The Educational Claims of Zoos: Where Do We Go from Here?

Abstract

Zoos exude a certain self-confidence regarding their roles as education providers. Indeed, the education outputs of zoos are, at face value, pretty impressive, with most investing in learning opportunities for leisure visitors, education groups and in some cases, as part of their in situ programs. However, these outputs are not necessarily reliable indicators of the educational achievements of zoos. Quantity does not necessarily equate to quality, just as outputs do not necessarily lead to outcomes. Zoo-accreditation organizations such as the AZA and EAZA offer us clear insight into the strategic vision underpinning the education goals for zoo visitors; a heightened appreciation of the value of biodiversity and a connectedness with the natural world. Unsurprisingly, most zoos have educational goals that ally neatly with the vision of their respective accreditation body. Consequently, we are left with fairly narrow, top-down educational goals. This does not necessarily sit well with what we know about the unpredictability of "free choice" learning in environments such as zoos and aquariums, or what is known about public science communication. Research that seeks to explore the impacts of zoo visits often focuses on evaluating performance based on educational goals and the findings are used as a means of providing evidence of institutional achievement. However, any visitor outcome that falls outside of this narrow range could well be missed by the research. In this article, we propose that research that takes unpredictable and unexpected outcomes into account is necessary and overdue. Zoo Biol. 00:1-10, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Full text

Zoo Biology 32: 13–18 (2013)
© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
COMMENTARY
ZOOS AND EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATIONS
Traditionally, zoos have offered formal, educator-led
teaching to school and college groups [Anderson, 2003]
and this has continued, with most zoos [In this article,
“zoos” refers to those within the established zoo accredita-
tion framework; we do recognize that there are many zoos
that fall outside of this] continuing to offer curriculum-
linked packages of teaching across the age groups. Other
outputs in the form of educational materials and activities
have are also part of the zoo’s educational repertoire; for
example, signage and interactive interpretation [Fraser
et al., 2009], public talks at animal exhibits [Moss et al.,
2010], informal educator interventions via staff or docents
[Mony and Heimlich, 2008], and animal demonstrations
[Povey and Rios, 2002]. The generally accepted way of
referring to the different educational outputs of zoos is to
separate them into two categories; formal (taught, educa-
tor led, not necessarily self-selected) and informal (visi-
tor led—interpretation, talks, demonstrations, etc.). For
the purposes of this paper, we use the word “education”
The Educational Claims of Zoos: Where Do We Go
from Here?
Andrew Moss* and Maggie Esson
Discovery and Learning Division, North of England Zoological Society, Chester Zoo, Upton-by-Chester, Chester,
United Kingdom
Zoos exude a certain self-confidence regarding their roles as education providers. Indeed, the education outputs of zoos
are, at face value, pretty impressive, with most investing in learning opportunities for leisure visitors, education groups
and in some cases, as part of their in situ programs. However, these outputs are not necessarily reliable indicators of
the educational achievements of zoos. Quantity does not necessarily equate to quality, just as outputs do not necessarily
lead to outcomes. Zoo-accreditation organizations such as the AZA and EAZA offer us clear insight into the strategic
vision underpinning the education goals for zoo visitors; a heightened appreciation of the value of biodiversity and a
connectedness with the natural world. Unsurprisingly, most zoos have educational goals that ally neatly with the vision
of their respective accreditation body. Consequently, we are left with fairly narrow, top-down educational goals. This
does not necessarily sit well with what we know about the unpredictability of “free choice” learning in environments
such as zoos and aquariums, or what is known about public science communication. Research that seeks to explore the
impacts of zoo visits often focuses on evaluating performance based on educational goals and the findings are used as
a means of providing evidence of institutional achievement. However, any visitor outcome that falls outside of this nar-
row range could well be missed by the research. In this article, we propose that research that takes unpredictable and
unexpected outcomes into account is necessary and overdue. Zoo Biol. 32:13–18, 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Keywords: conservation; education; evaluation; learning outcomes; zoo
to refer to all zoo educational outputs. This diversified ap-
proach to educational outputs would seem well capable
of accommodating differing learning styles [cf. Gardner,
1985] and previsit agendas [cf. Falk et al., 1998]. The im-
portant question however is what drives the content of all
these educational outputs.
ZOO ACCREDITATION
At a strategic level, zoo accreditation bodies state
clear educational goals. Table 1 summarizes these for the
major worldwide organizations.
*Correspondence to: Andrew Moss, Discovery and Learning Division,
North of England Zoological Society, Chester Zoo, Upton-by-Chester,
Chester, CH2 1LH, UK.
E-mail: a.moss@chesterzoo.org
Received 19 January 2012; Revised 12 April 2012; Accepted 25 April 2012
DOI 10.1002/zoo.21025
Published online in 4 June 2012 Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.
com).

Zoo Biology
14 Moss and Esson
We argue here, that there are strong similarities be-
tween the educational goals of the accreditation organiza-
tions in Table 1, particularly in the use of aspirational and
emotive language. For the major zoo accreditation organi-
zations, the most universally relevant of these educational
goals are arguably those taken from the World Zoo and
Aquarium Conservation Strategy [WAZA, 2005]. This is
the overarching strategic document for zoos worldwide,
so we would expect regional and national zoo-accredita-
tion organizations to ally with this position Here, we find
that education should not only “be seen as an important
conservation activity,” but it also should have an “action”
component, resulting in zoo visitors being inspired “to act
positively for conservation.” To zoo critics the use of as-
pirational and emotive language could suggest that either
these goals are yet to be met or there is a lack of evidence
to support stronger, more outcome-orientated statements.
In addition to these strategic, aspirational goals for
zoo education, accreditation organizations exude, via their
public websites, a self-confidence regarding their educa-
tional value. For example, the Association of Zoos and
Aquariums (AZA), on its main education web-page, states
that “AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums play a vital role
in educating over 175 million visitors, and 12 million stu-
dents in the classroom or in the field, about wild animals,
their habitats, their related conservation issues, and the
ways in which they can contribute to their preservation”
[AZA, 2011]. As this figure of 175 million equates to all
annual visitors to AZA zoos, this is clearly suggesting that
every visitor is being educated according to the AZA’s vi-
sion. And, presumably, this quoted figure includes visitors
that have visited more than one zoo, or have visited the
same zoo a number of times. This is the reporting of an
educational outcome that must have an evidential base to
be valid. The British and Irish Association of Zoos and
Aquariums (BIAZA), again on their main education web
page, state that “Enthusiasm about animals is infectious
and zoo visitors are highly ‘susceptible’ to education” [BI-
AZA, 2011]. These are two confident statements, neither
of which is obviously supported in the literature concerned
with zoo visitors. Additionally, the terms “enthusiasm”
and “susceptible” are difficult to define in this context and
would as a consequence, be difficult to measure. The Zoo
and Aquarium Association (ZAA), on their “role of zoos
and aquariums” web-page state that zoos “uniquely have a
massive ‘captive audience’ of visitors whose knowledge,
understanding, attitude, behavior, and involvement can all
be positively influenced and harnessed” [ZAA, ]. Again,
this is a confident statement that all zoo visitors can be
influenced positively for the benefit of conservation.
EDUCATIONAL GOALS OF MEMBER ZOOS
Patrick et al. [2007] undertook a more comprehensive
analysis of zoo mission statements (in the United States)
and found that the theme of education was mentioned in
TABLE 1. The Educational Goals of the Major Zoo Accreditation Organizations
Zoo Accreditation Organization Education goals
World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation
Strategy (2005). WAZA
“The educational role is to interpret living collections to attract, inspire and enable people
from all walks of life to act positively for Conservation.”
“The educational role of zoos and aquariums will be socially, environmentally and
culturally relevant, and by influencing people’s behavior and values, education will be
seen as an important conservation activity.”
Association of Zoos and Aquariums (US) “Facilitate multi-institutional conservation education, outreach, and collaborations that
activate the public to connect with and take personal action to conserve wildlife and
wild habitats.”
Zoo and Aquarium Association (Australia,
New Zealand and the South Pacific)
“To provide exemplary learning opportunities that connect people with nature. These
experiences enable the community to better understand and contribute to a future
where humans live in balance with the natural world.”
European Association of Zoos and Aquaria “To create an urgent awareness among the many millions of European zoo visitors of
the fact that the long-term survival of a thriving human population on earth is fully
dependent on the rapid development of sustainability on a global scale. And, through
the creation of this awareness, to evoke individual and collective political action
aiming at reaching global sustainable levels of all human activities within the next
three to five decades.”
African Association of Zoos and Aquaria “The education message should be well defined and holistically presented in terms of the
integrated conservation approach of the institution.”
South East Asian Zoos Association “The vision of the South East Asian Zoos Association is that its member zoos utilize
their animal collections for the primary purposes of educating our public by imparting
messages on the urgent need for environmental conservation in a manner that upholds
the respect and dignity of the wild animal.”
British and Irish Association of Zoos and
Aquariums
“BIAZA collections aim to provide unique lifelong learning opportunities, to raise
awareness, to increase respect and knowledge about wildlife and global issues, and
thus to engage and connect people of all ages with the natural world.”

The Educational Claims of Zoos 15
Zoo Biology
131 out of the 136 mission statements analyzed. In fact,
education appeared more frequently than the theme of con-
servation (118 out of 136 statements). Clearly, education is
seen by zoos as core to their respective missions. When we
look in detail at individual zoos, of which about 1,000 fall
within the zoo accreditation framework of WAZA [WAZA,
2005], we find a more mixed picture. Superficially, zoos
appear to be saying the same thing but differences in writ-
ten emphasis, regarding their educational value, have cre-
ated a situation where some zoos are making very strong
claims; others are more reserved.
For example, the Chicago Zoological Society states
that they “create multiple opportunities for visitors of all
ages and backgrounds to have meaningful experiences at
the zoo. We invite you to feel connected, committed, and
curious in our wild classroom” [CZS, 2011]. This clearly
tells us that learning opportunities are available and how
the zoo would like visitors to experience them, but stops
short of claiming that visitors are having “meaningful”
experiences or do feel “connected, committed and curi-
ous” as a result of their visit. The National Zoo, however,
are more confident, stating that they “educate and inspire
diverse communities so they become part of our commit-
ment to celebrate, study, and protect animals and their hab-
itats” [National Zoo, 2011]. Wildlife Reserves Singapore
also present a more causal claim, stating that their “Living
Classrooms” program “takes everyone on a learning jour-
ney that highlights the interdependency of nature’s inhab-
itants and the significance of appreciating them” [WRS,
2011]. Melbourne Zoo states that “A visit to our zoo is an
exhilarating journey of exploration and discovery that will
galvanize action for wildlife in wild places” [Zoos Victo-
ria, 2011]. Chester Zoo claims that it provides “a memo-
rable and stimulating learning experience for everyone”
[Chester Zoo, 2012]. These examples do not claim to be
representative of zoos’ educational goals. We merely seek
to highlight the potential issue of overexaggerating claims
for educational impact.
This leads us to believe that there is some blurring
of the distinction between educational aspiration and out-
puts, the resources designed to deliver that aspiration and
measurable educational outcomes (that result in conser-
vation impact). It appears that there is, in some cases, a
false perception; that by simply “aspiring to” or “provid-
ing” somehow leads directly and linearly to “achieving”
the aspired-to outcomes. We argue that by making claims
such as those quoted above, zoo organizations and zoos
leave themselves open to external criticism of their claims
as education providers. One high profile example from
the United Kingdom comes from a well-researched report
produced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cru-
elty to Animals (RSPCA) in 2006. The work conducted
a literature review into the educational effectiveness of
zoos and found virtually no peer-reviewed studies relat-
ing to zoos in the United Kingdom. The small amount of
research uncovered was inconclusive with regard to the
educational value of zoos, and the report concludes that
“it is not enough for zoos to aim to have an educational
impact, they should demonstrate a substantial impact.
From our review of the literature, this does not yet appear
to be the case” [RSPCA, 2006 p.97]. In direct response
to this report, Esson [2009] stated that “Zoos are increas-
ingly finding themselves lodged between a rock and a hard
place when it comes to substantiating claims to be educa-
tion providers” (p.1) and warned that zoos “need to care-
fully consider education policy and the claims we make as
education providers” (p.2).
Unfortunately, for zoos, this criticism has not only
been constrained to a lack of research into zoo educational
impact, but has also been directed at published research it-
self. The widely publicized, multi-institution study (where
the AZA was a supporting partner) “Why Zoos and Aquar-
iums Matter” [Falk et al., 2007] has prompted some peer-
reviewed criticism. Marino et al. [2010] discuss various
methodological issues associated with the work, but the
main reason that these issues are raised at all is because of
the strong causal claims made by Falk et al. [2007] regard-
ing the direct positive impact zoos have on their visitors.
For example, Falk et al. [2007] state in the executive sum-
mary that “Our visitor impact study shows that zoos and
aquariums are enhancing public understanding of wildlife
and the conservation of the places animals live” (p.4). This
is clearly a causal claim, with which Marino et al. [2010]
take umbrage on methodological grounds, concluding that
“Nevertheless, despite the widespread acceptance of Falk
et al.’s study by the zoo and aquarium community, we have
shown that numerous methodological weaknesses render
their findings difficult or even impossible to interpret.
More important, their claims—extensively disseminated
on zoo and aquarium Web sites—greatly outstrip their
methodologically limited findings” (p.136). Dawson and
Jensen [2011] are equally critical, stating that “Moreover,
Falk et al. did not develop valid and convincing evidence
of ‘what visitors did in the institution’ or of ‘long-term
meaning’ (p.10); as such, this headline conclusion from
the MIRP study is questionable at best” (p.136). Falk et al.
[2010] provide a defense of their research, claiming that
Marino et al. misrepresented the intent of the research and
the methods used. Falk et al. [2010] conclude by criticiz-
ing Marino et al.’s more general assertion regarding the
universal lack of evidence regarding zoo visitor impact,
stating that they “seriously question the authors’ [Mari-
no et al.] use of this single, flawed critique, however, as
the basis for their sweeping conclusion that there is no
evidence that zoos and aquariums impact their visitors”
(p.418). However, it is likely that some damage will have
been done to the credibility of the original work (rightly
or wrongly) simply because the work has been being tar-
geted by published criticism. It is widely recognized that
zoos face a challenge in attempting to measure the im-
pact they have on their visitors. To conduct research where
causal relationships can be confidently described would

Zoo Biology
16 Moss and Esson
probably require a controlled experimental design, which
may be difficult (but not impossible) to facilitate in a zoo
setting. By emphasizing their positive, impactful educa-
tional goals, zoos may have entrenched themselves into a
difficult position where, because of their claims, they find
themselves having to defend external challenges to their
educational effectiveness without the necessary evidence
to do so. At best, these criticisms present a platform for ac-
ademic discourse about the nature of zoo visitor research
and may encourage further study in this area. At worst,
they make the educational claims of zoos look overzealous
and lacking in valid supporting evidence. This is a serious
challenge to one of the fundamental areas of modern zoo
function.
TOP-DOWN APPROACH
The fact that zoo accreditation organizations have
clearly defined goals relating to the kind of learning they
wish to take place in their institutions does not necessarily
sit comfortably with what is the more generally accepted
model of learning in zoos and aquariums. Here, we find
that learning is more constructivist in nature, where people
construct personal meaning from their visit based on their
preexisting knowledge, attitudes, and motivations for vis-
iting [Rennie and Johnston, 2004; Falk, 2005; Storksdi-
eck et al., 2005; Ballantyne et al., 2007; cf. Dawson and
Jensen, 2011]. It is also self-directed (outside of “formal”
taught interventions that zoos often offer to visiting edu-
cational groups) and, this is perhaps the most salient point,
entirely “free-choice” [Kola-Olusanya, 2005]. Visitor ex-
periences as well as the educational impact of the zoo visit
may well be extremely varied and, as a consequence, dif-
ficult to recognize and measure.
Regardless of learning style or a zoo’s educational
provision, some visitors may “choose” not to engage with
educational provision at all; for example, at Chester Zoo,
only around 20% of zoo visitors attend public talks. We
should not assume that all visitors would necessarily be
uniformly interested in or motivated to learn about spe-
cies conservation, habitats, adaptations, or even basic
facts about animals just because they have decided to
visit a zoo. Families are probably the most common vis-
itor grouping we find at zoos, and parents may seek to
support their children’s learning or enjoyment [Knutson
and Crowley, 2006; Melber, 2007]. We must even con-
sider that a proportion of visitors that are actually inter-
ested in the natural world to some extent (or conserva-
tion-related topics) may not be motivated to consciously
learn anything more about them on a particular zoo visit.
They may simply seek to be refreshed and recover from
the stresses of everyday life [Packer and Ballantyne,
2002].
When viewed in this context, the AZA statement re-
garding its members’ role in “in educating over 175 mil-
lion visitors” seems misguided.
Of course, large numbers of visitors may choose to
actively engage with the educational provision on offer.
Given the complexity of the learning environment and the
varied motivations of zoo visitors, we argue that attempt-
ing to prescribe universal learning outcomes is foolhardy,
if not bordering on the naive. The zoo community needs
to implement research that is sufficiently flexible to allow
for learning outcomes that are different from that which
the zoo intended, including those that may be negative. Is
visitor research in zoos even looking for these outcomes?
This will not only assist in providing a more complete
answer regarding the impact of a zoo visit, but may also
answer some of the criticism applied to the educational
value of zoos.
LOOKING FOR THE UNEXPECTED
By limiting research to investigate only institutional
goals, we argue that researchers are limiting the scope of
their work. Even if it were possible to evidence that an
educational output correlates with the outcome we ex-
pected does not, in any sense, mean that this is the only
outcome. There may be other social, cultural, or emotional
outcomes (positive or negative) that could also be impor-
tant. We do acknowledge that there is a body of work that
has sought to explore a range of outcomes from a zoo vis-
it; for example, Myers et al., 2004; Clayton et al., 2009;
Fraser and Sickler, 2009. However, we find that there are
a number of visitor-related studies in zoos that focus on
changes in knowledge, attitudes or behavior (or a com-
bination), and are often solely quantitative in approach
[e.g., Lindemann-Matthies and Kamer, 2006; Randler et
al., 2007; Visscher et al., 2009]. Mixed-methods designs
incorporating qualitative methods may well be more adept
at uncovering outcomes outside of those of the prescribed
research question(s). Triangulation of this kind would also
give added credence to (more generalizable) quantitative
findings. Even if not used as part of mixed-methods re-
search, separate qualitative studies could be implemented
to uncover a more meaningful range of outcomes to be
validated (or otherwise) by quantitative approaches. The
key issue is that current and historical zoo visitor research
attempts to answer questions such as “Are zoo visitors
getting what we want them to get out of their visit?” Es-
sentially, this is a closed question with an equally limited
potential answer. We accept that evaluation research (as a
formal branch of social research) is a valid way of assess-
ing the effectiveness of predetermined goals, but in zoos
we argue that it is also insightful and valuable to pose the
question “What are zoo visitors getting out of their visit?”
To answer this, a much wider range of potential outcomes
must be allowed for in the methods implemented.
There is also perhaps the danger that zoos do not ful-
ly understand the processes involved in social change. In
particular, that the “ideals” held by the institutions them-
selves do not automatically translate into “practices” at the

The Educational Claims of Zoos 17
Zoo Biology
level of the visiting public [cf. Jensen and Wagoner, 2009].
Of more concern is that by assuming that increased knowl-
edge may be influential in affecting public attitude and
behavior, zoos are becoming perilously close to revisiting
the now discredited “deficit model” of science commu-
nication, whereby it was assumed that widespread public
support of, and attitudes toward, science was essentially a
problem of deficient scientific literacy among the public,
and that by simply filling that “deficit” with knowledge,
support for science would follow [Miller, 2001]. Zoos
would be wise to steer clear of making a similar mistake.
MEASURING A NEGATIVE
It is essential that research designs must be capable
of uncovering negative outcomes, whatever the hypotheti-
cal position of the researcher or organization. Setting the
“low-point” of any potential outcome as “no impact” is
not acceptable, as it actually delegitimizes any subsequent
claims for positive impact. This is especially important
for in-zoo researchers who may be more open to external
criticism. We must avoid the a priori, (although perfectly
intuitive) assumption that because the zoo has positive
educational aspirations, and designs educational resources
and activities to deliver those aspirations, the visitor out-
comes must be positive. They might not be.
A standard methodological approach in visitor im-
pact research is a pre- and posttest design, perhaps using
repeated measures or two different visitor samples from
the same visitor population. Statistically comparing pre-
and posttest differences between two visitor samples nec-
essarily requires using the aggregated “scores” from the
two measurements. This quantifies overall differences be-
tween the two samples, but it does not tell us about specific
changes in individual cases. This means that if the overall
(aggregated) change was positive, there may still be some
individuals showing negative changes. Using repeated
measures designs allow for the direction of change to be
assessed, but it must be remembered that using paired-test
statistics will still only give one significance value for the
whole range of paired cases—essentially showing us the
general (albeit significant) pattern within the data, but not
highlighting individual cases that may deviate from this
pattern. We are aware of very few zoo studies that tracked
individual cases and actively looked for deviant outcomes.
One example that did, Jensen [2011], reported on a large-
scale study looking at the impact of a zoo visit for over
3,000 UK school children. One of the measures was the
analysis of annotated drawings and it was found that while
there was an overall statistically significant, positive
change in drawings (between pre- and postvisit in a repeat-
ed measures design), a minority of drawings (just under
13%) showed a negative change postvisit. In some individ-
uals, this change was related to a more negative perception
of animals in captivity postvisit. This shows the danger of
exclusively aggregating data; it can overlook important
findings like this. This would seem problematic. However,
it is also the route to a solution. Only by uncovering areas
of potential negative impact can we target improvements
specifically. By not attempting to measure negative out-
comes in zoo visitor research, we are completely missing
out on valuable sources of information.
CONCLUSIONS
Zoos and their accreditation bodies find themselves
between a rock and a hard place. For many years, they
have confidently promoted themselves as education pro-
viders particularly with regard to the conservation of bio-
diversity; perhaps even used this educational function as
part justification for their existence. Because of this, the
burden of evidencing educational impact falls squarely
on the shoulders of zoos. Yet the research undertaken
thus far (and there is a substantial amount) has clearly not
been universally accepted as an effective demonstration
of zoos’ positive impact. Indeed, the peer-reviewed criti-
cisms of recent years [RSPCA, 2006; Marino et al., 2010;
Dawson and Jensen, 2011) would suggest that this issue
is here to stay. Away from strategic educational goals and
mission statements, we found evidence to suggest that
accreditation bodies and some zoos were making public,
causal claims about zoos, and their positive educational
impact. The larger the claims, the larger the evidence-base
required to support them.
The top-down educational positions of zoos and
their accreditation bodies may be driving research that
only looks for specific visitor outcomes, and potentially
be missing outcomes outside this narrow remit. We pro-
pose that zoo visitor research takes on this challenge and
develops research that can detect all possible outcomes,
including ones that may be negative.
REFERENCES
Andersen LL. 2003. Zoo education: from formal school programmes to ex-
hibit design and interpretation. Int Zoo Yearbook 38:75–81.
[AZA] Association of Zoos and Aquariums. 2011. Education homepage.
Downloaded on September 23, 2011. Available from: http://www.aza.org/
conservation-education.
Ballantyne R, Packer J, Hughes K, Dierking L. 2007. Conservation learning
in wildlife tourism settings: lessons from research in zoos and aquariums.
Environ Educ Res 13:367–383.
[BIAZA] British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums. 2011 Edu-
cation homepage. Downloaded on September 23, 2011. Available from:
http://www.biaza.org.uk/public/pages/education/index.asp.
[Chester Zoo] North of England Zoological Society. 2012. Education
homepage. Downloaded on January 9, 2012. Available from: http://www.
chesterzoo.org/education.
[CZS] Chicago Zoological Society. 2011. Educational programs homepage.
Downloaded on September 23, 2011. Available from: http://www.czs.org/
CZS/Educational-Programs.
Clayton S, Fraser J, Saunders CD. 2009. Zoo experiences: conversations,
connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biol 28:377–397.
Dawson E, Jensen E. 2011. Towards a ‘contextual turn’ in visitor studies:
evaluating visitor segmentation and identity-related motivations. Visitor
Studies 14:1–14.
Esson M. 2009. Being in a hard place. BIAZA Res News 10:1–3.

Zoo Biology
18 Moss and Esson
Falk JH, Moussouri T, Coulson D. 1998. The effect of visitors’ agendas on
museum learning. Curator 41:106–120.
Falk J, Heimlich JE, Vernon CL, Bronnenkant K. 2010. Critique of a cri-
tique: do zoos and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? Soc
Anim 18:415–419.
Falk JH. 2005. Free-choice environmental learning: framing the discussion.
Environ Educ Res 11:265–280.
Falk JH, Reinhard EM, Vernon CL, Bronnenkant K, Deans NL, Heimlich
JE. 2007. Why zoos and aquariums matter: assessing the impact of a visit
to a zoo or aquarium. Silver Spring, MD: American Association of Zoos
& Aquariums.
Fraser J, Bicknell J, Sickler J, Taylor A. 2009. What information do zoo &
aquarium visitors want on animal identification labels? J Interpret Res
14:7–19.
Fraser J, Sickler J. 2009. Measuring the cultural impact of zoos and aquari-
ums. Int Zoo Yearbook 43:103–112.
Gardner H. 1995. The unschooled mind: how children think and how
schools should teach. New York: Basic books.
Jensen E. 2011. Learning about animals, science and conservation: Large-
scale survey-based evaluation of the educational impact of the ZSL Lon-
don Zoo Formal Learning programme: Empirical evaluation research re-
port on the impacts of zoo-based conservation education for children and
young people, funded by the Greater London Authority. Downloaded on
January 18, 2012. Available from: http://warwick.academia.edu/EricJen-
sen/Papers/402822/Learning_about_Animals_Science_and_Conserva-
tion_Large-scale_survey-based_evaluation_of_the_educational_impact_
of_the_ZSL_London_Zoo_Formal_Learning_programme.
Jensen E, Wagoner B. 2009. A cyclical model of social change. Cult Psy-
chol 15:217–228.
Knutson K, Crowley K. 2006. Three responses to Cheryl Meszaros’ evil
“whatever” interpretation: bridging the gap between museums and visi-
tors. Visitor Studies Today 9:16–17.
Kola-Olusanya A. 2005. Free choice environmental education: understand-
ing where children learn outside of school. Environ Educ Res 11:297–307.
Lindemann-Matthies P, Kamer T. 2006. The influence of an interactive edu-
cational approach on visitors’ learning in a Swiss zoo. Sci Educ 90:296–
315.
Marino L, Lilienfeld SO, Malamud R, Nobis N, Broglio R. 2010. Do zoos
and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? A critical evaluation
of theAmerican zoo and aquarium study. Soc Anim 18:126–138.
Melber LM. 2007. Maternal scaffolding in two museum exhibition halls.
Curator 50:341–354.
Mony PRS, Heimlich JE. 2008. Talking to visitors about conservation: ex-
ploring message communication through docent–visitor interactions at
zoos. Visitor Studies 11:151–162.
Moss A, Esson M, Bazley S. 2010. Applied research and zoo education:
the evolution and evaluation of a public talks program using unobtrusive
video recording of visitor behavior. Visitor Studies 13:23–40.
Miller S. 2001. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public
Underst Sci 10:115–120.
Myers OE, Saunders CD, Birjulin AA. 2004. Emotional dimensions of
watching zoo animals: an experience sampling study building on insights
from psychology. Curator 47:299–321.
[National Zoo] Smithsonian National Zoological Park. 2011. Education
homepage. Downloaded on September 23, 2011. Available from: http://
nationalzoo.si.edu/education/default.cfm.
Packer J, Ballantyne R. 2002. Motivational factors and the visitor experi-
ence: a comparison of three sites. Curator 45:183–198.
Patrick PG, Matthews CE, Ayers DF, Tunnicliffe SD. 2007. Conservation
and education: prominent themes in zoo mission statements. J Environ
Educ 38:53–60.
Povey K, Rios J. 2002. Using interpretive animals to deliver affective mes-
sages in zoos. J Interpret Res 7:19–28.
Randler C, Baumgartner S, Eisele H, Kienzle W. 2007. Learning at work-
stations in the zoo: a controlled evaluation of cognitive and affective out-
comes. Visitor Studies 10:205–216.
Rennie LJ, Johnston DJ. 2004. The nature of learning and its implications
for research on learning from museums. Sci Educ 88(S1):4–16.
[RSPCA]. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. 2006.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of zoos in meeting conservation and edu-
cation objectives in The Welfare State: Measuring Animal Welfare in the
UK 2006. Horsham, UK: RSPCA. p 95–98.
Storksdieck M, Ellenbogen K, Heimlich J. 2005. Changing minds? Reas-
sessing outcomes in free choice environmental education. Environ Educ
Res 11:353–369.
Visscher NC, Snider R, Stoep GV. 2009. Comparative analysis of knowl-
edge gain between interpretive and fact-only presentations at an animal
training session: an exploratory study. Zoo Biol 28:488–495.
[WAZA]. World Association of Zoos and Aquariums. 2005. The World
Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy: Building a future for wildlife.
WAZA, Berne, Switzerland.
[WRS] Wildlife Reserves Singapore. 2011. Education homepage. Down-
loaded on September 23, 2011. Available from: http://education.wrs.com.
sg/.
[ZAA] Zoo and Aquarium Association. 2011. The role of zoos and aquari-
ums. Downloaded on September 23, 2011. Available from: http://www.
zooaquarium.org.au/The-role-of-zoos-and-aquariums/default.aspx.
[Zoos Victoria] Zoos Victoria: Melbourne Zoo. 2011. Learning experiences
homepage. Downloaded on September 23, 2011. Available from:http://
http://www.zoo.org.au /Melbourne/Learning_Experiences.