staff interviews and
observations helped to customize the formal questionnaire. It also provided
preliminary evidence that on a basic level, what staff and parents of participants
65
see as NE’s goals are similar. In addition, the information from the parent
interviews showed that the goals are being met at least partially based on the
impact that Nature Exchange is having on the participants and their families.
The Nature Exchange Program Questionnaire
The NE Questionnaire was developed after the observations and
interviews were completed in consultation Kathryn Owen (Education Research
Supervisor, WPZ) and Jean MacGregor (Thesis Advisor & Faculty, The
Evergreen State College). The questionnaire was developed with the hope of
providing useful information for the zoo, and more specifically the Nature
Exchange staff. Several drafts were created and modified before its final
completion and distribution. It was handed out to parents visiting the Nature
Exchange Program area and on-line. It was available to NE participants during
August, 2007, and it was available on-line from August 3-September 30, 2007.
Zoo members were able to access the survey on-line via e-mail invitation and
reminders, which Kathryn Owen sent out at three intervals during August and
September 2007. In all, 121 questionnaires were filled out and returned, with a
majority of them coming from on-line participants.
The questionnaire was a combination of open- and close-ended questions.
Open-ended questions allowed for the participant to provide any response they
chose. All open-ended question responses were coded based on general themes;
each theme was assigned a number so that the responses could be analyzed
quantitatively.
66
Close-ended questions had yes/no answers or specific choices for answers that
participants had to select. The full questionnaire is available in Appendix E.
1) Are you a zoo member? This was a close-ended question so
respondents could only check yes or no. Of those who responded, an
overwhelming 92% or 108 out of 118 respondents were zoo members.
2) On average, how often does your child(ren) participate in the Nature
Exchange Program at the Woodland Park Zoo? This was also a close-ended
question with five response options ranging from at least once a week to less than
once every 6 months.
Figure One: Frequency of Visits to
Nature Exchange
8%
At least once a w eek
4%
21%
20%
Once or tw ice a
month
Once or tw ice every
3 months
Once or tw ice every
6 months
47%
Less than once
every 6 months
Based on the results, the average participant (46% of respondents) comes in once
or twice every three months. Beyond this answer the two most common answers
(20-21% of respondents each) were once or twice a month or once or twice every
six months.
3) What is the age and gender of your child(ren) who participates in
Nature Exchange? Between, males and females, there were nine more males than
females out of 201 participants. This means that males comprise just over 50% of
67
NE participants. In terms of the age of participants, there was a range of 1-13
years. The largest percentage (approximately 31%) of children was between the
ages of four and five years old. Seven, six, and three year olds comprised
approximately 10% of visitors. Children under three and older than seven had the
smallest number of participants. Based on this survey, children between the ages
of three and seven years are the majority of Nature Exchange participants.
Figure Two: Ages of Nature Exchange
0%
Participants
2%
5%
2%
6%
6%
5%
11%
9%
16%
12%
11%
15%
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
10 years
11 years
12 years
13 years
4) What type of school does your child (ren) attend? This was the final
demographic question. The overwhelming response given by fifty percent of the
respondents was public school. Private school, home-school, too young for
school, and other, were the additional categories that participants could choose
from.
68
Figure Three: Type of School that
Nature Exchange Participants Attend
12%
Public
3%
Private
10%
50%
25%
Homeschool
Too Young for
School
Other
Children being too young for school had the third highest response rate which
makes sense based on the ages of the children listed above.
In October 2007, there were 45,581 students enrolled in the Seattle Public
School System (OSPI, Public 2007). For the 2006-2007 school year (the most
recent year with posted data) there were 16,104 children enrolled in private school
within the Seattle Public School System area (OSPI, Private, 2006-2007). It is
difficult to track the number of homeschoolers because some are homeschooled
through institutions supported by the Seattle Public School System and other
alternative education sites. However, when you compare the percentages of
public and private school students in the Seattle Public School System they line
up closely with Nature Exchange participant breakdown.
The first four questions were asked to provide background information on
participants and to help NE staff identify what age their programs should be
geared toward and when they should take place.
69
5) After joining Nature Exchange, do you feel your child(ren) spends
more time playing outdoors? Seventy percent of parents (80 out of 114
responses) said that their child did not spend more time outdoors since starting to
participate in Nature Exchange. However, it should also be noted that 30 percent
of parents said their child did spend more time outdoors after they started
participating in Nature Exchange.
6a) Do you feel the Nature Exchange Program has impacted your
child(ren) in any way? In response to this open-ended question, approximately,
eighty-nine percent (89%) of parents said that Nature Exchange had impacted
their child. Out of 114 total responses, only twelve respondents (11%) said that
Nature Exchange had not impacted their child.
6b) If yes, please describe. To code this answer, 13 themes from the
respondents were identified as follows:
1 Interest in/Curious about nature/surroundings
2 Explore outside more
3 Observation Skills
4 Communication Skills
5 Asking questions/thinking/building connections
6 Learning about Nature/New Things/Animals
7 Positive Reinforcement/Points
8 Research Skills
9 Have fun/really likes it
10 Other
11Other, negative
12Enjoy zoo more/looks forward to the zoo
13Likes to look for object/collect/start collection
As the chart below shows codes one, thirteen and six had the three highest
response rates. Those codes were: interest/curious/about nature/surroundings (1),
likes to look for object/collect/start collection (13), and learning about nature/new
70
things/animals (6), respectively. The codes with the two lowest response rates
were explore outside more (2) and other/negative (11). The codes in the middle
of the range covered themes such as: communication skills (4), research skills
(8), and positive reinforcement/points (7).
Figure Four: The Impact of Nature ExchangeFrequency of Response to Thematic Codes
Frequency of Response
(in order by decreasing response frequency)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
13
6
3
7
10
9
4
5
8
12
2
11
Thematic Code
7a) In addition to your participating child(ren), have other family
members been involved in any activities related to Nature Exchange?
Out of
116 total responses, 75 respondents (approximately 65%) said that other family
members had not been involved in other activities relating to Nature Exchange.
7b) If yes, please describe the activities. Of the 41 respondents (35%)
who said that other family members (non-NE participants) had been involved
with activities related to Nature Exchange, approximately 38 percent said that the
parents or family have helped with the research. The pie chart on the next page
describes the full range of themes which came from parent responses to this
question.
71
Figure Five: Influence of Nature Exchange on
Family Members of Participating Children
9%
21%
11%
4%
4%
13%
Other family/friends have now
done NE activities (kids)
Parents/Family help with
research
Family goes on field
trips/explores
Fosters discussion at home and
in nature
I’ve told others about the program
Parents/Family help find objects
38%
Other
These questions listed above delve into some of the overarching goals of
NE without actually stating the goals (parents are asked to state the goals later).
These results, and the reasons for them, will be discussed in more detail, in the
next chapter.
A summary of the top response to each of the first seven questions appears
in the table on the next page.
72
Table Two: A Summary of Responses for Questions One through Seven on
the Nature Exchange Questionnaire
Question
Response with the highest
selection
Are you a zoo member?
92% are zoo members; 8% are
not
How often does your child participate in NE? 46% visit once or twice every
three months
What is the age and gender of your children
52% male; 48% female
who participate in NE?
31% were 4-5 years old
What [type of school] does your child attend? 50% attend public school
After joining Nature Exchange, do you feel
70% do not spend more time
your child spends more time playing
outdoors, but 30% do.
outdoors?
Do you feel NE has impacted your child in
89% NE HAS impacted their
any way?
child
Have other family members been involved in
65% say other family members
activities relating to NE?
have not been involved; 35% say
other family members have been
involved.
8) On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rate the following? (please circle
your answer with 1 being low and 5 being high) The categories that I gave the
respondents to rate were very similar to the categories given in the phone
interviews with NE parents, although they were tailored slightly to minimize
redundancies. The five areas which could be rated were: availability of the staff
to interact with you or your child, helpful and instructive staff, the NE area
(research stations/tent/collections), knowledge gained from participation in the
NE program, and activities available as part of the NE program. For each of the
five areas, a rating of one was the lowest response option and a rating of five was
the highest response option. The chart on the next page shows the ratings that
each category received.
73
Number of Responses
Figure Six: Respondent Ratings of Five Key Aspects
of Nature Exchange
60
50
Rating of 1
40
Rating of 2
30
Rating of 3
20
Rating of 4
10
Rating of 5
0
Avail. of
staff to
interact
NE area
Activities Opp. to
avail.
learn new
things
Staff
Category
For all five categories a majority of respondents gave a 4 or a 5 as a
response. However, all of the categories also received at least one ranking of one
(the lowest option given) meaning that there were a small number of respondents
who felt that there is room for improvement or suggestions. This question
provided the NE staff and me with a good idea of how the public feels about
Nature Exchange and their experiences while participating in it. Question thirteen
will show the respondents’ suggestions for change or improvement within the NE
program.
9) In which of the following Nature Exchange areas does your child(ren)
participate? (Trading, Scavenger Hunts, Field Research Projects,
Drawing/writing, Research Tent Activities, Other) Question number nine was the
final close-ended question. Responses showed that the top Nature Exchange
activity, with approximately 28% of the responses, was drawing or writing, often
74
on the NE-provided activity sheets. The second highest activity on the list was
trading with 24% of responses, and the third was participation in research tent
activities (23% or responses). There were a total of 316 responses for this
question; parents could select any or all of the five categories. The remaining two
categories were scavenger hunts and field research.
Figure Seven: Nature Exchange Activities in which
Children Participate
Research tent
activities
22%
Other
0%
Trading
24%
Scavenger
hunts
9%
Drawing/writing
29%
Field research
projects
16%
From this question, it is clear that a majority of participants come to Nature
Exchange to draw or write using the activity sheets and to trade their items.
10) If your child(ren) does bring in objects to trade, where do the objects
usually come from? (Home, Backyard, Park, Other) This question was created
because the fourth goal of Nature Exchange, as identified by staff members, was
ethical collecting. This was an open-ended question and based on the responses,
eight codes were created.
75
Table Three: Nature Exchange Trading—Locations Where Participants
Collect Objects From
Code
Frequency of Response (%)
7-Backyard
30.1
8-Park
23.1
6-Home
20.5
1-Beach
8.3
2-Trails/Hiking
6.4
4-Camping/Wilderness
5.1
3-Vacation
4.5
5-Other
1.9
This table shows that most participants are using their own backyard, a park, or
their home area for collecting NE objects.
11) On a typical visit, how much time does your child spend participating
in the Nature Exchange Program? My observations and parent interviews made
me curious about how long an actual visit to Nature Exchange typically lasted.
The duration of a visit would obviously have an effect on what type of activities a
participant completes, how the participant interacts with staff, and how much the
participant is getting out of the program.
76
30
25
20
15
10
5
m
i
-2 n
0
31 min
-4
5
46 min
6 1 60
m min
in
-2
hr
s
2
O
or
th
e
m
or r
e
h
0- rs
10
m
in
0
11
21
-3
0
Frequency of Response
Figure Eight: Average Time Spent Participating in Nature
Exchange per Visit (in order by decreasing response
frequency)
Length of Time
On Figure Eight, the “other” category represents responses that did not
include a unit of time, were left blank, had a question mark, or could not
otherwise be coded due to a lack of information. Figure Eight shows that for a
majority of respondents an average visit lasts from twenty-one to thirty minutes.
This information might be helpful to staff when they are planning programs and
creating new activities.
12) What do you see as the main purpose of the Nature Exchange
Program? I asked this question in every interview whether with parents or staff.
I see it as a critical question in understanding Nature Exchange and whether it is a
successful program that reaches its goals. In total, 111 people responded to this
question. Coding this question, and separating individual codes out of answers,
was complex. Each respondent had anywhere from one to five codes within their
answer.
77
In the end, 15 codes were created to cover the themes given by parents in
response to this question.
Figure Nine: Main Purpose of
Nature Exchange according to
Parents of Participants
Education/Knowledge/New Things
Connect w/ Nature on a personal level
Hands-On/Individual Learning
Involve children in zoo/zoo purpose
9%
2%
2%
Education relating to animals
15%
Observation Skills
3%
3%
3%
13%
2%
7%
Research Skills
Education about Natural World
Value of/being a part of nature
Excited/Curious about Learning
Excited/Curious about Nature
4%
9%
4%
19%
5%
Communication Skills
Writing Skills/Drawing
Other
Have fun
The goals most frequently mentioned were education about the natural world;
education/knowledge/new things; and excitement/curiosity about nature. These
answers fit well with goals outlined by Nature Exchange staff during my
interviews. Parents also described other goals such as observation skills, research
skills, writing skills, hands-on learning, valuing nature, having fun, and getting
children more involved in the zoo and zoo purpose. There was substantial variety
in responses but they all focused on themes related to nature, learning, and
growth. A few quotes from parents, defining the goals of Nature Exchange are
listed below.
78
“…to educate children about nature and get them excited and active in the
outdoors and their environment to look at their surroundings in a new,
fresh way.”
“…invite children to observe and connect with the natural world;
particularly for Seattle children, to recognize even urban wilderness; to
invite children to return to the program repeatedly, hopefully with more
depth and connection each time.”
“Engage children in hands on learning. Connect children to natural
objects. Explore new interests that they might not have considered
previously.”
“…help observation skills and deeper understanding of the connected-ness
of all things.”
“Getting children to be interested in and feel themselves to be an integral
part of, nature, the environment, and the world around us.”
13) What if anything would you like to see done differently or included in
the Nature Exchange Program? Eighty respondents out of 121 (66%) answered
this question, and of those who did respond, the majority of responses offered
only one suggestion. There were three overarching themes, according to parents,
that need improvement, and they are as follows:
1) More resources (books, website, classes)—12 respondents, 11.4% of
responses
2) More diversity of activities overall—12 respondents, 11.4% of
responses
3) More communication and better explanation of points, activities, and
age appropriateness of each activity—12 respondents, 11.4% of
responses
79
In addition, parents suggested increasing the number and training of staff,
increasing the trading collection, and figuring out how to be more consistent with
the amount of points given out to each child. Parents identified simple issues they
had with the Nature Exchange experience including the lines being too long and
points being inconsistent. Primarily, though, as a response to this question,
parents offered suggestions for how to improve the overall Nature Exchange
experience such as increasing the number of staff and creating larger trading.
Only one parent had a completely negative experience with NE and chose
to share it as a response to this question. Below is an excerpt of that parent’s
response to this question.
“Not be so harsh in the expectations of information the younger children
need to have to qualify to earn points. When my daughter was barely 5
she was expected to do research on the Internet at the zoo since she didn’t
know exact information about her object. She did know a lot of general
information about it that was age appropriate. She and I tried together for
about 20 minutes and couldn’t find the information. I tried talking to the
person at the desk but they wouldn’t budge…Unless we had the answer to
their question….she could not get any points. She finally got bored and
wanted to quit, so we never did get the points. It ended up being a
frustrating and tedious experience.”
It is notable that of eighty responses, this was the only mention of a significant
problem.
14) Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your experiences
with the Nature Exchange Program? Seventy-six people responded to this
question. Out of the seventy-six respondents, sixty-four percent of the codes
used fell into the categories of overall program praise and staff praise. There
were, however, some additional complaints about inconsistent and unexplained
point values, disorganization and chaos within the NE area, and insufficient
80
staff/volunteer training.
Figure Ten: Additional Feedback
on Nature Exchange from
Parents of Participants
3%
3%
3%
3% 2% 1%
Increase Activities (diversity/depth)
Great staff (friendly, knowledgeable)
Staff need to be more
approachable/trained
Web-Site/On-Line Acct/Newsletter
Great resource, educational, pos./fun
Review Point Values
3%
38%
4%
Issues with chaos/disorganization
Praise for an activity
5%
Other
Nothing
6%
Overall Praise
13%
Increased enjoyment at the zoo
16%
Other, negative
While the responses to this question were primarily positive or provided
constructive criticism, there was also one very negative experience described.
The quote below is an excerpt from the respondent’s critique of Nature Exchange.
“The staff clearly needs additional training in dealing with ‘special needs’
children…Our daughter, from all outward appearances, does not look as
though she fits into this category and so no effort was made to ascertain
what her abilities and/or needs are. Instead she was shamed and
humiliated by staff when she tried to do the things she enjoyed and was
capable of doing…No effort was made on the part of the staff
to ask us—her parents, who were close by and available at all times,
whether this was a feasible option. We are incredibly unhappy at the lack
of sensitivity, respect, and basic common decency that this showed.”
Conclusion
In the next chapter, I will provide a deeper analysis of this data and what it
means both in terms of my evaluation and the next steps for Nature Exchange.
81
I will interpret the results and offer suggestions for improvements based on parent
and staff comments.
To conclude, I’ve pulled four quotes from parents out of the parent
comments from the questionnaire that contrast the Nature Exchange Program’s
strengths and weaknesses.
“I would like to see the approach done in a way that is more
accommodating of the needs and abilities of each child as an individual
rather than training the staff in a way that causes them to make
assumptions that may or may not be accurate.”
“Wonderful that it exists! The need to write answers has helped my
reluctant writer to see that trying to draw and write letters is useful and
worth the effort.”
“The tent activities are well done but the space is often chaotic everywhere
and a confusing chair-to-table space ratio….I have had issues with the
point system. After learning about it my kids each did a descriptive page
on something they found. One did it on a plant, the other on a rock, and
the one who brought in the plant got something like 100 points, while the
one who did it on the rock got 800 points. A little more clarity in how the
points are distributed would be nice.”
“It is fantastic, our kids are so excited and motivated to explore nature and
ask questions as a result. They haven’t even used their points yet but
really look forward to bringing things in. It has been an outstanding and
horizon broadening experience for our kids.”
82
Chapter Six
Analysis, Recommendations, and Evaluation Limitations
“In philosophy, it is not the attainment of the goal that matters, it is the
things that are met along the way.”
(Havelock Ellis Quotes, ThinkExist.com)
The purpose of this chapter is to explain what the data from Chapter Five
is revealing to me. I will also provide recommendations for Nature Exchange and
will explore what limitations my evaluation may have had. The goals of Nature
Exchange are again listed below as they have provided a framework for each step
of this evaluation and are important within this analysis as well.
1. To foster an appreciation and understanding of the natural world.
2. To create a space that forces people to slow down to observe, think,
reflect, and learn.
3. To create an experience for kids that translates from curiosity into
learning.
4. To teach kids about environmentally ethical collecting.
Since my interviews and observations were all part of the questionnaire
development, to draw conclusions from the data I went through each question on
the questionnaire individually as is described below. Then I extracted
suggestions, study limitations, and possibilities for further study. Finally, I
returned to the above goals to see if these goals had been met.
83
Individual Question Analysis
Question one asked whether NE participants were zoo members. The
overwhelming majority of participants (92%) stated that they were zoo members.
I believe that this is due to the fact that Nature Exchange exists within the zoo,
and to participate in NE you must pay for admission into the zoo. Possible
Implications for NE: Does the NE staff want to continue to focus on zoo
members or do they want to broaden the NE demographic by creating a special
NE membership? In addition, if the zoo staff wants to expand the reach of NE,
they may need to consider whether zoo admission should be reduced or even
required to participate in NE.
The second question asked NE participants how often their children
participated in the program. Out of the 121 respondents, 109 of them were NE
participants who had provided their e-mail addresses to NE staff. The 12 other
respondents completed the questionnaire while their child was participating in
NE. The average participant visits NE once or twice every three months. This
gives NE staff the opportunity to work with repeat visitors on a semi-regular basis
and it shows that the current programming at NE is interesting enough to keep
participants coming back throughout the year. Possible Implications for NE:
Would a special monthly or bi-weekly event encourage repeat participants to visit
NE more often? The rationale here is that the greater the number of visits the
greater the chance the NE staff has of meeting all of their goals.
The next question looked at the NE demographics. There was almost an
even split on male vs. female participants. In terms of age, 31% of participants
84
were between the ages of 4 and 5 years, with three to seven-year-olds being the
NE participant predominant age group.
I hypothesize that this is partially
because 4- and 5-year-olds were such a large percentage of the demographic due
to the fact that most of them are not yet in full day schooling. In addition, 78% of
all children visiting the zoo are under the age of 8 years, which means that NE
demographics closely parallel the demographics of the zoo (Meeting Notes,
1/23/07). NE provides an opportunity for learning and entertainment for this age
group. This gives the NE staff a focus area for their program development.
Possible Implications for NE: Should NE staff offer more programming for the
predominant age group or more programming for children outside the
predominant age group? The longer NE can be in a child’s life the more chance
there is of NE impacting that child. However, there are also time, staffing, and
monetary constraints to consider when deciding where program development and
expansion should take place.
As a follow-up to the previous question, parents were asked to identify
what type of school their children were in. The majority of participants (50%) are
currently in public school. Twenty-five percent of NE participants attend private
school. This means that 75% of NE participants are school children. Based on
school schedules, this means that a majority of NE visits will happen in the late
afternoon, on weekends, or on holidays. Possible Implications for NE: Should
NE staff design a schedule that allows for more staff and volunteers to be
available during the late afternoon, on weekends, and on holidays? This would
85
allow for more staff-child interaction and hopefully a deeper learning experience
for the participant.
After answering the basic demographic questions, parents were asked
questions specifically related to NE goals and programming. The first of these
questions asked parents to identify whether their children spends more time
playing outdoors since joining NE. Seventy percent of parents said that their
children did not spend more time playing outdoors, but that means that thirty
percent of parents do think their children spend more time playing outdoors since
starting to participate in NE. In my opinion, this means that NE is helping at least
some children to enjoy and appreciate the outdoors more than they used to.
In reviewing this question and the responses, I also came up with several
additional questions that may have provided more clarity had they been asked or
thought about before distributing the questionnaire. First, I wonder how parents
measure the length of time their child spends outdoors. I am also curious whether
parents would give a different response based on the time of year the question was
asked, due to weather conditions. In addition, I wonder how many months or
years of visits led to children spending more time outdoors and if there are any
patterns among participants. NE is also a new program, and I would be curious to
see if this number changes a few years from now. I think that this could be a
fascinating area for more research and evaluation.
Question six asked parents if they felt that NE had impacted their child in
any way, and if it had they were asked to describe the impact in their own words.
Eighty-nine percent of parents said that their child had been impacted by NE.
86
That is a hugely positive sign for NE staff, and it means that the program is
successful with a large number of their participants. The top three types of impact
that parents identified were interest/curiosity in nature, looking for objects/starting
a collection, and learning about nature, animals, and new things. With respect to
the stated goals of NE, these answers were very important. They illustrate that
parents believe that their children are showing an interest in the natural world and
that they are translating curiosity into learning. It may also show an increase in
understanding ethical collecting, but that cannot be concluded from the responses
since, in responding to this question, the parents did not specify the objects
collected or from where they were collected.
Parents were then asked whether or not other family members have been
involved in activities related to NE, and if they answered yes to this question, they
were asked to describe the activities. Only 35% of respondents said that other
family members had been involved in NE related activities. Of these, the two
most common forms of involvement were helping with research and having other
family or friends do NE activities (i.e.—go to NE activities) with the original
participant.
When looking at this data, I was reminded of my original observations and
a question from the staff interviews. In my observations, I witnessed a variety of
parent/child interactions during NE participation, where parents acted either as
guides, authoritarians, or bystanders. When interviewing staff members, I asked
them what they thought the role of parents should be in NE. A majority of the
staff said that the parents should act as guides or mentors to their child. I wonder
87
if, in most cases, other family members were not involved in NE related activities
because they were trying to allow the child to learn and experience on their own
without taking over or controlling what was going on. It is also possible that there
is one regular parent who takes their child to NE or parents may just want one-onone time with their child. I also wonder if other family members, such as siblings,
were either too young to be involved or too old to be interested in the activities.
Overall, I think that minimal involvement allows the child to learn and explore at
their own pace, and ideally parents should be, as staff mentioned, acting as guides
for NE activities.
The eighth question gave parents the opportunity to rate five areas of NE.
The five stated areas were: the availability of staff to interact with you or your
child, helpful and instructive staff, the NE area, knowledge gained from
participation in NE, and activities available as part of the NE program. The
category with the highest rating (based on a 1-5 scale with 5 being the highest)
was the knowledge gained from participation in NE. The staffing category had a
wide variety of responses and I wonder if that variety was affected by when
parents and their children visit NE. If participating during a peak time, children
may have had less time to interact with busy staff. Every other area (except
knowledge gained) had a majority of respondents rate it with a 4. However, in
every category, there were also some ratings at the 1 or 2-level. So, overall, NE
participants are satisfied with the five areas that they evaluated, but there is room
for improvement in each of the areas. Possible Implications for NE: Can staffing
be increased during peak visitation times? Should NE training for volunteers be
88
increased or expanded? Could staff meet with multiple children at once (instead
of just one child) during peak times?
Question nine asked parents to identify which NE activities (Trading,
Scavenger Hunts, Field Research Projects, Drawing/Writing, Research Tent
Activities, and Other) their child participated in. The top activity was drawing or
writing, often on the NE-provided activity sheets. The two activities with the
lowest participation were the scavenger hunts and field research projects. Most
NE activities include drawing or writing so it makes sense that this category
would have the highest level of participation. Three probable reasons for low
participation in scavenger hunts and field research projects are as follows. First,
both scavenger hunts and field research projects involve leaving the Zoomazium.
Often parents have other children playing in the Zoomazium or parents are busy
while the children are occupied in the Zoomazium; leaving the building may be
perceived as more difficult or inconvenient. Second, both of these activities
require additional research and writing which may limit the age of the child who
can complete these activities. Third, I wonder if parents are not fully aware of the
many different types of activities that are available at Nature Exchange. I
interviewed some parents whose children were repeat participants, who indicated
that they were unaware of the activities children could do at home for NE credit—
such as research projects. Possible Implications for NE: Should NE staff do
more to explain to parents and participants what activities are available? Would
additional signage be helpful? Should additional activities only requiring simple
drawing and writing be created since they are the most popular activities?
89
The 10th question on the questionnaire intended to discern whether ethical
collecting was taking place. Parents were asked to identify the original location
of the objects their children were collecting for NE trading. Home, backyard,
park, and other were the four locations listed for parents to choose from in this
question. If they chose “other,” they were asked to identify what “other” stood
for. The top three responses were backyard, park, and home, respectively. They
were followed by locations such as the beach, trails, and wilderness. From the
responses to this question, we know that a majority of the objects traded in NE are
coming from a backyard or home area. That means that we can assume that the
objects are being collected from personal property and overall objects are being
ethically collected. I suspect that the reason most objects come from a backyard
or home is because these locations are convenient, accessible, and this type of
collecting does not require taking a special trip to another location. Objects that
are being collected while camping or hiking may or may not be being ethically
collected. Possible Implications for NE: Should NE staff do more to educate
parents, children, and zoo visitors about ethical collecting and its importance?
Next, parents were asked how long a typical visit to NE was. The two
most frequent answers were 21 to 30 minutes and 11 to 20 minutes. The duration
of a visit provides an important framework for structuring current activities and
creating new ones. It also gives staff a reference range for how long they have to
work with the average child. I would be curious to see if the time range changes
over time especially if the staff chooses to expand activities to include more
children who are younger than three or who are older than seven.
90
Question twelve was one of critical importance to the study. Parents were
asked to describe in their own words what they saw as the main purpose of NE.
This was important because it allowed staff and me to see if the parents’ concepts
about NE were consistent with the staff goals for NE. The top three purposes
given were education about the natural world, education/knowledge/new things,
and excitement/curiosity about nature. As stated at the beginning of this chapter,
the goals gleaned from staff interviews were very similar to parent responses.
The good news is that parents also picked up on secondary themes included under
the primary goals such as reading, writing, and valuing nature. The only goal
that did not come up in parent responses, even indirectly, was ethical collecting.
Possible Implications for NE: Should the NE staff emphasize ethical collecting
more explicitly? Would a hand-out be helpful or could an activity be created that
would specifically deal with the importance of ethical collecting?
The final two questions asked parents if they would like to see anything
done differently with Nature Exchange and if they had anything else they wanted
to share that they thought was important for zoo staff to know. In response to
these questions Nature Exchange and its staff received a great deal of overall
praise. To be sure, there were also a couple of participants who shared stories of
negative NE experiences, but I believe these were isolated incidents and not an
illustration of any systemic problem. Some parents voiced basic complaints about
a lack of staff training, inconsistency in the point system, and a lack of diverse
activities for young children or pre-teens.
91
Sixty-six percent of the respondents offered suggestions for improvement.
The three suggestions with the highest frequency were: 1) the need for more
resources, 2) the interest in more diversity of activities, and 3) more
communication and explanation of the activities available, the ages that the
activities are suitable for, and the point system. The other common suggestion
was increasing the number and training levels of staff. My assumption would be
that the staff members who need more training are actually the unpaid NE
volunteers, not the paid staff members. The need for an increased number of staff
came up during my observations and interviews as well: at certain peak periods, I
observed a line of children waiting for staff assistance.
Overall Suggestions
The interview and questionnaire responses revealed there were four
suggestions that came up repeatedly from parents or staff.
1) More Staff—Staff and parents suggested having more NE staff
members available. While this may not be possible all of the time, I do think it is
important to have more staff members at the high-volume times of Zoomazium
visitation. Some parents noted that their children became discouraged if they had
to wait in a line to interact with staff. Adding staff would increase the level of
organization, the quality of staff-child interactions, and it would improve the
overall NE experience for many participants.
2) Increased Volunteer Training—While most parent respondents found
the NE staff knowledgeable, some parents found them not to be sufficiently
92
informed. I hypothesize that this variation is due to whether parents interacted
with paid staff members or volunteers. Perhaps, deepening volunteer training and
oversight would allow for more consistent participant satisfaction and it might
allow the volunteers to gain more from their experience as well.
3) Increased Diversity of Activities—A majority of respondents requested
an increased number of activity options. Some parents wanted activities geared
towards very young or older children. Other parents wanted more types of
activities that would allow their children to engage in additional hands-on projects
or research. Parents were also interested in regular workshops or encounters at
scheduled times with staff. It was suggested that a schedule be created that would
announce when the research tent would be staffed and with what activities. If this
evaluation was repeated, I would recommend analyzing which groups are
requesting an increased diversity of activities. For example, is the request coming
primarily from repeat visitors, zoo members, or is there no correlation at all?
4) Enhanced Explanation and Communication—Some parents revealed
that they did not know what activities were available to their children or how the
point system worked. They expressed an interest in learning more about what NE
has to offer and they requested some guidelines that explained the point system.
To achieve better communication, several parents suggested a newsletter,
additional signage, and the creation of a special NE website.
It is important to note that although there were suggestions for
improvement and development, parents were, on the whole, very positive about
their children’s’ NE experience. A large percentage of these parents have
93
children who are repeat participants and they are enjoying watching their children
grow with Nature Exchange as part of their lives.
Study Limitations
When I was creating my Nature Exchange study, I had to constantly
evaluate and modify my plan to stay within time constraints. For example, I had
to limit the questionnaire to a small number of questions to allow data analysis
within a reasonable amount of time.
In addition, I believe that some of the questions may have been too vague
for respondents. One question asked respondents whether their children spent
more time outside after participating in NE. This was a valid question with helpful
responses, but I believe if I had provided specific measurements of time or asked
how many total visits had taken place, the data gathered would have been more
beneficial. It also would have been helpful to have a baseline of how much time
the children spent outside before ever participating in NE. In addition, if I could
have correlated the age of the child with the responses to this question, I might
have discovered a pattern.
I interviewed a total of five WPZ staff and volunteers, and five parents of
NE participants. I also did several observations. If I had had the time, I believe
the study would have benefited from additional interviews and observation
periods. Increasing the number of observations would have provided me with
more information on volunteer vs. staff interactions with NE participants, on how
high-volume times and how they are handled, and on the central elements that
94
draw children and parents to NE. If I had completed more interviews with parents
of newer NE participants, I could have compared their responses to my interviews
with parents who have long-term NE participants. Overall, I hope that my study
will provide the NE staff with new and valuable information that they might not
have otherwise obtained.
Potential Future Research and Evaluation Topics
While conducting my evaluation and analyzing the results, I came up with
several additional questions that the NE staff or future students may want to
investigate. First, I think it would be beneficial to come up with a strategy for
evaluating volunteer expertise and experience working with children. Once that
strategy has been created I think it would allow NE staff to create expand or
deepen their volunteer training programs in certain ways. If the volunteer levels
of knowledge and experience working with diverse groups of children can be
raised, this will improve the quality of the NE program and visitor experience.
Second, several parents mentioned they would like to see more activities
for children younger than three and older than seven. I think it is worth
researching whether there is enough interest that it would be worth creating a preK or pre-teen NE program focused on these age groups?
In addition, I wonder if having a trial evaluation period for new and
existing activities would be beneficial to the program. It might allow staff to
figure out which activities are the most popular and it could also show staff which
activities should be modified.
95
Furthermore, I believe that it is worth researching whether a paid zoo
admission should be required to participate in NE. Requiring zoo admission
limits the range of participants in NE. If NE had a separate fee structure would
this increase or decrease NE participation? Could those fees be put towards NE
program development such as a website or new activities? Is there a fee structure
that would encourage attendance by first-time participants?
I also acknowledge that this study was completed after NE at the
Woodland Park Zoo had only been open for a couple of years. I think it would be
valuable to repeat this study every few years. This would allow for continual
program improvement and it would provide staff with a chance to re-evaluate the
NE’s direction and programming.
Conclusion
At the beginning of this chapter, I listed four goals of NE. Towards the
beginning of this thesis, I said that NE would be successful if the NE staff were
meeting or striving towards meeting these goals. The first goal of NE as stated at
the beginning of the chapter is, “to foster an appreciation and understanding of the
natural world.” The questionnaire and the data clearly demonstrate that this goal
is being met. A substantial number of parents reported seeing their children
spending more time outdoors and they noticed that their children were learning
and drawing connections.
The second NE goal is, “to create a space that encourages people to slow
down to: observe, think, reflect, and learn.” 79% of NE parents rated the area
96
with a 4 or a 5 (on a 1-5 scale). Parents were also asked about the activities their
child participates in at NE and a majority of the responses mentioned drawing and
writing which are two tasks that require observing, thinking, reflecting, and
learning. While activity in the NE space is sometimes chaotic, overall parents and
participants seem to be finding it to be a space that works well for Nature
Exchange.
The third goal is, “to create an experience for kids that translates from
curiosity into learning.” In the volunteer training, volunteers are asked to help
kids think beyond the obvious. Instead of just asking, “What color is the rock?”
volunteers are encouraged to ask “What could this rock be used for?” When
volunteers have this interaction with children they are encouraging them to take
their natural curiosity and develop it into learning and knowledge. A majority of
the parents noticed that their children had a new excitement about nature and they
were drawing new connections between items found in nature.
Finally, NE staff hopes “to teach kids about environmentally ethically
collecting.” Within the questionnaire, I learned that most objects traded at NE
come from the home or the backyard, which is a good sign. However, learning
about ethical collecting was not listed by parents as a goal of NE in their
responses to the questionnaire. I believe this is an area where NE staff might
revisit this goal and its importance, and they may want to consider whether to
emphasize ethical collecting more prominently. Since the start of this study, NE
staff has added a description of ethical collecting to their website which I think is
a great step towards making parents and participants aware of this goal.
97
From my study, I find Nature Exchange at Woodland Park Zoo to be very
successful at this point in time. I’m curious to see where the program will be in 2,
5, or 10 years. I wonder what will grow, change, and how the goals will expand
or contract as the program continues to develop.
98
Chapter Seven
A Conclusion
“I know not what the future holds, but I know who holds the future.”
~Author Unknown (Quote Garden, 2007)
The Nature Exchange Program at the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle,
Washington is one of the zoo’s informal learning programs that educate children
about our environment. Through the hands-on activities, staff/child interactions,
and self-directed learning children have the chance to build connections and think
about nature in a new way. The hope is that through the Nature Exchange
activities and discussion, children will become more aware of their environment
and this will lead them to want to conserve and protect it. In meeting with the
WPZ staff it became clear that evaluating the Nature Exchange Program would be
helpful to them. Evaluating Nature Exchange also fit within my time and budget
constraints as a graduate student.
Through this study, the data revealed that overall Nature Exchange is an
effective program and participants are gaining a lot from it. Some of the
important conclusions that I drew from my data were:
Nature Exchange is impacting its participants and it helps some of
the participants to enjoy and appreciate the outdoors more than
they used to.
99
A majority of Nature Exchange objects are collected ethically,
meaning primarily children are finding them on personal property
not in national parks or other restricted areas.
Parents understand the goals of Nature Exchange. From watching
their children participate in the program and interacting with staff,
parents were able to identify goals such as learning about the
natural world and gaining an excitement and curiosity about
nature.
Nature Exchange helps children develop their observation and
communication skills.
Overall, Nature Exchange is being viewed as a positive program
that is enhancing participant’s lives, but there is room for
improvement.
My data revealed several suggestions for improving what is already a
well-regarded program. To enhance the Nature Exchange Program, staff may
want to consider ways to deepen volunteer training, increase the number of staff
during peak visitation periods, and enhance communication and explanations with
respect to the point system and with respect to the variety of the activities
available to Nature Exchange visitors.
Within Nature Exchange, a myriad of opportunities exist for future
research and program development. For example, it might be helpful to look into
the zoo admission and see if there is a benefit to creating a separate fee structure
for Nature Exchange participants. In addition, I believe it would be worth looking
100
into the feasibility of creating new activities for pre-school students and pre-teens
(as several parents mentioned). Expanding the age-range of the program would
allow for more impact on participants’ lives. Nature Exchange staff may also
want to investigate strategies for connecting the themes of Nature Exchange with
school curriculums. Finally, I think repeating this study in a few years or one
similar to it would provide valuable information and allow for continuous Nature
Exchange Program development.
My findings have deepened my beliefs about the importance of informal
education programs, and they have opened my eyes up to the importance of
evaluating these programs. It is my hope that we will see a growth and expansion
in programs such as Nature Exchange, programs that reach out to children
through hands-on, interactive learning. I look forward to seeing informal
education opportunities grow in zoos, aquariums, nature centers, bookstores, and
anywhere else where there is an opportunity to enhance children’s’ knowledge,
experience, creativity, and ability to draw connections. As these programs grow, I
hope that evaluation strategies and methodologies will also continue to develop,
expand, and become more accessible to the staff that runs these programs.
At the beginning of this concluding chapter, I used the following
quotation, “I know not what the future holds, but I know who holds the future”
(Quote Garden, 2007). It is my belief that our children hold the future (complex
as it may be), and it is our job to educate them now, to prepare them for their
futures as the next generation of employees, employers, parents, and leaders.
101
Children have great opportunities to learn in formal classrooms, but they
also need the chance to learn outside the classroom, experientially, from their own
backyards, community organizations, and their local zoo, if they are going to have
the skills they need to problem solve and think creatively in the future. Nature
Exchange is just one example of a program that strives to enhance children’s
knowledge, skills, and understanding of the world around them. I look forward to
seeing more Nature Exchange Programs as well as other engaging informal
programs in nature education.
102
Works Cited
Academic Deans: Human Subjects Review Application. (March 15, 2007).
Retrieved March 17, 2007, from
http://www.evergreen.edu/deans/humansubjectsreviewapp.htm
Baba Dioum Quotes. (2006). Retrieved March 15, 2007, from
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/baba_dioum/
Chawla, L. (1999). Life Paths into Effective Envrionmental Action. The Journal
of Environmental Education, 31(1)
CNN. (2007). Climate change 'to create 1B refugees' [Electronic Version]. CNN.
Retrieved 5/30/07 from
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/15/refugees.report/
CNN. (2007). The Big Debate: Global Warming or National Security [Electronic
Version]. CNN. Retrieved 7/20/08 from
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/08/30/energy.debate/index.html
?iref=newssearch
Croke, V. (1997). The Modern Ark. New York: Scribner.
Department of Art, W. I. U. Elements of Principle and Design. Retrieved May
13, 2007, from http://www.wiu.edu/art/courses/design/components.htm
Dierking, L., & Pollock, W. (1998). Questioning Assumptions: An Introduction
to Front-End Studies in Museums. Michigan: Association of Science
Technology Centers.
Evaluation. (2007). Dictionary.com Retrieved September, 2007, from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evaluation
Galper, A. (1987). Opportunities for Learning in Informal Settings. In B. Hatcher
(Ed.), Learning Opportunities Beyond the School: Association for
Childhood Education International.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1992). Effective Evaluation: Improving the
Usefulness of Evaluation Results Through Responsive and Naturalistic
Approaches (Reprint Edition ed.). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Havelock Ellis quotes. (2006). 2008, from
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/in_philosophyit_is_not_the_attainment_of_the/162926.html
103
History of the Zoo. Retrieved October 30, 2007, from
http://www.zoo.org/zoo_info/history/history.html#
Horowitz, R. (1995). A 75-year legacy on assessment: Reflections on an
interview with Ralph W. Tyler. Journal of Educational Research, 89(2),
68-75.
James A Belasco Quotes. (2006, 2006). Retrieved March 15, 2007, from
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/james_a._belasco/
Janesick, V. J. (2000). The Choreography of Qualitative Research Design:
Minuets, Improvisations, and Crystallization. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Judd, M. K., & Kracht, J. B. (1987). The World at Their Fingertips: Children in
Museums. In B. Hatcher (Ed.), Learning Opportunities Beyond the
School: Association for Childhood Education International.
Kahlil Gibran Quotes. (2006). Think Exist.com Retrieved August 30, 2007, from
http://www.thinkexist.com/english/Author/x/Author_3407_1.htm
Maple, T. L., & Mallavarapu, S. (2006). Values, Advocacy, and Science: Toward
an Empirical Philosophy for Zoo and Aquarium Leadership. In H. H.
Genoways (Ed.), Museum Philosophy for the 21st Century: Antamira
Press.
Marcinkowski, T. J. (2004). Using a Logic model to Review and Analyze an
Environmental Education Program. Washington D.C.: North American
Association of Environmental Education.
Mulady, K. (2006). Woodland Park Zoo Brings Outdoors Inside: Children can
climb, touch, and tumble in wilds of Zoomazium [Electronic Version].
Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved September 30, 2007 from
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/259920_zoo17.html?source=rss
Nevo, D. (1983). The Conceptualization of Educational Evaluation: An Analytical
Review of the Literature. Review of Educational Research, 53(1), 117128.
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, W. O. (2006-2007). Private 20062007 Grade Level. In Oct2006P105-PrivateSchoolsExtract-1.xls (Ed.).
Olympia: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington
(OSPI).
104
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, W. O. (2007). Public 2007-2008,
District. In Oct07DistEnrollmentbyGrade-1.xls (Ed.). Olympia: Office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington (OSPI).
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-Focused Evaluation (3 ed.). London: Sage
Publications.
Quotes about the Future. (November 18, 2007). Retrieved November, 2008,
from http://www.quotegarden.com/future.html
Russ-Eft, D., & Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation in Organizations: A Systematic
Approach to Enhancing Learning, Performance, and Change. Cambridge:
Perseus Publishing.
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing
Talk, Text and Interaction (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Syndey J. Harris Quotes. (2006). Retrieved March 20, 2007, from
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_two_words-information-andcommunication-are/218975.html
The Carnegie Unit: What is it? (2007). Retrieved January 10, 2007, from
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/about/sub.asp?key=17&subkey=1874
The Riles Years. (1995, 1995). Retrieved September 1, 2007, from
http://wredu.com/~wriles/Tyler.html
Turner, T. N. (1987). Going to the Zoo: Its Not Like it Used to Be. In B. Hatcher
(Ed.), Learning Opportunities Beyond the School: Association for
Childhood Education International.
Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P., & Necomer, K. E. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of
Practical Program Evaluation (2nd ed.). San Fransisco, CA: John Wiley
& Sons.
Why Zoos and Aquariums Matter: Results from the Multi-Institutional Research
Program (MIRP). (2006). Paper presented at the Association of Zoos and
Aquariums, Tampa, Florida.
Willis, S. (1999). Looking at the Zoo. South Atlantic Quarterly, 98(4), 19.
Wirtz, P. H. (1997). Zoo City: Bourgeois Values and Scientific Culture in the
Industrial Landscape. Journal of Urban Design, 2(1), 22.
105
Zoo, W. P. (2007). Nature Exchange FAQ's. Unpublished Hand-Out. Woodland
Park Zoo.
Zoomazium Press Kit. from http://www.zoo.org/zoomazium/pdf_bin/presskit.pdf
106
Appendix A
Notes from Brainstorming at Woodland Park Zoo, January 23, 2007
Attending: Jean (Faculty Reader), Kathryn (Education & Research), Sara (Nature
Exchange Coordinator), Frank (Zoomazium Project Director), Gregg
(Zoomazium Manager), Kristy (Student)
Audience Research and Evaluation: Front-End (pre-exhibit); Formative;
Summative
Demographics, psychology of visitors (ages); highest group of visitors is
under the age of 18
Looking at the Zoo as a social experience
It may provide someone’s first encounter with animals.
Possible Research/Sources
Murdock Grant
Conservation Psychology Network
Brookfield Zoo
Hammell Family Play Zoo
Zoomazium
Designed for children eight and under
Indoor building to facilitate experience
Nature Exchange
o Children bring and trade artifacts from nature
o Spend more time outdoors
o Nature writing
o Ethical Policy
o How does it connect/encourage family time in nature
Naturalism in Zoos
Gorillas outdoors with trees (first exhibit to do this)
Provides a long range vision for the zoo
What’s the impact? Context for animals
Natural vs. other exhibits
African Savannah
Ambassador at zoo and in Kenya (Kakota Hamisi)
Select what they (Kenya) want to have reflected as part of their culture
o Emphasizes and explains E. Africa’s relationship with animals
o Impact on them and the impact on the village in Africa
107
What Can You Do?
At each exhibit
Connection: needs to be personal and meaningful
How do you get people to give when they can’t see results?
Bev Clevenger (education director)
Zoomazium Part Two
Connecting kids to nature
78% of all kids are 8 and under, 60% of those are 4 and under
(demographics of zoo visitors)
Play-learning tool: all animals go through it, why not kids?
Kids playing in a naturalistic place, dream of wild lands
Invest in kids
No primary shuffles, no signs—minimal interpretation
Toddler Zone—babies with parent involvement
What’s the difference between play in Chuck E. Cheese vs. the
Zoomazium? How did kids play naturally?
Visitors: 2,000 on the weekend, 400,000 since May of 2006
Nature vs. technology: naturalistic technology/communication, used to
bring experiences in zoomazium even more alive
Nature Exchange
o Children share what they know about what they bring in.
o They’re prompted to use resources to learn more.
o Points: trade-in for something (fool’s gold, shells, etc)
o Drawing, photos, writing are all equally valid
o Ethical collecting
o Science, observation skills
o Guided activities: Sorting, ecosystems, rocks, mineral, animals,
botany
o Database for points
o Integrated: writing, drawing, research, public speaking, math,
science
o 6000 active traders since May
o Validates interest with nature
Potential Questions
Development: is it working? Are all seasons having visitors or is it just a
spike in winter?
Does nature matter more to parents and families who participate in
zoomazium than those who don’t? Is there a significant difference?
Does the connection changes with age/level of involvement?
Impact of repeat vs. significant visits
Are we making a change or doing something that sets up a change?
Are the people walking in indifferent? If they come for the play then what
do they stay for?
108
109
Why do parents yield to brining them here than somewhere else?
o Increase in regular visitors
o Why are they coming back?
o Are they getting a deep understanding of nature vs. play?
o Are they just coming here or visiting the zoo?
o What’s the whole experience?
Why is the West Gate getting used more—is zoomazium impacting it?
Does the visit to zoomazium effect how people see the animals?
Who decides when it’s time to leave zoomazium?
If nature exchange acts partly as an info desk—and encourages a focus
towards specific exhibits—are visitors going deeper or getting more new
knowledge?
What do parents do while kids play?
Could parents be educated while kids are playing? Would they be open to
that? Can it be done while they are keeping an eye on their kids?
How are parents engaging with their children?
What facilitates parents and kids being together vs. not?
What do parents want? What is the role of parents in the zoomazium?
Can children’s self-discovery be balanced with parent education?
Is zoomazium a break for parents?
Can parents be introduced to other places to take their kids?
Return Traders: Are they whiz kids or regular kids? Why do they come
back? What are the impacts of their visits? How often do they come?
Who is Nature Exchange pulling in or reaching?
Are people who participate in NE spending more time out in the zoo or in
nature?
Does interest in nature extend beyond “rocks” to a new field (animals,
ecosystems, etc)?
ZoomaziumZoo ExhibitZoomazium: is it changing how you look at
nature (backyard, neighborhood)?
How does nature exchange add value to a zoo exhibit? Does it replace
going to the zoo?
What does participating in NE do for your child? Connection to nature,
sense of authority?
What are participants eager to learn about back home?
How does NE relate to what’s going on in school? (from both parent and
children’s points of view)
What does success of NE look like?
Appendix B
Notes from the Nature Exchange Training Session, January 27, 2007
Goal: Have fun with kids; Get kids excited about nature.
Identification is not critical
NE is all about not having limits and boundaries, let kids set their own.
History
Science North started in Ontario, Canada about 20 years ago—it was
the first NE program.
o NE can be used in zoos, education centers, museums, etc.
o WPZ: most unique NE location
Growing faster than any other—6000 registered traders
since 5/19
Ethical Collecting
Tread a fine line: sea urchin shell is okay without a whole sea urchin
Shells are accepted if they are byproducts but not from a local park
Important in identifying specific, non-competitive messages
It’s your responsibility to know your park’s rules.
Take one shell instead of a bucket from the beach.
Then take none because you can draw, read, photograph etc.
Defined by WPZ: collection of items and experiencing nature while
leaving ecosystems and living things as they were before collecting
You can’t collect anything from zoo grounds, people are asked to put
items back but still get points for learning about the item.
More NE Details
Depth of knowledge and learning is important; quality vs. quantity
Reward knowledge more than stuff/items
Can give points for show and tell even if the child wants to keep an
item; they will display what you give them.
The hands-on element is critical
NE items were acquired by: purchasing, donating and trading
Dialogue with child: we’re here to listen if they want to talk
o Sometimes parents guide kids with research, other times the staff
has to take over.
3 Sections: Plants, Rocks/Fossils/Shells/Minerals, Animals
Kids need to be successful
Research Tent
o Build-a-bugcreates a bug—asks about what it eats, how it
travels, etc.
110
How to convey that it’s okay to touch but that NE is not a store
Zips/Zaps (Tues-Fri, 3:00pm)
Senses: what do you see, feel, hear, etc
Building observation skills: compare to yourself, other things in
nature
What is it—very hard to identify rocks, etc: the answer to that
question often stops dialogue and learning
Just because something is common doesn’t mean it’s not interesting
Staff to get kids to describe more: I’m from another planet; I don’t
know what rabbit means.
Interweaving stories with learning, knowledge, comparisons, etc.
Emphasis on the Scientific Method
“Let Nature teach you”
“Go outside and enjoy it”
Issues/Scenarios
Age appropriate A\activities
Parents (brain dump vs. discovery, involved vs. uninvolved)
Kid Issues/Sibling Issues—working together vs. separate; different vs.
same amount of points
Point mongers—how to challenge them to earn their points
Live animals—keep animals in nature where they belong; talk about it;
return it to its home
Large trades—pick one thing out of a bucket to learn about; take
others home, do research, and bring it back
Time management
111
Appendix C
Questions used for interviewing the Nature Exchange Program Staff
Staff Interviews Took Place on May 9 and May 12, 2007
1.) How did you get involved with the Nature Exchange Program?
2.) Do you feel that any of your childhood experiences influenced your decision
to work with the NE program?
3.) How do you define “success” of the Nature Exchange Program?
4.) What visions do you have for the future of the NE Program?
5.) What influences do you see NE having on visitors at this point? What about
the influences on you as one of its staff?
6.) What improvements do you think should be made to the program?
7.) Can you describe a typical staff/visitor interaction with the program?
8.) What do you feel is the most important part of the NE program?
9.) What do you think the goal of the Nature Exchange Program is?
10.) What do you think the role of parents in a Nature Exchange visit should be?
11.) Do you have any other comments/questions that would be helpful in my
analysis of the NE program?
112
Appendix D
Questions used for interviewing the Nature Exchange Program Participants
Participant Interviews Took Place on May 30 and June 11, 2007
1.) Are you a zoo member?
2.) How often do you visit Nature Exchange?
3.) What age are your children who participate in Nature Exchange?
4.) After participating in Nature Exchange do you feel the program has impacted
your child (ren) in any way?
5.) On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rate the following? (1 is low and 5 is
high)
Availability of staff to interact with your child(ren)
The Nature Exchange area (tent/research stations, etc)
Activities available through the Nature Exchange Program
Opportunities for your child to learn new things
Staff expertise and instruction
6.) On a typical visit, how much time does your child spend participating in the
Nature Exchange Program?
7.) In addition to your participating child (ren), have other family members been
involved in any activities related to Nature Exchange? If yes, please describe the
activities.
8.) In which of the following Nature Exchange activities does your child (ren)
participate?
Trading
Scavenger Hunts
Field Research Projects
Drawing/Writing
Research Tent Activities
9.) What would you say the goal of Nature Exchange is?
10.) What, if anything, would you like to see done differently or included in the
Nature Exchange Program?
113
Appendix E
The Woodland Park Zoo: Nature Exchange Program Questionnaire
We appreciate your honest feedback on your child’s experiences in the Nature
Exchange Program
at Zoomazium. Thank You!
1.) Are you a zoo member?
2.) On average, how often does your child participate in the Nature
Exchange Program at the Woodland Park Zoo within the past year?
____Yes
____No
__once a week
__once or twice/month
__once or twice/3 months
__less than once/6 months
__other, please specify:
3.) What is the age & gender of the child (ren) who are participating in __________________
Nature Exchange?
4.) What type of school does your child attend? (Please make a check mark for each child)
__Public __Private __Homeschool ____Too Young For School __Other
5a.) After participating in the Nature Exchange Program do you feel your child spends more time
playing outdoors? _____YES
____NO
6a.) Do you feel the Nature Exchange Program has had an impact on your son or daughter in any way?
___YES
___NO
6b.) If yes, please describe the impact.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
7a.) In addition to your son/daughter, have other family members been involved in any activities
related to the Nature Exchange Program? ___YES
___NO
7b.) If yes, please describe the activities.
_________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
8.) On a scale of 1-5 (1 being low and 5 being high) how would you rate:
____
Availability of the staff to interact with you or your child
____
Helpful & Instructive Staff
____
The NE Area (research stations/tent/collections)
____
Knowledge gained from participation in the NE program
____
Activities available as part of the NE program
____
114
9.) In which of the following Nature Exchange activities does your
child participate?
10.) If your child (ren) does bring in objects to trade, where do the
objects usually come from?
____Trading
____Scavenger Hunts
____Field Research Projects
____Drawing/Writing
____Research Tent Activities
____Home
____Backyard
____Park
____Other:
11.) On a typical visit, how much time does your child spend
participating in the Nature Exchange Program?
________________________________________________________
12.) What do you see as the main purpose of the Nature Exchange Program?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
13.) What if anything would you like to see done differently or included in the Nature Exchange
Program
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
14.) Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your experiences with the Nature Exchange
Program?
__________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your participation.
115
Appendix F
Thematic Codes for Open-Ended Response Survey Questions
Thematic Codes for Open-Ended Responses
Based On Themes Identified by: Kristy King and Mary Jackson
Question 6B (describe impact)
1 Interest/Curious in/about nature/surroundings
2 Explore outside more
3 Observation Skills
4 Communication Skills
5 Asking questions/thinking/building connections
6 Learning about Nature/New Things/Animals
7 Positive Reinforcement/Points
8 Research Skills
9 Have fun/really likes it
10 Other
11Other, negative
12Enjoy zoo more/looks forward to the zoo
13Likes to look for object/collect/start collection
Question 7 (other family members involved in activities relating to NE)
1Other family/friends have now done NE activities (kids)
2Parents/Family help with research
3Family goes on field trips/explores
4Fosters discussion at home and in nature
5I’ve told others about the program
6Parents/Family help find objects
7Other
Question 10 (where do traded objects come from)
1Beach
2Trails/Hiking
3Vacation
4Camping Wilderness
5Other
116
Question 11 (time spent in NE)
1 0 to 10 minutes
2 11-20 minutes
3 21-30 minutes
4 31-45 minutes
5 46-60 minutes
6 61-2 hours
7 2 or more hours
8 Other
Question 12 (main purpose of NE)
1 Education/Knowledge/New Things
2 Connect with Nature on a personal level
3 Hands-On/Individual Learning
4 Involve children in zoo/zoo purpose
5 Education relating to animals
6 Observation Skills
7 Research Skills
8 Education about Natural World
9 Value of Nature/being a part of nature
10 Excitement/Curiosity about Learning
11 Excitement/Curiosity about Nature
12 Communication Skills
13 Writing Skills/Drawing
14 Other
15Have fun
Question 13 (anything done differently in NE)
1 More training of the staff in general
2 More academic development for staff
3 More training for staff in working with kids
4 More choices of items to trade
5 Line too long/disorderly
6More staff
7 More live animals
8 More communication/Better Explanation (points, act. avail, what age
group, etc)
9 Consistency of Points
10 More diversity of activities overall
11 More activities for young kids
12 More activities for older kids
13 Other
14 Nothing
117
15More resources (books, website, class)
16More time with staff/staff-led activity
17Other, negative
Question 14 (anything else about NE)
1 Increase Activities (diversity/depth)
2 Great staff (friendly, knowledgeable, etc)
3 Staff need to be more approachable/trained
4 Website/On-Line Acct/Newsletter
5 Great resource, educational, positive/fun
6 Review Point Values
7 Issues with chaos/disorganization
8 Praise for an activity
9 Other
10 Nothing
11Overall Praise
12Increased enjoyment at the zoo
13Other, negative
118
Appendix G
Notes from Informal Observations of Participants in the Nature Exchange
Program
Observations Took Place in March, 2007
Activity in Research Tent: Rock Star
Children were encouraged to sort rocks into some sort of pattern or
scheme. Some children chose to start sorting rocks on their own,
without any encouragement, others needed more prodding.
The staff asked questions about why children sorted the rocks in
specific ways and why the rocks were different from one another.
Each child was encouraged to fill out a form based on the activity they
completed, as a way to take pride in what they had accomplished.
Some children sorted the rocks based on physical characteristics such
as size and color. Others created a pattern, such as solid vs. speckled
or smooth vs. rough. One child made a design will keeping the rocks
sorted by size.
While working on sorting the rocks children made observations such
as: crystals are not like rocks, this one is a lot larger than the other
ones, etc. As children continued to sort, they also started making more
observations about he rocks.
The activity was staffed by a Nature Exchange volunteer who took on
the role of a helper or guide.
During my observations, parents or kids, not staff, initiated
interactions.
Nature Exchange Research Area
I observed a child who was approximately 1.5 years old sitting with
both parents looking at pictures of animals and identifying what
animal it was. The parents were encouraging the child to make the
sound the identified animal made.
The child sat and did this with the parents for approximately 15
minutes.
Nature Exchange Staff Interaction One
A child entered with a paper sack of collected items. He picked up an
activity sheet which asked for: a description of each item, why it’s
important, and three things that the child would like to know about his
item.
He asked his Mom if he should write or draw and his Mom said that he
could do either. While filling out the worksheet the child counted (the
number of rocks), observed his rocks (feel, size, colors), and worked at
having the correct spelling. His Mom took turns writing but he always
dictated.
119
Once the sheet was filled out they went up to the Nature Exchange
Desk to discuss it with the staff. The NE staff member asked where
the child found the objects and asked the child to describe what he had
written down on the sheet. During the interaction there was praise
given such as “that’s really cool” or “great job.” The staff member
also continued to probe the child to think a little more about the rocks,
such as what different animals could use them for.
At the end of the interaction, the child was given the choice of keeping
or giving the rocks to Nature Exchange. In this case the child gave the
rocks to Nature Exchange, and was able to use his points to obtain a
new object.
Nature Exchange Staff Interaction Two
This child chose to participate in a scavenger hunt activity. She was
approximately six years old. She’d come in earlier in the day and
picked up a worksheet which had questions about animals that could
be found in the zoo such as, find something in the zoo with spots.
After completing the worksheet, the child came in to the Nature
Exchange Desk. The staff member followed up with questions such
as: where does the animal live, how many legs does it have, and what
does a spider make?
After successfully answering the questions, the staff member helped
the child pick out an item from the Nature Exchange Collection based
on the points earned. The staff member helped the child pick out the
item by asking questions such as: do you like it, what’s it called, what
does it do?
At the end of the interaction, the staff member praised the child for
doing a great job.
Parent Involvement
Some parents were very involved, and they worked at directing each step
the child was working on.
Multiple parents spent the visit to Nature Exchange on their cell phone.
Some parents read the paper, but made themselves available to answer
their children’s questions as necessary.
Other parents oversaw all of the activities and acted as a guide. Then they
praised their children at the end.
Parents also chose to work side-by-side with their children, asking
questions along the way, assisting with big words, and taking turns writing
when children ask.
120
Appendix H
Summary of Staff Interviews
Question (summary)
How did you get involved with
the NE Program?
Do you feel that your
childhood influenced your
decision?
How do you define “success”
of NE?
What visions do you have for
the future of NE?
Staff #1
Assisted in the
planning and
fundraising for
Zoomazium.
In 6th grade the staff
member went on a
field trip to an island,
and can remember
every aspect. This
spawned an interest in
biology, conservation,
& education.
“…to create an
experience for kids
that translates from
outside to learning.”
1) More well known
2) Increase number
of dedicated traders
3) Celebration when
a trader earns 1
million points
4) More
collaboration among
NE with local parks
5) More NE
programs
Staff #2
I started out as an
animal keeper & then
I got interested in
early childhood ed.
NE was a good fit
with education &
conservation.
I spent a lot of time
catching frogs,
snakes, and lizards. I
had lots of pets, and
was always interested
in every aspect of life.
“…to foster an
appreciation and
understanding of the
natural world.”
1) Creating satellite
stations
2) Outreach
programs with
schools & homeschools
3) Build more
connections to other
parts of the zoo
4) Hire more staff
with experience.
Staff #3
I interned at WPZ
as a cashier and
then I started
teaching classes,
and now I work
with NE.
Staff #4
I started as a member
of the Zoo Corps
before working in
Zoomazium and with
NE.
Staff #5
I started as a member of
the Zoo Corps and this is
one of the sections I
volunteer in.
I always had pets,
and always enjoyed
exploring. My dad
took me camping
and fishing a lot.
My Dad was a
botanist and I grew
up on a farm.
N/A
“…getting kids
outside to explore
nature.”
“…getting kids
interested & wanting
to learn about their
environment.”
1) Help people to
increase their level
of connection with
their surroundings.
2) Maintain a high
level of personal
interaction.
“…greater awareness of
nature.”
1) Shift to having
more repeat traders
2) Get kids to do
more activities at
home
3) Expand the website to include
projects and penpals.
4) Run mini-classes
such as GIS.
121
1) More items for
trading
2) Get people to bring
in higher quality items to
motivate others.
Question (summary)
What influences do you see NE
having on visitors at this
point? What influences does it
have on you?
What improvements do you
think should be made to the
program?
Can you describe a typical
staff/visitor interaction?
Staff #1
N/A
Staff #2
The public loves it
and sees it as a
community learning
resource
1) There’s confusion
about whether NE is s
store, an exchange, or
a learning space. We
need to make this
clearer.
2) Create more
drawings, field notes,
observation sheets,
etc.
1) More Staff
2) Figuring out how
to mesh with the
nature of the building
3) Figuring out how
to stay true to the
program and
interactions with large
amounts of kids
5) Getting exposure
out about NE
6) Clearly defining
the space
7) Have a staff
member to explain the
program, follow
behavior, and assist
each child
…let the kids tell their N/A
stories, let them do
the talking, build
connections…a oneon-one interaction
that leaves room for
creativity but is
consistent. The staff
should act as a guide
& spend 5-10 minutes
w/ each child
Staff #3
The experience is
very rewarding and
educational for staff
and the kids.
1) Improve the
website
2) Get the word out
about NE
3) Create a
catchier, short way
to explain NE
4) Create little
stations around zoo
grounds
5) Have NE be for
the final trade rather
than activity
completion.
N/A
122
Staff #4
Staff #5
N/A
N/A
1) Have more
programs, such as 1
workshop/month
2) Create planned
times for discussion
3) Focus on native
plants and animals
1) Have more activities
that get people out on
zoo grounds and in
nature so that more
application of what they
are learning is
happening.
2) Streamline the point
system; have written up
guidelines and a range of
points for each project.
3) Pair two people when
one person is brand new
for enhanced training.
Kids bring in an
object and we talk to
them about it. We
ask questions about
where it was found
and what makes it
special. We try to
teach them
something, and we
try to get them to
look outside.
N/A
Question (summary)
What do you feel is the most
important part of NE?
What do you think is the goal
of NE?
What do you think the role of
parents in a NE visit should
be?
Do you have any other
comments/questions/thoughts
that would be helpful?
Staff #1
Getting kids outside,
raising their interest,
and increasing their
feelings of security in
the outdoors.
“…to provide
opportunities for
learning, to turn
curiosity into
learning, to heighten
kids interest in nature,
to give kids ideas
about what to do
outside, and to teach
about ethical
collecting.”
1) Support outdoor
activities
2) Be involved so
that they can be
reinforcers
3) Assist in guided
play at the
Zoomazium
This program has
value for young
children—a 3 year old
can get it, they can
experience a positive
effect.
Staff #2
Staff #3
Staff #4
Staff #5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
“…to teach the
process of scientific
inquiry…to inspire
learning and
reflecting…enhance
the mission of the
zoo…increase depth
and connection to the
natural world…to
have a space that
forces people to slow
down—think, reflect,
observe, learn, take
responsibility and
change behavior.”
N/A
“To increase
understanding and
appreciation of
nature.”
“…getting kids
interested and
wanting to learn
about their
environment.”
“…to get involved in
nature, learn to love it,
and trick them into
learning greater
awareness.”
Parents should be
role models for the
kids, and
participation allows
for family time.
However, parents
should not take over
the learning process.
NE has a lot of
potential. We are
hearing and seeing
excited kids.
Parents need to stop
answering kid’s
questions. Parents
also need to help
take the message of
NE to the outdoors
and into the family’s
life.
N/A
Parents should guide
their children’s’
discovery. NE is a time
for family growth, not a
daycare. Parents should
take messages from NE
to somewhere else.
N/A
123
More people need to
understand zoos and the
conservation mission—if
you don’t know how can
you save?
Appendix I
Summary of Parent Interviews
Question (summary)
Parent #1
Parent #2
Parent #3
Parent #4
Parent #5
Are you a zoo member?
How often do you visit
NE?
What age are the
children who
participate in NE (yrs)?
After participating in
Nature Exchange, do
you feel the program
has impacted your
child in any way?
Yes
2-3 times/month
Yes
5-6 times/month
Yes
2 times/month
Yes
1 time/week
Yes
2-3 times/month
4, 6, 8, 12
5&7
10
3
5&7
Yes, they notice
things outside a lot
more.
For example, on the
way to the beach they
identify NE projects
as they walk
a) 4
b) 5
c) 4
d) 4
e) 4
Yes, they work on
projects at home
more to get larger
prizes. They are also
drawing, writing, and
reading for other
projects.
N/A
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1
is low and 5 is high)
how would you rate the
following?
a) Availability of staff
to interact with your
child
b) Nature Exchange
Area
c) Nature Exchange
activities
d) Opportunities for
your child to learn new
things
e) Staff Expertise &
Instruction
Yes, he’s more
interested in
taxonomy and
classifications.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Yes, it makes her
think about what
she’s looking at and
why it has certain
characteristics.
5
5
4
5
5
N/A
124
Yes, they do more of
the activities they
enjoy anyways (like
observations).
a) 3
b) 4
c) 3
d) 4
e) 4.5
Question (summary)
Parent #1
Parent #2
Parent #3
Parent #4
Parent #5
How much time does
your child spend in NE
(per visit)?
Have other family
members been involved
in any act related to
NE?
In which of the
following NE activities
does your child
participate?
(Trading, Scavenger
Hunts, Field Research
Projects,
Drawing/Writing,
Research Tent)
What would you say the
goal of NE is?
1 hour
30 minutes
1 hour
30 minutes to 3 hours
20-3o minutes
The whole family
participates in NE.
Yes.
All
Trading, Field
Research Projects
Yes, we collect rocks
together, look at fossil
records, and press
plants.
Trading, Field
Research Projects,
Research Tent
Yes, we go to the
beach, collect shells,
flowers and rocks to
bring in.
Scavenger Hunts,
Research Tent
Yes, we work together
on reading/writing and
ant observations at
home.
Trading, Field
Research Projects,
Research Tent
“… To get kids
interested in the
outdoors and the
environment,
teaching without
knowing they are
being taught.”
“…to introduce kids
and encourage them
to look around and
think about what they
see.”
“…teaching kids
about different
aspects of
nature…teaching him
to notice things and
respect aspects of
nature aside from
animals.
“…to give kids more
excitement…motivate
learning and
conservation.”
1) Something more
challenging and
concrete for older
children
1) Science classes for
older children
“…get kids interested
in science (biology
and chemistry) and
nature as a
whole…how things
work…how things
grow…with hope that
it will manifest itself
in school.”
1) Have more staff or
more organization on
the weekends and
holidays.
What, if anything,
would you like to see
done differently in NE?
1) More programs
where animals are
brought in.
2) More formal
programs.
125
1) Put more books out
for younger kids.
2) Make the computer
more accessible to
young kids.
3) More consistency
on points
4) Spruce up
worksheets
King_KMMESthesis2009.pdf