Date post: | 12-Mar-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | emmabornebroek |
View: | 219 times |
Download: | 0 times |
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
SUMMARY 3
INTRODUCTION 5
LITERATURE REVIEW 9
QUESTIONS RAISED 15
METHODS 17
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 21
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 41
BIBLIOGRAPHY 44
APPENDICES 47
3
SUMMARY Zoos are popular destinations for a day out. However, besides providing recreation, many zoos
also aim to stimulate conservation of wildlife. Providing interpretative material such as
information signs can help zoos achieve this goal. However, in order to do that effectively, such
materials must be well tailored to the zoo’s visitors. One very large visitor group in zoos is
families, making optimization of interpretative material for this audience an important topic.
ZSL London Zoo’s Tiger Territory, which opened in March 2013, is one exhibit in which special
attention was given to developing effective interpretation materials for families. It uses a story
about Hari the wild tiger together with life size tiger sculptures. This is a novel method of
interpretation in zoos, and no research has taken place yet to see if it effectively engages a
family audience in a meaningful way.
There is, however, some literature to suggest that it might be effective. First of all, both the story
and the sculptures have the potential to play into the family agenda of enjoyment and social
interaction. In addition, the literature regarding sculptures in zoos in particular appears
adamant that sculptures stimulate love for nature, are educational and also provide a lot of
family enjoyment. Furthermore, specific narrative theory suggests that stories are a very
natural way to learn, and that it has great potential for engaging people emotionally. However,
other sources argue that using narrative doesn’t always work, and even that signs do not hold
great potential for engaging families in any case.
Altogether, this raises a number of specific sub questions on the success with which stories and
sculptures can engage a family audience in a meaningful manner. In this study, visitor
observations combined with visitor surveys were used to investigate how much and in what
ways families engage with the stories and sculptures in Tiger Territory, how families enjoy this,
to what extent it is meaningful both on a cognitive and an affective level, and how suitable and
4
enriching families think these interpretation elements are. Furthermore, it was investigated
whether visitors actually notice how the signs and sculptures work together as a story about
Hari the wild tiger.
In total, 311 observations were made and 53 surveys were taken, though the resulting database
was much larger for the sculptures than for the stories. Together, these results showed that
family groups engage with the sculptures to a great extend and in the ways that were predicted
by literature. Furthermore, it suggested that families very much enjoy them, feel they are very
suited to them and that it adds a lot to their visit. Though somewhat less unequivocal, many
visitors did also feel that the sculptures were educational and made them more enthusiastic
about tigers. The results concerning the story-‐based signs were very similar in most regards,
except for – importantly -‐ on the degree of use. Very few families interacted with these
interpretation elements. Lastly, the data showed that very few families noticed how the signs
and sculptures work together as a story about Hari the wild tiger.
In conclusion, this study provides support for the ideas in the literature about the benefits of
sculptures, and could help zoos plan future animal sculptures. Practical implications regarding
the story-‐based signs are less clear, and additional research into the specific effect of the
narrative would be useful. What is clear is that it might be beneficial to more clearly signpost
the story idea, as to increase understanding of this concept. Other further studies that could
follow on from this study include more in-‐depth research into the educational and empathic
benefits of the sculptures.
However, even without these further studies, the results presented here represent a significant
contribution to the field in that they provide the first solid data concerning the use of sculptures
and stories in zoo interpretation.
5
INTRODUCTION Zoos and aquariums are highly popular destinations for a day out. In fact, over 650 million
people worldwide visit zoos each year. Often, the main motivation for these visits is to have a
good time (Falk & Dierking, 1992). However, many modern zoos regard themselves as more
than a destination for a ‘fun day out’. Besides providing recreation, most zoos aim to stimulate
conservation of wildlife. (Anon, 2007)
In a relatively straightforward way, zoos can do this by donating money from ticket sales to
conservation projects, and this indeed is often done. Another prominent way is to inspire and
educate the zoo visitors about nature and conservation by providing an experience with the
natural world that is not easily available elsewhere. Though it is sometimes questioned if
visiting a zoo actually makes one more inclined to support conservation efforts, evidence is now
becoming available that zoo visits do in fact reinforce such conservation values and attitudes
(Falk, Reinhard, Vernon, et al., 2007).
Within the zoo visit, there are different aspects that could potentially contribute to this effect.
First of all, seeing the live animals and the environment they are in is probably important.
However, in addition to that, interpretative material including signs, talks or live
demonstrations can increase the impact of a visit (Weiler & Smith, 2009).
Therefore, optimization of such interpretative material for the visitors is an important topic.
And as with any optimization, this probably happens best with the visitor in mind (Scanlon,
Whitelegg & Yates, 1999). Like other types of museums or science learning centres, a very
important visitor group to consider in the case of zoos is families, as they make up a large
segment of the audience, potentially constituting over half of the visitors (Borun, 1997;
Ellenbogen, Luke & Dierking, 2004; Briseño-‐Garzón, Anderson & Anderson, 2007). One recent
6
and significant zoo exhibit in which this group was indeed given specific consideration is ZSL
London Zoo’s new flagship exhibit ‘Tiger Territory’, which opened in March 2013.
The exhibit consists of a large central tiger enclosure and has a five-‐section story trail winding
around it. Though there are also a number of other interpretative elements, it is the story trail
that is of interest. This trail was possible because the enclosure was designed in such a way that
the visitor journey is largely linear and unidirectional (see figure 1).
FIGURE 1 -‐ MAP OF 'TIGER TERRITORY' WITH THE LOCATIONS OF INTERPRETATION SECTIONS ONE TO FIVE
Each section of the story trail contains three main elements (see figure 2). First of all, there is a
chapter of ‘A Tiger’s Tale’, which tells the story of Hari, a wild Sumatran tiger, from birth to
uncertain present (see appendix for full story). Secondly, there is a life-‐size tiger sculpture that
brings the scene from ‘A Tiger’s Tale’ alive. For example, in the first chapter it is a sculpture of a
new-‐born tiger. Lastly, each chapter also includes an ‘At the Zoo’ sign, which contains
information about the zoo tigers relevant to the content of the ‘A Tiger’s Tale’ chapter. For
example, in the second chapter ‘Hari Gets Fierce’, in which Hari learns to hunt, it discusses
feeding at the zoo.
7
The underlying ideas behind the use of a story was, as Tom Sears, head developer of the
interpretation at Tiger Territory, puts it, ‘to try to tie together various pieces of conservational
information and to make them as palatable as possible to the family audience’ (Sears, 2013). The
sculpture idea complements this as ‘a good way to bring it to life, and to draw people to the
interpretation areas’. Also, the sculptures were intended to ‘show that they [the real tigers] do
move in incredibly interesting and athletic ways’ which might not become clear from the real
tigers, as the they are likely to be asleep or hidden a lot of the time (Ibid.).
FIGURE 2, THE FIVE CHAPTERS OF THE INTERPRETATION AT TIGER TERRITORY. Chapter 1, Meet Hari (and his mum) Chapter 2, Hari Gets Fierce Chapter 3, Hari Has a Bad Day Chapter 4, Hari and the Humans Chapter 5, Hari Shows Them Who’s Boss a = ‘A Tiger’s Tale’ signs b = ‘At the Zoo’ signs
8
Altogether, the envisaged family visitor journey through this exhibit consists of parents reading
the story together with their children, kids climbing on the sculptures and parents taking
pictures of the kids with Hari. This was then hoped to, amongst other things, result in an
enjoyable experience and an increased enthusiasm about tigers (ZLS London Zoo, 2012).
In theory, the statues and sculptures are therefore suggested to nicely work in line with the dual
function of zoos: providing recreation whilst also inspiring the visitors to care about nature.
However, with this being a novel strategy, it was not clear to what extent this theory would
actually translate to practice, especially as no academic data exists on this topic in zoos. Since
the opening of Tiger Territory, an initial feedback report by ZSL London Zoo itself has been
produced. Besides demonstrating that over half of the visitors to Tiger Territory do indeed
come in family groups, it also included the broad observation that ‘the sculptures proved very
popular’ and one visitor comment stating they enjoyed the story element in the signs (Murray,
2013). However, no structured research took place looking into these elements.
This then, raises the overarching question of ‘To what extent does the use of story-‐based signs
and sculptures successfully engage a family audience in a meaningful manner?’
9
LITERATURE REVIEW To start answering the question raised, the relevant academic literature must be addressed, and
engaging a family audience with museum interpretation is a well developed academic discipline
(Ellenbogen, Luke & Dierking, 2004). The field of family learning in museums in particular has a
long literature (Borun, 2008). This section will cover the literature relevant to the
interpretation in Tiger Territory, thereby putting it into perspective. First, it will discuss the
family agenda and its consequences for engaging families. It will also analyse how Tiger
Territory potentially matches up with this. Next, it will move onto a more specific consideration
of the use of stories and sculptures in zoo interpretation, linking this together with Tiger
Territory and the family agenda. Though these two latter specific aspects have been less
thoroughly covered in literature, there are still a number of interesting relevant sources to
discuss.
First of all, it is important to define what exactly constitutes a ‘family’. McManus has described
it as an intergenerational group of people whose members share close relational ties, whether
these are by blood or not (McManus, 1994). This definition will therefore be followed here, but
with the addition that the children in the group should be aged between four and 12 as this was
the ‘family’ target group in the Tiger Territory interpretation plan which was deemed likely to
interact with the interpretation material as described earlier (Sears, 2013).
Secondly, it is important to note that zoos are informal learning environments, which many
visitors including families, visit voluntarily. This means that they have nearly complete freedom
in selecting what they do and do not engage with, and will act accordingly (Allen, 2004).
Therefore, in order to achieve effective engagement, the interpretation needs to play in on the
family agenda. That way, the families are likely to voluntarily engage with the material on offer.
10
This so called ‘agenda’ is a combination of every visitor’s preconceptions and expectations.
Studies have shown that, possibly unsurprisingly, enjoyment is highest on the family agenda
(Falk & Dierking, 1992). Furthermore, as often emphasized in the literature, families see a visit
not just as an opportunity to enjoy the zoo, but also to enjoy each others company (McManus,
1994; Borun, Cleghorn & Garfield, 1995; Reade & Waran, 1996; Rosenfeld, 1982) Therefore, the
social aspect of a zoo-‐visit is very important.
In addition, families do also come to learn, as especially parents want the visit to be a
worthwhile educational experience, rather than just a thrill and excitement visit as would be the
case with, for example, a theme park trip (McManus, 1994). However, they do want to learn
effortlessly and in an enjoyable manner (Borun, 1997).
Within families, parents often see themselves as facilitators for the learning of their children
(Heimlich & Falk, 2008). Though this does not necessarily mean that the adults do not learn
themselves (Briseño-‐Garzón, Anderson & Anderson, 2007), it does mean that when facilitated in
the right way, learning can fit nicely within the family agenda of enjoying together. Research has
also shown that the desire to learn together goes beyond a theoretical wish of the parents.
Actual observations of families in museums in general and zoos in particular have shown that
such social interpretation interaction does indeed take place (McManus, 1994; Parker &
Krockover, 2011; Hensel, 1987).
In response to this, it has been suggested that paying specific attention to (social) enjoyment
could enhance meaningful engagement of families with interpretation material. (Falk &
Dierking, 1992; Borun, 1997). A specific response was produced by the Philadelphia/Camden
informal science education collaborative (PISEC). Based on a study of family learning in four
Philadelphia area museums, including the Philadelphia zoo, the organisation identified seven
characteristics of successful family learning exhibits: multi-‐sided, multi-‐user, accessible, multi-‐
outcome, multi-‐modal, readable and relevant (Borun, Dirstas, Johnson, et al., 1998). They
11
hypothesised, and demonstrated, that incorporating these seven characteristics into displays
increased the quality and amount of family learning.
Though the PISEC principles were not something specifically considered during the
development of Tiger Territory, several of the characteristics are reflected in it. For examples,
the sculptures are multi-‐sided, multi-‐user and accessible. The story signs are readable, and
relevant, and together, they are multi-‐modal. However, with both being static displays, they are
not multi-‐outcome.
Looking more generally, one can naturally envisage stories, when written well, to be enjoyable,
educational and allow social interaction. Likewise, the sculptures seem intrinsically enjoyable,
allow social interaction through picture taking, and are also potentially educational. However,
these are all just broad assumptions. Therefore, the following sections will discuss the literature
on the use of stories and sculptures more specifically, analysing how it fits in with the previous
ideas as well as looking into what new ideas this literature has to offer.
Unlike the general topic of interpretation for families, the use of stories, or narratives, in zoos
and other museums does not have a vast literature. One potential reason for this is that due to
their often non-‐linear structure, it can be difficult to incorporate a story that runs through an
entire exhibit.
Yet interestingly, as early at 1968, an article was published in Curator: the museum journal
concerning the importance of telling good stories in zoos. In fact, it even argued that telling good
stories was more important than the display of rare animals itself (Conway, 1968). However,
this ‘story’, which Conway referred to, did not necessarily have to be a narrative in the strictest
sense of ‘a causally connected sequence of events represented in space and time’. Rather it
talked more generally about the presentation of relevant information. Nonetheless, it is
interesting to note that even before interpretation in zoos had taken its modern forms, stories
were already being discussed.
12
There is also a stream of thought within the modern interpretation community which suggests
that material can be offered very effectively through narrative (Kelly, 2010). One of the most
important arguments for this is not that it allows enjoyable social interaction, but rather that
narratives are a natural way for people to learn (Bedford, 2001). This argument is based on the
work of Bruner, which describes how people are natural storytellers and how humans make
sense of the world through narrative (Bruner, 1990). This implies, Bedford argues, that with a
storytelling strategy, information may be more likely to be remembered by the visitor. Besides
being informative, storytelling also has the potential to access not just the cognitive, but also the
affective level, allowing emotional engagement (Bedford, 2001; Furse-‐Roberts, 2009).
Research in actual museums has supported the idea that in certain cases, especially in cultural
and historical museums, the storytelling strategy can indeed be very effective. However, a study
looking into the use of narrative in a science museum suggests that offering the information as a
narrative can also be challenging, and less effective at engaging the visitor than other
interpretation methods (Allen, 2004). Furthermore, a study by Diamond showed that families in
museums are not likely to read signs at all (Diamond, 1986), and general research within ZSL
also shows that often few visitors read any signs (Murray, 2012a, 2012b). So together, this
literature does not provide any strong conclusion on the potential benefits of the use of
narrative in museums.
Even more so than for the use of narrative, the use of statues has not been discussed in great
detail in the literature, and most of the information has been collated in the relatively short
book called ‘Political animals – Public Art in American Zoos and Aquariums’ (Donahue & Trump,
2007). In a certain way, this is surprising as touchable statues are very common in modern
zoos, and have been for over thirty years now.
Such statues became popular as a response to the gradual abolishment of contact with real zoo
animals. Though this abolishment increased safety in zoos, it also took away a tactile experience
13
with animals, which had been regarded as very valuable. So in order to create a new type of
tactile, up close experience with animals, the number of touchable animal sculptures in zoos
was greatly increased (Donahue & Trump, 2007).
Though no structured studies have taken place concerning statues in zoos, there are many
claims of their virtues. First of all, they are said to be very popular, especially amongst children.
As Donahue and Trump put it, the sculptures are ‘inevitably swarmed by children, who want to
touch and climb on them. If the sculptures are bronze, their noses and backs are usually worn shiny
by tiny hands; children pet them as though they are alive’ (Ibid. p84).
Besides simply being popular with children, zoo professionals also praise the sculptures for
being able to help people develop empathy for animals, and thereby inspire them to protect
nature. For example, Hillary Hatfield, who represents animal sculptor Bart Walter, has enthused
that sculpture can ‘give visitors a tactile experience’ with the animals that ‘moves them towards
empathy’ (Hatfield, 2003). Likewise, the former US National Zoo’s director argued that through
art ‘we hope to inspire our visitors to develop stronger bonds with animals and motivate them to
help protect nature’ (Donahue & Trump, 2007) (p87).
Furthermore, sculptures are regarded as educational on a more direct level too. Tom Tischler,
who has made animal sculptures for zoos all over the world, states on his website that statues
‘communicate information about the animal’s size, character, anatomy, behaviour and typical
postures.’ and that ‘People come away from interacting with the sculpture intuitively knowing
more about the animal’ (Tischler, 2005). Though this is not based on any published data,
Tischler has ‘spend countless hours in zoos, observing and photographing visitor behaviour, their
interaction with and response to both sculpture and animal exhibits.’ (Tischler, 2013).
Lastly, the photo opportunities that statues provide are also mentioned as an important
attraction point. Mark Reed of the Sedgwick Country Zoo even stated that their sculpture of a
Grizzly bear was ‘the most popular ‘photo site’ in the zoo’ (Donahue & Trump, 2007). Tischler
14
too, speaks about the how his sculptures ‘provide a focal point for photo opportunities’ as they
‘are always willing to pose’. (Tischler, 2005)
Altogether then, the touchable sculptures much like the ones in Tiger Territory are highly
praised by zoo professionals for helping to inspire people about nature both on the emotional
level and by providing more ‘conventional’ education. Furthermore, they are thought to do this
very successfully, or at the least, to reach great numbers of people, of which families form the
biggest group.
This success could potentially be explained in terms of the match with the family agenda that
was discussed earlier, and the ideas on how to play into it. Children enjoy climbing and
touching, and through taking pictures and potentially through helping kids climb, the sculptures
can also facilitate social quality time. And because of the life-‐like qualities of many sculptures,
this play will still feel relevant to the educational side of the zoo in which visitors learn about
animals. However, as with the stories, these are mostly assumptions and claims that need to be
backed up with real data.
15
QUESTIONS RAISED Altogether, the academic literature sets up a context suggesting that narrative and sculptures
could stimulate meaningful engagement, as was suggested in the Tiger Territory interpretation
plan. However, as there is no actual data yet regarding the use of narrative in zoos, the use of
sculptures, or the combination of the two, an appealing invitation for practical research into the
question of ‘To what extent does the use of story based signs and sculptures successfully engage
a family audience in a meaningful manner?’ arises.
In fact, the suggestions from the literature and the interpretation plan also provoke a number of
specific sub questions. First of all, in response to both ideas by ZSL and claims in the literature
about sculptures and statues being inviting to a family audience, the question ‘How much are
the statues and stories actually used by families in practice?’ arises. Or more specifically ‘What
fraction of the groups stop and how long do they interact with these two interpretation types in
Tiger Territory?’. After all, whether it’s enjoyment, interaction or conveying messages, the
materials need to be used in order to achieve this, making this question a good starting point.
Secondly, the question ’How do families actually interact with the stories and the statues?’
arises. Are stories indeed read together, do the children actually climb on the statues as much as
claimed, and do the parents really take pictures of this as often as suggested?.
Moving onto a point high on the family agenda: How much do families enjoy engaging with the
sculptures and statues? And what is it that they enjoy about it?
However, as said, a successful visit, at least in the eyes of zoos, comprises more than just
enjoyment. Besides being recreational, zoos would also like to see the engagement being
meaningful and stimulate a love and care for nature. In the specific case of Tiger Territory, the
questions of ‘Do people learn from the materials?’ and ‘Do the visitors grow more fond of
tigers?’ arise. Also related to the idea of meaningfulness is the question of whether visitors are
16
catching onto the idea of a running story about a specific tiger, with sculptures to illustrate, or if
this idea gets lost.
Then, on a more overarching level, it is also interesting to see how suitable the family audience
perceives the story based signs and statues to be overall.
Lastly, it is important to put the sculptures and stories into context, as they are only one part of
the Tiger Territory exhibit. Therefore, an important last question that arises is how important
having these elements is to families. In other words, ‘How much do the stories and sculptures
enrich the families’ visits to Tiger Territory?’
17
METHODS In order to gain insights into these various sub questions, visitor research was conducted at ZSL
London Zoo’s Tiger Territory. The following section will discuss the two methods used, which
were visitor tracking and visitor surveys, and cover both the details of the procedures and the
reasons for their use.
Unobtrusive visitor tracking was used in order to determine the use of the sculptures and
stories by the family audience. Within half an hour time frames, five-‐minute observations were
done at each of the five chapters in turn, though moving in reverse direction through the
stations. During each five minute frame, the number of family groups passing an empty station
without engaging, passing an occupied station without engaging, and those stopping were
noted. In order to count as a stop, at least one group member would have to either stand still
looking at a sign or statue for five seconds, or move around the statue for five seconds. In this,
all groups with at least one adult and one child seeming to be between the ages of four and 12
were included, unless the group was clearly a school group or the like, as those are known to
have very different dynamics to family groups. In the cases of a stop, the family as a whole was
then observed using a coding scheme. Besides the ‘events based coding’ (Robson, 2011) of the
individual family members’ action such as reading, climbing or picture taking, the total duration
of the stops at the statues and at the different signs were noted, as well as the composition of
the family. The full tracking scheme can be found in the appendix.
Using this direct observation of the family’s behaviour, rather than relying on visitors’ recall,
means that the data is very reliable in its representation of the actual visitor behaviour. The
unobtrusive nature of the observation further enhances this reliability, as, assuming that the
observations do go unnoticed, it ensures that the observer is not affecting the visitors’
behaviour. In order to ensure that the observation was as inconspicuous as possible, the
observations were made from a reasonable distance from the station, with the tracking sheet
18
hidden in a zoo map. Furthermore, moving in the reverse direction to the main visitor stream
prevented the following round of families, which could have made them grow suspicious.
The other choices in the observation strategies were also made to maximize the utility of the
data. Firstly, observing the family as a whole, rather than selecting an individual to track, meant
that much more interesting information could be collected within a much shorter timeframe.
Also, it fits in with the idea that the family experiences their visit together as a group, rather
than simply being individuals that happen to be moving past an interpretation station together.
And though this does result in some data being impossible to record, such as the durations of
individual actions, it is still possible to note how long, as a group, a family spends with the
different elements. Therefore this way, the amount of data relevant to answering the research
questions is maximised.
Another important point to note is that observations were only made during those periods in
which the families had the opportunity to interact with the chapters undisturbed. In practice
this meant that out of every hour, only 30 minutes could be spent tracking, as the other half of
the time, visitor’s attention was taken away by ‘Tigers Live’ interpretation talks, the
announcements for these or the outflow of people who had been listening to them.
Having taken all these points into consideration, the visitor tracking method has the potential to
give good, reliable insight into the amount and types of interaction of the families with the
interpretative material. However, observation alone cannot answer any of the other sub
questions raised, as it does not allow looking into the thoughts of the visitors.
In order to get an insight into the remaining sub questions, which regard enjoyment, learning,
enthusiasm, suitability and enrichment value, visitor surveys were undertaken. A number of
these subtopics, especially the ones concerning learning and attitudes towards tigers, are
notoriously difficult to get to the bottom of. Both learning and attitudes are very complex
matters. They can be difficult to define, are often the result of many factors together, and are
19
likely to occur at least partially on a subconscious level. Therefore, in order to really get at it, a
combination of different questions, taken over a longer period of time would be ideal. However,
given the number of points to be investigated, and the constraints of the research, this was not
feasible. Furthermore, though single questions might not get to the core of it, they can give a
good initial indication. And given that this is the first research of its kind, having broad
indications on a number of different aspects should in fact be very valuable. Therefore, to
maximize the amount of interesting information gathered within a reasonable length survey,
the different sub questions were investigated using single direct questions in the survey.
In short, the surveys were taken in the following manner. Positioned just past chapter five,
every first passing family within the target group was approached. From these, only those who
had interacted with some of the interpretation material were selected for interview. In a
structured interview, a maximum of 19 questions was covered. The questions regarding
enjoyment, learning, enthusiasm, suitability and enrichment were asked using a single direct
question with a rating scale response, followed by an invitation for further comments.
Understanding of the ‘story-‐statues’ concept was investigated using a set of semi-‐closed
questions. Visitors were also asked which interpretation units they had engaged with. The full
question list, as well as the visitor aids used, can be found in the appendix.
Again, the research strategy was optimized to maximise the value of the results given the
specific research questions and the limitations of the research. First of all, the use of selective,
rather than all-‐inclusive interviews allowed for investigation into the experiences of those
people that had actually interacted with the material. Secondly, by aiming the interview at the
group’s overall experience, rather than that of individuals, the idea of families experiencing the
visit as a unit is maintained. And in fact, families and especially parents were very apt a
answering the questions ‘for the family’, taking both their own experiences and that of their
children into account nearly automatically. Lastly, the combination of a rating scale with an
20
open invitation to comment allowed the gathering of clearly analysable data as well as more
personal, insightful ideas.
Within both the visitor tracking and the survey, the real interest lies in the ‘A Tiger’s Tale’ signs
and the sculptures, as the novelty lies within those two elements. However, as within the Tiger
Territory interpretation strategy the ‘At The Zoo’ signs were included as part of the story trail
interpretation idea, and connect directly too it, these signs were also included in both the
observations and the surveys. In fact, in the surveys the two types of signs were investigated
together, as the pilot study showed families found it difficult to rate them separately, and as
they do form an integrated unit.
A final note to be made regarding both the visitor tracking and the visitor surveys is that neither
attempts to collect data for a comparative analysis with another audience group or another
exhibit type. Instead, this is an absolute study of the families’ experiences in Tiger Territory. The
main reason for this is that it matches the focus of the research questions, which too, are
absolute rather than comparative. Though asking comparative questions might be interesting in
theory, they would be tricky, if not impossible to answer and would require very large datasets
to be reliable. Therefore, especially seeing that this is a first study on this topic, the absolute
data gathered with these methods were deemed to have the most interesting results.
21
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In total 311 observations of family groups were made and 53 surveys were taken. The
observations were made throughout the day on Sunday 14th, Wednesday 17th, Thursday 18th
and Friday 19th July in a total of fifteen 30-‐minute observation slots. The surveys were taken on
those same days, in alternation with the observation slots. In addition, extra surveys were taken
on Sunday 28th July. The response rate for the different survey questions varied between 46 and
6 as questions were only asked if people could give a meaningful response, and as sometimes
families indicated they wanted to move on, usually because of the children.
Starting with the degree of interaction with the ‘A Tiger’s Tale’ signs, the tracking data makes it
clear that it has a low attracting power, with only 4% of the family groups looking at this for at
least five seconds (see figure 3a). Likewise, the attracting power for ‘At the Zoo’ is also low, with
also 4% stopping.
FIGURE 3A, ATTRACTING POWER OF ‘A TIGER’S TALE’ AND ‘AT THE ZOO’ SIGNS
Furthermore, both have relatively low holding power with medians of 11 and 9 second
respectively. However, for both signs there was one grandmother-‐grandson pair in which the
grandmother read out the full signs to her grandson, taking about a minute for each sign (see
figure 3b). In fact, this pair was then seen to follow the story round all the way, as was
22
envisaged in the Tiger Territory interpretation plan. Within the people interviewed, there was
also one other group that had followed the story all the way round. However, many other
groups only read a couple of the signs, or just one, not following the entire story. Together,
therefore, these data are more in line with the literature that suggested that family groups don’t
read signs than with the literature on the effectiveness of narrative.
FIGURE 3B -‐ HISTOGRAM OF THE DURATIONS OF THE STOPS AT THE TWO TYPES OF SIGNS
23
Looking at the data for the sculptures tells that the overall attracting power was quite high, with
about one third of all passing groups stopping at any one sculpture (see figure 4). There were,
however, some notable differences between the attracting powers of individual statues, ranging
from 49% for the most popular sculpture to 16% for the least popular one.
FIGURE 4 -‐ THE ATTRACTION POWERS OF THE SCULPTURES
Furthermore, the overall holding power was fairly high, with a median of 20 seconds, and some
of the groups spent well over a minute at the sculptures. However, there were some differences
in holding power between the chapters, which stood at 15, 14, 23, 23 and 23 seconds
respectively.
24
FIGURE 5 -‐ HISTOGRAM OF THE DURATION OF THE STOPS AT THE STATUES
What, however, does not become clear from the tracking data is how the amount of stops at the
different statues relate to each other. Within these data, very different scenarios are possible
with different implications for the ‘success’ in engaging families. In one extreme, the people who
stop at each chapter are different groups, meaning that at the end nearly everyone has stopped
at some point. In the other extreme, it is the same group of people that stop everywhere,
meaning that about half of people stops nowhere at all. For this, the stopping data gathered
from the survey does give some clarity. Though the data from this is not directly comparable to
the observation data, as people might report a stop even if it does not fulfil the ‘five second stop’
criteria for interaction, it still gives some insight.
As can be seen in figure 6, the majority of people stopped at three out of five of the sculptures,
and stopping at only one or all five was least common. Furthermore, figure 6 also shows that
there are a wide variety of visitor journeys. This indicates that though some chapters are overall
more ‘attractive’ than others, this doesn’t mean that ‘popular’ sculptures always get visited over
the less popular ones. So overall, these results show that most likely, the truths lies somewhere
neatly in the middle between all visitors attending at least one chapter, and a subsection of
them visiting all.
25
FIGURE 6 -‐ FAMILY GROUP JOURNEYS
So from all these data together, one can conclude that overall, the sculptures are indeed
attractive to families, whereas the signs, despite being written in a story form, still have some
difficulty attracting the attention of families.
The next question raised regards the types of interactions families engaged in with both the
sculptures and the story based signs. The observations results show that with regards to the
type of behaviour at the signs, only a small fraction showed the social reading together. For the
‘A Tiger’s Tale’ signs, two out of thirteen groups read out loud, whereas the other 11 only read
silently. In the case of ‘At The Zoo’ four out of 11 groups read out loud. This shows that some
reading out loud, as envisaged in the Tiger Territory interpretation plan, does indeed happen.
However, because of the small dataset one cannot really make any strong conclusions about the
amount of time this happens. Also, though this data does seem to suggest it, one cannot really
conclude that the ‘A Tiger’s Tale’ sign invites less reading out than the ‘At the Zoo’. With regards
26
to who does the reading, both adults and children were found to read silently and aloud, though
for reading aloud, this was only observed in one case for a child.
FIGURE 7 -‐ TYPES OF INTERACTIONS AT BOTH CATEGORIES OF SIGNS
Moving on to the sculptures, observations showed that touching, climbing and taking
photographs all occurred a lot when people stop at the a sculpture, just as was theorised and
suggested from more anecdotal observations. In fact, overall, nearly a third of those groups that
stopped engaged in all three behaviours (see figure 8). Also, only 7% of groups that stopped did
not touch the sculpture at all, showing that for nearly all groups the sculpture had a very great
tactile appeal. However, it should be noted that touch did show a wide range of types. On one
side of the spectrum, it was an attentive, gentle stroke, whereas on the other it was absent-‐
minded walking on the sculpture. Furthermore, photographing indeed took place a lot. Overall
in nearly half of the cases where engagement took place a picture was taken. Though not
apparent from figure 7, in all but one of the cases, it was a picture of people together with the
sculpture, rather than just of the sculpture itself. As far as climbing appeal, 57% of family groups
did some climbing, whereas 27% only touched the sculpture. A number of other behaviours,
such as pointing or helping kids climb, were also observed, but these occurred much less
frequently.
27
However, as becomes clear from the Venn diagrams on the individual sculptures, these
percentages actually reflect a mixing of somewhat variable data for the individual sculptures.
For example, in chapter 1 a much smaller percentage climbed than for chapter 4, where
everybody who touched the sculpture climbed it. However, when one looks at the designs of the
two sculptures, it becomes immediately clear why this is. Sculpture 1 is of a small tiger cub, and
altogether not very easily climbable, whereas for the sculpture of the swimming tiger in chapter
4, one would have to make a nearly conscious effort not to climb on it whilst still touching it.
Likewise, chapter 5, with the rearing tiger, is the only one which designed in such a way that it
invites for a picture pose that does not include touching. And indeed that is that chapter that
shows the greatest percentage of photos without touching.
However, despite these individual differences, what remains fairly constant is that people do
engage with the sculptures in a very active manner, hardly ever only looking at it from a
distance, and very often touching, climbing and taking pictures, just like the literature had
predicted.
28
FIGURE 8 -‐ TYPES OF INTERACTIONS AT SCULPTURES
With regards to which of the family members interact with the sculpture, it is normally the
children that interact whilst the adult looks on, just as was predicted by the literature (see
figure 9). Only in a small number of cases the adults touch or climb on the sculpture. However,
the one action that has the opposite division is picture taking. The adults nearly always take the
picture, and the children are the ones in it. It is only in this part that the social element of the
sculptures comes into play.
29
FIGURE 9 -‐ ADULT-‐CHILD PERCENTAGES OF INTERACTION
So altogether, the data from the observations, combined with some additional information from
the surveys, show that families do indeed interact with the sculptures to a great extent,
engaging in many of the activities in the ways suggested by the literature. Though the signs are
not engaged with nearly as much as is the case for the sculptures, they are used in certain cases.
Also, a small number of people do in fact read them out loud to the children.
Now this intensive usage of the sculptures combined with the relatively long holding power
seems to suggest that families do in fact enjoy engaging with the statues. And indeed, the data
from the surveys supports this idea. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘not at all’, and 5 being
‘exceptionally’, the question ‘How much did you enjoy the statues?’ got given a score of 4.2 on
average. Furthermore, the lowest scores given was 3-‐moderately (see figure 10).
In total, 23 groups elaborated on what it was they enjoyed about the sculptures after answering
the enjoyment question. Also, throughout the interview, a number of people made further
comments on what they enjoyed, and these are also counted here, as long as they are not
repeats of earlier remarks. Altogether, a wide variety of comments were made, some groups
30
offering several points. Overall, these comments cover nearly all of the aspects predicted by the
literature, plus a couple more (see figure 10).
FIGURE 10 -‐ ENJOYMENT OF STATUES
First of all, many groups commented on the climbing and playing element the sculptures
provide. ‘[I] enjoyed the climbing’ was a recurring comment. Secondly, the touch element was
also brought up several times. For example, one visitor stated that ‘it’s a great tactile component’
and another that ‘it’s great that you can touch them’. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the opportunity for
taking photos was also mentioned ‘I think it’s excellent, especially because you can take pictures’.
Also, many visitor groups commented on how the sculptures showed you what tigers look like.
For example, one very enthusiastic group of girl said the sculptures were ‘really realistic and
colourful’ and that they liked ‘the natural positions the tiger would have in the wild’ and 'the
details on them’. Other groups simply liked seeing the sculptures, without specifically
mentioning it showed them what tigers are like, for example stating that the sculptures were
‘good decorations’. One last specific aspect that got mentioned a few times was that you could
get close to the sculptures. As was stated by the parents of two young girls ‘the statues get you to
31
the tigers’. Besides all these points, a number of less frequent comments and some more general
statements were made, which can be read in figure 10.
The same questions regarding enjoyment were also asked about the signs. However, this
question was only asked to the fourteen groups who indicated they had engaged with the signs.
Despite this low engagement with the signs, those people who had interacted with them did
enjoy them. Overall, the signs received a score of 3.9 for enjoyment, and a good proportion of
the groups even ranked their enjoyment as exceptional (see figure 11). In total, five meaningful
comments were made with regards to what people enjoyed about the sign. One girl commented
that it was engaging and that she ‘had to keep reading’. Three commented that the information
was interesting and a last one commented that the pictures were nice. Though the small number
of comments means that this is not a very thorough overview, it is still interesting to note that
the story catching one’s attention did get mentioned.
FIGURE 11 -‐ ENJOYMENT OF SIGNS
32
So overall, the family groups do appear to enjoy interaction with the interpretation material on
offer. However, as said, successful engagement with the interpretation material is not just about
enjoyment. In order for it to be fully successful, it has to be meaningful as well, and one aspect of
this is whether people learn something from the materials. Out of the signs and the sculptures,
the educational value of the signs is probably the least controversial, even if it is written in the
form of a story. And indeed, on average, family groups scored the signs to have a learning value
of 3.7 on a scale of 1 to 5, and the majority of groups scored it at 4, meaning they felt they
learned very much (see figure 12). Of the two groups that said they hadn’t learned very much,
one commented that this was because they ‘knew already’, whereas the other group said that
‘it’s a drip feed progress, and you’re not going to learn a lot from one visit’. Two groups made
comments about what they learned, one about deforestation and the other about palm oil.
Though these answers don’t directly give any support to the idea that narrative is a good way to
learn, it does at least show that these signs in Tiger Territory succeed in teaching people
something.
FIGURE 12 -‐ LEARNING FROM THE SCULPTURES AND SIGNS
33
Unlike the educational benefit of the signs, the learning value of the sculptures is somewhat
controversial. The results from the survey seem to reflect this, as there is a rather wide range of
ratings (see figure 13). Overall, though, the sculptures still get rated 2.9 out of five for learning.
There was also rather wide variety in the comments people made. On the one hand, people
commented they’d learned something about the tiger’s physique or movements. For example, one
grandmother really felt they had a lot of learning potential ‘they are quite educational, you can
compare with your own size, you can see how big the paws are or how large they are at different
ages.’, and others commented they’d learned about pouncing, swimming and rearing, or about the
jaws, teeth, and the claws. On the other hand, there were those people who ‘didn’t think about it
that way’ or feel that the sculptures are ‘more for playing’. Others again, had not realized the
potential, but recognized it in response to being asked the question ‘didn't think of it initially, but
now you ask, actually yes, we do learn’. Overall, this suggests that though the sculptures do have
educational potential, some zoo visitors don’t notice this. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean
learning really didn’t occur, as it can also happen subconsciously. Also, it should be noted that the
prompting in the first part of the question might have influenced the answers to the second
question. However, as not everybody did respond to this, it seems that this effect wasn’t too
significant.
34
FIGURE 13 -‐ LEARNING FROM THE SCULPTURES
Together, these results show that on the cognitive side, many visiting families do feel they learn
something. However, as discussed in earlier chapters, inspiring to care for nature often takes
more than filling people with knowledge. Positively, the survey results seem to show that both
the signs and the sculptures make the visiting families more enthusiastic about tigers. Overall,
in response to the questions ‘How much did the statues/sculptures increase your enthusiasm
about tigers’, the statues and story based signs scored 2.9 (N=35) and 3.1 (N=15) respectively,
placing both around the ‘moderately’ level.
As was the case for sculpture learning, the ranges of scores are very wide for increase in
enthusiasm about tigers (see figure 14). Some of the lower scores were given by families who
already liked tigers a lot, and felt they couldn’t be more enthusiastic. For example, a family
group that gave a score of 1 to the effect of the signs said that they ‘love them [tigers] already’.
Many of those groups who gave low scores to the sculptures also made similar comments. In
fact, three out of four commenters who gave a score of 1 said they were already enthusiastic,
and in one case ‘couldn’t be more enthusiastic’. On the other side of the spectrum, one group
35
commented that ‘for the kids [the sculptures] reinforced that tigers are cool and interesting’. So
altogether, the results on increased enthusiasm are very variable, and it seems that this might
be the result of people having different starting points, and responding differently to the
material. That said, the presence of a number of higher scores is a positive sign for the use of the
story based signs and sculptures, especially seeing that you can’t expect a single visit to have a
very large effect.
FIGURE 14 -‐ INCREASE IN ENTHUSIASM AFTER SIGNS AND STATUES
The last question that was raised within the idea of ‘meaningfulness’ is whether the overarching
idea of using a story to link all the elements together worked, or whether people didn’t catch
onto the idea of the story of Hari, the wild tiger. The results of the survey show that many
people actually don’t realize that the signs and the sculptures are part of a story. Out of those
who hadn’t read any signs, only one of the thirteen groups asked said they realized this. (see
figure 15). Perhaps this is unsurprising, but it does show that the sculptures alone do not seem
to be enough to bring across the idea of a story. This is potentially problematic, given the low
number of people who do read the signs. Of those who had read some of the signs, the majority -‐
36
nine out of 15 -‐ had noticed the story element. Of those six groups who hadn’t noticed, three had
only read ‘At The Zoo’ type signs, and though these link in to the story, they are not a story by
themselves, meaning it is not surprising they hadn’t realized. So overall, the results on whether
groups noticed the story element are as was to be expected. Really, mostly only those who had
read some of the ‘A Tiger’s Tale’ signs had noticed that the sculptures and signs were part of a
story.
FIGURE 15 -‐ DEGREE TO WHICH STORY ELEMENT IS NOTICED
Following on from this, the family group got asked who they thought the sculptures were of in
order to see if they could identify it as Hari, the character in the ‘A Tiger’s Tale’ story.
Unsurprisingly, nearly all those who had not read the sign didn’t identify the sculpture as Hari
(see figure 16). Strangely, three people in this group did identify the sculpture as Hari, meaning
they must have read some of the signs after all. Of those who had read some of the signs, only
just over a quarter identified the sculpture as Hari. Of all those who didn’t identify the sculpture
as Hari, there were two that had read some of the ‘A Tiger’s Tale’ signs, three that definitely
hadn’t, and eight for which the data doesn’t show this. This indicates that even if people have
read some of the ‘A Tiger’s Tale’ story, they don’t always necessarily make the link with the
37
sculptures. Altogether, these data suggest that for the majority of people, it wasn’t apparent that
the sculpture had something to do with the story signs.
FIGURE 16 -‐ RECOGNITION OF THE SCULPTURE BEING HARI
One last aspect of whether the story idea from the interpretation plan comes across to people is
the question of if they know who Hari is, and especially if they realize this is a (hypothetical)
wild tiger. Out of those groups who hadn’t identified the sculpture as Hari, over three quarters
answered that they didn’t know at all. One family, wrongly, answered that it was a Zoo tiger, and
the rest said they had seen the name somewhere, but didn’t know. This is relatively
unsurprising, as the failure of identification already suggested they didn’t really know of Hari.
Somewhat more surprising is that of the group that had identified the sculpture as Hari, still
only a third correctly identified him as a wild tiger. Somehow, four out of nine thought that Hari
was in fact a Zoo tiger, and two out of nine didn’t know at all. Together, this clearly shows that
only a very small minority of the people, three out of a total of 46, had realized that Hari is a
wild tiger. This could potentially be problematic, as at worst some people might think that ‘Hari’
was taken from the wild and put in the zoo.
38
FIGURE 17 – UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHARACTER OF HARI
Having concluded that overall, the idea of everything being linked together by the story of Hari
the wild tiger is not usually caught on by the family visitors, the next questions asked to what
extent the families regard the components of the interpretation plan suitable for their families.
Potentially, the low scores on reading and understanding could indicate that the signs are not
suitable for a family audience. Surprisingly, the signs actually score a 3.8 for suitability.
However, it must be noted that as for the other questions about the signs, these grades were
only given by those groups who had read the signs. And it might be that rather than the contents
and using a story in a sign not being suitable, signs themselves are not a very attractive medium
for most families. As one visitor, a grandmother put it ‘They would be suitable if the kids read
them, but they don't stop. It's almost impossible to get kids to stop and read.’ And indeed, even
without being prompted, a lot of the groups said they hadn’t read the signs because they had the
children with them. As one group said ‘With kids it's very difficult to read anything’. Therefore, it
is quite likely that it was simply just still suitable for those children of the groups to which these
questions got asked. The story is quite a different one for the sculptures. Though it didn’t
actually score that much higher on suitability, a 4.1 on average, this is the result of a large
fraction of the people stopped for interviewing.
39
FIGURE 18 -‐ PERCEIVED SUITABILITY OF SIGNS AND STATUES
The last point to cover regards the importance of the signs and sculptures within the bigger
picture of Tiger Territory. As said, it is important to investigate this separately. Even high scores
given to the specific component don’t necessarily mean that families regard these elements as
very enriching for the overall experience. Also, simply because not many people use an
interpretation element doesn’t mean it is not very important for those who do.
And indeed, those few who had made use of the signs rated them as very enriching. Overall, it
got a score of 4.3, and three out of six groups scored it a five (see figure 19). The comments gave
some insight into why they thought this. Two groups noted that it was simply very important to
have information ‘this way, you actually know what it is about’. One group, however, commented
specifically on the story element, saying it was ‘a brilliant idea’.
Like the signs, the sculptures also got a good rating on enrichment value, scoring a 3.9 overall.
Interestingly, the ‘exceptional’ score was proportionally not given as often as for the signs.
Instead ‘very’ was the most common score (see figure 19). When asked why people found it
enriching, many of those aspects mentioned in earlier questions propped up again, including
40
photo opportunities, getting close and them being a nice ‘replacement’ for when the actual
tigers are sleeping or hiding.
Together, these results show that the statues and the sculptures are regarded as very enriching
by those who made use of them. However, seeing that fewer people used the signs, the average
visitor might find the statues more enriching than the signs.
FIGURE 19 -‐ ENRICHMENT VALUE OF SIGNS AND STATUES
41
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS All in all, the preceding discussions have shown that both sculptures and stories can
successfully engage families in a meaningful manner. However, it has also become clear that the
degree and ways in which they are successful differs between the sculptures and the story
based signs.
To repeat, the conclusions were most clear for the sculptures. Just as had been suggested in the
literature, the results showed that a large proportion of the families engaged with the sculptures.
However, it also became apparent that there are some clear differences between the individual
sculptures. Together, this implies that though zoos can expect high engagement with sculptures
planned, they should pay attention to the sculpture’s design in order to maximize engagement.
The ways in which families engage with the sculptures was also demonstrated to be in line with
the claims found in literature. Children touch, climb and play on the sculptures, and parents take
pictures of this. In addition, the survey results showed these are major aspects of what families
like about the sculptures. These data-‐supported insights into what families do with and enjoy
about the sculptures could be of use in future zoo sculpture planning.
The results also showed that overall, people much enjoyed the sculptures, and felt they were
suitable and enriched their experience. Furthermore the data collected also supports the idea
that engagement with sculptures can be meaningful. Though the results turned out somewhat
more variable than for, say enjoyment, they did show that many of the families felt they learned
about tigers and also grew more enthusiastic after engaging with the sculptures. These data
further strengthen the suggestions made by the literature that animal sculptures can be
valuable additions to zoo exhibits.
Less positive, though no less important, were the results on the understanding of the
overarching concept. As the data showed, the majority of people did not notice the element, nor
42
did they get to grips with the idea of Hari the wild tiger being the character around which the
interpretation is centred. This could have important implications, as in order for an
interpretation strategy to reach its potential, it might be important for the visitors to actually
understand it, rather than just get confused by it. Therefore, this data suggest it might be
desirable to signpost the use of a story, and any elements connected to it very clearly. And in
fact, at the moment of writing ZSL London Zoo is already working on creating an introduction at
the start of Tiger Territory that will explicitly point out the story of Hari the wild tiger.
In contrast to the preceding two aspects, it is somewhat more difficult to draw solid conclusions
regarding the story-‐based signs. Though the observation results showed that engagement with
these story-‐based signs was low, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the story-‐based signs were
not at all successful. First of all, though not many people interacted, the degree of interaction is
not necessarily lower than for other static, written zoo signs. Furthermore, the survey showed
that those who do engage with the signs give it ratings on enjoyment, learning, increased
enthusiasm, suitability and enrichment value that are comparable with those given to the
sculptures. However, these results are based on rather small data-‐samples, and therefore not
very solid. Therefore, at best, a tentative conclusion can be drawn that in some regards, but not
others, the story-‐based signs were somewhat successful.
However, it is important to keep in mind that this study did not set out to show what specific
contribution the narrative element had to this mixed success. Some of the survey questions
discussed did touch upon this subject and indicated that for example for enjoyment, the story
element did play some role. Nonetheless, other specific research would need to be undertaken
to draw any strong conclusions on the contributions of the narrative element to the success of
the different elements researched.
Besides this further research, a number of other questions could follow on from the results of
this study. What would potentially be most interesting is to look further into the sculptures’
43
potential for learning, increasing enthusiasm for tigers and empathy in general. As discussed
before, these topics are complex. Therefore, research looking into these matters in more depth
could be very valuable, and result in a better understanding of the actual benefits of sculptures
in achieving learning and empathy, and ultimately, stimulating an enthusiasm for conservation.
However, even without these further studies, the results presented here represent a significant
contribution to the field in that they provide the first solid data concerning the use of sculptures
and stories in zoo interpretation.
44
BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, S. (2004) Designs for learning: Studying science museum exhibits that do more than
entertain. Science Education. [Online] 88 (S1), S17–S33. Available from: doi:10.1002/sce.20016.
Bedford, L. (2001) Storytelling -‐ The Real Work of Museums. Curator: The Museum Journal. 44 (1), 27–34.
Borun, M. (1997) Developing Family Friendly Exhibits. Curator: The Museum Journal. 40 (3), 178–196.
Borun, M. (2008) Why Family Learning in Museum. exhibitionist. 26 (1), 6–9.
Borun, M., Cleghorn, A. & Garfield, C. (1995) Family Learning in Museums : A Bibliographic Review. Curator: The Museum Journal. 38 (4), 262–270.
Borun, M., Dirstas, J., Johnson, J.I., Peter, N.E., et al. (1998) Family learning: the Pisec Perspective. Washington D.C., Association of Science-‐Technology Centers.
Briseño-‐Garzón, A., Anderson, D. & Anderson, A. (2007) Adult Learning Experiences from an Aquarium Visit: The role of Social Interactions in Family Groups. Curator: The Museum Journal. [Online] 50 (3), 299–318. Available from: doi:10.1111/j.2151-‐6952.2007.tb00274.x.
Bruner, J. (1990) Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Conway, W.G. (1968) how to exhibit a bullfrog: a bed-‐time story for zoo men. Curator: The Museum Journal. 2 (4), 310–318.
Diamond, J. (1986) The behavior of family groups in science museums. Curator: The Museum Journal. 29 (2), 139–154.
Donahue, J. & Trump, E. (2007) Political Animals -‐ Public Art in American Zoos and Aquariums. Lanham, Lexington Books.
Ellenbogen, K.M., Luke, J.J. & Dierking, L.D. (2004) Family learning research in museums: An emerging disciplinary matrix? Science Education. [Online] 88 (S1), S48–S58. Available from: doi:10.1002/sce.20015.
Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L.D. (1992) The museum experience. Washington D.C., Whalesback Books.
Falk, J.H., Reinhard, E.M., Vernon, C.L., Bronnenkant, K., et al. (2007) Why Zoos & Aquariums Matter : Assessing the Impact of a Visit to a Zoo or Aquarium. Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
45
Furse-‐Roberts, J. (2009) Interpretation master planning: creating holistic narrative experiences. Roots. 6 (1), 5–8.
Hatfield, H. (2003) Untitled presentation. [presentation] Roundtable 25, “Fine Art in Zoos and Aquariums: Creating Successful Connections to Wildlife”, AZA Annual Conference, 9 September 2003
Heimlich, J.E. & Falk, J.H. (2008) The identity-‐related motivation of adult zoo and aquarium visitors. Curator: The Museum Journal. 51 (1), 55–79.
Hensel, K.A. (1987) Families in a museum: Interactions and conversations at displays. Dissertation Abstracts International. 49 (09).
Kelly, L. (2010) The role of narrative in museum exhibitions. Australian Museum Blog. Weblog [Online]. Available from: http://australianmuseum.net.au/blogpost/Museullaneous/The-‐role-‐of-‐narrative-‐in-‐museum-‐exhibitions [Accessed: 22 May 2013].
McManus, P.M. (1994) Families in Museums. In: Roger Miles & Lauro Zavala (eds.). Towards the Museum of the Future: New European Perspectives. London, Routledge. pp. 81–98.
Murray, C. (2012a) Penguin Beach ZSL London Zoo Meta Evaluation 2012 Revisited summative evaluation 2011. [internal publication] ZSL London Zoo
Murray, C. (2012b) Tiger exhibit ZSL London Zoo Front end Evaluation Report 1. [internal publication] ZSL London Zoo
Murray, C. (2013) Tiger Territory ZSL London Zoo Initial Feedback Report. [Internal Publication.] ZSL London Zoo
Parker, L.C. & Krockover, G.H. (2011) Interaction Patterns among Members of Family Groups during Visits to a Community Zoo. Visitor Studies Association e-‐Newsletter January 2011. Available from http://visitorstudies.org/january-‐2011-‐enewsletter/ [Accessed: 16 May 2013]
Reade, L.S. & Waran, N.K. (1996) The modern zoo: How do people perceive zoo animals? Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 47, 109–118.
Robson, C. (2011) Real World Research. 3rd edition. New York, Wiley.
Rosenfeld, S. (1982) A Naturalistic Study of Visitors at an Interactive Mini-‐Zoo. Curator: The Museum Journal. 25 (3), 187–212.
Scanlon, E., Whitelegg, E. & Yates, S. (eds) (1999) Communicating Science: Contexts and Channels Reader 2. Eileen Scanlon, Elizabeth Whitelegg, & Simeon Yates (eds.). London, Routledge.
Sears, T. (2013) Interviewed by Bornebroek, E. (16th July 2013)
46
Tischler, T. (2013) Email to Bornebroek, E. 28 July 2013.
Tischler, T. (2005) Tom Tischler Bronze. [Online]. 2005. Available from: http://www.tomtischler.com/ [Accessed: 27 July 2013].
Weiler, B. & Smith, L. (2009) Does more interpretation lead to greater outcomes? An assessment of the impacts of multiple layers of interpretation in a zoo context. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. [Online] 17 (1), 91–105. Available from: doi:10.1080/09669580802359319.
Alexandra Zimmermann, Matthew Hatchwell, Lesley Dickie, & Chris West (eds.) (2007) Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation?
ZLS London Zoo (2012) Tiger Territory Interpretation Plan. [internal publication] ZSL London Zoo
47
APPENDICES
TRACKING MATERIAL
FIGURE 20, TRACKING SHEET
FIGURE 21 -‐ CODE FOR TRACKING SHEET
!"#$%% % % % &'($% % % % )$"#*$+% % % % &',$+%
%
%
-.%-/%%%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
-.%-/%%%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
-.%-/%%%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
-.%-/%%%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
-.%-/%%%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%
!!
!
"!
#$!%!#&''!()*+!*,*-*+.!/'!$+011$#/*23!#0!%!#&''!()*+!*,*-*+.!/'!011$#/*2!!41./0+!102/+53!$'*!.)*!60,,0(/+5!60$78#&7.!102*!!
9&7.!"!%!#*7'0+!!:;<=<><?!%!;&+<=0-&+<>0@<?/7,A!9&7.!B!%!&1./0+!!:C<D<E<9<;<F<G!%!#0/+.!(/.)!C/+5*7<D0$1)<E,/-H<.&I*!&!9)0.0<;02*,!/+!9)0.0<F*&2!'/,*+.,@<7*&2!G$.!,0$2A!9&7.!J!%!1)&#.*7!*,*-*+.!:K<4<>!%!K1$,#.$7*<4!D/5*7L'!D&,*<4.!D)*!M00A!9&7.!N!%!./-*!/+!'*10+2'!!!!
OP&-#,*'!!>EK"QR!>0@!1,/-H'!'.&.$*!607!"Q!'*10+2'!=G4QSR!=0-&+!7*&2'!0$.!,0$2!4!D/5*7L'!D&,*!607!QS!'*10+2'!!!!
48
SURVEY MATERIAL
FIGURE 22 -‐ QUESTIONNAIRE
!"#$%&'(%)&*$+% % % % % ,)+% % % % -$#.$/0+%%
12 3&4$%567%.$$'%*6%!"8$/%!$//"*6/5%.$96/$:% %%
%;2 <=">=%69%*=$%0>7?@*7/$0%("(%?66A%&*:%<=&*%("(%567%(6%*=$/$:%
%%%
B2 36C%("(%567%$'D65%*=$%0>7?@*7/$0:%<=&*%("(%567%$'D65%&.67*%"*:%E>&?$%69%1FG%%%
H2 36C%#7>=%("(%567%?$&/'%9/6#%*=$%0*&*7$0I%96/%$J&#@?$%&.67*%&%*"8$/K0%0"L$%6/%"*0%#64$#$'*:%E>&?$%'7#.$/%1FGMNJ&#@?$0% %%%
G2 36C%#7>=%("(%*=$%0>7?@*7/$0%"'>/$&0$%567/%$'*=70"&0#%&.67*%*"8$/0:%E>&?$%'7#.$/%1FG%%%
O2 P4$/&??I%=6C%C$??%("(%*=$%0*&*7$0%07"*%567/%8/67@:%E>&?$%1FG:%<=5:%%%
Q2 36C%#7>=%("(%*=$%0*&*7$0%$'/">=%567/%4"0"*%*6%*=$%*"8$/%$J="."*:%%%
R2 S'5%6*=$/%*=678=*0%6'%*=$%0>7?@*7/$0:%%%%
T2 <=">=%69%*=$%0"8'0%("(%567%?66A%&*%&'5I%$4$'%"9%6'?5%./"$9?5:%)"(%567%/$&(%*=$%*$J*:%%%
1U2 36C%#7>=%("(%567%$'D65%*=$%0"8'0:%<=&*:%E>&?$%1FG%%%
112 36C%#7>=%("(%567%?$&/'%9/6#%*=$%0"8'0:%E>&?$%1FG2%<=&*%&.67*%"*:%%%
1;2 36C%#7>=%("(%*=$%0"8'0%"'>/$&0$%567/%$'*=70"&0#%&.67*%*"8$/0:%E>&?$%'7#.$/%1FG%%%
1B2 P4$/&??I%=6C%C$??%("(%*=$%0"8'0%07"*%567/%8/67@:%E>&?$%1FG2%<=5:%%%
1H2 36C%#7>=%("(%*=$%0"8'0%$'/">=%567/%4"0"*%*6%*=$%*"8$/%$J="."*:%E>&?$%1FG%%%
1G2 S'5%6*=$/%*=678=*0%6'%*=$%0"8'0:%S'5*="'8%"'%@&/*">7?&/%567%$'D65$(:%S'5*="'8%567%?$&/'$(:%%
%1O2 )"(%567%'6*">$%*=$%0"8'0%&'(%*=$%0>7?@*7/$0%96/#$(%&%0*6/5%*68$*=$/:%<=&*%("(%567%*="'A%69%*="0:%
%%
1Q2 <=6%(6%567%*="'A%*=$%0*&*7$0%&/$%69:%% % %%
1R2 3&4$%567%=$&/(%69%3&/":%<=6%"0%=$:%<"?(%*"8$/%6/%L66%*"8$/:%%%
1T2 S'5*="'8%$?0$:%
49
FIGURE 23 -‐ VISITOR AID 1
!"
#"$"
%"
#"$"
&"
#" $"
'"
#" $"
("
#" $"
50
FIGURE 24 -‐ VISITOR AID 2
!"#"$%&"'&"'((""
)"#"'"(*+(,"
-"#".%/,0'&,(1"
2"#"3,01"
4"#",56,78%$'((1"
51
TIGER TERRITORY STORY-‐BASED INTERPRETATION MATERIAL
FIGURE 25 -‐ STATION 1
52
FIGURE 26 -‐ STATION 2
53
FIGURE 27 -‐ STATION 3
54
FIGURE 28 -‐ STATION 4
55
FIGURE 29 -‐ STATION 5
56
Stories and Sculptures Engaging family groups in ZSL London Zoo’s Tiger Territory
Emma Bornebroek 13th September 2013