Wild Research: Summative Evaluation

In 2007 Miami University, in partnership with the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden (Zoo) and the Institute for Learning Innovation (ILI), received a National Science Foundation Grant to develop, create, implement, and evaluate the impacts of Wild Research, a whole zoo exhibit. The purpose of Wild Research was to promote Zoo visitors' engagement in inquiry, across generations, and increase visitors' awareness of conservation issues. ILI was charged with conducting the summative evaluation for Wild Research. This study was conducted to answer the question: What is the impact on visitors to the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden of engaging in Wild Research programming? Data were collected onsite at the Zoo from visitors (N=254) as they were exiting the Zoo. Participants above the age of 18 were asked to complete an interview and questionnaire. The study found that 88% of participants recognized at least one Wild Research activity from pictures they were shown, and 54% of participants reported they had actively engaged with at least one Wild Research activity. The three most frequently engaged in activities, Hoot Like a Gorilla, Create a Conservation Poster, and Which Gorilla are You, each contain elements of technology not typically found in zoo exhibits: digital voice recorder and touch screen computers. Examining our findings by number of Wild Research activities engaged in suggested those who engaged in three or more activities had greater levels of enjoyment, interaction between group members, and likelihood of engaging in Wild Research activities in the future than other groups. We did not find significant differences between groups on items used to measure visitors' perceived gain in knowledge and skills related to observation as a means of inquiry, visitors' perceived gain in knowledge and skills related to asking questions, or visitors' perceived gain in knowledge and skills related to conservation of animals and natural resources. For items measuring visitor feeling (affect) related to conservation of animals and natural resources we found significant differences between groups for two negatively worded items: Humans should not interfere with trying to save animals in which we found significantly more disagreement from participants who engaged in two Wild Research activities over participants who engaged in none or three Wild Research activities, and There are far other more important things to worry about than conservation of animals in which we found significantly more disagreement from participants who engaged in two Wild Research activities over participants who engaged with three Wild Research activities. Participants were asked to rate various items pertaining to the Zoos' contribution to greater communities. A significant difference between group means was found for the item the Zoo Contributes to worldwide conservation efforts, participants engaging in three or more Wild Research activities had significantly higher means than participants engaging in one Wild Research activity. Overall, these findings support that Wild Research has begun to shift the awareness of visitors to the presence of Wild Research activities, but a shift in visitor attitudes and knowledge towards inquiry and conservation behaviors, based on participating in these activities was not identified by our measurements. As the presence of Wild Research activities continues to expand and visitors continue engaging in these activities it is possible that future measurements will yield results reflecting increases in these measurements. Because the summative study did not include the many studied elements of individual components, it seemed appropriate to add a section highlighting findings from the formative studies and a follow-up study of the effectiveness of each of the components. This is important to the work of this project as the high risk approach of whole-zoo experience could easily mask the outcomes generated by each of the individual components of Wild Research. For example, stay time at some exhibits increased from walk through as the average holding time to over 18 minutes as average for a series of components (formative study on Leaf Cutter Ants). Thus, the summative report has been amended to add some component findings. The key outcomes of these studies include: Nearly half zoo visitors participate in one or more Wild Research interactive during their visit. Wild Research Stations increase stay time Wild Research Stations strongly encourage intra-group communication Those who participate in Wild Research inquiry activities tend to demonstrate stronger inquiry-related outcomes than those who do not Those who participate in Wild Research public interaction activities tend to exit with a sense of having completed a conservation action Wild Research outcomes are experience specific. Wild Research interactives have strong appeal to visitors.