Using Technology to Educate Zoo Visitors About Conservation (PDF ...

This article was downloaded by: [71.56.116.142] On: 28 August 2012, At: 18:25 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Visitor Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uvst20

Using Technology to Educate Zoo Visitors About Conservation Bonnie M. Perdue

a b

b

, Tara S. Stoinski & Terry L. Maple

a

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

b

Zoo Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

c

Palm Beach Zoo, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA

a c

Version of record first published: 16 Apr 2012

To cite this article: Bonnie M. Perdue, Tara S. Stoinski & Terry L. Maple (2012): Using Technology to Educate Zoo Visitors About Conservation, Visitor Studies, 15:1, 16-27 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2012.660839

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Visitor Studies, 2012, 15(1), 16–27 C Visitor Studies Association Copyright ISSN: 1064–5578 print / 1934-7715 online DOI: 10.1080/10645578.2012.660839

Using Technology to Educate Zoo Visitors About Conservation by Bonnie M. Perdue,1,2 Tara S. Stoinski,2 and Terry L. Maple1,3 1

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Zoo Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia, USA 3 Palm Beach Zoo, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA Downloaded by [71.56.116.142] at 18:25 28 August 2012

2

ABSTRACT Zoos are in a unique position to educate the public about conservation issues. To improve public education practices, it is important to understand how various educational techniques influence visitor learning and experience at the zoo. Therefore, we studied the effects of 3 educational conditions on visitor behavior and knowledge at the Zoo Atlanta orangutan exhibit: no presentation, a video presentation, and a live presentation. Stay time data were collected for 582 visitors, and surveys were administered to 180 visitors. Visitors spent significantly more time at the exhibit when a video or live presentation occurred and scored significantly better on knowledge questions than those who were not there during a presentation, even though all information was available on signs throughout the exhibit. Results suggest that technological additions, such as educational video presentations, have the potential to positively influence visitor behavior and knowledge gained at the zoo.

Zoological institutions strive to achieve four goals: education, conservation, recreation, and research (IUDZG/CBSG [IUCN/SSC], 1993). Educating the public about conservation has become a priority for zoological institutions (Ballantyne, Packer, Hughes, & Dierking, 2007; Falk et al., 2007; Smith, Broad, & Weiler, 2008; Stoinski, Allen, Bloomsmith, Forthman, & Maple, 2002; Stoinski, Ogden, Gold, & Maple, 2001; Swanagan, 2000). Zoos and aquariums have the potential to educate and influence over 175 million visitors a year (Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2011). Furthermore, because zoos are often in urban locations, they can educate a large and diverse audience that more closely resembles the general population than other conservation education venues (Mony & Heimlich, 2008; IUDZG/CBSG [IUCN/SSC], 1993). A variety of techniques such as formal instruction or education programs, live interpretation, interactive elements, signage, and exhibit layout are used to educate zoo visitors about conservation issues and encourage changes in conservation-related attitudes and behavior (Mony & Heimlich, 2008; Smith, Broad, & Weiler, 2008). 16

Downloaded by [71.56.116.142] at 18:25 28 August 2012

Technology and Conservation Education

It is important for zoos to continually improve methods of conveying information to visitors (Lukas & Ross, 2005; Maple, McManamon, & Stevens, 1995; Ross & Lukas, 2005; Stoinski et al., 2002; IUDZG/CBSG [IUCN/SSC], 1993). Some have argued that live interpretation at exhibits is the most effective way to communicate conservation messages to visitors (Mony & Heimlich, 2008). For example, during a live interpretation of an otter training demonstration, Anderson, Kelling, PressleyKeough, Bloomsmith, and Maple (2003) found increased visitor stay time, experience, and perceptions of the otter exhibit as compared to a passive visit (no training or interpretation) or a visit during a training demonstration with no live interpretation, and the authors suggest that live interpretation can be used to increase knowledge gained at zoo exhibits. In a study of visitor–docent interactions, Mony and Heimlich (2008) found that people feel most positive about receiving information from other people and will attribute knowledge gained from other sources (i.e., exhibit signage) to docents or interpreters. Thus, live interpretation and interaction appear to serve an important purpose in educating zoo visitors. However, this requires zoo staff or volunteer docents to be present to give interpretive presentations, which can be costly and may not always be feasible. One possibility is to use technology to provide interpretation in the absence of available personnel. The use of technology in educational settings is becoming more common. For example, the use of digital guidebooks, handheld computer tour guides, electronic kiosks, and novel technology (e.g., Bellotti, Berta, de Gloria, & Margarone, 2002; Cheverst, Davies, Mitchell, Friday, & Efstratiou, 2000; Economou, 1998; Phipps, Rowe, & Cone, 2008; Sandifer, 2003; Sung, Chang, Hou, & Chen, 2010) has been investigated in museums, tourist destinations, and other informal educational settings. However, visitor perceptions of and participation in educational opportunities varies across informal learning settings (Packer & Ballantyne, 2002), and it should not be assumed that findings from other settings will generalize to the zoo. The influence of technology on zoo visitor education has not been thoroughly investigated even though it is frequently used (Clay, Perdue, Gaalema, Dolins, & Bloomsmith, 2011). It has been reported that zoo visitors spend more time at high technology (e.g., video) features of an exhibit than low technology (e.g., rotating globe) or static photographs (Stoinski et al., 2002), and approximately 20% of visitors reported watching an introductory video at National Zoological Park’s Think Tank exhibition (Bielick & Doering, 1997). However, Ross and Gillepsie (2009) found that only 2.9% of visitors attended to a conservation video, and none watched for more than 17 seconds. Similarly, Ross and Lukas (2005) reported that the average duration of time spent attending to a video was only 7.6 seconds, which was significantly less than expected. Thus, the goal of this study was to contribute to our understanding of the effectiveness of video versus live presentations on time spent and knowledge gained at an orangutan exhibit. The Orangutan Learning Tree exhibit at Zoo Atlanta was designed to help the zoo expand its cognitive research program and enhance visitor awareness of the role of research and science at the zoo. The exhibit is comprised of a large naturalistic enclosure that contains an artificial tree with a built-in touchscreen computer and food dispenser. This computer allows visitors to observe cognitive research taking place while animals are on exhibit (see Perdue, Clay, Stoinski, Gaalema, & Maple, in press). While at the exhibit, visitors may experience a live or recorded presentation that includes facts about orangutan research and conservation and discusses local Visitor Studies, 15(1), 2012

17

B. M. Perdue, T. S. Stoinski, and T. L. Maple

actions that visitors can take to help orangutans. Informing visitors about everyday, local behavioral changes that can be made to affect conservation-related issues is an important aspect of conservation education (Ballantyne et al., 2007). The same information presented in the live and video presentations is also available on signage or kiosks throughout the exhibit. We were specifically interested in evaluating the knowledge gained during a visit to the Orangutan Learning Tree exhibit, which can be assessed by measuring recall of factual information (Derwin & Piper, 1988; Heinrich & Birney, 1992; Stoinski et al., 2001) or stay time, which is often a predictor of knowledge gain (Serrell, 1997). Based on findings from previous research, we hypothesized that visitors would spend more time at the exhibit and be able to recall more factual information when a video or live presentation was taking place, as compared to no presentation.


METHOD Data Collection During scheduled presentations that were advertised to the public via the zoo map, a zoo researcher explained the purpose of the on-exhibit computer and provided basic facts about orangutan cognition, behavior, and conservation efforts to zoo visitors. When a researcher was not giving a live presentation, a large television screen at the exhibit played a recorded video message conveying the same information. The same script was used in the video and live presentations (see Appendix A), although visitors could potentially ask the researcher questions following the live presentation, which was not possible in the video condition. The same information was presented on signs or kiosks throughout the exhibit. The exhibit space was small enough that visitors could likely hear the video or live presentation even if they were not actively paying attention to it. We did not specifically record visitor behavior, but based on anectdotal observations, most visitors did not appear to spend much time attending to signage ragardless of whether a presentation was taking place or not. During the live or video presentation, some visitors clearly paid attention, whereas others did not appear to be paying attention. In summary, visitors to the orangutan exhibit experienced one of three presentation conditions: a live presentation by a researcher, a videotape of the researcher presentation displayed on a large screen television, or no presentation. In each condition, the on-exhibit orangutan touchscreen computer was sometimes activated and available for use. From June to August 2009, stay time and survey data were collected during the three conditions of visitor presentation (live, video, none). Stay time behavioral data (the amount of time spent at the exhibit) were recorded for 582 visitors to the orangutan exhibit and surveys were administered to 180 adult male and female zoo visitors. Stay Time A researcher stood near the entrance to the exhibit with a clipboard, watch, data sheet, and pen. The researcher observed approximately every third adult, from a different group, that entered the exhibit area. The researcher recorded the time the visitor entered the exhibit area and a brief physical description of the person (e.g.,

18

Visitor Studies, 15(1), 2012



shirt color) on the data sheet. When that visitor left the exhibit area, the researcher recorded the time on the data sheet. Knowledge Survey A subset of the visitors who were observed for stay time data were asked to participate in a survey as they exited the exhibit area. In all conditions, the researcher only attempted to survey visitors who remained at the exhibit for at least 90 seconds (the length of the video and live presentation). The survey (see Appendix B) contained five “knowledge” questions based on information available at the exhibit (verbally presented in the live and video condition, and available on signs and kiosks in the no presentation condition). Two of the questions were free recall and the other questions were multiple choice. Each question was graded with a key. For questions 1 and 5 (in which respondents had to select one correct answer), one point was assigned for choosing the correct response. For question 2 (in which respondents were asked to circle all that were correct), visitors could earn up to five points by selecting correct and not selecting incorrect answers. For questions 3 and 4 (open-ended questions), one point was assigned if the visitor gave the correct answer. These values were summed to create an “overall” knowledge score out of nine possible points. Stay time data were collected in each of the three conditions until 60 participants met the selection criterion (i.e., at exhibit for over 90 seconds) and completed a survey (see Table 1). Visitors who did not meet the selection criterion were not asked to complete a survey. For visitors who did complete a survey, we also collected basic demographic information that is commonly used by zoos (Falk et al., 2007) to determine if any of these factors influenced our dependent measures (see Table 2). Data Analysis Behavior A one-way analysis of variance was used to investigate the effect of presentation condition (none, video, live presentation) on stay time. Analysis of variance techniques are robust to violations of normality when large sample sizes are tested (Lindman, 1974). Tukey’s HSD post-hoc comparisons were conducted to investigate the effect of visitor presentation, with alpha set to .016 (Bonferroni correction). Pairwise comparisons were made between all three conditions. For the subset of individuals who also completed the survey, a Pearson product moment correlation analysis was conducted

Table 1. Number of participants used in survey and stay time data collection Visitor presentation condition Live Video None

Survey data

Stay time data

60 60 60

157 151 274

Note. Stay time data were collected in each condition until 60 visitors met the criterion for survey participation (remaining at exhibit for more than 90 seconds) and actually completed the survey.


19


Table 2. Demographic characteristics of visitors Presentation condition Category Age Gender


How many zoo visits in the past year? Do you have children with you today?

Measure

Overall

None

Video

Live

Average (Range) Male (#) Female (#) Average (Range) Yes (#) No (#)

40.1 (19–72) 56 124 1.7 (0–15) 121 59

40.6 (19–65) 17 43 1.8 (0–15) 41 19

39.7 (19–72) 24 36 1.4 (0–8) 36 24

40.1 (20–71) 15 45 1.9 (0–13) 44 16

to determine the strength of the relationship between stay time and the overall score on the knowledge questions. Knowledge For each knowledge question, a chi-square goodness-of-fit test was used to determine whether the distribution of correct responses across presentation conditions differed from random expectation. If the chi-square result was significant for a question, we conducted post-hoc chi-square analyses comparing the distribution of responses across each pairwise comparison with alpha set to .016 (Bonferroni correction). For the overall knowledge score, a one-way analysis of covariance (none, video, live presentation) was used to investigate the effect of presentation condition while controlling for the effects of the demographic variables (age, gender, number of zoo visits per year, and presence of children). Tukey’s HSD post-hoc comparisons were conducted to investigate the effect of visitor presentation, with alpha set to .016 (Bonferroni correction). Pairwise comparisons were made between all three conditions. RESULTS Behavior Stay time behavioral data were collected for 582 visitors. Overall, participants stayed at the exhibit an average of 2 minutes 53 seconds. There was a significant effect of presentation condition on stay time, F(2, 582) = 20.034, p < .001 (see Figure 1). Post-hoc tests revealed that visitors in the live (p < .001) and video (p < .001) presentation conditions stayed at the exhibit significantly longer than visitors in the no presentation condition. There was not a significant difference in stay time behavior between the live and video conditions. Knowledge The distribution of correct responses across conditions differed significantly from chance for three of the knowledge questions (see Table 3). This was the case for one multiple-choice question and two open-ended questions. For these questions,

20




Figure 1. Stay time at exhibit during presentations (N = 582). Stay time was significantly longer in the video and live condition as compared to the no presentation condition.

Table 3. Visitor performance on knowledge questions Number of people (out of 60) in each presentation condition who answered correctly Knowledge question 1. Experts estimate that orangutans may be extinct in the wild in how many years? Answer: 10–15 years 2. Which of the following are reasons that orangutans are endangered? Answer: Poaching, Pet trade, Habitat Lossa 3. What can you do to help orangutans? Answer: Buy products made with sustainable or no palm oil 4. Orangutan habitat is being destroyed to grow a product used in many household items. What is the name of the product? Answer: Palm Oil 5. The computer that orangutans play with is used to investigate which of the following? Answer: Cognitive Abilities

None

Video

Live

χ 2(2)

37

49

54

3.2

8

10

29b,c

17.2∗

0

19b

51b,c

56.9∗

1

20b

49b,c

50.1∗

40

53

53

2.3

Note. Questions 1, 2, and 5 were multiple choice. Questions 3 and 4 were open-ended. aNumber of people who scored 5 points on this item. bPost-hoc test significantly greater than no presentation (α = .016). cPost-hoc test significantly greater than video presentation (α = .016). ∗ p < .05.


21



we conducted follow-up tests to determine how the responses were distributed differently among the three groups. For the multiple choice question (“Which of the following are reasons that orangutans are endangered?”), visitors in the live condition were more accurate than visitors in the other conditions, but there were no differences between the video and no presentation conditions. For the open-ended questions (“What can you do to help orangutans?”, and “Orangutan habitat is being destroyed to grow a product used in many household items. What is the name of the product?”), there were more correct responses in the live condition than the video or no presentation condition, and more correct responses in the video condition than the no presentation condition. Overall, 32.5% of visitors in the video condition and 83.4% of visitors in the live condition correctly recalled that palm oil is the product that orangutan habitat is being destroyed to grow, as compared to 0.85% in the no presentation condition (see Table 3). Correct responses on the multiple choice questions (with one answer) were distributed evenly across conditions. There was a significant effect of presentation condition on the “overall” knowledge score, F(2, 170) = 47.12, p < .001, while statistically controlling for the effects of the demographic variables (none of which had a significant effect on knowledge score). Post-hoc tests indicated that overall knowledge scores were significantly higher in the video (p < .001) and live (p < .001) presentation conditions when compared to no presentation, and significantly higher in the live than video presentation condition (p < .001) (see Figure 2). The amount of time a visitor stayed at the exhibit, regardless of condition, was positively correlated with the overall score on the knowledge questions, Pearson’s r(180) = .27, p < .001.

Figure 2. Overall knowledge score in presentation conditions (n = 180). Percentage correct refers to the number correct out of 9 possible points (×100). Knowledge scores were significantly higher in the video condition than the no presentation condition and significantly higher in the live presentation than the video or no presentation condition (p < .05). 22




DISCUSSION In the last several decades, there has been an increased focus on educating zoo visitors about conservation issues (Ballantyne et al., 2007; Lukas & Ross, 2005; Swanagan, 2000; Stoinski et al., 2002). One significant approach to addressing environmental challenges is to produce behavior change in individuals, such as increasing recycling or the purchasing of environment friendly products. Zoos play an integral role in educating the public about these behaviors. The current research suggests that in the absence of a live presentation, a video-recording of a person giving a presentation is an effective education technique. We found that visitors stayed longer and could remember more factual information when a video was presented as compared to when no presentation occurred. Knowledge scores and stay time were also higher in the live condition when compared to the no presentation condition. These results suggest that traditional signage may not effectively increase stay time or convey information to visitors when compared to these other forms of presentation. It is possible that the presentations allow visitors to passively absorb information, while reading signage requires visitors to actively engage with the material which they may not opt to do. Also, in the video and live presentations, the speaker’s affect, or emotional state, might influence visitors. This element is absent in traditional signage, but may contribute to the observed differences. Further exploration of these issues could reveal ways to improve the design and content of signage. We also found interesting differences between live and video conditions, especially relating to responses to different types of questions. Although these results are based on only five questions and remain somewhat speculative at this point, we feel that the possible difference between multiple choice and open-ended questions warrants further investigation in future studies. Multiple choice questions tend to measure recognition memory, which requires the identification of correct information among options (Brown, 1976). For multiple choice questions with a single answer, the video and live presentations were equally effective. Thus, videos may be effective for conveying fairly simple information or information that people might come across and be able to recognize in the future. In contrast, there were significant differences between these conditions for open-ended questions. Open-ended questions tend to measure recall memory, which requires subjects to produce information without any external cues or options (Brown, 1976). For these questions, visitors in the video condition were better than those in the no presentation condition, but the live presentation was more effective than the video. The ability to recall information would be relevant if a visitor wanted to remember something that they weren’t likely to come across after leaving the zoo. Future research should focus on identifying ways to improve video presentations so that knowledge gained on open-ended questions is similar to live presentations. Efforts to “personalize” the video and incorporate elements that make it more interactive may improve the effectiveness of this technique. There was also a significant correlation between time spent at the exhibit and knowledge gained, which is consistent with other research in zoos and museums (Serrell, 1997). Based on the current findings, zoos should be encouraged to incorporate design elements such as live and/or video presentations to increase stay time and knowledge gained. The results of the current study do not address why increased stay


23



time is related to improved knowledge scores, but there are several possible explanations. People who spend more time at an exhibit may be more likely to read signs or pay attention to ongoing presentations. It is also possible that longer stay time is related to a third variable, such as interest in animals, which in turn also relates to a greater existing knowledge about conservation issues. An investigation of the causal mechanisms underlying this relationship should be considered in future research. Although some previous research has supported the potential usefulness of technology as an education tool (Bielick & Doering, 1997; Stoinski et al., 2002), other research has suggested that only a small percentage of guests attended to a conservation video, and those who did watch videos spent little time doing so (Ross & Gillepsie, 2009; Ross & Lukas, 2005). Interestingly, informal observations revealed that many visitors did not appear to be attending to the video (i.e., did not look at the screen or appear to be listening) but anecdotally mentioned the video as their source of information when surveyed. Thus, it is important to do more than observe visitors when evaluating the use of technological educational devices. Another important consideration in conservation education is the message being sent to zoo visitors. It has been hypothesized that because visitors are aware of and recognize the severity of many environmental and conservation issues, these topics should not be the focus of education efforts (Carr, 2005, as cited in Ballantyne et al., 2007; Falk et al., 2007). Instead, some researchers argue that a visit to the zoo should make an individual feel like he/she can play a role in solving conservation and environmental problems (Falk et al., 2007). Zoo visitors should be taught about behavioral changes that can affect global issues and must be convinced that their actions will actually make a difference (Ballantyne et al., 2007; Stoinski et al., 2002). In the script used in the current study, a behavior that could help address reasons for declines in orangutan populations was emphasized. Specifically, information was made available about buying products that contain sustainable or no palm oil, a product found in many household, food, and cosmetic products. The harvesting of palm oil has led to widespread destruction of orangutan habitat. As shown in Table 3, although the live presentation resulted in higher recall of this information, the video was more effective than no presentation and reached one-third of the visitors. The results of this study are promising, but it is critical for future research to investigate whether individuals actually change their long-term behavior as a result of their zoo or aquarium experience. Ideally, conservation and education efforts would result in long-term behavioral change (Adelman, Falk, & James, 2000; Smith, Broad & Weiler, 2008; Stoinski et al., 2001; Stoinski et al., 2002; Swanagan, 2000). The present study focused only on immediate behavioral change (i.e., stay time) and factual knowledge gained about conservation issues. More research is needed to determine whether this improved knowledge actually results in increased conservation-related behaviors (Falk et al., 2007), such as purchasing products made with sustainable or no palm oil. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported by the Elizabeth Smithgall Watts endowment at the Georgia Institute of Technology and Charles T. Bailey fellowship at Zoo Atlanta. We would like to express our gratitude to the following people for

24


Technology and Conservation Education their assistance on this study: Gregory Corso and Brian McMahon for project development, Alison Williams for data collection, Sumir Keenan and Emily Volstad for researcher presentations, and Adam Thompson for technical support. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for commenting on the manuscript.

REFERENCES


Adelman, L. M., Falk, J. H., & James, S. (2000). Impact of national aquarium in Baltimore on visitors’ conservation attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Curator: The Museum Journal, 43, 33–61. Anderson, U. S., Kelling, A. S., Pressley-Keough, R., Bloomsmith, M. A., & Maple, T. L. (2003). Enhancing the zoo visitor’s experience by public animal training and oral interpretation at an otter exhibit. Environment and Behavior, 35, 826–841. Association of Zoos and Aquariums. (2011, September 21). Zoo and Aquarium Statistics. Retrieved March 5, 2012, from http://www.aza.org/zoo-aquarium-statistics Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K., & Dierking, L. (2007). Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: Lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environmental Education Research, 13, 367–383. Bellotti, F., Berta, R., de Gloria, A., & Margarone, M. (2002). User testing a hypermedia tour guide. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 1(2), 33–41. Bielick, S., & Doering, Z. D. (1997). An assessment of the “Think Tank” exhibition at the National Zoological Park (Report No. 97-1). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Brown, J. (1976). Recall and recognition. New York, NY: Wiley. Cheverst, K., Davies, N., Mitchell, K., Friday, A., & Efstratiou, C. (2000). Developing a contextaware electronic tourist guide: Some issues and experiences. In Proceedings ACM human factors in computing (CHI’00) (pp. 17–24). New York: ACM Press. Clay, A. W., Perdue, B. M., Gaalema, D. E., Dolins, F. L., & Bloomsmith, M. A. (2011). The use of technology to enhance zoological parks. Zoo Biology, 30, 487–497. Derwin, C. W., & Piper, J. B. (1988). The African rock kopje exhibit: Evaluation and interpretive elements. Environment and Behavior, 20, 435–451. Economou, M. (1998). The evaluation of museum multimedia applications: Lessons from research. Museum Management and Curatorship, 17, 173–187. Falk, J. H., Reinhard, E. M., Vernon, C. L., Bronnenkant, K., Deans, N. L., & Heimlich, J. E. (2007). Why zoos & aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos & Aquariums. Heinrich, C. J., & Birney, B. A. (1992). Effects of live animal demonstrations on zoo visitors’ retention of information. Anthrozoos, 5, 113–121. IUDZG/CBSG (IUCN/SSC). (1993). Executive summary: The world zoo conservation strategy. The role of the zoos and aquaria of the world in global conservation. Retrieved October 24, 2011, from http://www.brookfieldzoo.org/pagegen/inc/wczs.pdf Lindman, H. R. (1974). Analysis of variance in complex experimental designs. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co. Lukas, K. E., & Ross, S. R. (2005). Zoo visitor knowledge and attitudes towards gorillas and chimpanzees. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36(4), 33–48. Maple, T. L., McManamon, R., & Stevens, E. (1995). Defining the good zoo: Animal care, maintenance, and welfare. In B. G. Norton, M. Hutchins, E. F. Stevens, & T. L. Maple (Eds.), Ethics on the ark: Zoos, animal welfare and wildlife conservation (pp. 219–234). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Mony, P. R. S., & Heimlich, J. E. (2008). Talking to visitors about conservation: Exploring message communication through docent–visitor interactions at zoos. Visitor Studies, 11, 151–162. Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2002). Motivational factors and the visitor experience: A comparison of three sites. Curator: The Museum Journal, 45, 183–198.


25


Perdue, B. M., Clay, A. W., Stoinski, T. S., Gaalema, D. E., & Maple, T. L. (in press). The influence of an on-exhibit touchscreen computer on orangutans and zoo visitors. Phipps, M., Rowe, S., & Cone, J. (2008). Incorporating handheld computers into a public science center: A design research study. Visitor Studies, 11, 123–138. Ross, S. R., & Gillespie, K. L. (2009). Influences on visitor behavior at a modern immersive zoo exhibit. Zoo Biology, 28, 462–472. Ross, S. R., & Lukas, K. E. (2005). Zoo visitor behavior at an African ape exhibit. Visitor Studies Today, 8(1), 4–12. Sandifer, C. (2003). Technological novelty and open-endedness: Two characteristics of interactive exhibits that contribute to the holding of visitor attention in a science museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 121–137. Serrell, B. (1997). Paying attention: the duration and allocation of visitors’ time in museum exhibitions. Curator: The Museum Journal, 40, 108–125.


Smith, L., Broad, S., & Weiler, B. (2008). A closer examination of the impact of zoo visits on visitor behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16, 544–562. Stoinski, T. S., Allen, M. T., Bloomsmith, M. A., Forthman, D. L., & Maple, T. L. (2002). Educating zoo visitors about complex environmental issues: Should we do it and how? Curator: The Museum Journal, 45, 129–143. Stoinski, T. S., Ogden, J. J., Gold, K. C., & Maple, T. L. (2001). Captive apes and zoo education. In B. B. Beck, T. S. Stoinski, M. Hutchins, T. L. Maple, B. Norton, A. Rowan, E. F. Stevens, & A. Arluke (Eds.), Great apes & humans: The ethics of coexistence (pp. 113–132). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Sung, Y., Chang, K., Hou, H., & Chen, P. (2010). Designing an electronic guidebook for learning engagement in a museum of history. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 74–83. Swanagan, J. S. (2000). Factors influencing zoo visitors’ conservation attitudes and behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 26–31.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Bonnie Perdue earned a Master’s and PhD from the Center for Conservation and Behavior in the School of Psychology at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests focus on animal welfare, behavior, and cognition, as well as the role of zoos in educating visitors about conservation issues. Address coresspondence to: School of Psychology, 654 Cherry Street, Atlanta, GA 30332 USA. E-mail: [email protected]. Tara Stoinski earned a Master’s from Oxford University and a PhD from the Georgia Institute of Technology. She works for Zoo Atlanta, where she oversees the primate research program, and The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund as the Pat and Forest McGrath Chair of Conservation and Research. Her research interests focus on primate behavior and cognition, visitor behavior, ape management, and conservation. Terry L. Maple is the President/CEO of the Palm Beach Zoo, a Research Professor of Biology at Florida Atlantic University, and Elizabeth Smithgall Watts Professor of Conservation and Behavior Emeritus at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

APPENDIX A: ORANGUTAN VIDEO AND LIVE PRESENTATION SCRIPT “Hi, my name is , and I am a researcher here at Zoo Atlanta. Today I am going to talk about our orangutans, conservation, and the cognitive research we do here at Zoo Atlanta. We have 11 orangutans here at Zoo Atlanta. That is the largest captive population in North America. In the exhibit, you can see a large tree. There is actually a touchscreen computer inside of the tree. Sometimes you can see the orangutans interacting with this computer. The computer enables us to gain insight into complex cognitive abilities of orangutans, such as memory, social learning, and problem solving. Unfortunately, orangutans are endangered. It is estimated that orangutans will be extinct in the wild in as little as 10–15 years. Numerous factors have contributed to the decline in orangutan populations, including habitat loss, poaching and the pet trade. Habitat loss due to deforestation is a major factor in the current decline of the orangutan population. The land is cleared for agricultural purposes, and a major crop is palm oil.

26


Technology and Conservation Education Palm oil is used in numerous products, ranging from cookies to soaps. You can make a difference for orangutans by checking labels. Buy products that do not contain palm oil or use sustainable palm oil. These products do not contribute to habitat loss and help conserve the orangutan population. To learn more about orangutan conservation, please visit our website at www.zooatlanta.org.”

APPENDIX B: ORANGUTAN COMPUTER SURVEY The following questions are based on information you may have seen or heard at the exhibit today. 1. Experts estimate that orangutans may be extinct in the wild in how many years? a.) 1–5 years

b.) 10–15 years

c.) 100–150 years

d.) 1000–1500 years

2. What are some reasons that orangutans are endangered? (Circle ALL that are correct) -Poaching

-Failure to Breed

-Global Warming

-Pet Trade

-Habitat Loss


3. What can you do to help orangutans?

4. Orangutan habitat is being destroyed to grow a product used in many household items. What is the name of the product?

5. The computer that the orangutans play with is used primarily to investigate which of the following: a.) Mental abilities

b.) Physical skills

c.) Comfort with technology

How many times did you go to a zoo in the last year?

Gender:

M

d.) Emotional reactions F

Age

Do you have children with you today? Y N Experimenter

Date Presentation: Live Orangutan Computer: On


Stay Time Video

Survey # None Off

27