Context

Societies around the globe are facing increasingly urgent and rapidly changing sustainability crises such as climate change (IPCC, 2021) and the global loss of biodiversity (IPBES, 2019). Systemic change and radical transformation of sustainable societies is urgently needed if our planet is to remain inhabitable for humanity and if we want to protect the rich diversity of life on Earth (Grin et al., 2010). According to an increasing number of scholars (Leicht et al., 2018; Rieckmann, Mindt & Gardiner, 2017), if we want young people to care about the protection of biodiversity and become effective changemakers who can drive systemic change, they need to develop a diverse range of competences. Many scholars concur that facing these challenges calls for educators to stimulate re-assessment and disruption of current values and norms (Souza, Wals & Jacobi, 2019; Wals, 2020). We cannot succeed at turning biodiversity decline around without changing the worldviews that created and/or acerbated these problems in the first place. Teaching about biodiversity needs to be more than learning the meaning of the concept. Research has shown that knowledge about the loss of biodiversity and other sustainability challenges, does not automatically lead to more pro-conservation behavior (Braun and Dierkes, 2019; Mohamed Ali Khan, 2021). It is necessary for educators to seek more relational ways of teaching in which students form strong bonds with the natural world.

Theoretical framework

Biodiversity

In the context of this study biodiversity is defined as the genetic diversity within species, the diversity between species, the broad range of relationships between life forms and the rich variety of ecosystems on earth (CBD, 2000).

Head-heart-hands model

Researchers in environmental and conservation education (Ardoin et al., 2013; Gifford & Nilsson, 2014) point out that in addition to knowledge and skills, affective learning outcomes such as beliefs, attitudes, values, trust and behavioral intentions, also play an important, albeit complicated, role in stimulating environmentally responsible and pro-conservation behavior. Effective lessons need to incorporate learning objectives in the domains of the head, hearts and hands.

Real life educational encounters with animals

Sobel (1996) argues that one way to foster empathy for nature during childhood is by forming relationships with animals. Melson (2013) explains that “all living animals present perceptually and cognitively rich, multisensory experiences, embodying novelty within recurring patterns of sight, sound, touch, smell and movement” (Melson, 2013, p.107). Zoos are in a unique position to develop biodiversity education programs that provide children with real life educational encounters with animals. Despite the critique zoos get regarding animal welfare concerns, the authors believe that the educational opportunities offered by zoos to enhance the children’s relationship with the natural world should be explored. Today’s zoos consider it a core duty to help children form human-nonhuman animals relationships and understand the importance of protecting biodiversity (EAZA, 2016; Barongi et al., 2015). However, we need to know more about how zoos can contribute to developing children’s understanding of the importance of biodiversity.

This study’s main research question therefore is:

What do children learn with regard to head (knowledge), heart (emotions & values) and hands (skills) during a comprehensive education program about biodiversity and what are the differences between children whose program includes a zoo education lesson and children whose lessons are solely classroom-based?

To be able to answer this question a comprehensive and well-designed interdisciplinary education program about biodiversity was specifically developed for this study through an iterative educational design process that included collaborating researchers, zoo educators, environmental education developers, primary school teachers and primary school children. Subsequently we ran a large-scale study to investigate the learning outcomes.

Participants The large-scale learning outcomes study took place in the Netherlands in 2020. Despite the Covid-19 epidemic 695 school primary children and their teachers participated. The children attended different primary school levels (group 5-8 in the Dutch school system) and ranged between age eight and twelve. This study incorporated 32 classes from 19 schools. Interventions Three interventions were constructed to learn about the effect of experiencing endangered animals close-up in a zoo education context: (1) four school-based biodiversity lessons plus one zoo lesson (2) five school-based biodiversity lessons without a zoo lesson (3) a single zoo outing without any lessons about biodiversity. The lesson programs were identical except for the one deviating lesson. 28 classes participated, four were in the control group that received no lessons. Data collection Learning outcomes were evaluated employing a mixed methods design. Children filled in pretest and posttest questionnaires, the latter was repeated after six months to study the long-term effects. The questionnaires included both closed and open questions. Additionally, student assignments were collected, and student focus groups and teacher interviews conducted after the lessons were finished. This presentation will focus on results from the questionnaires substantiated with results from the interviews. Data analysis Tools were developed to both capture and analyze shifts in knowledge, emotions, values, intentions and skills. For example, the word cloud in the questionnaire contained all the words and concepts the children knew that were related to biodiversity. Based on Moss and Jensen (2014) a data analysis tool was developed to evaluate the children’s ‘understanding of biodiversity’ and quantify their qualitative responses. Other analyzed knowledge items were ‘knowledge about actions that protect biodiversity’ and the children’s ‘biodiversity vocabulary’. The children were also asked about the emotional responses they experienced when thinking about biodiversity. A bipolar variation display between two extremes (e.g. happy/sad and hopeful/hopeless) on a scale were employed and was used to determine whether there was a shift in emotions in response to the lessons and in which direction the potential shift took place. To get insight into the lesson’s impact on children’s values regarding biodiversity, value statements were provided in the questionnaire and children were asked to indicate which values were most relevant to them. Tools were developed to determine significant shifts in the children’s values. Children and teachers were interviewed after the lessons and this qualitative data was used to substantiate and interpret the learning outcomes.

Differences in learning outcomes (knowledge, emotions, values, intentions, skills) for three interventions immediately after the lessons and six months later were observed. Effects of school level and gender were explored. Preliminary results showed children from group 6 and up can understand what biodiversity means. Teacher interviews revealed that minimally five lessons provided enough time to process information. Repetition and diverse learning activities reinforced the meaning of biodiversity. Children indicated that observing and comparing zoo animals helped better understand biodiversity. Focus groups demonstrated rich, spontaneous learning opportunities arose when children interviewed visitors, asked whether zoos should protect biodiversity, but first had to explain what biodiversity means. Initially most children had no idea what biodiversity meant. Data illustrates that lessons helped develop their understanding. They were able to mention more relevant phrases. This development was seen in both children who went to the zoo and those who’s lessons were all at school. Children visiting the zoo without lessons did not develop biodiversity knowledge. The study showed children can find talking about emotions experienced in relation to complex topics such as biodiversity difficult. They need to develop language to be able to reflect on and express these emotions. Results indicate shifts such as increased concern about biodiversity after the lessons. No shift was seen in the control groups. Children generally had more intentions to protect biodiversity than before the lessons, but found it hard to formulate how. More knowledge about animals increased the desire to act. Aspects influencing that desire were: conservation status, knowledge of the animal’s role in ecosystems and interesting animal facts. Children were asked to make basic action plans to protect biodiversity. They often mentioned not littering, collecting litter or reducing their carbon footprint. Children indicated that action planning helped them realize they could have a positive impact.

Ardoin, N., Heimlich, J., Braus, J. and Merrick, C. (2013). Influencing Conservation Action: What Research Says About Environmental Literacy, Behaviour and Conservation Results. New York: National Audubon Society. Barongi, R., Fisken, F.A., Parker, M. & Gusset, M. (Eds) (2015). Committing to Conservation: The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy. Gland: WAZA Executive Office, 69 pp. https://www.waza.org/priorities/conservation/conservation-strategies/ Braun, T. & Dierkes, P. (2019). Evaluating Three Dimensions of Environmental Knowledge and Their Impact on Behaviour. Research in Science Education, 49, 1347-1365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9658-7 EAZA (2016). EAZA Conservation Education Standards. Amsterdam: European Association of Zoos and Aquaria. IPBES (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (editors). Bonn, Germany: IPBES secretariat. 1144 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673 IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA, pp. 3−32, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.00 Gifford, R. & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034 Grin, J. , Rotmans, J. and Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development. New directions in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge Studies in Sustainability Transitions. New York/London: Routledge. Leicht, A., Heiss, J., & Byun, W. J. (2018). Issues and trends in education for sustainable development (Vol. 5). Unesco Publishing. Melson, G. (2013). Children and Wild Animals. In: Kahn, P & Hasbach, P. (Eds.) The Rediscovery of the Wild, pp. 93-118. Mohamed Ali Khan, N.S., Karpudewan, M. & Annamalai, N. (2021). Moving Beyond the One-Size-Fits-All Model in Describing the Climate Conserving Behaviors of Malaysian Secondary Students. Sustainability, 13(1), 18. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13010018 Rieckmann, M., Mindt, L. and Gardiner, S. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. Paris: UNESCO. Sobel, D. (1996). Beyond Ecophobia: Reclaiming the Heart in Nature Education. Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society. Souza, D., Wals, A. & Jacobi, P. (2019). Learning based transformations towards sustainability: a relational approach based on Humberto Maturana and Paulo Freire, Environmental Education Research, 25(11), 1605-1619, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1641183 Wals, A.E.J. (2020). Transgressing the hidden curriculum of unsustainability: towards a relational pedagogy of hope, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52:8, 825-826, DOI:10.1080/00131857.2019.1676490