Journal of Studies in Educational Evaluation paper by Grace Sim

Studies in Educational Evaluation 41 (2014) 48–57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in Educational Evaluation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/stueduc

Children learning about biodiversity at an environment centre, a museum and at live animal shows G. Kimble * Institute of Education, University of London, Bedford Way, London WC1H OAL, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 30 May 2013 Received in revised form 28 August 2013 Accepted 4 September 2013 Available online 7 November 2013

This paper investigates informal biodiversity education in environment explorations, animal shows, and museum sessions. Participants (180) were ages 8/9, from London schools. Three data collection methods were used: pre- and post-visit activities, video recording, and post-visit interviews. Analysis was based on a socioecological literacy framework ‘Earth Smarts’. Findings demonstrate differences in learning in each setting. When children took part in an environment exploration, the most commonly occurring learning code was motivation; meeting live animals resulted in the greatest evidence of species description, and visiting specimens led to species identiﬁcation being most common. Codes have been conceptualised in the domains Skills, Place, Emotion, Attitudes and Knowledge (SPEAK) and are proposed as a tool to reﬂect on the aims of biodiversity education. ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Science education Museum education Zoo education Biodiversity education Environment education

Introduction What do children learn when they take part in informal biodiversity education sessions? The English curriculum for primary children includes scientiﬁc objectives of learning about variation and classiﬁcation, and how living things are adapted to their habitat . Informal science learning settings such as outdoor sites and museums provide sessions to extend children’s understanding of the natural world through taking part in enriching experiences (Braund and Reiss, 2004; Rickinson et al., 2004). Although the curriculum objectives that sessions in zoos, gardens and museums are intended to support are frequently identical, the active hypothesis of this research is that children’s learning varies in different informal biodiversity settings. This focus was chosen as result of surveying United Kingdom informal education providers after the International Year of Biodiversity (Kimble, 2011). It is anticipated that there will be evidence to support the active hypothesis. However, the challenge lies in characterising the precise nature of the differences in learning for children in different settings. This study focuses on three different settings within an urban context: an environment centre exploration, a live animal experience, and a museum with a natural history specimen collection.

The active hypothesis is informed by research into the traditions and funding priorities which underlie different informal biodiversity learning opportunities, and professional experience as a primary teacher and informal biodiversity educator and manager. Learning through environment explorations As a format, environmental explorations are well established (Jenkins and Swinnerton, 1996), starting at the end of the nineteenth century with Nature study to reconnect city children with the countryside. However, the purposes of outdoor engagement with the environment have followed governmental priorities over the years (Palmer, 1998). After the activist conservation movement in the 1960s, a clear milestone for biodiversity education was a summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, when countries signed to pledge support to protect biodiversity (Silvertown, 2010). This was followed by a number of high profile international meetings (see www.unesco.org) where biodiversity and sustainability issues were debated, often in relation to the Millennium Development Goals. Some people see biodiversity education as a postmodern approach to environment education (Dreyfus, Wals, & Van Weelie, 1999). The international meeting ‘Rio +20’ was held in 2012, addressing a number of current issues such as food security, climate change, and environmental economics. Although these wider global priorities are ultimately implicated for continuing funding for biodiversity education, how does this translate into what children learn? Sauve´ (2005) identified fifteen ‘currents’ or aims for environment education in Canada, showing a

G. Kimble / Studies in Educational Evaluation 41 (2014) 48–57

spectrum of purposes implicit in teaching. They range from developing a bond with the outdoors (Wilson, 1993) to developing ‘ecological literacy’ skills (Orr, 1995; Peacock, 2004). More recently, the importance of bringing in community approaches to the environment are being recognised, particularly where there are a number of different local perspectives (Stevenson & Dillon, 2010). Part of this research aims to understand how the traditions of informal environment education influence what children learn about habitats and adaptation when they visit an environmental education centre. Learning through encountering live animals Informal science education through meeting living animals has historic roots in the late 1800s and early 1900s, when leading sites such as London Zoo and the Bronx Zoo opened education departments (Baratay and Hardouin-Fugier, 2003). It is important to acknowledge that there are viewpoints opposing animals in zoos (Kiley-Worthington, 1990), and there is a distinction between organisations that prioritise profits from charismatic megafauna (Baratay & Hardouin-Fugier, 2003) and those that prioritise long term species preservation. Education has increasingly become a central objective for zoos (Patrick & Tunnicliffe, 2013) as the importance of spreading the conservation message has increased in profile. In 1993 E.O. Wilson stated that zoos must educate, argue and explain. In common with environmental education, increasing urbanisation is frequently cited as a key reason for why children should encounter living animals (Patrick & Tunnicliffe, 2013). The Society for Conservation Biology has set out the principles, concepts, goals and values of conservation literacy (Trombulak et al., 2004). One key idea in biology conservation education is that the living world is of personal worth to the learner. This is seen to be critical in order for children to take future positive actions towards conserving natural environments (Tunnicliffe, 2010). Zoos have a responsibility to promote the preservation of global diversity (Buffon Symposium, 2007). The extent to which this is based on research, animal management and communication activities varies between organisations. However, it is now widely acknowledged that visitors’ behaviour change as a result of encountering live animals is a legitimate and important outcome of a zoo visit, and one that zoo educators should plan for. A component of this research aims to understand how these perspectives influence what children learn about habitats and adaptation when they encounter live animals. Learning through exploring a natural history specimen collection The initial purpose of UK museums at the start of the nineteenth century was to educate adults, many of whom would not have had the opportunity for formal schooling. The need for an educated workforce in cities arose concurrently with the industrial revolution (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007), before universal education for all was established by Gladstone in 1870 (Turner, 1927). Like zoos, museum purposes have varied since their establishment between collection, preservation and public communication. John Hutchison was the first museum educator, at the Haslemere museum in England in the 1890s, and he was followed by ‘Guide Educators’ at the British Museum in 1911 and the Natural History Museum in 1912 (Kimble, 2009). These lone characters laid the foundations of learning from objects, experimenting with handling collections and using observation sheets to extend scientific understanding. A central tenet of animal specimen collections is understanding the science of is taxonomy – the ability to identify and classify a broad range of species. After the Second World War museum education in England became more holistic as council funding increased for children’s activities in the wake of family disruption (Palmer, 1954). In recent

years, themes of plurality, technology and globalisation have affected the relationship between museums and their visitors. Museums are epitomised as sites for free-choice learning (Falk, Randol, & Dierking, 2011). Current thinking is that the museum should be a ‘hub for social dialogue’ (Firmhofer, 2011) on site and online, as opposed to a didactic purveyor of knowledge and guardian of objects. Participation (Simon, 2011) and engagement (Black, 2005) are seen to exemplify ideal modes of learner–museum interaction. The near ubiquitous pervasion of internet access has cast the spotlight on objects as the unique selling points of museum visits; the aspects that cannot be encountered by other means. Learning programme development has reﬂected this by aiming to be object-rich, in consultation with teachers, for example, in the Natural History Museum in London (Collins & Lee, 2006). A section of this research aims to understand how this background inﬂuences what children learn about habitats and adaptation when they encounter natural history specimens. Methodology Identifying how the choice of setting affects children’s learning was the main focus for data collection, which took place in Spring 2012. The research participants were one hundred and eighty children aged eight and nine, who attended state primary schools near King’s Cross in London. Environmental exploration (EE) sessions took place at the London Wildlife Trust’s Camley street nature park site, live animal shows (LA) were provided by educational company Animal Man Ltd and natural history (NH) specimen handling took place at the Royal Veterinary College in Camden. Some classes took part in sessions which involved one type of biodiversity activity alone, and others took part in sessions which combined more than one type of biodiversity activity, as shown in Table 1, in order to compare differences in learning. A clear issue with trying to isolate the learning that results from informal biodiversity session are the many differing factors, owing to individual pupils’ differences, class teaching styles, informal educator styles and session format. This research takes a critical perspective, acknowledging that the results are limited to these contexts; however, conducting and analysing research addresses a gap in the existing literature and lays foundations for informing future research. The data collection schedule in Table 1 was designed to allow validation of results using a calculation to identify the learning taking place in one type of setting: Total EE learning minus total learning not EE (Total per code in EE + EENH + EELA) (Total per code in NH + LA + LANH) Likewise, for LA and NH. This allowed understanding across different classes and with different class teachers. Schools were Table 1 Data collection schedule.

G. Kimble / Studies in Educational Evaluation 41 (2014) 48–57

selected from as similar catchment areas as possible, in the boroughs of Camden and Islington in London. These calculations acknowledge a possible interaction effect, and allow for them by focussing on learning that was common to children who took part in both single sessions and also combinations of sessions. Informal biodiversity sessions Sessions were chosen because they addressed the following learning objectives: Adaptation Pupils should be taught: b. about the different plants and animals found in different habitats c. how animals and plants in two different habitats are suited to their environment English National Curriculum, accessed online November 2012 Environmental exploration session overview. Pupils were introduced to Camley Street Natural Park, a London Wildlife Trust site near King’s Cross. The educator assessed their prior knowledge of local species through class discussion. They split into groups for three different activities: investigating hibernation, pond dipping, and a guided walk. The plenary session reviewed learning and children were given an animal or plant species image to add to a food web. Live animal show session overview. Pupils were introduced to the show format and the calm behaviour needed for the animals. Examples of animals from different groups (mammals, e.g. a skunk, birds, e.g. a Scops owl, reptiles, such as a royal python, and invertebrates, e.g. a tarantula) were described to children. They were asked to make suggestions of the purpose of different adaptations. Volunteers were invited to the front for activities such as holding a rope the length of the longest snake, and looking closely at or touching some animals. Some animals were taken around the whole class (docile individual animals were selected for this). The session ended with pupils all handling one animal, chosen by the presenter such that no one animal received too much handling. Natural history specimen collection session overview. Pupils were introduced to the Royal Veterinary College museum and their specimen collection. They were asked about their prior knowledge before taking part in an activity which asked them to explore freely and find specimens, to identify them using a flow chart, and to link their observations to habitat and diet. The plenary session reviewed learning and explained adaptations with examples. Data collection Three different data collection methods were used to triangulate this study: pre- and post-visit surveys, video data collection and post visit interviews. Firstly, pre-visit surveys were carried out in class. Survey design was based on a pilot study which had used a grounded theory approach to understand the range of views about nature held by sixty eight and nine year olds. The pilot study took place at the Natural History Museum in London. Interviews, audio recordings and personal meaning maps (Falk & Dierking, 2000) were analysed using the Museums, Libraries and Archives (MLA) ‘Inspiring Learning for All’ framework (Hooper-Greenhill et al., 2003). This framework uses five learning domains: (1) Enjoyment, inspiration,

Fig. 1. Domains of learning in the Museums, Libraries and Archives’ Framework ‘Inspiring Learning for All: Generic Learning Outcomes’ accessed online May 2013: www.inspiringlearningforall.gov.uk.

creativity, (2) Skills, (3) Knowledge, (4) Attitudes and Values, and (5) Activity, Behaviour and Progression, as shown in Fig. 1. During the pilot study, the process of coding responses revealed that the MLA framework is not optimally suited to measuring learning about the natural world. For example, the skill of discovery and knowledge about a particular place were hard to assign as subsections of the five domains listed above. Therefore, an alternative framework was chosen as a basis for analysing responses: Earth Smarts (Nichols & Zeidler, 2012). This ‘socioecological’ framework was established through a consensus process with a range of stakeholders as part of doctoral research (Nichols, 2010). It defines socioecological literacy as learning in four domains: (1) Concepts, (2) Sense of Place, (3) Values and (4) Competencies. Key differences which were important in the choice of this framework as a suitable basis for analysis were the emphases on place, and community skills. This framework applies to informal learning situations where positive action towards the environment is a possible outcome, and states that the skills to adapt to a changing world are a vital component. ‘Concepts’ sub domains are highly relevant to biodiversity topics. Fig. 2 shows the major sub domains. The subsections were filtered, using professional judgement based on the author’s experience as a primary teacher, to make an analysis framework with learning sub domains realistic and appropriate for eight/nine year olds. Pre- and post-visit surveys were presented as activities (as opposed to tests) in class – see Appendix A for an example. Text and explanation by the author asked children to imagine that they were planning a zoo or museum as a context for explaining their existing biodiversity knowledge. Questions were open-ended and covered breadth and depth in species knowledge, attitudes to nature and biodiversity issues, and attachment to place. Pre-visit surveys took place at the start of the week during which children were visiting an informal learning session, and identical post-visit surveys took place at the end of the same week. Subsequent studies could investigate longer term impact through further follow up. The second method was video recording from headset cameras together with traditional digital video recording. Hardware testing took place to identify headset cameras which recorded sessions from children’s perspectives. This allowed detailed insight into

G. Kimble / Studies in Educational Evaluation 41 (2014) 48–57

Fig. 2. Earth Smarts socioecological framework (Nichols & Zeidler, 2012).

their visual point of view, as well as hearing conversations that could not be heard with wide view video-recording. A standard format was used; for each session two sections of twenty minutes of pupil perspective video (one boy and one girl chosen at random) were analysed, then twenty minutes of wide angle video. Each session therefore had one hour of video recording for coding analysis. Thirdly, post-visit interviews were undertaken following informal education sessions. Standard interview techniques were used to investigate themes that had arisen from pre-visit surveys and video recording. Interviews were carried out at the end of the week when pupils visited an informal learning session.

Results were assigned to the analysis framework by a coding process. Pre- and post-visit responses were compared so that only differences in learning (i.e. responses appearing post-visit but not pre-visit) were used for coding. Tallies were made for each day of data collection. Where observed evidence did not ﬁt into an existing category, a new category was made. For example, attitudes about ‘the wild’ were added to the framework as a sub domain. The domain of emotion was added in order to convey some of the nonverbal behaviour seen using video evidence. The reason that emotion and attitude are separate is that the socioecological basis for this conceptualisation included biophilia and affective connections to the land in the domain ‘Values’ (Nichols & Zeidler,

Fig. 3. Twenty most common learning sub domains (data from all sessions summed).

G. Kimble / Studies in Educational Evaluation 41 (2014) 48–57

2012). In this case however, there was sufﬁcient evidence to then include ‘Emotion’ as a separate domain, including both positive and negative reactions to events, not just with reference to place. Barriault and Pearson’s (2010) guidance was used to interpret nonverbal behaviour. Having assigned the data and formed a modiﬁed understanding of the evidence of learning, the data were reviewed again to make sure tallies had been recorded accurately for new sub domains that arose. Results

four classes, video data using personal viewpoint and traditional video recording, and evidence of learning from recorded interviews. The most common codes, using all data, are shown in Fig. 3. Using the calculation previously explained in the methods section, learning that took place predominantly in one type of session was isolated. Environment exploration See Fig. 4.

In total, 1867 pieces of evidence were interpreted and assigned to sixty sub domains of learning. The data comprised information obtained from comparing pre- and post-visit surveys from six year

Live animals See Fig. 5.

Fig. 4. Evidence of learning in environment explorations.

Fig. 5. Evidence of learning in live animal shows.

G. Kimble / Studies in Educational Evaluation 41 (2014) 48–57

Attitudes and Knowledge have been used, and give the acronym ‘SPEAK’.

Natural history specimens See Fig. 6. Part of analysing the results involved identifying new learning sub domains and modifying the Earth Smarts framework (Nichols & Zeidler, 2012). By removing codes that did not occur and adding in those that were apparent (such as repetition, showing, reading) a new conceptualisation of the learning that took place was formed, as shown in Fig. 7. Domains of Skills, Place, Emotion,

Discussion It is important to remember that the discussion here refers to results that were observed with one hundred and eighty eight/nine year olds in central London, from six classes in schools near King’s Cross. Therefore, they are limited to urban settings with diverse

Fig. 6. Evidence of learning in a natural history specimen exploration.

Fig. 7. SPEAK conceptualisation of informal biodiversity learning.

G. Kimble / Studies in Educational Evaluation 41 (2014) 48–57

children. The examples of museum, environment centre and live animals are also highly specific, including setting, staff and resources. However, it is intended that this research is a basis for discussion, acknowledging the constraints of the scope of this study. Addressing the aim to characterise learning in informal biodiversity sessions, the results will first be discussed by considering the five most common learning sub domains that occurred when all settings were combined. Subsequently, the unique aspects of each of the settings studied will be considered. Finally, this will be related to wider perspectives about the position of informal biodiversity education. Species name According to Barker and Slingsby (1998), learning to name the sub components of an ecosystem lays the foundation for understanding the network of interconnections that affect each other. It is therefore reassuring that, at age eight and nine, there was evidence that pupils learnt species names during informal biodiversity sessions. Examples where pupils stated a species name were used as evidence of learning during the session. The term does not imply that pupils have memorised the name; rather, it is evidence that children have made an association between a representation of a species and its name. The session types that showed the most evidence of pupils learning species names were natural history collection sessions, followed by live animal shows. This makes sense from a practical point of view; in both these types of session it is guaranteed that the children will be able to see a particular animal; therefore, it makes sense for sessions to be based around definite species. In contrast, from a practical perspective it is not possible to guarantee which species children will encounter when exploring the environment; therefore, environmental education sessions do not rely on seeing individual species. Motivation Evidence of motivation included positive exclamations, smiles, hands up and engagement, based on guidance devised by Barriault and Pearson (2010). Evidence of motivation occurred across all sessions, but was most prevalent in environmental exploration. This is similar to results found in the pilot study for this research. Observation of children’s behaviour suggests that the excitement of a novel outdoor situation lies in the authenticity of the natural world (Korfiatis & Tunnicliffe, 2012). Adults can predict what might be found, but ultimately wildlife cannot be controlled in the same way as domesticated species. The surprise and delight when children discovered even a small invertebrate far exceeds the level of interest they might show in a familiar situation. The power of surprise to focus attention and subsequently inspire discussion has been used intentionally by performers since medieval times in England, but here it is arising naturally. Children are very perceptive about the authenticity of discovering something real, and the subject of salience due to authenticity in nature will be a focus for future research. Description Evidence that children had learnt the features of animals was seen mostly in post-visit activities, where children were asked to select one animal to explain as fully as they could. The sort of features they described included colour, covering, size, pattern, shape and body structure appearance. The types of session that resulted in the most evidence of children learning the appearance of species were live animal shows. The format of the show involves

the presenter describing adaptations whilst walking round the class with the live animal. The sustained chance to observe the living animal resulted in pupils being able to recall salient features in post-visit activities. The majority of children selected an animal they had seen during the show, such as a tarantula or snake, to describe in full. The reasons why they would recall and choose one animal over another would be worthwhile to investigate in future research about salience. Behaviour Evidence that children had learnt about animal behaviour included descriptions of how the animals moves or a typical behaviour it performs (e.g. making a nest). Evidence was seen for this in post-visit activities, where children were asked to describe one animal in detail. Evidence was also obtained from interviews, e.g. a boy describing a robin said ‘it was flying around’. The type of session with the most evidence for this was, not surprisingly, the live animal session. There is a widely held belief amongst zoo educators that the opportunity to observe an animal’s behaviour is important for people in order to start to care about conservation (Kiley-Worthington, 1990; Patrick & Tunnicliffe, 2013). Vining explains that she did not find conclusive evidence to support this link in her paper ‘The connection to other animals and caring for nature’ (2003), although she asserts that forming emotional connections is key to the psychology of future positive actions. What livings things need As part of their pre- and post-visit activity, children were asked ‘what do animals and plants need to survive?’ After informal sessions they commented on these aspects, but noticeably at different levels depending on the session they had experienced. For example, children who had encountered live animals were more likely to respond as if the animals were domestic, commenting on specific food. In contrast, those who had visited an environment education centre were more likely to comment on shelter and habitats. The most common learning sub domains are shown in Fig. 8. Green denotes environmental exploration learning, red denotes live animal shows, and orange denotes natural history collections. Fig. 8 is intended to illustrate the complementary aspects of learning that occur in different informal learning environments, despite addressing identical National Curriculum knowledge learning objectives about habitats and adaptation. The distinctive learning opportunities afforded by each setting will be discussed further below. Environment exploration Environment exploration sessions aroused curiosity in children, as shown both by video evidence and through the post-visit activity question: ‘Do you have any questions about your visit?’ This is related to the fact that there was evidence that children acknowledged uncertainty about new information or situations. This is included in the Earth Smarts framework as a skill (Nichols & Zeidler, 2012). From a pedagogical perspective, cognitive dissonance between known and unknown is important for attitude change to take place (Izuma, 2013); therefore, encountering the unknown could be seen to be a distinctive and important aspect of learning about biodiversity in environmental explorations. Likewise, disagreement and developing a group consensus are seen as community skills. This was seen in environmental explorations when children encountered something unexpected, such as an invertebrate, and reacted in a range of ways which revealed their values. For example, some wanted to kill it and stamp on it, whilst

G. Kimble / Studies in Educational Evaluation 41 (2014) 48–57

Fig. 8. Most common codes per individual session type, shown on SPEAK conceptualisation of informal biodiversity learning in this case. Green denotes environment exploration, red shows live animals, and circle area is proportional to number of pieces of evidence observed. Data are ﬁltered and only show codes with a minimum number of responses after analysis.

others defended it. The resulting disagreement involved backing up opinions with reasons, again a key skill. Patrick and Tunnicliffe (2013) acknowledge that a benefit of informal learning is allowing conversations that may be curtailed in formal learning environments. Children showed evidence of local awareness, which was interpreted as naming a local place where they could find wildlife. In response to the question: ‘Is there a place that you would go to find out about nature?’ 69% children who had visited the environment centre wrote (or drew) park or specifically Camley Street Natural Park, compared to a pre-visit average of 36%. The session format allowed group work, and there were a number of instances of children using the skill of explaining. Evidence for this was through video recordings of the sessions. The children enthusiastically took on the role of experts if they had found a living species, explaining how to find it or identify it, or what it was doing. This relates to evidence of ‘repetition’. Although the inclusion of repetition as a skill may be considered contentious, the author asserts that it is a learning skill that children employ naturally to help recall a new word, particularly when they have diverse backgrounds. When analysing evidence, a distinction was drawn between using a new word for communication, and simply repeating a new word whilst walking along, for example. The environment exploration involved an investigation about hibernation where children had to measure temperature using a thermometer; there was video evidence that children used measuring skills. This relates to the fact that post-visit, children who had visited this session were more likely to answer ‘science’ in response to the question ‘Which lesson would teach you about nature?’ (open-ended response). The introduction and plenary covered issues for wildlife such as cold temperature in winter and lack of food, and children commented on this in post visit activities in response to the question ‘Do you know about any problems for

animals?’. The plenary activity involved sorting animals and plants into producers and consumers; there was video evidence of this taxonomic skill. Live animal shows The sub-domain ‘personality’ referred to children anthropomorphising animal behaviour, such as referring to an individual animal’s name or how it behaved. This is contentious in zoo education, as it is clear that children empathise with animals’ characters, and this positive association would be considered beneﬁcial for the overall goals of promoting an interest in conservation of those species. However, an overly sentimental attachment to individuals is not always consistent with a scientiﬁc view of biodiversity. For example, children may interpret animal intentions anthropocentrically, such as thinking that animals want to live in similar size family groups as humans, and have similar social patterns. However, this does not help with understanding the relationships in an ecosystem in the long term. This relates to the fact that children had a number of ethical questions, such as ‘How did you get the animals?’ There is a narrative about not taking animals from where they live; yet the animals that the children can see have clearly been removed from their habitat but by experts who are able to care for them using specialist knowledge. The emphasis on care, told by the presenter who was personally responsible for the animals, may be the reason that children who had seen the live animal show were more likely to respond ‘us/we should/I should’ in response to the question ‘who should look after nature?’ post visit. This was recorded as the attitude sub domain ‘Personal responsibility towards living things’. Children were also keen to know about the life cycle with reference to individual animals – such as how old they were and if they had any young.

G. Kimble / Studies in Educational Evaluation 41 (2014) 48–57

The format of live animal shows allows children to suggest reasons for features or adaptations, and there was video evidence that children were making new associations by using prior knowledge to suggest reasons for their observations. The presenter classified each specimen, stating whether it was a vertebrate (there were birds, mammals and reptiles) or invertebrate and why. Therefore there was video, post visit and interview evidence that children had learnt about the definitions of these categories, as well as evidence that they had learnt group names. There was video evidence of children handling animals during the show. This relates to the attitude code of ‘being kind to animals’; children commented to each other about being quiet and not frightening them. There was a change in perception throughout the show from seeing the living animals as dangerous or venomous to behaving gently; acknowledging that the animals could be intimidated by humans as well as the reverse. This is consistent with findings by Randler, Hummel, and Prokop (2012) that fear in children is a survival advantage, but can be reduced through activities which challenge initial biases. The sub-domain ‘danger/venomous’ was added as an attitude to record the conversations that took place between children observing live animal shows, likewise fear. When asked ‘is there a place that you would go to find out about nature?’ children who had seen live animal shows frequently drew zoos, specifically London Zoo. Post visit, children who had visited this session were more likely to answer ‘literacy’ in response to the question ‘which lesson would teach you about nature?’ (open ended response). The presenter used a number of links to popular culture – TV shows, film and stories – which are likely to be the reason that they saw the experience as narrative-/ media-related. Natural History specimen collection Career choices were key learning for children in the specimen collection session; the introduction included a discussion about the purpose of the collection and the educator asked children who might use the collection. This lead to a conversation about jobs, providing video evidence for this new attitude sub domain ‘Career choices’. Natural history collections often include specimens that were originally collected for non scientific purposes, such as hunting, souvenirs or clothing (Atran, 1993). They continue to be used for scientific enquiry, and the narratives introducing the collection therefore include reference to the types of science that might need to use real artefacts. In this particular session, the clear explanation at the start of the session meant that there was little evidence of questioning about why the space contained dead animals; however, personal experience suggests this is unusual. Video evidence showed children using skills of observation (prompted by a worksheet flow chart) to identify species, such as looking at claw sheaths to tell the difference between a canine and a feline. In video evidence children can be seen and heard to show other children where particular specimens were, once they had found them through free exploration. A typical phrase was ‘Look! It’s the tiger!’ They can be seen and heard to read labels. Museums are not frequently pitched to teachers as real contexts for developing reading skills in children. Children were heard to use specific new vocabulary such as habitat types and adapted features (e.g. beak, hooves and spine). Similarly to the environment exploration, they had the opportunity to freely explore, find new species that they did not know, and identify them through a discussion process which often involved disagreement. The skill sub-domain ‘discovery/searching’ was recorded when children were observed on video to actively engage in sustained seeking activity.

When asked ‘Is there a place that you would go to find out about nature?’ 26% children who had visited the specimen collection wrote or drew the Royal Veterinary College Museum, compared to 2% suggesting a museum in the pre-visit activity. An unexpected outcome of the session was the fact that the most common post visit response to the question ‘Who should look after nature?’ referred to someone other than the child, for example, ‘people who care about nature’, ‘scientists’, ‘vets’ and one child stated ‘a better government!’. Conclusions This research has shown evidence that primary pupils learnt about aspects of biodiversity in three informal settings in London; environment explorations, live animal shows and natural history specimen collections. Analysis was based on the socioecological literacy framework Earth Smarts (Nichols & Zeidler, 2012) using pre-/post-activity data, video evidence and interview responses. Results have been conceptualised in five domains; skills, place, emotion, attitudes and knowledge (SPEAK). The most common types of learning observed were species name, motivation, description, species behaviour and what livings things need. There is evidence that the environment exploration was the source of considerable motivation for children. This is suggested to be related to the surprise of discovering wildlife in authentic situations. The freedom in sessions allowed children to develop consensus through a process of disagreement when encountering unknown species. The environment exploration session presented the most interconnected view of nature, which may also be due in part to the practical reason that it is not possible to rely on one given species being observed in an authentic outdoor environment. Nature was most likely to be seen as a scientific subject in this context. The live animal shows led to children describing species, and recalling aspects of individual animals’ personalities. Sessions raised ethical questions for children about where the animals came from. The session developed handling and classification skills, and the connection between the presenter and his animals lead to attitudes that children should take personal responsibility for nature. Nature was most likely to be seen as related to literacy in this context. Natural history specimen collections developed observation, identification, discovery and reading skills. They learnt species names and specific vocabulary. Sessions allowed development of attitudes about career choices. Free exploration allowed children to show others species they had found, and to disagree over novel specimens. Children were more likely to see nature as something that someone else should look after. Understanding the inter-relationships between species is seen to be crucial in young people engaging in contemporary debates about resource use, which are significant in future long term sustainability. Biodiversity education has been a source of debate in recent years; for example at the ‘Rio +20’ conference in Brazil, 2012, where biodiversity education success was identified as a cause for concern underlying lack of progress towards expected resource protection targets. This research provides a conceptualisation for informal biodiversity educators and related organisations to reflect on children’s learning (Figs. 7 and 8) and identify if the values and key messages they are conveying are those which stakeholders intend. Acknowledgements With grateful thanks to Professor Michael Reiss and Dr Pam Meecham (Institute of Education, London), Helen Burton (Camley Street Natural Park, part of the London Wildlife Trust); James

G. Kimble / Studies in Educational Evaluation 41 (2014) 48–57

Cannon (Royal Veterinary College, London) and Stuart Short (Animal Man Ltd, Herts).

Appendix A. Example pre-visit activity questions

References Atran, S. (1993). Cognitive Foundations of Natural History: Towards an anthroplogy of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Barker, S., & Slingsby, D. (1998). From nature table to niche: Curriculum progression in ecological concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 479–486. Barriault, C., & Pearson, D. (2010). Assessing exhibits for learning in science centers: A practical tool. Visitor Studies, 13(1), 90–106. Baratay, E., & Hardouin-Fugier, E. (2003). Zoo: A history of zoological gardens in the west. USA: University of Chicago Press. Black, G. (2005). The Engaging Museum London. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2004). Learning science outside the classroom. London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer. Buffon Symposium. (2007, October 18–19). The Buffon Declaration: Natural History Institutions and the Environmental Crisis. Paris: Museum National d’Historire Naturelle. Collins, S., & Lee, A. (2006). How can natural history museums effectively support science teaching and learning? London: DCMS/DfES Available at www.nhm.ac.uk/ resources-rx/ﬁles/secondary-schools-20524.pdf.

Dreyfus, A., Wals, A. J., & Van Weelie, D. (1999). Biodiversity as a postmodern theme for environmental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 4(Summer), 155–174. Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (2000). Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. Altamira. Falk, J., Randol, S., & Dierking, L. (2011). Mapping the informal science education landscape: An exploratory study. Public Understanding of ScienceMarch 14. Firmhofer, R. (2011, September 4–8). Widening access to collections. Presentation at Science Across Cultures Conference. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy, performance. Oxford: Routledge. Hooper-Greenhill, E., Dodd, J., Moussouri, T., Jones, C., Pickford, C., Herman, C., Morrison Vincent, J., & Toon, R. (2003). Measuring the Outcomes and Impact of Learning in Museums Archives and Libraries. The Learning Impact Research Project End of Project Paper. Izuma, K. (2013). The neural basis of social influence and attitude change. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(3), 456–462 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.conb.2013.03.009. Jenkins, E. W., & Swinnerton, B. J. (1996). The school nature study union 1903-94. History of Education, 25(2), 181–198. Kiley-Worthington, M. (1990). Animals in circuses and zoos: Chiron’s world. Essex, UK: Little Eco-Farms Publishing. Kimble, G. (2011) International Year of Biodiversity 2010: Lessons for Learning. Practical report for survey participants. Published online June 2011 http://issuu.com/g.kimble/docs/results_june_2011. Kimble, G. (2009). School learning at the Natural History Museum, London: Past, present and future. London: Institute of Education (MA dissertation). Korfiatis, K. J., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2012). The living world in the curriculum: Ecology, an essential part of biology learning. Journal of Biological Education, 46(3), 125–127. Nichols, B. H. (2010). Introducing essential ecoliteracy, or Earth Smarts: Defining and validating a pragmatic educational construct based on quality of life. Journal of Sustainability Education1(1). Nichols, B. H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Teaching earth smarts: A pragmatic, nonpartisan educational construct for socioecological literacy. Presented at the annual international conference of the national association for research in science teaching. Orr, D. (1995). Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a most-modern world. New York: State University of New York Press. Palmer, J. (1954). Going to Museums. Phoenix House. Palmer, J. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, progress and promise. London: Routledge. Peacock, A. (2004). Eco-literacy for primary schools. London: Trentham Books. Patrick, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2013). Zoo talk. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media. Randler, C., Hummel, E., & Prokop, P. (2012). Practical work at school reduces disgust and fear of unpopular animals animals. Society and Animals, 20(1), 61–74, (14). Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Tearney, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review of Research on Outdoor Learning. National Foundation for Educational Research and King’s College London. Sauve´, L. (2005). Currents in environmental education: Mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10(1), 11–37. Silvertown, J. (2010). Fragile web: What’s next for nature? London: NHM. Simon, N. (2011). The Participatory Museum Accessed online May 2013: www.participatorymuseum.org. Stevenson, R., & Dillon, J. (2010). Engaging environmental education: Learning, culture and agency. Rotterdam: Sense. Trombulak, S., Omland, K., Robinson, J., Lusk, J., Fleischner, T., Brown, G., & Domroese, M. (2004). Principles of conservation biology: Recommended guidelines for conservation literacy from the education committee of the Society for Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology, 18(5), 1180–1190. Tunnicliffe, S. (2010, September 2–8). What is conservation biology education, CBE? Poster presented at the Association of Zoos and Aquarium conference. Turner, T. W. (1927). The curriculum and aims in biological science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 27, 681–690. United Nations Education and Scientific and Cultural Organisation website: www. unesco.org. Accessed February 2011. Vining, J. (2003). The connection to other animals and caring for nature. Human Ecology Review, 10(2), 87–99, Society for Human Ecology. Wilson, E. O. (1993). Biodiversity and the conservation ethic. In Kellert & Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 31–40). Washington, DC: Shearwater Books.