In this article, we aim to contribute to research on the meaning of experiences by studying families visiting zoos – specifically in the context of Latin America. To this end, in this case study, we investigate conversations that occurred during family visits to Parque das Aves (Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil). The results show that families had conversations that were scientific in nature, frequently naming bird species, and commenting on their behaviors and habits. However, few comments truly deepened the discussions of and reflections on biological and ecological scientific knowledge. Conversations centered around the reading of informative panels, emotional connections, and previous experiences enhanced the families’ creation of meaning. Our findings suggest a missed opportunity for interpretation to use linkages between the observed birds and visitors’ daily lives to enhance emotional connections with these species and to deeper key concepts about conservation of biodiversity.
AllardM.BoucherS. (1998). Éduquer au musée. Un modèle théorique de pédagogie muséale. Éditions Hurtubise HMH Ltée.
2.
AllenS. (2002). Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. In LeinhardtG.CrowleyK.KnutsonK. (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 259–303). Lawrence Erlbaum.
AragãoG. M. D. O.KazamaR. (2014). Percepção ambiental de visitantes do Zoo de Brasília e a possibilidade de se aprender e ensinar nesse ambiente. Acta Scientiarum Human and Social Sciences, 36(1), 63–71.
5.
AshD. (2003). Dialogic inquiry in life science conversations of family groups in a museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 138–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10069
6.
AshD. (2007). Using video data to capture discontinuous science meaning making in nonschool settings. In GoldmanR.PeaR.BarronB.DerryS. J. (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 207–226). Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
AshD.LombanaJ.AlcalaL. (2012). Changing practices, changing identities as museum educators: From didactic telling to scaffolding in the zpd. In DavidssonE.JakobssonA. (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and museum practices (pp. 23–44). Sense Publishers.
8.
BallantyneR.PackerJ. (2016). Visitors’ perceptions of the conservation education role of Zoos and Aquariums: Implications for the provision of learning experiences. Visitor Studies, 19(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2016.1220185
9.
BarrieE. R. (2001). Meaningful interpretive experiences from the participants’ perspective [Unpublished dissertation, Indiana University].
10.
BartoszeckA. B.VandrovieskiW.TratchV.CzelusniakF.TunnicliffeS. D. (2018). What do Brazilian school children know about birds in their country?European Journal of Educational Research, 7(3), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.3.485
11.
BizerrilM. X. A. (2004). Children’s perceptions of Brazilian Cerrado landscapes and biodiversity. The Journal of Environmental Education, 35(4), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.3200/joee.35.4.47-58
12.
Briseño-GarzonA. (2010). Exploring family learning in a Mexican science museum from a Latin American socio-cultural perspective [Tese de doutorado, University of British Columbia].
13.
BurrisA. (2017). A child’s-eye view: An examination of point-of-view camera use in four informal education settings. Visitor Studies, 20(2), 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2017.1404352
14.
CallananM. A.CastañedaC. L.LuceM. R.MartinJ. L. (2017). Family science talk in museums: Predicting children’s engagement from variations in talk and activity. Child Development, 88(5), 1492–1504. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12886
15.
CarterD. M. (2011). Recognizing the role of positive emotions in fostering environmentally responsible behaviors. Ecopsychology, 3, 65–69.
16.
CGEE. (2019). Percepção pública da ciência e tecnologia 2019 – Ciência e tecnologia no olhar dos brasileiros. Sumário executivo. MCTI.
17.
ClaytonS.FraserJ.SaundersC. D. (2009). Zoo experiences: Conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biology, 28, 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20186
18.
DawsonE. (2014). “Not designed for us”: How science museums and science centers socially exclude low-income, minority ethnic groups. Bioscience Education, 98, 981–1008.
19.
DawsonE.JensenE. (2011). Towards a contextual turn in visitor studies: Evaluating visitor segmentation and identity-related motivations. Visitor Studies, 14, 127–140.
20.
DoveT.ByrneJ. (2014). Do zoo visitors need zoology knowledge to understand conservation messages? An exploration of the public understanding of animal biology and of the conservation of biodiversity in a zoo setting. International Journal of Science Education Part B, 4(4), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2013.822120
21.
FalkJ.DierkingL. (2010). The 95 percent solution. American Scientist, 98(6), 486–493.
22.
FalkJ. H. (2005). Free-choice environmental learning: Framing the discussion. Environmental Education Research, 11(3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620500081129
23.
FalkJ. H.KoranJ. J.JrDierkingL. D.DreblowL. (1985). Predicting visitor behavior. Curator: The Museum Journal, 28(4), 249–258.
24.
FalkJ. H.ReinhardE. M.VernonC. L.BronnenkantK.DeansN. L.HeimlichJ. E. (2007). Why zoos and aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit. Association of Zoos & Aquariums.
25.
FraserJ.HeimlichJ. E.OgdenJ.AtkinsA.McReynoldsS.ChenC.SearlesV.SloanP.PletcherN.BoyleP. (2010). The AZA’s framework for zoo and aquarium social science research. Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
26.
FurtadoM. H. B. C.BrancoJ. O. (2003). A percepção dos visitantes dos zoológicos de Santa Catarina sobre a temática ambiental. II Simpósio Sul Brasileiro de Educação Ambiental, Itajaí, Santa Catarina, Brasil. Itajaí: Universidade do Vale do Itajaí.
27.
GarciaV. A. R. (2006). O processo de aprendizagem no Zôo de Sorocaba: análise da atividade educativa visita orientada a partir dos objetos biológicos [Dissetratação (Mestrado), Universidade de São Paulo].
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine.
30.
GoldmanT. L.ChenW. L. J.LarsenD. L. (2001). Clicking the icon: Exploring the meanings visitors attach to three national capital memorials. Journal of Interpretation Research, 6(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/109258720100600102
31.
HamS. H. (2004). Creating unforgettable event experiences: Making a difference by meaning making. Paper Presented at the Tasmania × Change Conference, Country Club Resort, Launceston, Tasmania.
32.
HeinG. (1998). Learning in the museum. Routledge.
33.
HutchinsM.SmithB. (2003). Characteristics of a world-class zoo or aquarium in the 21st century. International Zoo Yearbook, 38, 130–141.
34.
JaggerS. L.DubekM. M.PedrettiE. (2012). ‘It’s a personal thing’: Visitors’ responses to body worlds. Museum Management and Curatorship, 27(4), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2012.720185
35.
JantE. A.HadenC. A.UttalD. H.BabcockE. (2014). Conversation and object manipulation influence children’s learning in a museum. Child Development, 85(5), 2029–2045. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12252
36.
JensenE. (2014). Evaluating children’s conservation biology learning at the zoo. Conservation Biology, 28(4), 1004–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12263
37.
KassasM. (2002). Environmental education: Biodiversity. The Environmentalist, 22, 345–351.
38.
KnutstonK.CrowleyK. (2006). Three responses to Cheryl Meszaros’ evil “whatever” interpretation: Bridging the gap between museums and visitors. Visitor Studies Today, 9(3), 16–20.
39.
KopczakC.KisielJ. F.RoweS. (2015). Families talking about ecology at touch tanks. Environmental Education Research, 21(1), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.860429
40.
LeinhardtG.CrowleyK.KnutsonK. (Eds.). (2002). Learning conversations in museums. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41.
LopesL.BosaC. R.SilvaJ. D. (2011). Percepção ambiental dos visitantes do Zoológico Municipal de Curitiba-PR. Revista Monografias Ambientais, 4(4), 866–876.
42.
MassaraniL.Norberto RochaJ.ScalfiG.SilveiraY.CruzW.Dos Santos GuedesL. (2021). Families visit the Museum: A study on family interactions and conversations at the Museum of the Universe – Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Frontiers in Education, 6, 669467. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.669467
43.
MassaraniL.ReznikG.NorbertoJ.FallaS.RoweS.MartinsA. D.AmorimL. (2019a). A experiência de adolescentes ao visitar um museu de ciência: Um estudo no museu da vida. Ensaio: Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências (Online), 21, e10524. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21172019210115
44.
MassaraniL.FazioM. E.RochaJ. N.DávilaA.EspinosaS.BognanniF. A. (2019b). La interactividad en los museos de ciencias, pivote entre expectativas y hechos empíricos: El caso del Centro Interactivo de Ciencia y Tecnología Abremate (Argentina). Ciência & Educação (Bauru), 25(2), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-731320190020012
45.
MassaraniL.Mucci PoenaruL.Norberto RochaJ.RoweS.FallaS. (2019c). Adolescents learning with exhibits and explainers: The case of Maloka. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 9(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2019.1646439
46.
MassaraniL.PereiraJ. B.ScalfiG.PintoA. V. P. F.AraújoJ. M.RochaJ. N. (2022). Experiências de aprendizagem em visita familiar à exposição “Quando nem tudo era gelo”do Museu Nacional. Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências (Belo Horizonte) [online]. 2022, 24. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21172021240106
47.
McClainL. R.ZimmermanH. T. (2014). Prior experiences shaping family science conversations at a nature center. Science Education, 98, 1009–1032. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21134
MorganD. (2011). Rethinking family practices. Palgrave Macmillan.
50.
MossA.EssonM. (2013). The educational claims of zoos: Where do we go from here?Zoo Biology, 32(1), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21025
51.
MyersO. E.Jr.SaundersC.Jr. (2002). Animals as links to developing caring relationships with the natural world. In KahnP. H.KellertS. R. (Eds.), Children and nature: Theoretical and scientific foundations (pp. 153–178). MIT Press.
52.
NomuraH. A. Q. (2015). A conservação da biodiversidade em exposições de zoológicos: diálogos entre públicos e instituição [Dissertação de Mestrado, Universidade de São Paulo].
53.
NunesP. B.BarretoA. S.FrancoE. Z. (2012). Subsídios à ação fiscalizatória no combate ao tráfico de aves silvestres e exóticas em Santa Catarina. Ornithologia, 5(1), 26–33.
PackerJ.BallantyneR. (2010). The role of zoos and aquariums in education for a sustainable future. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2010, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.378
PattonM. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. SAGE.
60.
PereiraG. A.BritoM. T. (2005). Diversidade de aves silvestres comercializadas nas feiras livres da Região Metropolitana de Recife, Pernambuco. Atualidades Ornitológicas, 126, 14.
61.
PowellD. M.BullockE. V. W. (2014). Evaluation of factors affecting emotional responses in zoo visitors and the impact of emotion on conservation mindedness. Anthrozoos, 27(3), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303714x13903827488042
62.
QueirozS. C.FreiF. (2018). Percepção dos visitantes do Parque Ecológico “João Domingos Coelho” em Assis (SP) quanto ao meio ambiente e avifauna. Revista Brasileira de Educação Ambiental, 13(4), 156–173.
63.
RoeK.McConneyA.MansfieldC. (2014). Using evaluation to prove or to improve? An international, mixed-method investigation into zoos’ formal education evaluation practices. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research, 2(4), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.19227/jzar.v2i4.67
64.
RossS. R.GillespieK. L. (2009). Influences on visitor behavior at a modern immersive zoo exhibit. Zoo Biology, 28(5), 462–472.
65.
RoweS.KisielJ. (2012). Family engagement at aquarium touch tanks—exploring interactions and the potential for learning. In DavidssonE.JakobssonA. (Eds.), Understanding Interactions at Science Centers and Museums. SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-725-7_5
ScalfiG.BarataG. (2019). Is the Brazilian fauna well represented on children’s books?Revista Práxis, 11(22), 86–96.
68.
ScalfiG.MassaraniL.MarandinoM.GonçalvesW.RochaJ. N. (2022). A study of the interactions and conversations of families visiting the museum of microbiology of the Butantan institute, São Paulo, Brazil. Journal of Biological Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2022.2030388
69.
SilvermanL. H. (1999). Meaning making matters: Communication, consequences, and exhibit design. Exhibitionist, 118(Special issue), 9–14.
70.
StocklmayerS. M.RennieL. J.GilbertJ. K. (2010). The roles of the formal and informal sectors in the provision of effective science education. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903562284
71.
StorksdieckM.EllenbogenK.HeimlichJ. E. (2005). Changing minds? Reassessing outcomes in free-choice environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 11, 353–369.
72.
TardonaD. R. (2005). Exploring evolved psychological underpinnings of universal concepts and meaningful connections. Journal of Interpretation Research, 10(1), 69–74.
73.
TherkelsenA.LottrupM. (2015). Being together at the zoo: Zoo experiences among families with children. Leisure Studies, 34(3), 354–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2014.923493
74.
TofieldS.CollR. K.VyleB.BolstadR. (2003). Zoos as a source of free choice learning. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(1), 67–99.
75.
TunnicliffeS. (1994). Attitudes of primary school children to animals in a zoo. In NicholsonJ.PodberscekA. (Eds.), Issues in research in companion animal studies. Study no. 2. Society for Companion Animal Studies.
76.
TunnicliffeS. D. (1993). We’re all going to the zoo tomorrow: Children’s conversations at animal exhibits at London and St. Louis Zoos. Paper Given at Visitor Studies Association Conference, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
ZimmermanH. T.ReeveS.BellP. (2010). Family sense-making practices in science center conversations. Bioscience Education, 94(3), 478–505.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
