Ex Post Facto Evaluation of Participant Recruitment Techniques in a Zoological Setting

References

• Ababneh, A. (2017). Heritage interpretation: Analysis study of the signage system used at the archaeological site of Umm Qais in northern Jordan. Tourism Planning & Development, 14(3), 297–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2016.1204361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, S. (2004). Designs for learning: Studying science museum exhibits that do more than entertain. Science Education, 88(S1), S17–S33. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bitgood, S. (2000). The role of attention in designing effective interpretive labels. Journal of Interpretation Research, 5(2), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/109258720000500205
   Google Scholar
• Bitgood, S., & Patterson, D. (1987). Principles of exhibit design. Visitor Behavior, 2(1), 4–6.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer, M. B., & Crano, W. D. (2013). Research design and issues of validity. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 11–26). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christian, A. (2019). Participant reactivity in an exhibition: The effect of overt observation on engagement times. Visitor Studies, 22(1), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2019.1603739
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donnelly, R. E., Prots, A., & Donnelly, C. A. (2021). Better educational signage could reduce disturbance of resting dolphins. PLoS One, 16(4), e0248732. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248732
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, J., Bicknell, J., Sickler, J., & Taylor, A. (2009). What information do zoo & aquarium visitors want on animal identification labels? Journal of Interpretation Research, 14(2), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/109258720901400202
   Google Scholar
• Gu, L. L., Skierkowski, D., Florin, P., Friend, K., & Ye, Y. (2016). Facebook, Twitter, & Qr codes: An exploratory trial examining the feasibility of social media mechanisms for sample recruitment. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutwill, J. P. (2002). Gaining visitor consent for research: Testing the posted‐sign method. Curator: The Museum Journal, 45(3), 232–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2002.tb00058.x
   Google Scholar
• Heuken, N., Schüder, A. L., & Christian, A. (2021). Differences between first-time and repeat visitors in a special exhibition at a natural history museum. Visitor Studies, 24(2), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2021.1907150
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, E., Dawson, E., & Falk, J. H. (2011). Dialogue and synthesis: Developing consensus in visitor research methodology. Visitor Studies, 14(2), 158–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2011.608003
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, K. A. (2006). Effects of the artistic design of interpretive signage on attracting power, holding time and memory recall [Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt State University].
   Google Scholar
• Kadhim, W., & Al-Qaraawi, S. M. (2020). Design and implementation of an interactive system for zoo application using smart mobile phone and QR code. International Journal of Research—GRANTHAALAYAH, 8(4), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i4.2020.68
   Google Scholar
• Martin, R. (2012). A study of public education in zoos with emphasis on exhibit labels. International Zoo Educators Journal, 48, 55–59.
   Google Scholar
• Mayorga, M., Cable, T. T., & Mullins, C. (2017). Evaluation of interpretive media use and effectiveness at a nature center. Journal of Interpretation Research, 22(1), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/109258721702200105
   Google Scholar
• Moss, A., Esson, M., & Francis, D. (2010). Evaluation of a third-generation zoo exhibit in relation to visitor behavior and interpretation use. Journal of Interpretation Research, 15(2), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/109258721001500203
   Google Scholar
• Mulder, J., & de Bruijne, M. (2019). Willingness of online respondents to participate in alternative modes of data collection. Survey Practice, 12(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2019-0001
   Google Scholar
• Nurse Rainbolt, G., Benfield, J. A., & Loomis, R. J. (2012). Visitor self-report behavior mapping as a tool for recording exhibition circulation. Visitor Studies, 15(2), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2012.715035
   Google Scholar
• Ogle, B. (2016). Evaluation of new interpretive elements in an aquarium renovation. Journal of Interpretation Research, 21(1), 41–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/109258721602100105
   Google Scholar
• Pattison, S. A., & Shagott, T. (2015). Participant reactivity in museum research: The effect of cueing visitors at an interactive exhibit. Visitor Studies, 18(2), 214–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2015.1079103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson, E. L., Lowry, R., Dorrian, J., & Litchfield, C. A. (2014). Evaluating the conservation impact of an innovative zoo‐based educational campaign: ‘Don’t Palm Us Off’ for orang-utan conservation. Zoo Biology, 33(3), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21120
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, S. R., & Gillespie, K. L. (2009). Influences on visitor behavior at a modern immersive zoo exhibit. Zoo Biology, 28(5), 462–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20220
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz, M. K. (2013). A case study on the appropriateness of using quick response (QR) codes in libraries and museums. Library & Information Science Research, 35(3), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwan, S., Grajal, A., & Lewalter, D. (2014). Understanding and engagement in places of science experience: Science museums, science centers, zoos, and aquariums. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.917588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serrell, B. (2000). Does cueing visitors significantly increase the amount of time they spend in a museum exhibition. Visitor Studies Today, 3(2), 3–6.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, G. (2008). Does gender influence online survey participation?: A record-linkage analysis of university faculty online survey response behavior. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 501717.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, M. J., & Powell, R. B. (2021). Taking stock of interpretation research: Where have we been and where are we heading? Journal of Interpretation Research, 25(2), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/10925872211023205
   Google Scholar
• Vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2001). Exhibiting interaction: Conduct and collaboration in museums and galleries. Symbolic Interaction, 24(2), 189–216. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2001.24.2.189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wandersee, J. H., & Clary, R. M. (2007). Learning on the trail: A content analysis of a university arboretum’s exemplary interpretive, science signage system. The American Biology Teacher, 69(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/4452076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, A. M. (2018). QR codes in the library: Are they worth the effort? Analysis of a QR code pilot project. Journal of Access Services, 9(3), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/15367967.2012.684209
   Google Scholar