What Do Families Visiting the Zoo Talk About? A Case Study in the Parque das Aves, Brazil

Abstract

In this article, we aim to contribute to research on the meaning of experiences by studying families visiting zoos – specifically in the context of Latin America. To this end, in this case study, we investigate conversations that occurred during family visits to Parque das Aves (Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil). The results show that families had conversations that were scientific in nature, frequently naming bird species, and commenting on their behaviors and habits. However, few comments truly deepened the discussions of and reflections on biological and ecological scientific knowledge. Conversations centered around the reading of informative panels, emotional connections, and previous experiences enhanced the families’ creation of meaning. Our findings suggest a missed opportunity for interpretation to use linkages between the observed birds and visitors’ daily lives to enhance emotional connections with these species and to deeper key concepts about conservation of biodiversity.

Is there room for science at aquariums? An analysis of family conversations and interactions during visits to AquaRio, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

“…As such, we observed that the adults adopted behaviors that facilitated learning and the interactive practices were: reading panels made together by the family, directing the child's attention to an animal or object and contemplating the animals; and the conversational strategy were: simplified explanations of complex concepts, association with prior experiences, elaboration of questions, and from children's curiosity to develop conversations. Similar results were observed in studies with families in visits to aquariums in North-American contexts (see, e.g., Kisiel et al, 2012), European contexts (see, e.g., Collins et al, 2020), and Latin American contexts (Massarani et al, 2021;Scalfi et al, 2022;.…”

“…Our results demonstrate the active role of children, as in practically all of the conversations and interactions, with the exception of visitor – mediator interactions , which occurred between adults and mediators, children acted as protagonists in their own learning, as they involved themselves in conversations by sharing their knowledge and opinions. Children's protagonism was also reported in studies that investigated the family learning experiences in North‐American contexts (see, e.g., Kopczak et al, 2013), European contexts (Collins et al, 2020), and Latin American contexts (Scalfi et al, 2022; Massarani et al, 2021).…”

“…opinions. Children's protagonism was also reported in studies that investigated the family learning experiences in North-American contexts (see, e.g., Kopczak et al, 2013), European contexts (Collins et al, 2020), and Latin American contexts (Scalfi et al, 2022;Massarani et al, 2021).…”

“…Among the differences observed, we highlight that in the Latin American context, studies often cover the environmental perception of zoo visitors (see, e.g., Aragão & Kazama, 2014;Lopes et al, 2011;Pellizzetti et al, 2021). We also highlight that a study that used a similar methodology to analyze the interactions and conversations of seven families (Scalfi et al, 2022), showed that despite families emotionally connecting with animals, they did not develop in-depth conversations about the conservation of these species. These data are different from what we observed in this study, where families also connect emotionally with animals, but the conversations they develop are more in-depth involving scientific concepts about the species and its conservation.…”

“…Interactions include active experiences in which the visitors physically, intellectually, emotionally, and/or socially engage with the exhibition. Conversations qualify as interactions, but interaction may occur in nonverbal forms as well (Scalfi et al, 2022; Shaby et al, 2018). Conversations involve exchanges of words and/or ideas between two or more people and, in general, are characterized by mutually engaged participants, in which one completes the sentences of the other, and there are constant interruptions, pauses, explanations and insertions of ideas, memories, prior knowledge, and so on, that are essential for the construction of meaning (Davidsson & Jakobsson, 2012; Linell, 2001).…”