Investigating the Impact of Prior Knowledge and Interest

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 40, NO. 2, PP. 163–176 (2003)

Investigating the Impact of Prior Knowledge and Intereston Aquarium Visitor Learning

John H. Falk, Leslie M. Adelman

Institute for Learning Innovation, 166 West Street, Annapolis,

Maryland 21401

Abstract: Most free-choice science learning institutions, in particular science centers, zoos,

aquariums, and natural history museums, define themselves as educational institutions. However, to what

extent, and for which visitors, do these free-choice learning settings accomplish their educational mission?

Answering this question has proven challenging, in large part because of the inherent variability of visitors

to such settings. We hypothesize that the challenges of measuring free-choice science learning might be

diminished if it were possible to pool populations during analysis in ways that reduced this variability.

Specifically, we propose grouping learners according to their entering understanding and attitudes, using

qualitative categories such as minimal, moderate, and extensive. In this article, we use data collected at the

National Aquarium in Baltimore to determine whether grouping makes it possible to discern more readily

the nature of changes in aquarium visitors’ conservation knowledge and attitudes. Although analysis

revealed that there were significant changes in both conservation knowledge and attitudes, entry to exit, for

all 100 visitors studied, a more detailed analysis revealed that gains were not evenly distributed across all

visitors. The results support the hypothesis that the grouping of learners into minimal, moderate, and

extensive conservation knowledge and attitude categories enabled a more fine-grained and accurate

understanding of changes in aquarium visitor’s conservation learning. � 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

J Res Sci Teach 40: 163–176, 2003

Most free-choice science learning institutions, in particular science centers, zoos, aquariums,

and natural history museums, define themselves as educational institutions. For example, the

National Aquarium in Baltimore (NAIB) has as its educational mission to stimulate interest in,

develop knowledge about, and inspire stewardship of aquatic environments; this commitment to

environmental conservation in general, and aquatic conservation in particular, has directed the

design philosophy of the building, exhibits, and programming. However, to what extent and for

Correspondence to: J.H. Falk; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.10070

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

� 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

which visitors does the NAIB or any other comparable free-choice learning setting accomplish its

educational mission? This has become an increasingly important question to many in the free-

choice learning field, but answering it has proven challenging. One reason for this difficulty stems

from the inherent variability of visitors to settings such as science centers, zoos, and aquariums.

These free-choice learning settings attract audiences of all ages, backgrounds, and experiences.

This heterogeneity represents a significant challenge to practitioners and researchers alike.

Nonetheless, it should be possible to ascertain the learning outcomes of a free-choice learning

experience. However, doing so requires an understanding of both how people learn in general, and

in free-choice learning settings in particular, and an understanding of why people engage in such

experiences in the first place.

There is every reason to believe that learning in free-choice settings follows basic

constructivist principles. From this perspective, learning is viewed as a generative process

requiring effort in which learners actively construct their own meanings (Osborne & Wittrock,

1983, 1985). Learning occurs through interactions with the physical world and is mediated by

sociocultural interactions with friends, family, teachers, and others in the society, all of which are

filtered through the lens of prior knowledge and experience (Falk & Dierking, 1992, 2000). The

creation of new understandings and attitudes depends on the successful integration of the learner’s

prior experiences with new experiences afforded by the physical and sociocultural context of, for

example, an aquarium visit.

Most of the science education literature related to constructivism and cognitive change has

focused on attempts to facilitate classroom students’ understanding of science. The important role

played by prior knowledge and experience, less commonly interest, is widely appreciated and

widely discussed. Instructional strategies usually center on efforts to restructure learner’s

misconceptions through directed instruction (e.g., Chambers & Andre, 1997; Posner, Strike,

Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982; Strike & Posner, 1992). Although it is accepted that variability exists

within the learner populations served by schools, that variability tends to be artificially narrow

owing to the structure of schooling itself, i.e., the grouping of like-aged individuals possessing

relatively comparable subject-specific prior experiences and knowledge. Interest, alas, is only

rarely taken into account in school populations. Hence, school-based educational practice, and

investigations of the outcomes of school practice, tend to deal with prior knowledge, experience,

and interest as if they were normative phenomena. The emphasis has been on understanding a

limited set of common misconceptions, creating suitable disequilibrium to foster accommodation

of students to new ideas, and it is hoped, in the process, dislodging these common earlier

misconceptions.

This model is unlikely to be as effective within a free-choice learning setting. A review of

hundreds of research investigations of visitor learning in aquariums, zoos, museums, and other

comparable free-choice settings suggests that visitors possess a wide diversity of incoming

knowledge, experience, and interest, and this diversity strongly influences what and how

individuals learn from their experience (Falk & Dierking, 2000). Visiting the same aquarium can

be professional marine biologists, students in marine biology, adults with limited knowledge of

marine biology, and young children with effectively no experience or background in marine

biology. Similar diversity can exist in interest as well, although the predictors of interest are not

as straightforward as the predictors of knowledge (Falk & Storksdieck, 2001). Thus, the

challenge to free-choice educators and researchers is to accommodate this variability

meaningfully. For an institution such as the NAIB, if the aquarium is to be educationally

successful it must accept that each visitor will uniquely build his or her own cognitive structures.

However, the nature of that learning is likely to vary widely across visitors because of the

tremendous range of experiences, knowledge, and interests with which visitors enter. The range

164 FALK AND ADELMAN

of incoming differences among individuals entering the NAIB arguably mirrors the entire

general public: cognitive novice to expert, uninterested to zealous. These differences would

directly affect how these visitors perceived the conservation messages presented, how they

processed those messages, and ultimately, the degree to which those aquarium messages were

integrated into visitors’ cognitive structures. Thus, although virtually all visitors to the NAIB see

virtually the same exhibitions and programs, and frequently in the same sequence (Adelman, Falk,

& James, 2001; McKelvey, Falk, Shreierer, O’Mara, & de Prizio, 1999), theory suggests that the

educational outcomes of the aquarium experience should be highly personal and variable across

visitors.

Variability is not limited to prior knowledge, experience, and interest; there is also variability

in people’s motivations and expectations. People visit aquariums and other free-choice learning

settings for many reasons (Combs, 2000; Falk, 1998a; Falk & Dierking, 2000; Falk, Moussouri, &

Coulson, 1998). For example, adults go to an aquarium to see new and interesting things and to

learn more about the aquatic world. Children, too, are looking for new and interesting things to see

and do. All visitors go to aquariums with a desire to satisfy their curiosity and fulfill their needs for

fun, relaxation, and intellectual stimulation. Similar motivations are at work when individuals

choose to watch an educational television show or seek information on the Internet (Chadwick,

1998; Chadwick, Falk, & O’Mara, 2000; Eveland & Dunwoody, 1998; Gross, 1997) or participate

as part of a community group (Brice Heath & Smyth, 1999). Rarely do people enter free-choice

learning situations with a desire to become an expert in the subject or with an explicit agenda to

affect more active behaviors (Falk & Dierking, 2000). All of the above relate to the impact an

institution can and does have on its visitors; all of these result in huge variability in visitors’

entering motivations and expectations. Based on these motivations and expectations, visitors to an

aquarium such as the NAIB build on their prior knowledge, experience, and interests, and in the

process make meaning from their experience.

Hence the question becomes how all the different individuals visiting the aquarium personally

relate and connect experiences in an exhibition or program to their prior understandings and

interests. From this perspective, changes in aquarium visitor understanding and attitudes need to

be understood not just within the narrow temporal context of an aquarium visit, but within the

broader context of a visitor’s entire life (Falk, 1998b). No matter how successfully exhibitions and

programs are executed, it is important to appreciate that people construct their understanding of

the world not from a single experience or source, but from a variety of sources over long periods of

time (Anderson, 1999; Anderson, Lucas, Ginns, & Dierking, 2000; Crane, 1994; Falk & Dierking,

2000; Gambone & Arbreton, 1997; Medrich, 1991). Any effort made to understand the effect on

public cognition and affect by an institution such as the NAIB needs to be framed within the

context of each individual visitor’s total learning experiences—in particular, how individuals’

entering knowledge, experiences, and attitudes relative to aquatic conservation are changed by the

experience.

Overall, this high degree of variability has made it historically difficult to measure, let alone

predict the outcomes of an aquarium visit, or for that matter any museum experience (Falk,

1999). However, as better, more constructivist strategies for measuring museum-based learning

have developed, a wealth of data has been accumulating documenting the nature and extent of

learning in these settings (Falk, 1999; Falk & Dierking, 2000). Nonetheless, the inordinately

high degree of variability in free-choice learning situations makes measuring learning

challenging.

We hypothesize that the challenges of measuring museum learning might be diminished if it

were possible to pool visitor populations during analysis in ways that reduced this variability. To

test this hypothesis, we took an existing data set collected at the NAIB and attempted to regroup

AQUARIUM VISITOR LEARNING 165

visitors according to their entering conservation-related understanding and attitudes. The data set

was rich enough to permit us to group visitors qualitatively into three understanding and attitude

categories: extensive, moderate, and minimal.

Methods

Data Collection

The data set used in this current investigation was part of a larger ongoing research

effort to investigate the long-term impact of the NAIB on its public (Adelman et al., 2001).

The original study was conducted at the NAIB from March through May 1999 using

several overlapping data collection approaches in a quasi-experimental design: face-to-face

interviews, personal meaning mapping (PMM) (Falk et al., 1998), tracking, and follow-up

telephone interviews (McKelvey et al., 1999). Data collectors randomly approached 484 adult

visitors entering the NAIB lobby area and invited them to participate in an interview. Random

selection involved approaching and inviting every seventh adult visitor who crossed the lobby

threshold to participate in an interview. A total of 395 visitors agreed to participate, resulting in a

refusal rate of 18%. Eighty-nine visitors participated in an entry interview only, 103 visitors

participated in an exit interview only, and 203 visitors completed paired entry and exit interviews

or PMMs. Only data from 100 individuals were included in this secondary analysis, specifically

data from visitors who completed a face-to-face semistructured interview before and after their

NAIB visit.

Entry Interviews. To conduct these semistructured interviews, skilled researchers asked

visitors to respond to a variety of open- and close-ended questions, and comprehensively captured

individual responses in detailed field notes. The entry interview typically lasted 15–20 minutes

and focused on issues including visitors’ awareness and understanding of conservation as a

concept; their conservation-related knowledge, concerns, and interests; and their perceptions of

their relationship to conservation issues (cf. Appendix). Entry interview data established baseline

information which could then be compared with visitors’ experiences, understanding, and

attitudes after their visit. As part of the interview, visitors were also asked their education level,

residence, and membership at NAIB specifically, and in nature organizations generally.

Researchers also recorded visitors’ gender, social group composition, approximate age, and

race/ethnicity. After the entry interview, visitors were informed that the researcher would

appreciate the opportunity to talk with them again after their experience in the aquarium.

Exit Interviews. Just before leaving the NAIB, the same visitors agreed to participate in an

exit interview, typically lasting 10–15 minutes. Similar to the entry interviews, skilled researchers

asked visitors to respond to a variety of open- and close-ended questions, and comprehensively

captured individual responses in detailed field notes. Exit interviews focused on a range of issues,

including visitors’ sense of the aquarium’s overall message, what visitors associated with

conservation at the NAIB, and a sense of visitors’ motivation in getting involved in conservation

issues. Many of the questions asked during the entry interview were repeated in the exit interview

(cf. Appendix). The exit-only interview group was used as a control group to determine whether

participation in the study before the aquarium visit (entry interview) affected visitors’ perceptions

of key messages. A Chi-square test of homogeneity determined that responses among entry-

interviewed and exit only–interviewed visitors were not statistically different at a¼


.01 significance. Therefore, participating in the entry interview did not significantly alter visitors’

exit responses.

The NAIB Experience. Of the 100 individuals who participated in paired entry and exit

interviews, 50 were also unobtrusively tracked throughout the aquarium. Data collectors followed

visitors, recording their path through the NAIB on a scaled map, and recorded the nature and

quality of interactions with 39 key exhibit components throughout the aquarium using a variety of

indicators (i.e., number of exhibit components visitors interacted with, time spent at each, quality

of interaction, quality of social interaction, facilitation by staff or volunteer). The entry-only

interview group was used as a control group to determine whether participation in the study before

the aquarium visit affected visitors’ experiences at the aquarium. An analysis of variance

determined that experiences throughout the aquarium of entry-interviewed and exit only–

interviewed visitors were not statistically different at a¼ .05 significance. Therefore, the nature

and quality of experiences of both entry-interviewed and non–entry-interviewed visitors were

consistent, suggesting that participating in the entry interview did not significantly alter visitors’

experiences at the aquarium.

For the purposes of this article, only brief highlights of the tracking data are reported

to provide insight into visitors’ experiences at the aquarium [see McKelvey et al. (1999) for

more detail]. Visitors spent considerable time viewing exhibitions, 2 hours on average, with

most visitors (82%) at least cursorily interacting with more than half of the exhibit elements.

These exhibits included naturalistic live animal habitats, mechanical and computer interactives,

and dynamic and passive graphics. Although conservation is an implicit part of exhibits

throughout the aquarium, the vast majority of exhibit and label content that visitors see or interact

with is focused on animal identification and biology. In fact, only about 20% of exhibits contain

direct conservation messages. Examples of such exhibits include the Portraits in Conservation

panels that highlight five different species helped by human intervention, a Whales in Jeopardy

computer interactive, the Reef Action Station computer interactive which provides factual

information and a bookmark of organizations to contact to get involved in conservation action,

a parking meter that provides factual information about deforestation and solicits contributions

from visitors, and a large graphic panel visually projecting the decline of rainforests worldwide

over time, as well as the implications for decline in wildlife and cultures. Tracking data

revealed that only a small minority of visitors viewed these particular exhibits. In contrast, 91% of

visitors attended the 20-minute dolphin show. Through both graphics and script in the show,

visitors were repeatedly exposed to strong direct conservation messages about why people

should care about dolphins and their natural habitats, as well as what they can do to help protect

wild dolphins (i.e., control chemical and physical pollution in the watershed, legal limits on

approaching dolphins by boat, who to contact if the visitor wanted to report something or get

involved with dolphin rescue).

Data Analysis

All qualitative interview data were categorized and coded, with an interrater reliability of

93%. Data were initially analyzed with the statistical software programs Survey Pro (Seattle, WA)

and SPSS (Chicago, IL) using Chi-square analysis, cross-tabulation analysis, and t tests when

appropriate. Each individual’s previsit knowledge and interests or concerns about conservation

were compared with his or her postvisit knowledge and interests or concerns using a composite

rubric developed specifically for this analysis.


The rubric characterized visitors along two dimensions—as possessing minimal, moderate,

or extensive conservation-related knowledge, and as possessing minimal, moderate, or extensive

conservation-related interests or concerns (cf. Appendix). A composite for conservation-related

knowledge was developed from visitor responses to two structured questions about sources of

aquatic pollution, as well as two open-ended questions about conceptual understanding of

conservation and ‘‘what we can do to help the environment’’ (scores ranged from 0.33 to 1). A

composite score for conservation-related interests or concerns was developed from visitors’

responses to a structured question ranking their concern for five different environmental issues, as

well as open-ended questions about their concern for and personal connections to environmental

issues (scores ranged from 0.35 to 1). Composite knowledge and interest or concern scores for

each individual were calculated and statistically analyzed (SPSS software) using a paired t test, at

two points relative to their NAIB visit: upon entering and upon exiting.

Results

Sample Characteristics

Table 1 summarizes characteristics of the sample. Overall, the sample was composed of

predominantly White, relatively well-educated adults; a slight majority was female. A large

majority of the visitors in the sample were visiting with at least one other adult and were from the

United States; a quarter of the sample was from the local area. Finally, the vast majority of visitors

interviewed were first-time NAIB visitors who were not members of a nature or conservation

organization.

Impacts

When analyzed across all 100 visitors, there were significant increases in both conservation

knowledge, t¼�4.14, df¼ 99, p< .000, and interests or concerns, t¼�11.13, df¼ 99, p< .000,

upon exiting the aquarium (Table 2). However, not all individuals were beginning their visit with

the same baseline of conservation-related knowledge and interest. Based on the rubrics devised for

this study, a majority of entering NAIB visitors possessed at least moderate knowledge of

conservation and a moderately high level of interest and concern for conservation and

environmental issues. Thirty-nine percent of the entering visitors were characterized as having

minimal knowledge, 55% had moderate knowledge, and 6% were extensively knowledgeable.

Fourteen percent of entering visitors were characterized as having minimal interests or concerns,

55% had moderate interests or concerns, and 31% were extensively interested and concerned

about environmental and conservation issues.

Interviews with visitors immediately after completion of their NAIB visit revealed a different

pattern of conservation-related knowledge and interest or concern levels. Visitors exiting the

NAIB had moderately high knowledge as well as moderately high interest and concerns for

conservation and environmental issues. Specifically, 32% of exiting visitors were characterized as

having minimal knowledge, 32% had moderate knowledge, and 33% were extensively

knowledgeable. Four percent of entering visitors were characterized as having minimal interests

or concerns, 32% had moderate interests or concerns, and 64% were extensively interested and

concerned about environmental or conservation issues.

Comparing entering and exiting knowledge and interest across the nine groups defined by

extensive to minimal knowledge and interest, a complex pattern of change was revealed (Table 3).

The findings suggest that changes in both knowledge and interest were not significant across all


Table 2

Change in conservation-related knowledge and interests/concerns of visitors to the National Aquarium in

Baltimore (paired t test)

n

Knowledge Interest/Concern

Entry Exit Change Entry Exit Change

Mean SD Mean SD t p< Mean SD Mean SD t p<

All visitors 100 57.6 16.0 67.5 18.2 �4.14 .000 67.5 16.8 82.2 13.5 �11.13 .000

Table 1

Characteristics of visitors who participated in study

Characteristic Percentage

Sex (n¼ 100) Male 44%Female 56%

Age (years) (n¼ 100) Teens 4%20s 13%30s 30%40s 16%50s 17%60þ 20%

Race/ethnicity (n¼ 100) White 92%African American 6%Hispanic 1%AsianOther 1%

Education level (n¼ 79) Some high school 1%High school graduate 18%Some college 15%College graduate 39%Some graduate school 4%Graduate degree 23%

Social group (n¼ 100) Family 10%All adult 81%Alone 9%

Residence (n¼ 100) Local 24%Other US areas 68%Outside the US 7%

Aquarium membership (n¼ 100) Member 7%Nonmember 93%

Previous aquarium visits (n¼ 98) Repeat visitor 40%First-time visitor 60%

Nature organization membership (n¼ 99) Member 21%Nonmember 79%


Tab

le3

Changein

conservation-relatedknowledgeandinterests/concernsofvisitors

totheNationalAquariumin

Baltimore

byenteringgroup(paired

ttest;n¼100)

Gro

up

Up

on

En

teri

ng

n

Kn

ow

led

ge

Inte

rest

/Co

nce

rn

En

try

Ex

itC

han

ge

En

try

Ex

itC

han

ge

Mea

nSD

Mea

nSD

tp<

Mea

nSD

Mea

nSD

tp<

Ex

ten

sive

kn

ow

led

ge

Ex

ten

sive

inte

rest

/co

nce

rn1

a

Mo

der

ate

inte

rest

/co

nce

rn4

79

.28

.39

7.2

5.6

�1

3.0

1.0

01

63

.99

.67

5.0

20

.41

.89

.15

6M

inim

alin

tere

st/c

on

cern

1a

Mo

der

ate

kn

ow

led

ge

Ex

ten

sive

inte

rest

/co

nce

rn1

76

4.4

8.6

67

.61

7.1

�0

.74

.46

88

7.2

8.0

38

8.7

8.3

�0

.71

.49

1M

od

erat

ein

tere

st/c

on

cern

32

66

.18

.86

6.6

20

.3�

0.1

3.9

01

64

.68

.78

3.6

11

.5�

11

.83

.00

0M

inim

alin

tere

st/c

on

cern

66

2.8

4.5

46

6.7

18

.2�

0.5

4.6

11

42

.64

.53

65

.31

3.3

�3

.33

.02

1M

inim

alk

now

led

ge

Ex

ten

sive

inte

rest

/co

nce

rn1

34

2.3

4.3

70

.51

8.2

�4

.94

.00

08

6.3

7.3

89

.76

.9�

1.5

2.1

54

Mo

der

ate

inte

rest

/co

nce

rn1

94

1.2

5.0

67

.51

5.2

�6

.11

.00

06

0.5

6.0

48

3.3

11

.4�

9.0

2.0

00

Min

imal

inte

rest

/co

nce

rn7

41

.35

.42

59

.52

5.2

�2

.23

.06

83

9.7

5.9

46

1.9

15

.1�

4.2

3.0

05

aIn

suffi

cien

tdat

afo

rst

atis

tica

lan

alysi

s.


groups, but rather only among certain groups. As a group, individuals characterized as having

minimal knowledge upon entering the NAIB showed the greatest gains, but only those with

moderate or extensive interest showed significant knowledge gain immediately after their visit

(moderate: t¼�6.11, df¼ 18, p< .000; extensive: t¼�4.94, df¼ 12, p< .000). No significant

change in knowledge was evident for individuals entering the NAIB with moderate conservation

knowledge. However, individuals with extensive knowledge as well as moderate interest also

showed significant gains in knowledge, t¼�13.01, df¼ 3, p< .001. No trends are reported for

individuals profiled with extensive prior knowledge and minimal or extensive interest owing to

low sample size.

Significant changes in conservation interest also appeared to be restricted to certain

groupings. Individuals with minimal prior knowledge and minimal or moderate prior interest

showed significant gains in interest and concern for conservation issues immediately after their

visit (minimal: t¼�4.23, df¼ 6, p< .005; moderate: t¼�9.02, df¼ 18, p< .000). Similarly,

individuals with moderate prior knowledge and minimal or moderate prior interest showed

significant gains in interest and concern for conservation issues immediately after their visit

(minimal: t¼�3.33, df¼ 5, p< .021; moderate: t¼�11.83, df¼ 31, p< .000). No other

combination of prior knowledge and interest resulted in significant change. No trends are reported

for individuals profiled with extensive prior knowledge and minimal or extensive interest owing to

low sample size.

Discussion and Conclusions

Although analysis revealed significant changes in both conservation knowledge and interest,

entry to exit, for all 100 NAIB visitors, a more detailed analysis revealed that gains were not evenly

distributed across all visitors. The results support the hypothesis that grouping visitors into

conservation-related knowledge and interest categories yielded an enhanced view of the impact of

an NAIB visit compared with overall measures.

Regardless of entering knowledge, only individuals possessing moderate to extensive interest

showed significant gains. In particular, individuals with the least knowledge and most knowledge,

and those with moderate to extensive interest experienced significant changes in their knowledge

of conservation. For reasons not entirely clear, visitors with moderate knowledge did not show

significant improvement in their conservation knowledge. Similarly, individuals with minimal to

moderate interest, with the exception of those with extensive knowledge, showed significant gains

in conservation interest and concern; those who began with higher interest showed no appreciable

gains.

Although our data reinforced the value of being more fine-grained in categorizing visitors, the

challenge remains how best to create these categories. Rhetoric about diversity aside, a

demographic analysis of our sample might suggest great homogeneity—the sample consisted only

of adults, most of whom were White, middle class, and well educated. For example, 66% of the

visitors had earned a college degree and nearly a quarter had done graduate work. According to

Miller (1987, 1998, 2001) and Miller and Pifer (1996), a college education, in particular college

courses in science, is the most reliable indicator of science knowledge. However, demographic

categories turn out to be poor indicators of educational performance. Direct measurements in this

study, as well as findings from other studies [cf. National Environmental Education and Training

Foundation (NEETF), 1997; Falk, 2002; Falk & Storksdieck, 2001] showed that educational level

only loosely correlated with knowledge and did not predict interest and behavior. In fact,

membership in nature organizations and involvement in outdoor activities and sports appear to be

more reliable predictors of environmental knowledge, concern, and behaviors (cf. NEETF, 1997).


Although our efforts to develop meaningful ways of grouping and understanding levels of

environmental knowledge were admittedly crude, the results suggest that they did begin to reveal

underlying realities.

From this investigation we can conclude, as predicted, that there is great variability in the

incoming knowledge and interest of visitors, and that this variability affects outcomes.

Furthermore, we can conclude that failure to account for these differences can potentially lead

to misinterpretation of an institution’s—in this case the NAIB’s—impact. Grouping all

100 visitors together suggested a large overall affect. Separating visitors into categories as a

function of prior knowledge and interest revealed that only two-fifths of the visitors evidenced

significant cognitive changes as measured by our semistructured interview. The other three-fifths

showed little or no gain. The change in this first group, though, was sufficiently large to account for

a main effect for the entire sample. Roughly two-thirds of visitors showed positive affective gains.

Still, one-third of the sample did not evidence positive affective gains, a fact masked when the

entire sample was analyzed as a whole.

Within the constraints of sample size, the analysis revealed that individuals at the highest

levels of knowledge and interest were the least likely to show significant positive gains, whereas in

general, those with moderate to high interest and limited knowledge were the main beneficiaries.

Similarly, in the area of interest, the aquarium experience proved to be most beneficial to those

individuals who came in with minimal to moderate interest. This is a satisfying finding given that

most museums, zoos, and aquariums work hard to tilt the educational benefits of their institutions

toward visitors with more limited knowledge and interest.

As suggested in the introduction, most visitors do not claim to visit museum-like settings to

become experts. These results provide a corollary to this statement: Most experts do not find

museum-like settings ideal for dramatically furthering their knowledge. Museums, zoos, and

aquariums are designed primarily to attract, engage, and stimulate visitors with limited knowledge

and at least moderate levels of interest. Data from this study were generally consistent with data

from a variety of other studies (cf. Falk & Dierking, 2000) which show that the majority of visitors

can be described as possessing low to moderate knowledge and moderate to extensive interest.

This analysis suggests that these individuals are also likely to be the major beneficiaries of

museum experiences.

In conclusion, we suggest that future efforts to investigate learning in museums should

include segmentation of learners into more fine-grained categories: at the very least, categories

based on visitors’ prior knowledge and interest. Without question, it would be far better to define

and measure these categories a priori rather than a posteriori, as in this case. Such an effort would

go a long way toward diminishing the challenges of measuring learning in settings where

variability is inherently high. Although grouping visitors into categories requires slightly more

effort, and as this study highlights, requires a larger sample size than might be normally necessary

to insure statistical power after partitioning, the benefits of enhanced understanding and accuracy

of interpretation more than compensate.

The particular case study used in this study suggested that significant change in knowledge

and interest was present across the entire sample, yet another example we might have selected

could as easily have indicated that no significant change occurred. Both situations would have

masked the reality of the fine-grained nature of change typical of learning in free-choice settings.

The primary lesson to be learned is that the reality of learning in free-choice settings is complex.

The better we are at meaningfully structuring samples and measurements to cope with that

complexity, the more likely we will be to derive a robust understanding of the underlying reality.

To the extent we do this, our ability to significantly increase the acuity of our understanding of free-

choice learning appears promising.


Ap

pen

dix

Kn

ow

led

ge

and

Inte

rest

/Co

nce

rnR

ub

ric

En

try

Inte

rvie

wM

inim

al(1

pt)

Mo

der

ate

(2p

ts)

Ex

ten

sive

(3p

ts)

Kn

ow

led

ge

Wh

atis

the

mai

nfo

rmo

fp

oll

uti

on

of

river

san

dst

ream

s?(M

ult

iple

cho

ice

qu

esti

on

)D

.d

on

’tk

now

Sco

re¼

1.5

Co

rrec

t:In

corr

ect:

A./

C.

was

te/g

arb

age

du

mp

ing

B.

run

-off

Wh

atis

the

mai

nso

urc

eo

fo

ilin

tori

ver

s,la

kes

,an

db

ays?

(Mu

ltip

lech

oic

e)D

.d

on

’tk

now

Sco

re¼

1.5

Co

rrec

t:In

corr

ect:

A.

ship

ssp

ill/

B.

oil

refi

ner

yd

isch

arg

eC

.In

d.

Ch

ang

ing

car

oil

Wh

atd

oy

ou

thin

ko

fw

hen

yo

uth

ink

of

con

serv

atio

n?

(Op

en-e

nd

edh

oli

stic

un

der

stan

din

g)

Gen

eral

refe

ren

ceto

thre

ats

toen

vir

on

men

t(e

.g.,

po

llu

tio

n),

wh

atis

bei

ng

thre

aten

ed(e

.g.,

anim

als)

,an

dso

urc

eso

fp

rote

ctio

n(e

.g.,

recy

clin

g)

Em

ph

asis

on

resp

ect/

awar

enes

san

dre

spo

nsi

bil

ity

tow

ard

env

iro

nm

ent;

sup

po

rted

by

mo

red

etai

led

elab

ora

tio

n

Em

ph

asis

on

inte

rco

nn

ecte

dn

ess

and

nee

dto

mai

nta

inb

alan

ceb

etw

een

hu

man

san

den

vir

on

men

t;su

pp

ort

edb

yel

abo

rati

on

;so

met

imes

focu

so

nro

ot

cau

ses

of

issu

es(e

.g.,

over

po

pu

lati

on

)C

om

po

site

pri

or

kn

owle

dg

esc

ore

(Su

msc

ore

/po

ten

tial

tota

lp

oin

ts)

Inte

rest

/Co

nce

rn

Th

ink

ing

spec

ifica

lly

abo

ut

env

iro

nm

enta

lis

sues

,p

leas

ete

llm

eh

ow

seri

ou

sa

pro

ble

my

ou

thin

kea

cho

fth

ese

five

issu

esis

:lo

sso

fra

info

rest

s,ra

teo

fla

nd

dev

elo

pm

entan

dn

atu

reb

ein

glo

st,w

ater

qu

alit

y,over

con

sum

pti

on

of

reso

urc

es,

rate

of

pla

nts

/an

imal

sb

eco

min

gex

tin

ct(S

cale

1–

10

,1¼

litt

le/n

on

e)

Mea

n<

5M

ean

5–

7.9

Mea

n�

8

Are

yo

uco

nce

rned

abo

ut

any

con

serv

atio

nis

sues

?P

leas

edes

crib

e.(O

pen

-ended

ho

list

icco

nce

rn)

Co

nce

rn,

bu

tn

oel

abo

rati

on

;gen

eral

refe

ren

ces

toai

ran

dw

ater

qu

alit

y,p

oll

uti

on

issu

es

Gen

eral

and

spec

ific

emp

has

iso

nlo

sso

fh

abit

ats

(e.g

.co

ral

reef

s,ra

info

rest

),over

con

sum

pti

on

of

reso

urc

es,a

nd

glo

bal

clim

ate

chan

ge

Em

ph

asis

,o

ften

wit

hel

abo

rati

on

,o

nra

teo

fla

nd

dev

elo

pm

ent,

pla

nt/

anim

alex

tin

ctio

n,

and

over

po

pu

lati

on

Do

yo

uth

ink

ther

eis

aco

nn

ecti

on

bet

wee

nco

nse

rvat

ion

issu

esan

dy

ou

rev

ery

day

life

?P

leas

ed

escr

ibe.

(Op

en-e

nd

edp

erso

nal

con

nec

tio

n)

No

ne

Po

siti

ve

Sco

re2

.5

Co

mp

osi

tep

rio

rin

tere

st/c

on

cern

sco

re(S

um

sco

re/p

ote

nti

alto

tal

po

ints

)


En

try

Inte

rvie

wM

inim

al(1

pt)

Mo

der

ate

(2p

ts)

Ex

ten

sive

(3p

ts)

Kn

ow

led

ge

Wh

atd

oy

ou

thin

ko

fw

hen

yo

uth

ink

of

con

serv

atio

n?

(Op

en-e

nd

edh

oli

stic

un

der

stan

din

g)

Gen

eral

refe

ren

ceto

thre

ats

toen

vir

on

men

t(e

.g.,

po

llu

tio

n),

wh

atis

bei

ng

thre

aten

ed(e

.g.,

anim

als)

,an

dso

urc

eso

fp

rote

ctio

n(e

.g.,

recy

clin

g)

Em

ph

asis

on

resp

ect/

awar

enes

san

dre

spo

nsi

bil

ity

tow

ard

env

iro

nm

ent;

sup

po

rted

by

mo

red

etai

led

elab

ora

tio

n

Em

ph

asis

on

inte

rco

nn

ecte

dn

ess

and

nee

dto

mai

nta

inb

alan

ceb

etw

een

hu

man

san

den

vir

on

men

t;su

pp

ort

edb

yel

abo

rati

on

;so

met

imes

focu

so

nro

ot

cau

ses

of

issu

es(e

.g.,

over

po

pu

lati

on

)Is

ther

ean

yth

ing

yo

uo

rI

can

do

abo

ut

env

iro

nm

enta

lp

rob

lem

s?P

leas

ed

escr

ibe.

(Op

en-e

nd

edh

oli

stic

un

der

stan

din

g)

No

thin

g;

gen

eral

and

spec

ific

refe

ren

ceto

recy

lce,

‘no

tp

oll

ute

’,an

dg

ener

ally

‘bei

ng

mo

reef

fici

ent’

Gen

eral

and

spec

ific

refe

ren

ces

toca

r/tr

ansp

ort

atio

nis

sues

,co

nse

rve

wat

er/e

ner

gy,

com

po

st,

be

mo

reaw

are,

gen

eral

lyre

spec

tla

nd

/an

imal

s

Sp

ecifi

cre

fere

nce

sto

imp

ort

ance

of

edu

cati

on

(e.g

.,ta

lkin

gto

oth

ers)

,d

evel

op

men

tis

sues

,re

du

cep

esti

cid

es,co

nsu

mer

ism

,an

dac

tivel

ysu

pp

ort

ing

cau

ses

wit

hm

on

ey/t

ime

Co

mp

osi

teex

itk

now

led

ge

sco

re(S

um

sco

re/p

ote

nti

alto

tal

po

ints

)

Inte

rest

/Co

nce

rn

Th

ink

ing

spec

ifica

lly

abo

ut

env

iro

nm

enta

lis

sues

,p

leas

ete

llm

eh

ow

seri

ou

sa

pro

ble

my

ou

thin

kea

cho

fth

ese

five

issu

esis

:lo

sso

fra

info

rest

s,ra

teo

fla

nd

dev

elo

pm

entan

dn

atu

reb

ein

glo

st,w

ater

qu

alit

y,over

con

sum

pti

on

of

reso

urc

es,

rate

of

pla

nts

/an

imal

sb

eco

min

gex

tin

ct(S

cale

1–

10

,1¼

litt

le/n

on

e)

Mea

n<

5M

ean

5–

7.9

Mea

n�

8

Are

yo

uco

nce

rned

abo

ut

any

con

serv

atio

nis

sues

?P

leas

ed

escr

ibe.

(Op

en-e

nd

edh

oli

stic

con

cern

)

Co

nce

rn,

bu

tn

oel

abo

rati

on

;gen

eral

refe

ren

ces

toai

ran

dw

ater

qu

alit

y,p

oll

uti

on

issu

es

Gen

eral

and

spec

ific

emp

has

iso

nlo

sso

fh

abit

ats

(e.g

.,co

ral

reef

s,ra

info

rest

),over

con

sum

pti

on

of

reso

urc

es,a

nd

glo

bal

clim

ate

chan

ge

Em

ph

asis

,o

ften

wit

hel

abo

rati

on

,o

nra

teo

fla

nd

dev

elo

pm

ent,

pla

nt/

anim

alex

tin

ctio

n,

and

over

po

pu

lati

on

Isth

ere

any

thin

gy

ou

or

Ica

nd

oab

ou

ten

vir

on

men

tal

pro

ble

ms?

Ple

ase

des

crib

e.(O

pen

-en

ded

ho

list

icu

nd

erst

and

ing

)

No

ne

Po

siti

ve

Sco

re¼

2.5

Co

mp

osi

teex

itin

tere

st/c

on

cern

sco

re(S

um

sco

re/p

ote

nti

alto

tal

po

ints

)


References

Adelman, L.M., Falk, J.H., & James, S. (2001). Assessing the National Aquarium in

Baltimore’s impact on visitor’s conservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. Curator, 43,

33–62.

Anderson, D. (1999). Understanding the impact of post-visit activities on students’

knowledge construction of electricity and magnetism as a result of a visit to an interactive

science centre. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology.

Brisbane, Australia.

Anderson, D., Lucas, K.B., Ginns, I.S., & Dierking, L.D. (2000). Development of knowledge

about electricity and magnetism during a visit to a science museum and related post-visit

activities. Science Education, 84, 658–679.

Belden, N. & Russonello, J. (1996). Current trends in public opinion on the environment:

Environmental compendium update. Washington, DC: Belden & Russonello Research and

Communications.

Brice Heath, S. & Smyth, L. (1999). ArtShow: Youth and community development.

Washington, DC: Partners for Livable Communities.

Chadwick, J. (1998). Public utilization of museum-based WorldWideWeb sites. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico.

Chadwick, J., Falk, J.H., & O’Mara, H. (2000). Assessing institutional web sites. In: Council

on Library and Information Resources (Ed.), Collections, content, and the Web (pp. 60–73).

Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources.

Chambers, S.K. & Andre, T. (1997). Gender, prior knowledge, interest and experience in

electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 34, 107–123.

Combs, A.A. (2000). Why do they come? Listening to visitors at a decorative arts museum.

Curator, 42, 186–197.

Crane, V., Nicholson, H., Chen, M., & Bitgood, S. (1994). Informal science learning: What

research says about television, science museums, and community-based projects. Deadham, MA:

Research Communications.

Eveland, W. Jr. & Dunwoody, S. (1998). Users and navigation patterns of a science World

Wide Web site for the public. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 285–312.

Falk, J.H. (1998a) Visitors: Who does, who doesn’t, and why. Museum News, 77, 38–43.

Falk, J.H. (1998b). Pushing the boundaries: Assessing the long-term impact of museum

experiences. In Falk, J. & Dierking, L. (Eds.), Current trends 11 (pp. 1–6). Washington, DC:

Committee on Audience Research and Development.

Falk, J.H. (1999). Museums as institutions for personal learning. Daedalus, 128, 259–275.

Falk, J.H. (2002). The contribution of free-choice learning to public understanding of science.

Interciencia, 27(2), 62–65.

Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L.D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback

Books.

Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L.D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the

making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Falk, J.H., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The effect of visitor’s agendas on museum

learning. Curator, 41, 106–120.

Falk, J.H. & Storksdieck, M. (2001) A multi-factor investigation of variables affecting

science learning from a science center exhibition. Final report, National Science Foundation Grant

ESI-0000527.


Gambone, M.A. & Arbreton, A. (1997). Safe havens: The contributions of youth

organizations to healthy adolescent development. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

Gross, L. (1997, September). The impact of television on modern life and attitudes. Paper

presented at the 1997 International Conference on the Public Understanding of Science and

Technology, Chicago, IL.

Louis Harris & Associates. (1994). Science and nature survey. New York: American Museum

of Natural History.

Medrich, E.A. (1991). Young adolescents and discretionary time use: The nature of life

outside of school. Paper commissioned by the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development for

its Task Force on Youth Development and Community Programs, Washington, DC.

McKelvey, L.M., Falk, J.H., Schreier, M., O’Mara, H., & de Prizio, J. (1999). Conservation

impact study: National Aquarium in Baltimore. Technical report. Annapolis, MD: Institute for

Learning Innovation.

Miller, J.D. (1987). Scientific literacy in the United States. In Evered, D. & O’Connor, M.

(Eds.), Communicating science to the public. London: Wiley.

Miller, J.D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of

Science, 7, 1–21.

Miller, J.D. (2001). The acquisition and retention of scientific information by American

adults. In Falk, J.H. (Ed.), Free-choice science education: How we learn science outside of school

(pp. 93–114). New York: Teachers College Press.

Miller, J. & Pifer, L. (1996). Science and technology: The public’s attitudes and the public’s

understanding. In National Science Board, Science and engineering indicators: 1996 (pp. 7.1–

7.21). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. (1997). The National Report

Card on environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. Washington, DC: Roper Starch

Worldwide.

Osborne, R. & Wittrock, M.C. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science

Education, 67, 489–508.

Osborne, R. & Wittrock, M.C. (1985). The generative learning model and its implications for

science education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 59–87.

Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, D., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific

conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.

Strike, K. & Posner, G. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In Duschl, R.A. &

Hamilton, R.J. (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and

practice (pp. 147–176), Albany: State University of New York Press.


Documents

Investigating the Impact of Prior Knowledge and Interest